Commission continues Blue Mountain subdivision hearing after extended debate over water, wildlife and notice

The Gallatin County Commission on May 19 continued a preliminary-plat hearing for the Blue Mountain Major Subdivision, a proposal to carve roughly 62.07 acres into 37 residential lots, after hours of testimony and technical discussion about water rights, wildlife connectivity and neighborhood notice.

Braden Lander, county planner, summarized the application and staff findings, noting the proposal meets zoning requirements but sits in a managed-growth area under the county growth policy (Braden Lander, county planner). The staff report described required park dedication (2.23 acres calculated; applicant proposes 2.5 acres in four parks), road and drainage plans, and several recommended conditions including ditch setbacks and trail easements.

Mark Fasting of Allied Engineering, representing the applicant Lazy TJ Enterprises, told the commission the project would include 37 one-acre lots with an accessory dwelling unit allowed on each lot, an HOA to maintain internal roads and common facilities, and on-site level 2 wastewater systems. "This is a permit from DNRC for the use of this water," Fasting said, describing the project's unusual water approach that converts existing surface water rights and uses infiltration galleries to recharge groundwater.

Developer Brent Omerud said the property’s earlier agricultural surface rights were changed through a multi‑year DNRC process and that the permit authorizes per‑lot limits (10 gallons per minute, about 2.53 acre-feet per lot under the permit) and an overall recharge obligation. "We hired Tom [a hydrogeologist] to do the testing and they worked with DNRC to do a change request," Omerud said, describing monitoring wells, infiltration-gallery design and a metering requirement for recharge.

Multiple residents urged caution. Dr. Terry Baldis, who lives on South 19th Road, said he learned of the proposal only days before the hearing and listed seven concerns: notification and outreach, wildlife impacts, density, park design, water, traffic and community involvement. "When I moved here, I was told it would not be developed more than 1 house on 20 acres," Baldis said, adding he has documented elk use and roadkill near the site.

Other community commenters echoed worries about groundwater and wildlife corridors, asking the commission to require a community well or additional monitoring rather than 37 separate wells. On Zoom, Heather Maxey and Sean (last name not specified) reiterated concerns about cumulative groundwater impacts and the need for better developer-neighbor communications.

Applicant counsel Susan Swimley said the DNRC/DEQ permitting architecture provides monitoring and enforcement that does not exist for typical exempt-well subdivisions. "They have converted their surface rights and will meter and report recharge to state regulators," Swimley said, adding the permit requires annual reporting and DNRC/DEQ review.

Commissioners and staff pressed for clarifications on the DNRC permit terms, the calculation of acre-feet, the 49 acre-feet aquifer recharge condition described in the permit materials, and the long-term management of infiltration galleries. Staff and the applicant agreed to correct a typographical error in the staff report that listed 2.35 acre-feet instead of 2.53 acre-feet per lot as in the DNRC approval and to add or clarify conditions related to trail easements, utility lots, and fencing.

Commissioner discussion focused on three principal themes: (1) density and alignment with the county growth policy; (2) long-term assurance of water recharge and monitoring (including whether HOA management or a third-party contract should be required); and (3) wildlife connectivity and park/trail placement. The applicant agreed to consider a condition restricting perimeter fencing, allowing small fenced containment areas near homes (suggested maximum ~5,000 square feet) subject to Fish, Wildlife & Parks review, and to condition the final plat to depict building sites in the front 50 percent of lots to encourage clustered development.

At the hearing’s close the commission agreed it would be preferable to have updated, written conditions reflecting those conversations rather than handling changes on the record. At the applicant’s request and with staff concurrence the commission continued the item to its June 16, 2026 regular meeting for the commission to consider an updated set of conditions and findings.

What happens next: the commission will take the Blue Mountain subdivision back up June 16 with amended conditions reflecting the DNRC permit reference corrections, clarified trail and utility-lot language, commitments about fencing limits and connectivity, and additional detail on who will manage and monitor infiltration-gallery performance and reporting.

All quotations and attributions are drawn from the May 19, 2026 public hearing transcript of the Gallatin County Commission.