Residents split over riparian setbacks as Livingston board considers 10‑ to 300‑foot buffers
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters and board members debated riparian setback distances for creeks and the Yellowstone River. Conservation advocates urged substantial buffers based on post‑flood science and floodplain mapping; multiple nearby residents opposed large setbacks citing property use, fencing and rebuilding concerns. Staff agreed to research best‑pract
Public comment at the Oct. 14 Livingston Land Use Board meeting highlighted sharp differences over proposed riparian setbacks in the draft zoning code.
Supporters of larger buffers, including Ken Cochran of Prince Of Park County, cited legal authority in the Montana Constitution and state code, recent scientific work after the 2022 flood, and ongoing FEMA floodplain remapping as a reason to adopt substantial setbacks to protect water quality and provide room for channel migration during high‑water events. Cochran urged the board to consider decisions like the recent Montana cases and to rely on robust scientific evidence when selecting setback distances.
Opposing commenters, including Tara Eddy and signatories to a 55‑signature petition delivered at the meeting, said several local waterways such as Fleishman Creek are effectively small or intermittent drainage features, sometimes dry because of irrigation diversion. They said large setbacks (150–300 feet, as circulated in some public comment) would limit property owners'ability to repair, fence, or rebuild existing structures where creeks run through yards and could remove already‑usable land. Petitioners also said many residents were unaware of the proposal and urged clearer notification.
Staff described the draft's current approach (a 10‑foot no‑construction buffer for perennial streams) but told the board that the city attorney and manager want additional research before recommending a numerical setback. Staff suggested possible approaches including differentiating setback distances by waterbody scale (e.g., Yellowstone River vs. smaller creeks), establishing a small vegetative buffer for water quality and a separate building buffer, or tying requirements to the building‑permit process (e.g., erosion control and impervious‑surface rules for permits inside small buffers).
Board members asked staff to return to the commission with analysis and examples from other jurisdictions. The board did not adopt a numerical setback at the Oct. 14 meeting; it asked staff to research options and legal risk and present recommended language to the City Commission.
Provenance: public comments on Oct. 14 and staff presentation documented the range of options discussed; staff repeatedly referenced the draft's 10‑foot baseline and the larger buffers proposed in written comments.
