Gallatin County listening sessions show strong defense of existing zoning; unzoned landowners largely absent

Gallatin County staff and members of the county commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the county Planning Board convened a series of three listening sessions on zoning reform and reported common themes from public input, but noted limited participation from owners of unzoned land.

The listening sessions, held Feb. 18, March 13 and March 25 and posted at EnvisionGallatin.com, drew 76 total participant appearances representing about 60 unique individuals, according to planning staff. The county recorded 51 in-meeting comments, 20 emailed comments and two online-form submissions during the outreach period.

County officials said the most consistent message was that residents who helped create the county’s 22 existing special zoning districts strongly value and want to preserve those districts’ rules. “I think, one of the most important things is to see what in a countywide zoning would look like,” said Anson Morris, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, summarizing participants’ request for clearer examples of how new approaches would affect existing districts. Participants repeatedly raised concerns about protecting agriculture, water, wildlife and open space and emphasized property rights.

Several board members and commissioners said they heard little participation from owners of unzoned parcels, even though a speaker at the meeting said roughly “74% of the private land in this county is not zoned.” That imbalance, officials said, complicated efforts to understand how unzoned-area owners would respond to any proposed countywide changes.

Speakers suggested several possible directions for further study rather than proposing immediate policy changes. Ideas mentioned included developing a “skeleton” or menu of basic regulations that could be adapted locally, clarifying how homeowners associations’ rules interact with county zoning, and accounting for the different planning jurisdictions of municipalities that border or overlap county areas. One participant recommended combining modular regulatory “building blocks” with opt-in pathways so local groups could choose whether to adopt countywide provisions.

Several participants voiced concern that any reform be implemented through a slow, transparent process that preserves local control. Ted Geiss, participating online, said the lack of comments from unzoned-area owners was “frustrating, but not surprising,” and that some unzoned owners may only respond if state-imposed zoning became a clear threat.

County staff emphasized that the listening sessions were intended to solicit high-level feedback before drafting specific proposals. The sessions were supported by online materials on EnvisionGallatin.com explaining the zoning reform spectrum and were promoted through the county’s outreach lists, press releases, social media and partner organizations.

No formal motions or votes were taken at the listening sessions. Participants and officials described the meetings as part of an early-stage public engagement process; staff said the county will continue to accept comments through EnvisionGallatin.com and may present more-detailed options for future public review.

Looking ahead, several board members recommended targeted outreach to owners of unzoned parcels and publication of concrete regulatory examples so property owners could better assess potential impacts. County staff will continue public engagement and consider next steps based on the input summarized during the listening sessions.