Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Big Sheep topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prairie County residents press commissioners to vote on Big Sheep Mountain zoning; Dec. 17 tentatively set
Summary
After a packed public-comment period in which many landowners urged adoption, Prairie County commissioners scheduled a potential final vote on the Big Sheep (Big Sheet) Mountain Zoning District for Dec. 17 and continued work on draft findings and resolutions. Public commenters warned against delaying action and cited legal and environmental concerns about wind development.
Dozens of callers urged the Prairie County Board of Commissioners on Thursday to adopt the proposed Big Sheep (also written Big Sheet in the record) Mountain Zoning District and to schedule a final vote now that public hearings and written comments are complete. Several speakers said the petition met the technical criteria and asked commissioners to "put the rolling plan on the schedule and vote it in to protect my property rights," according to landowner David Caston.
Commission staff and members spent much of the meeting discussing next steps for the draft findings and two parallel resolutions — one drafted to approve the district and one to deny it — and set aside courtroom space on Dec. 17 at 4 p.m. to accommodate public participation. "You've gone through all the hoops," caller Kathy Grift told commissioners; she asked them to place the zoning district on the next full meeting agenda and "vote yes and approve the Big Sheet Mountain Zoning District." The county's legal advisor presented compiled findings and said commissioners must supply a short set of conclusions when they decide how to vote.
Supporters framed the choice as protecting long-standing agricultural uses and neighbors' property values; opponents and some public commenters raised concerns about wildlife, noise, and infrastructure impacts. Caller Kate Joy cited health and wildlife impacts she associated with turbines and urged commissioners to act for "future generations of Montana ranchers." Commissioners and staff acknowledged conflicting public input, discussed the need to follow statutory notice and findings procedures, and debated whether to include tax-abatement language in the resolution.
County staff read preliminary fiscal estimates for the proposed project, noting "projected impact fees are estimated to be 15,000,000 to the county based on 0.05% of estimated cost of project for each year for 3 years," a figure the commissioners said required further review. Commissioners also discussed decommissioning and bonding responsibilities and the limits of county authority where state or federal lands are involved.
The board did not take a final vote at the meeting. Commissioners confirmed a plan to reconvene for final action and asked staff and legal counsel to refine conclusions and resolution language ahead of the Dec. 17 session.
