After about two hours of public comment, the Madison County Planning Board voted to recommend the county commissioner implement streamside setbacks on the Madison River and its tributaries.
Most of the public comment the board heard from the nearly 60 people at the public hearing was against the board’s proposed setbacks and in favor of smaller setbacks proposed last year by the Streamside Setback Citizen Advisory Committee.
The planning board recommended that commissioners institute a streamside setback on properties not coming under subdivision regulations that includes a 500-foot jurisdictional area, 300-foot building setback and 150-foot streamside buffer zone.
The proposal from the steering committee called for what amounted to 75-foot setbacks on the Madison River.
The steering committee’s work is largely supported by the community and science, said John Bingham, who has been passionately opposed to the planning board’s proposal from the beginning.
“I think the recommendation that is being made to the county commissioners is patently, patently unsupported,” Bingham said.
However, Steve Nelson felt different.
“If I thought people were going to take a really hard hit on land values as a result of this deal, I’d be against it,” Nelson said.
The Madison River is the biggest tourism draw for Madison Valley and protecting it with setbacks protects our economy, he said. The irony is that many Realtors in the valley are against the setbacks, when it’s the natural resources and the beauty of the Madison River that make their listings popular.
“They market the natural resources, the very things these 300-foot setbacks are trying to protect,” Nelson said.
Madison County began the current process of looking into streamside setbacks for land along the Madison and Jefferson Rivers back in 2008. The setbacks will determine how closely homes and related structures can be built to the high water mark of the rivers and streams.
Currently, setbacks along the Madison River are 500 feet for land going through the subdivision process, but there are no setbacks for land that doesn’t fall under the subdivision regulations.
In 2008, the planning board and commissioners formed the streamside setback steering committee, which was a group of nine interested citizens. The committee held more than 20 public meetings, wrestling over the issue and finally issuing a recommendation to the planning board last October.
The steering committee’s work has been largely ignored by the planning board, said Don Bowen, owner of Arrow Real Estate in Ennis.
The Madison-Beaverhead Board of Realtors supported the setbacks proposed by the steering committee, Bowen said. But the planning board has gone too far and the proposed ordinance threatens to devalue streamside land.
“I believe in some setback,” he said. “I certainly don’t believe in this setback.”
Bill Slaton, a landowner on Bear Creek, believes the planning board’s proposal does represent a compromise.
“I’m very impressed with the document and proposal because it indicates compromise,” Slaton said. “You’ve obviously been listening.”
Brett Gustafson from Pony also thought the planning board’s proposal represented a compromise. Gustafson, whose wife Kathy Looney is on the planning board, felt like a 75-foot setback was too small.
For him, 75 feet is 25 big steps. If he’s fishing, which is obviously a popular activity on the Madison River, it’s way too close.
“I could hook your house with my back cast,” Gustafson said.
However, the steering committee’s proposal is more palpable to the community and the planning board’s proposed setback is too large, said Jeff Laszlo, owner of Granger Ranches in the Madison Valley and member of the steering committee.
“I think the numbers have to be brought in line with what the committee discussed,” Laszlo said.
Planning board member Dave Maddison agreed and said so after the public hearing was over.
“I’m not opposed to setbacks, but I think this document is going to be very burdensome and onerous to the property owners affected by it,” Maddison said. “I don’t think it’s going to serve the county well. It’s going to be a bone of contention and cost the county a lot of money.”
However, the most conservative approach the board can take is to be cautious and be liberal with their protections of the river, said planning board member Donald Loyd.
“I think the more conservative approach is to protect the resource,” Loyd said.
Science will change and it may be that years down the road a smaller setback will be proven to be acceptable, but its not that way now, he said.
“Let’s be careful and do no harm,” Loyd said.
The board voted to recommend the ordinance to the county commissioners on a vote of 9-2. Dave Maddison and Jan Kluver Banks voted against the ordinance.
Planning board president John Lounsbury voiced his pride in the board and their deliberation over the contentious issue.
The board didn’t always agree on things and some of the rhetoric from the public was intense, but it pressed on and made the best recommendation they could, Lounsbury said.
The recommendation now goes on to the Madison County Commissioners who will likely take more public comment prior to issuing a final decision.
