Bowman responds to recent trial article

I’m writing to you as a private citizen, since I’m now retired after 48 years in land use planning and no longer represent Hot Springs County. I’m responding to Daniel Powell’s July 4 article summarizing the Tipi Retreat matter. It’s not a bad article, but reflects the fact that the County chose to not join any media discussion (both print and online) of this topic while the applicant’s lawsuit was pending.

In my opinion, Daniel’s article doesn’t quite tell the whole story. I feel the facts are there, but I detect a slight sympathy toward the Stevens side of the tale. I think it may be somewhat weak on reporting from the viewpoint of the neighbors or the County. I also disagree with the suggestion that this saga is a “property rights issue,” because I feel it is not. It is my opinion that the entire issue of the constitutionality of land use regulations was resolved by the US Supreme Court in 1926, and that was actually over the legality of Zoning laws – a far more arcane tool than what HSC currently employs (Ambler Realty Co. v. Town of Euclid, aka “Euclid”). I will submit that one’s neighbors have property rights also.

I’d like to offer the following points, from my perspective only:

I believe the Tipi proposal itself was a very simple, black/white issue. While an innovative idea, as a land use proposal it was not complicated. Put simply, the Stevens established a commercial activity in a residential area without first obtaining the necessary approval from the County. The County then took them through the public review process after the fact. They were ultimately denied, which is when the fun started.

I believe the Tipi proposal was a violation of the County’s land use regulations. To me, there was absolutely no confusion about this. If I recall correctly, there were 1 or 2 similar violations considered by the County that same year. When going through the review process, these are treated no differently than a normal proposal. However, it’s far more desirable to review a “bare ground” project. The review process can affect the location, appearance, or scale of a proposal.

The review process is completely open to the public. It involves advertised public hearings, public input, letters to nearby property owners, and open deliberation at both the Planning Commission and County Commissioner levels. Turnout for both sets of public hearings for this proposal was very good, and there was a great deal of comment from the public. At one point the County Commissioners tabled their review to allow time for the completion of a legal review of the common driveway, after which all participants were re-notified when the meetings restarted.

Because it is an advertised public hearing process, the County’s review is a “Discretionary” or “Legislative” process. This is the opposite of an “Administrative” process, such as a building permit (that’s just an illustration; HSC has no building permit process). There was some confusion in the article, about whether this or that Land Use Plan policy was correctly applied. I feel, the truth is, any valid concern can be the basis for either denial or a condition of approval. The purpose of the County’s two checklists is to make certain no stated Land Use Plan policy is violated; it is a minimum, not maximum, standard of review.

I feel the applicants were treated fairly. Throughout the process, they were complimented on the originality of their concept. When it was denied, they were encouraged to find a more suitable location (they did so, and it was approved). The early-on investigation into the possibility of stretching the definition of a bed & breakfast to fit this proposal is another example of trying to accommodate the applicants.

I feel the two major issues with the proposal were known from the very beginning. In my opinion, the article was unfortunately incorrect on this point. I feel those two issues are 1) impacts to other properties, and 2) access. Please note that I believe the sole purpose of land use planning regulations is to minimize impacts from incompatible land uses. I feel they protect property rights, rather than infringe upon them. The Tipi Retreat is a commercial activity introduced into a rural residential area. The teepees are much closer and more visible to a neighboring residence than they are to the applicants’ residence, and the common driveway easement crosses three private properties to get to the applicants’ property. Furthermore, the common driveway plus Coyote Run total 1.75 miles of uphill dead-end road.

It is my opinion that there were two narratives for this project. In addition to the County’s review process, which was open to the public, I believe the applicants carried out a brutal online (FaceBook, website, etc.) campaign that included, in my opinion, misinformation and personal attacks on County staff and elected officials. There was also a sign campaign in and out of town, and a nationwide petition with over 800 respondents. I feel all of these created confusion and division within the community, wounds that will now take time to heal.

I believe the applicants should never have sued. I personally suspect the lawsuit was an attempt to coerce the County into accepting a mediated solution (which I feel would have violated the intent of the public review process), but instead it grew far out of proportion to the scale of the project. It is no surprise to me that the Court slam-dunked the lawsuit in the County’s favor. I feel it’s a shame, however, that it came to all this drama. I absolutely hate drama.

Again, these are my personal observations and not in any way an official response from Hot Springs County. In closing, I want to compliment you and your staff for taking great pains to remain neutral and objective on this topic over the past several years.

Regards, Bo Bowman, Worland