Planning commission defers Gallatin zoning-code rewrite after public concerns about nonconforming uses

The Gallatin Planning Commission on Thursday opened a public hearing on a comprehensive rewrite of the city's zoning code and map but voted to defer final action to the next meeting after a lengthy public discussion about nonconforming uses and other technical standards.

Planning staff member Brian, who led the presentation, said the project — begun in early 2024 with consultant TPUDC — replaces roughly 27 legacy zoning districts with about 14 simplified “character” districts and shifts many regulations toward a hybrid form‑based approach intended to shape building form and streetscape. "We started the process back in the beginning of 2024," Brian said, describing a mix of carried‑forward provisions and rewritten sections.

Two public commenters said they appreciated the outreach but urged clarifications. "I've been watching and reading about the rezoning," resident Theresa Patzer said, asking for clearer map keys and better distinction between several closely shaded districts. Local business owner Clay Hanes told the commission the code is broadly the right framework but singled out section 1.22 on nonconforming uses. "As drafted, this puts most of Gallatin's small buildings in noncompliance," Hanes said, warning that routine tenant turnover or repairs could strip long‑running small buildings of their legal status.

Staff and commissioners discussed the core concern: whether a change of tenant automatically ends a nonconforming legal status. Planning staff clarified that a change in tenancy alone does not; it is a change of use that can trigger loss of a nonconforming status. "If the tenant comes in with a different use, it does change it," Brian said. Commissioners pushed staff for options that would protect small owners while allowing the city to gradually reduce true nonconforming uses.

Commissioners also questioned other technical provisions: the 50% repair/replacement threshold that can require rebuilding to current standards, how the code defines categories of commercial uses (which affects whether a dry cleaner can become a coffee shop without triggering a change‑of‑use review) and whether industrial districts should allow food service or principal renewable‑energy uses at scale. "It'd be easy enough to do" to allow some food service in light‑industrial villages, staff said; on solar and data centers, staff noted previous citizen concern about loss of farmland and recommended a conditional‑use approach for larger generation projects.

Planning staff said they have been collecting public comments and would prepare a consolidated response and redline for commissioners to review. Citing the volume of recent email comments and the absence of a key participant (John) who had been integral to the process, the chair moved to defer action until the next month to allow staff time to incorporate comments and for missing members to participate. The commission voted to defer the recommendation to council; the meeting transcript records the vote as taken by voice but does not record a roll‑call tally.

Next steps: staff will compile the written comments received, refine draft language on nonconforming uses and other flagged items, and present the revisions to the commission at the next meeting before any vote on a recommendation to city council.