Tabled: Bridger Canyon Developers Retract Application

By David Nolt, 5-16-07

In a surprising move, Bridger Canyon Partners requested the Gallatin County Commission table their Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Related Conditional Use Permits (CUP) in order for the developers to further discuss the controversial development with the Bridger Canyon Property Owners’ Association.

On Tuesday, May 15, the Gallatin County Planning and Zoning Commission planned to release their staff report on the 345-acre Bridger Mountain Village—which could include 452 overnight units, 75 recreational home lots, a commercial village, a recreational lodge and employee housing—but early in the meeting Bridger Canyon Partners (BCP) legal counsel Joby Sabol announced the new plan.

“This is not the way we hoped this would go,” Sabol admitted. “We tried to encourage the Bridger Canyon Property Owners’ Association early on, but it didn’t happen because of timing and polarization. Our team is thoroughly convinced it’s a worthwhile exercise to sit down with our neighbors…to work through a dialogue.”

There has not been a lack of dialogue, however. The BCP and BCPOA have actively been discussing the proposed development for over a year. Last April public comment hearings on the Bridger Mountain Village had to be extended an extra day to make time for over 70 testimonies made by concerned citizens. The BCPOA feel the Bridger Village PUD is in conflict with the Bridger Canyon Zoning and Development Guide, which the BCPOA created in the 1970s. See their concerns here.

Bridger Canyon Partners legal counsel Joby Sabol said the decision to ask for a continuance was “literally made at 12:30,” just a half hour before the 1 p.m. meeting. “We have nothing to fear,” Sabol said. “We’ve always had an open book. Let’s roll up our sleeves and see what we can do.”

The Gallatin County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to table the developer’s PUD and CUP. It is unclear what the new “dialogue” will entail or what will come of it, but BCPOA Board Chair Alex Eby said the BCPOA’s concerns have not changed, nor will they.

“All we want for the canyon and the base area is something that’s appropriate,” Eby said. “What they had on the table wasn’t appropriate and they took it off the table so that’s good. We’ve been talking with them once or twice a month for a year. Maybe they have something else in mind. Our opinion doesn’t matter. We’re going by the zoning regulations.”

Eby explained though talks could lead to progress, he also admitted the BCP could eventually ignore any recommendations made during said talks.

“We’ll see where it goes,” Eby concluded.

Editor’s note: Click here for an earlier story by Lucia Stewart on the potential for development in Bridger Canyon, today and historically.