Park County planning board recommends approval of Grasshopper first-minor subdivision; neighbors voice concerns about water and access

The Park County Planning Board on April 17 voted to recommend approval of the “Grasshopper 1” first-minor subdivision preliminary plat, a proposal by Adrienne and Paige Savage to divide a 14-acre agricultural-exemption parcel into two residential lots. The board’s recommendation will be transmitted to the County Commission for final action.

The board’s decision followed a lengthy presentation and staff report that reviewed the county subdivision regulations and the statutory review criteria — including impacts to agriculture, water and utilities, local services, natural resources, wildlife and public health and safety — and listed conditions that staff recommended as part of approval.

Applicants and staff Adrienne Savage, one of the applicants, told the board the family bought the 14-acre parcel as a location to build if their current home were flooded; the lot was designated an agricultural tract and the family needed subdivision review to lift the agricultural restriction to allow residential building. Planning staff summarized the application as a first-minor subdivision because there have been no prior divisions of the parent tract; the applicants propose two lots of roughly 6–7 acres each, with building envelopes and on-site wells and septic systems.

Staff’s key technical findings Planning staff reported the property has an existing domestic well that produced about 110 gallons per minute during a three-hour pump test, and noted the well is currently an exempt domestic appropriation under state rules. Staff also said the applicants hold a contract through the Park Branch Canal to take surface irrigation water (the application referenced a canal contract; staff discussed the canal and on-site irrigation ditches) and that there are no formal canal facilities on the parcel itself. Staff concluded groundwater-yield and drainage analyses indicate minimal impacts when the application’s proposed mitigations are applied; staff flagged the combined-appropriation rule that limits combined domestic use for the subdivision to the statutory exempt threshold (the report noted the combined appropriation is one or a combination of wells limited by statute).

Staff recommended approval subject to conditions including completion of DEQ review/approval for on-site septic prior to final plat, required covenants and disclosures regarding agricultural operations and noise, a weed-management and revegetation plan, road-approach permits and construction to county standards, wildlife‑friendly fencing and wildlife-aware trash storage measures (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks provided species and fencing guidance), and wildfire-protection and emergency-access standards to be approved by the protection authority.

Public comment and concerns Multiple neighbors and residents spoke during the public-comment period. Hank Fabitch Jr. and Tom Dobson—adjacent residents—said they purchased or built their homes expecting the surrounding flats to remain in agricultural use. Dobson said Shelterbelt Road, which provides access to the site, is not snow‑plowed or maintained in practice and that emergency vehicles would have limited access. Other speakers asked whether the existing access easement (an agricultural access across an adjacent tract) could be vacated as part of final plat approval; staff said the applicants propose to vacate the recorded access easement and instead use approaches off Shelterbelt Road, and the vacation would be completed prior to final plat approval if the subdivision is permitted.

Several commenters asked how the county would monitor combined water use where an exempt well is shared or where homeowners might also irrigate from a canal contract. Staff described the regulatory limit on combined exempt domestic use (the 10 acre-feet-per-year threshold and similar exempt-well rules were discussed as the controlling standard) and noted metering or monitoring is typically handled by state water authorities when a nonexempt right or permitted use is required; staff acknowledged the issue can be challenging in practice and that future subdivisions will raise similar questions.

Board action After discussion, a board member moved to accept staff’s recommendation and the board voted in favor. The planning board’s approval is a recommendation to the County Commission; the staff report will be updated to reflect the board action and transmitted to the commission for final review.

What happens next The planning office will revise the staff report to reflect the board’s decision and forward the record to the County Commission for a final decision and any required conditions at the commission hearing. Staff continues to require DEQ sanitary approval, road‑approach permits and the covenants and mitigation measures identified in the staff report before final plat approval.

The meeting record includes extended public comment expressing neighbor concerns about preserving agricultural character, the timing and public availability of landowner-submitted materials, road maintenance, and water-use enforcement.