Taken from Miles City Star
19th April 2016
by Amorette Allison
Zoning is a sometimes contentious and always complicated process, as the Custer County Commissioners know.
After a year and a half of effort, the state-mandated zoning regulations for the extraterritorial zone just outside of Miles City are final.
The state required the county to take over the extraterritorial zoning around Miles City after a growth policy and subdivision regulations were in place. The two-mile “doughnut” area around the city limits will be administered by the county as of Tuesday, April 12, when the final resolution was signed.
When the zoning regulations were first proposed last summer, the commissioners, Jason Strouf, Keith Holmlund and Chairman Kevin Krausz, broached county-wide zoning, with the majority of the county excluding the incorporated cities of Miles City and Ismay falling under agricultural. That zone would have broad definitions of permissible uses and was designed to exclude the so-called “man camps” that provide temporary housing.
However, after public hearings, it became clear that countywide zoning was not attainable, and the zoning area was restricted to just the two-mile doughnut.
There are fewer zones in the county regulations than in the city, with the zones designated AG-1 Agricultural; R-1 Residential; R-2 Residential Multi-Family; R-3 Residential and Modular Home; C-1 General Commercial; and I-1 Industrial. There are also P-1 Public and PUD Planned Unit Development District zones.
The uses for commercial and industrial zones are defined, as well as a large number of “conditional uses” that can be granted by the zoning commission through a permitting process. The General Commercial zone has more than 60 permitted uses plus a dozen more “conditional” uses. The Industrial Zone allows 27 permitted uses varying from aircraft maintenance, oil field services, and wind farms to laundromats. There are an additional 17 conditional uses.
Commissioners felt that establishing a board of adjustment and hiring a zoning administrator should not take place until after the resolution had passed. For the time being, the county commissioners will serve as the zoning commission, and a board of adjustments and zoning administrator will be set in place later.
Some concerns were raised at the hearing held in the commissioners’ office. Sam Malenovsky is a county property owner whose land falls within the area now administered by the county. She was concerned about “non-conforming” uses of property that are currently in place. Strouf assured her that “whatever is on the property is grandfathered in unless it is removed for one year continuously.” As long as the use is continuous, the use will be considered “legal non-conforming.”
Gary Ryder, local attorney, was concerned that “unless there is proper enforcement” of zoning regulations, “I don’t think there is a point in hit-and-miss zoning.”
Tara Dupey of the Montana Association of Counties attended the meeting via speaker phone. Dupey wrote the Resolution that the commissioners passed. She responded to concerns that there was not adequate public comment by stating that the review of the resolution “met and exceeded” state standards for public comment. Extensive public comments have been incorporated into the resolution itself.
There was some discussion of items that were not included in the current zoning regulations, such as a highway commercial zone along Exit 138 and some minor changes to one individual’s property classification. County Planner Bill Ellis explained some background on the highway commercial zone but, in the current regulations, it was not adopted.
The vote to adopt Resolution 2016-31 was unanimous and became effective immediately. Commissioners will now focus on creating the necessary supporting boards and consider future modifications to the regulations.
Copies of the resolution and the zoning regulations are available from the County.