Park County planning board recommends denial of Yellowstone Reserve commercial subdivision

Park County planning board members on May 15 voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the Yellowstone Reserve major commercial subdivision, saying staff and speakers had raised unresolved questions about groundwater use, wastewater treatment and flood risk that the board could not mitigate within its authority.

The vote sends the issue to the Park County Commission, which is scheduled to consider the subdivision at its May 27 meeting. Planning director Mike Inman told the board, "I'm recommending denial of the subdivision based on findings in this proposed subdivision report," citing gaps the county could not reliably address through conditions.

Why it matters: The proposal would divide the property into 12 commercial lots served by exempt wells. The developer and its consultants said state agencies have reviewed most technical elements: WWC Engineering described infrastructure designed to meet county and DEQ standards; the applicant's water‑rights attorney said DNRC issued a predetermination for exempt wells and that the project is in an "open basin," not the closed basin at issue in prior litigation. Opponents and staff countered that the county would have no practical way to ensure lot owners stay within the 10‑acre‑feet-exemption or the applicant's 312‑gallons‑per‑day per‑lot limit, and that future floods could threaten septic systems and groundwater.

What the board heard: The applicant's team said the subdivision would include 12 commercial lots, a centrally located fire pond and pump system, and designs addressing DEQ and MDT comments. Jeremy Fadnis of WWC Engineering summarized the design: "We're proposing 12 commercial lots" and described a fire pond and pump sized to supply 1,500 gallons a minute for two hours and two permitted approaches onto the frontage road with MDT‑required signage to prohibit left turns under certain traffic routing events.

Water experts: Bill Fanning, the applicant's water‑rights attorney, urged the board not to equate this project with the Horse Creek Hills case, saying the Yellowstone Reserve uses exempt wells within a different hydrologic setting and that DNRC had issued a predetermination letter. Fanning also described a recently passed legislative bill (referred to in the hearing as HB 681) that would, if it becomes law as expected, allow governing bodies to require applicants to obtain DNRC review (a "notice of intent to appropriate groundwater") as a condition of subdivision approval.

Staff rationale: Planning director Mike Inman said many technical elements met standards but that the governing issue was enforceability. The application limits each lot to 312 gallons of water per day, no more than 24 employees and no public restrooms; DNRC had determined the overall proposal could be handled as exempt wells under the 10 acre‑feet threshold. Inman told board members he could not identify a county‑level enforcement mechanism to ensure lot owners would not exceed those limits: "Park County does not have the authority to monitor or track water consumption," he said, and without metering or a DNRC enforcement mechanism the county could face complaints it could not resolve.

Public comment: Dozens of written and oral commenters weighed in. Carrie Kale of the Park County Environmental Council said, "We are here today to urge the planning board to deny the Yellowstone Reserve major commercial subdivision," citing groundwater and wastewater risks, the lack of enforceable water‑use limits and flood concerns from the 2022 Yellowstone River event. Randy Carpenter of Friends of Park County raised similar objections and pointed to FEMA and local flood evidence showing parts of the property were inundated in 2022. Allied Storage owners Miranda and Rock Lee submitted written comments describing flood damage in the Business Park and warned development could displace floodwater onto neighboring properties. The Livingston Chamber of Commerce, by contrast, urged the board to permit well‑planned commercial growth.

Board action and reasoning: After deliberation and the addition of findings noting local flood evidence and the potential for septic or groundwater contamination in a large flood event, the planning board voted to recommend denial. The board documented that DEQ and DNRC reviews are part of the record but concluded the county could not rely solely on those agencies to ensure long‑term compliance with the subdivision's water‑use limits.

What happens next: The planning board's recommendation will go to the Park County Commission on May 27; applicants may submit mitigation proposals or revised conditions for the commission's consideration. The planning director noted the application also needs final DEQ review for wastewater and water‑supply approvals before any final plat would be recorded.

Between the lines: The hearing highlighted a recurring tension for local governments after recent Montana case law: counties must evaluate potential impacts of groundwater use tied to subdivisions, but may lack practical enforcement tools when uses rely on individually permitted exempt wells. Legislators and state agencies have been working on procedural fixes; local boards must decide whether proposed mitigations are adequate or whether the matter should be deferred to state permitting or denied.

How to find more information: The planning office posted the application materials and staff report; the commission's agenda for May 27 will include the planning board recommendation and submitted written public comments.