After the Madison County Commission unanimously approved three citizen-initiated zoning districts last week, Kaye Counts was in shock.
Counts leads Preserve Raynolds Pass, a nonprofit aimed at preserving the rural character and wildlife habitat of the upper Madison Valley. She said the Sept. 15 approval was a surprise move from the commission and one that could safeguard both quality of life and wildlife corridors in a swath of Greater Yellowstone near the Idaho border.
“It was a moment of joy and disbelief and celebration,” Counts said.
The effort was the culmination of a three-year campaign by local organizers that started with a successful attempt to oppose a high-density RV park. As Counts and other organizers considered how to create a framework to fight other development projects that might pop up in the future, she realized the state and local toolbox was limited.
“At the end of the day, citizen-initiated zoning was the only tool we had,” Counts said.
Also called “Part 1 zoning,” citizen-initiated zoning stems from a 1953 Montana law that allows locals to establish their own, custom zoning districts when counties can’t or won’t institute larger-scale regulations locals often crave. At least 60 percent of landowners in a contiguous area have to be on board, and counties can adopt petitions “whenever the public interest or convenience may require,” according to the law.
While these CIZDs, as they’re known, are the first in Madison County, at least 10 other counties have implemented Part 1 zoning in more than 130 areas across the state, according to data provided by Preserve Raynolds Pass. Often, these efforts are focused on fighting specific threats: In May, Missoula County OK’d a zoning district designed to stop a Town Pump travel plaza and gas station. Last year, residents of Park County used the law to fight a proposed resort in the Suce Creek drainage in the northern Absarokas. Below, maps indicate the three citizen-initiated zoning districts near Raynolds Pass in the upper Madison Valley. They could shape the area’s future, organizers say.
Commissions sometimes thwart community requests for zoning districts for a variety of reasons. In 2024, Gallatin County said no to a district that would stop a proposed gravel pit. Stillwater County refused to authorize a petition in 2018 that sought to use the law to fight oil and gas development along the Beartooth Front, leading to a lengthy legal battle. Across rural Montana, many commissions and residents alike distrust the perceived oversight and regulation that comes with zoning.
That’s why Counts was so surprised the Raynolds Pass-area CIZDs passed unanimously.
The Madison County CIZDs “preserve and maintain the open and rural residential character” of the area, according to planning documents. Their regulations impose 100-foot setbacks on water bodies, mandate low-impact and downward-facing lights, and encourage safe practices for both controlled burns and recreational fires.
But at heart, the documents take aim at incoming industry that could bring unwanted growth to the valley, Counts said. “They prevent commercial development, full stop,” she said. “We’re building a fort for wildlife and for protecting property values and quality of life.”
Long-running conversations over the proposed CIZDs came to a head at a nearly five-hour commission meeting earlier this month. Supporters cited looming threats of subdivision, development and uncontrolled growth in other parts of the state, including in nearby Big Sky and the exclusive Yellowstone Club. Residents described unsolicited letters in mailboxes from developers interested in their land. They also cited growing fire risk as well as increasing stress on aquifers and local emergency services as area population grows.
Linda Owens, project director for the nonprofit Madison Valley Ranchlands Group, which works to protect agricultural livelihoods, argued that change is inevitable. “That doesn’t mean that we stand back,” she said. “It’s like trying to work cattle in the corral and just opening the gates and letting them go wherever. You want to be able to sort them out and get them where you want them. Otherwise you’ve got chaos and a wasted day. Well, we don’t need a wasted valley.”
Robert Garrott, an emeritus professor of ecology at Montana State University and a Madison Valley resident, cited research on the importance of the area to migratory elk and pronghorn. “It is important for the county to help moderate and direct future development so that we don’t become yet another Bitterroot or Flathead Valley and lose what we all cherish in this place,” Garrott said.
Former Yellowstone superintendent Dan Wenk put the issue in the context of the broader ecosystem. “The health of Yellowstone extends and depends beyond the park boundaries, especially in places like the Madison Valley and the wildlife corridors,” he said in public comment. Wenk worked in Yellowstone from 1979-1985 before leaving the area to serve as superintendent at Mount Rushmore. When he returned to Yellowstone in 2011, he said the amount of development was staggering.
“Most agree that this ecosystem deserves protection,” he said. “Initiatives such as this are a great step in understanding and implementing necessary steps to protect what we all love.”
But opponents raised questions at the Sept. 2 meeting about the cost of the initiatives and the county’s capacity to implement the regulations. Fundamentally, the debate focused on property rights.
I don’t like the government telling me what to do. But there are certain times when the government has to step in.”
Bill Todd, madison county Commissioner
Philip Waters, a Gallatin County resident, purchased property in Madison County in 2019 and said he was unsure if his property had been “gerrymandered” out of the boundaries of one of the districts. Either way, he claimed, the new regulations could impact his property.
“The threat I’ve been made to imagine is a boogeyman corporation with money and power that would rob my neighborhood of the peace we enjoy,” Waters said. “But what I see is a professionally-branded, well-resourced, connected and persistent political action group which is constructed to magnify the voices of support and diminish the voices of dissent.”
Robert O’Brien, speaking on behalf of his parents who own property in the area, called the initiatives “tyranny of the majority.” He said as much as 40 percent of a community could disagree with CIZD regulations, but still be forced to abide by the rules. He said property owners should put covenants on their own property rather than implement ordinances that impact their neighbors.
Still, even some property rights advocates sided with supporters of the CIZDs. “I’m a property rights guy,” said Steve Love, a Madison Valley resident. “And I don’t like government meddling in my situation. Well, this really isn’t the government; this is us. This is the people that live here.”
Commissioners voted on the three districts about two weeks after that initial, heated public meeting. “Based on the volume of public comment alone, it’s overwhelming in support,” Commissioner Bill Todd said during the Sept. 15 vote. “I don’t really like government. And I don’t like the government telling me what to do. But there are certain times when the government has to step in.”
All three commissioners voted to approve the districts, though there will likely be modest amendments to their language and scope, commissioners said.
“This is a great model,” Counts said, “not just for Madison county, but for citizens of other counties to realize that they can be heard, and that they can have an impact in protecting their own areas in the face of unmanaged growth.”
