Livingston land use board forwards zoning code update, asks staff to study riparian setbacks and an agricultural zone

The Livingston City Land Use Board voted Oct. 14 to forward a revised zoning code draft to the City Commission while asking staff for further research on riparian setback distances and a possible agricultural/low‑density zoning district.

The board accepted the staff report and tracked changes presented by planning staff Cheryl Wilcox, with a motion by Board Member Bailey, seconded by Board Member Frank. The motion instructed staff to pursue additional analysis of setback distances for named waterways (Yellowstone River, Fleishman Creek and Billman Creek) and to prepare an agricultural/low‑density zone definition for commission consideration. The motion passed by roll call vote in favor.

Why it matters: the draft would revise many use classifications and development rules across the city — including how supportive/transitional housing, co‑living, assisted living and adult foster care are addressed — and would add administrative processes for short‑term‑rental parking waivers and other items. The board’s request for more study aims to sharpen the draft before the commission considers it and to address divergent public comments on stream protections.

Staff presentation and key changes Cheryl Wilcox, the planning staff member who presented the report, said the packet circulated to the board contains tracked edits reflecting prior board discussion and that the primary substantive edits are in the use table. Staff described several clarifications in definitions and allowances: - Co‑living (defined in the draft as a residential arrangement with up to 10 private sleeping quarters sharing kitchens and living areas) is treated differently than multifamily and is allowed in some zones; - Adult foster care was described as a licensed state category limited to four non‑staff residents; staff recommended treating that use as conditional in R‑1 because of its scale but allowing it in other residential and commercial districts; and - Assisted living and supportive/transitional housing were aligned in their zone allowances so similar facility types are treated consistently across the code.

Staff also proposed administrative handling of short‑term‑rental parking waivers: rather than routinely forwarding waiver requests to the commission, the zoning administrator would evaluate whether an applicant reasonably accommodates parking on the property or an acceptable alternative at the time of licensing.

Public comment split on riparian setbacks Public commentary focused heavily on riparian setbacks. Several residents opposed large setbacks, citing existing property configurations, dry creek segments and concerns that strict setbacks could prevent rebuilding or normal uses. "We bought with 0 setbacks and an expectation of being able to use our land," said resident Tara Eddy, presenting a petition against significant setbacks.

Other commenters urged stronger protections. Ken Cochran, identifying himself as president of Prince Of Park County, urged science‑based setbacks and cited channel migration and FEMA flood mapping after the 2022 flood. Cochran referenced Montana authorities and case law supporting reasonable environmental regulation.

Staff recommended options in the draft ranging from a 10‑foot no‑construction buffer in the current language to public comments recommending setbacks of 100–300 feet for larger waterways. Staff told the board it will analyze best practices, legal implications and scale differences between the Yellowstone (a major perennial river) and smaller creeks such as Fleishman and Billman, and bring recommendations to the commission.

Other topics discussed Board members and the public also discussed: - Laying hens and animal rules: staff will align zoning language with the county sanitarian’s existing authority and consider numeric limits (board discussion mentioned six in one context) and explicit bans on roosters; - Height rules: the draft changes height allowances in R‑2 and Light Mixed Use/PUDs to a feet‑based limit (up to 40 feet) rather than story counts to avoid variability in floor‑to‑floor heights; and - Mitigation plans and construction definitions: staff said mitigation requirements would remain targeted to larger or steeper sites and recommended clearer definitions of "construction" for setback purposes (e.g., distinguishing fences, shed pads, patios, foundation work and impervious surfaces).

Board action and next steps Board Member Bailey moved to accept staff’s recommended draft with the added direction that staff research riparian setback distances (and differentiate named waterways in text), and develop an agricultural/low‑density district definition. Member Frank seconded the motion; board members voted in favor and the motion passed. The board will forward its recommendation, the public comments and the additional research requests to the City Commission; staff said it will update the publicly posted draft and keep the draft available through the commission’s first review so community members can comment.

The board’s request does not adopt any final setback distances or map changes; staff will return with refined language, legal analysis and examples of how similar municipalities handle setbacks and ag‑zoning before the commission acts.