Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the RSID Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve RSID expansion for Clarks Fork Estates despite property owner objections
Summary
The board approved Resolution 2440 to expand RSID 723 M (Clarks Fork Estates Subdivision) after public testimony from property owners who argued an agricultural parcel does not currently benefit from the road district; county staff and commissioners said the county may include lots based on potential future benefit.
Yellowstone County commissioners voted March 19 to approve Resolution 2440, expanding Road and Bridge Special Improvement District (RSID) 723 M in the Clarks Fork Estates area despite objections from nearby property owners who said the added parcel derives no present benefit from the road.
Jeff Laszloppy, who identified himself as the lot owner at 250 Clarks Fork Drive, urged the board to exclude an agricultural lot from the RSID. "This lot clearly derives no benefit from the Clarks Fork Drive RSID," he said, noting the parcel is zoned agricultural, is actively farmed, has no buildings, and is accessed through adjacent fields rather than the RSID road. Laszloppy said existing county code allows annual reassessments and that the parcel could be added later if sold or developed.
Nearby owners Robert and Lacey Lanigan described an existing 15–20 foot easement across their property and said drivers already cut across their land seeking the other property; Robert Lanigan said he feared additional traffic, dust and confusion if the expansion proceeds and asked the board to clarify easement rights.
County staff and commissioners explained that the county historically has included lots based on either current or future benefit, and that recent clarifications from legal staff led the county to include separate lots that could reasonably be benefited in the future. One staff member confirmed no specific agricultural exemption currently exists in the code. Commissioner comments noted prior instances where the county included a second lot owned by the same landowner in RSID expansions; the board said that practice has become more consistent in recent years.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve Resolution 2440; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor.
Commissioners suggested legislative clarification could help address edge cases such as agricultural lots split from larger holdings, and that the county may revisit code language in a future legislative session. The approval changes which parcels must pay for maintenance and assessments related to the RSID; no development approvals or construction were authorized by this vote.
