Fergus County commissioners table South McDonald Creek subdivision as off‑grid utilities, water and fire protections remain unresolved

Fergus County commissioners on July 22 postponed a decision on the proposed South McDonald Creek Minor Subdivision after a detailed staff presentation and extended public comment focused on an applicant request to avoid obtaining off‑site utility easements for an 'off‑grid' development, the adequacy of on‑site water and wastewater plans, and whether a cistern must be required for fire protection.

Planning staff opened the discussion by describing the proposal as "a 4 lot, 84 acre sub minor subdivision proposed by Harry and Maxine Scott of Mesa, Arizona," and said the county has until Aug. 11 to take final action under the Montana Subdivision Planning Act. Staff told commissioners the lots are proposed for single‑family dwellings with on‑site water and on‑site septic and that several standard subdivision requirements (environmental assessment, parkland dedication and a public hearing) were not triggered for this first minor subdivision.

The central dispute involved a developer request for a variance from subdivision rules that normally require provision of easements "for the construction and maintenance of utilities within the subdivision," including off‑site easements to bring power to the site. Planning staff said Fergus Electric had requested an off‑site easement; the applicant is seeking not to obtain the off‑site easements and instead to market the lots as off‑grid. Planning staff told the commission that, while the easement request from Fergus Electric is on file, they had not found a state statute in subdivision law that forces a developer to install off‑site lines and said the planning board recommended denial of the variance because the applicant had not substantiated an "undue hardship." "The developer did not provide any explanation of why meeting this requirement would pose an undue hardship," staff said in their report.

The developer's representative argued that securing easements from adjacent landowners would create an undue hardship for an off‑grid project and could be a "deal breaker" for remote developments where neighbors may be unwilling to grant rights of way. "When we're going in there for an off grid development and requiring that to come through the neighbors ... is a hardship," the representative said.

Fire‑protection concerns were raised repeatedly. Staff reported the applicable fire district estimated a 5‑ to 7‑minute response once units are dispatched but also noted the district operates a subscription model and requires a per‑parcel membership fee of $749. A fire district representative warned that the 5‑ to 7‑minute figure refers to travel time once trucks are under way and that assembling and dispatching units could mean a longer time before apparatus leaves the hall; the representative said, "it's gonna take us to probably response time closer to 30 minutes before we get people to the Fire hall" in some circumstances and urged a cistern or other on‑site supplemental water source to aid firefighting. Staff proposed as a condition that the developer pay the subscription fee and that a cistern be added as a supplemental water source for firefighting until the local department arrives.

The developer and other speakers pushed back on cistern requirements citing uncertainty about specifications and long‑term maintenance and enforcement. "There's no written regulations on what to put in," the developer's representative said, noting the county had not specified size, depth or connection requirements and that "a cistern could be anything." Commissioners and neighbors also debated whether covenants, homeowner associations or zoning would be more effective than ad‑hoc conditions at enforcing long‑term maintenance and neighborhood standards.

Water availability and state approvals were also discussed. Staff said the existing livestock water right on the property would remain with Lot 4 and that the developer intends to apply to DNRC for appropriation for four new wells (one per lot) under recent DNRC rules. The staff recommended a condition requiring a DNRC notice of appropriation before final plat.

Neighbors raised broader concerns about marketability, future enforcement and property boundary issues tied to historical surveys. Speakers noted that newer 'local point' surveys can diverge from original 1882 federal surveys, creating recurring boundary disputes.

After more than two hours of presentation and exchange, a commissioner moved to table the matter to allow more time for staff review and for the applicant to address outstanding questions. The motion to table carried; commissioners set a decision deadline tied to the Aug. 11 timeline for formal action and noted the developer could request an extension.

Other business: the commission approved the filings/claims dated 07/22/2025 earlier in the meeting.

The commission will revisit the South McDonald Creek Minor Subdivision before the Aug. 11 deadline; no final approval or denial was made on July 22.