Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Park County planning panel recommends Seuss Creek citizen‑initiated zoning despite enforcement questions
Summary
The Park County Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of a citizen‑initiated Seuss Creek zoning district to the county commissioners after hearings in which staff warned enforcement language may not match current county roles and an attorney for an affected landowner urged delay or boundary changes.
The Park County Planning & Zoning Commission on Aug. 12 recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Seuss Creek Planning and Zoning District regulations that petitioners submitted, forwarding the matter to the county commission for final action.
Mike Inman, who addressed the commission as county planning staff, told commissioners that the Seuss Creek petition is a Part 1 district in which applicants draft the regulations. He said the commission'review at this meeting was to provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and noted that required notice (newspaper publication and three posted signs) had been completed. Inman cautioned that parts of the petition place enforcement responsibilities on positions that currently do not exist in Park County, and that unresolved or ambiguous language would be handled through case‑by‑case investigation and consultation with the county attorney.
The hearing drew both supporters and opponents. Maggie McGuane, a Seuss Creek resident, said she met with former compliance officer Ashley Smith and asked petition language be aligned with existing county CICD enforcement verbiage so county staff could administer it: "we struggled as well with some of that enforcement language because some of those traditional positions don't exist here in Park County." Lisa Wilcox, another longtime resident, urged protection of Seuss Creek's unique spring‑fed water, wildlife and cultural resources, saying the proposal "reflects a unique solution to protect a very unique place." John Heitke, commenting remotely, praised citizen‑initiated Part 1 zoning as a modest tool to safeguard rural character.
Alan McCormick, a land‑use attorney representing a landowner whose property would be included, argued the petition appeared to target his client and risked pitting neighbors against one another. McCormick recommended delaying action or removing his client's property from the district so the county and neighbors could reconcile the regulations with county policy and avoid enforcement problems. A written submission read into the record echoed that objection and cited statutory provisions for creating planning and zoning districts (C 76‑2‑101 MCA).
After discussion about statutory thresholds and enforcement mechanics, Mike Inman moved to approve the district regulations as presented; a committee member seconded. The motion passed and will be transmitted as a recommendation to the county commissioners. At least one commissioner voiced opposition during the vote.
Next steps: the commission's recommendation will go to the Board of County Commissioners and was expected to appear on the county commission agenda the following Tuesday for possible final action.
