Public hearing draws detailed objections to draft subdivision regulations; commissioners table action to April 1

Broadwater County held a public hearing on proposed updates to its subdivision regulations. Director Nicole Brown presented the posted draft (published Feb. 27) and said it incorporated elements of the Montana Association of Counties model; she asked the audience and commissioners to raise specific questions rather than follow a page‑by‑page presentation.

Several detailed public comments followed. Chuck Han (HHM) submitted written comments and orally urged the board to table discretionary amendments to Section 9, arguing that portions of the draft remove or conflict with required exemption review criteria and certain Montana Code provisions (he cited specific code sections). Han asked that only changes necessary to comply with state law be advanced and that other discretionary adjustments be delayed for further review.

Director Brown responded point‑by‑point: she acknowledged an inadvertent omission she found after posting (an amendment to the family‑transfer penalty she will propose), defended leaving the staff‑composition of the COS review committee out of the regulations (to avoid needing a formal regulatory amendment each time staffing changes), and pointed to the exemption review criteria that remain in the posted document (listed on page 95). Brown said she would propose the penalty change and recommended a deliberate approach to other edits.

Surveyor Bernardet Swenson (Shaver Surveying) raised concerns that the draft’s definition of 'driveway' (any vehicular access serving more than one dwelling) combined with a new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) definition could force shared driveways to be built to county road or subdivision standards. Swenson asked that the driveway definition allow shared driveways for two units, suggested making the pre‑application checklist items approximate (so a landowner can seek preliminary feedback without paying for a survey), and recommended allowing limited post‑hearing edits in response to public comment to encourage cooperative changes rather than forcing developers to refile.

Commissioners discussed several technical topics: whether to set ADU size limits (county lacks a building inspector to enforce a prescriptive size test), how DEQ and local sanitarian review apply to ADUs on parcels under 20 acres, traffic‑study thresholds (a change to 250 average daily trips was traced to the MACo model regulations), the value and risk of adopting local 'evasion' criteria for exemptions (some commissioners favored clarity while others warned of litigation risk), and refinements to family‑transfer and mortgage‑tract language to match state statute language.

Given the volume of public comment and suggested edits, a motion to table the regulation amendments until the board’s April 1 meeting passed. Director Brown will prepare a short, two‑page list of proposed amendments and post it to the county website so the public and commissioners can review the targeted changes before the next meeting.

The board did not adopt substantive regulatory changes at this meeting; the hearing record will be carried forward for consideration on April 1.