Comment Opposing “By-Right” Daycare Centers in the R-A Residential District as proposed in the draft UDC

I write to formally oppose the proposed November 2025 UDC draft change that would designate “Daycare center” as a permitted by-right ( or as a "principle") use in the R-A (Residential-A) zoning district. Allowing large daycare centers (serving 16 or more children) outright in low-density residential areas is contrary to sound planning practice and the City’s own zoning principles. My objections, grounded in recognized planning principles and comparative regulations, are outlined below.

High-Intensity, Incompatible Impacts in Low-Density Neighborhoods

Daycare centers are inherently higher-intensity, non-residential facilities that generate significantly more activity than a typical single-family home. They attract frequent pick-up/drop-off traffic, create parking demand, and produce noise from children at play, often for extended hours. Bozeman’s current code itself recognizes the extra intensity of such uses – for example, it requires one off-street parking space per staff member plus one per 15 children for a daycare center, far beyond a normal home’s needs. This reflects the substantial traffic and parking impacts these centers bring to a neighborhood. Noise is another concern: planning studies have long noted a “causal relationship between number of children and the amount of disturbance” experienced by nearby residents (see APA PAS Report 55). In a quiet R-A neighborhood of single-family homes, the daily concentration of vehicles and child noise from a full-scale daycare center would fundamentally alter the residential character and tranquility.

It is telling that in a recent case in California, a planning commission denied a large daycare in a single-family area due to traffic, parking, and noise concerns raised by neighbors (see Citing concerns over noise and traffic, Planning Commission denies daycare center). While quality childcare is an important community asset, even a beneficial use can become a nuisance if sited in the wrong place – as Justice Sutherland famously wrote in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty, “a nuisance may be merely aright thing in the wrong place – like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.”(see Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)).A bustling daycare center belongs in an appropriately zoned “barnyard,” not dropped by-right into a quiet parlor of a low-density neighborhood.

Best Practice: Daycares as Conditional/Special Uses in Residential Zones

Professional planning guidance and common zoning practice advise that larger daycare facilities should undergo discretionary review before locating in residential areas. The American Planning Association’s Policy Guide on the Provision of Child Care (1997) explicitly supports permitting small home-based daycares by right but allowing larger facilities only with careful controls. Notably, California law (cited by APA) prohibits local zoning barriers for family daycares up to 6 children, but allows special use permits for facilities with up to 12 children, limiting review to issues of spacing, parking, traffic, and noise mitigation (see APA Policy Guide on the Provision of Child Care). Even Tucson, Arizona – a leader in childcare-friendly policy – permits small in-home daycare “by right” yet still requires a conditional use process for even small child-care centers in residential zones (see APA Policy Guide on the Provision of Child Care). The clear implication is that beyond a small scale, daycare centers warrant case-by-case scrutiny to ensure compatibility.

Across the country, many municipalities reserve daycare centers in single-family districts as conditional or special uses rather than by-right uses. For example, Stamford, CT’s regulations state that “Child Day Care Centers in single-family zoning districts require a Special Permit from the Zoning Board” (see Stamford Child Care Permitting Guide 2025). In Green River, Wyoming, the city code provides that in the R-1 Single-Family zone “Child Care Centers are not listed as permitted uses and therefore may only be permitted through the Special Use Permit approval process” (see Green River Resolution). These examples echo the prevailing practice: larger daycare centers are only allowed subject to a public hearing and discretionary approval, typically with conditions attached to protect the neighborhood. Bozeman’s current ordinance similarly treats “Day care centers” (defined as 13+ children) as a Special Use in its low-density residential zones (R-S,R-1, R-2), while allowing them by right in higher-density or mixed-use zones. This long-standing approach acknowledges that such facilities, while needed, may not be appropriate on every residential street without tailored mitigation. It would be a serious step backwards to remove this safeguard now.

Need for Discretionary Review to Ensure Compatibility and Public Input

Eliminating the Special Use Permit (SUP) requirement for daycare centers in R-A means losing the crucial case-by-case review that protects neighborhood compatibility. The SUP process is not a mere formality –it is the mechanism by which the City evaluates site-specific factors like traffic circulation, on-site parking layout, pick-up/drop-off safety, outdoor play area location and screening, days/hours of operation, and noise attenuation. It also ensures neighbors are notified and heard in a public forum. By contrast, a “by-right” use can be established as-of-right with only administrative checks, with no hearing or ability to impose conditions beyond the base code standards. This is problematic for a use as potentially impactful as a daycare center. Without discretionary review, the City forfeits the ability to say “this particular residential lot or street cannot safely accommodate 20 drop-offs every morning,” or to require commonsense mitigation (such as staggered pickup times, sound fencing, or a traffic management plan) as conditions of approval.

Fundamentally, discretionary review is how the City upholds public health, safety, and welfare on a localized level. In special use permit approvals, Bozeman – like most cities – must find that a proposed use “will not endanger public health or safety; will not injure the value of adjoining property; [and] will be in harmony with the area in which it is located” (see Green River Resolution). These are exactly the findings that a daycare proposal in a quiet neighborhood ought to meet. Removing the SUP process means no such findings can be made or enforced, undermining the City’s ability to protect neighbors from site-specific adverse impacts. It also silences public input that can surface local knowledge (for instance, that a particular corner already has dangerous traffic conflicts or that a nearby homeowner has concerns about noise at odd hours). In short, the SUP process is a vital mitigation tool. Stripping it away for daycare centers in R-A is unwarranted and unwise.

Inconsistency with R-A District Intent and Neighborhood Protection Goals

The proposed change allowing daycare centers outright in R-A is also inconsistent with the stated intent of the R-A zone and the broader goals of Bozeman’s development code. The Residential-A district is defined as an area “primarily to accommodate a variety of residential housing options” (single-family homes, ADUs, duplexes, etc.), with only “compatible…park, open space, utility, and day care uses” supplementing the residential uses. This language emphasizes compatibility – acknowledging that non-residential uses may be allowed only if they harmonize with the low-density residential character. A blanket “by-right” permission for large daycare centers fails this test. It presumes all such facilities are automatically compatible, when in reality compatibility depends on context (site size, street capacity, adjacent uses, etc.). The current Special Use Permit requirement is exactly how the City has ensured only compatible daycares operate in residential zones – by evaluating each proposal against criteria and potentially denying or conditioning those that would disrupt neighborhood character. By removing this discretionary filter, the City would be effectively abandoning the R-A district’s protective intent.

Moreover, one of the fundamental aims of zoning is to protect established neighborhoods and the public interest from incompatible land use intrusions. The U.S. Supreme Court in Euclid upheld separating different uses on the basis that it bears a “substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare” (see Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)). While a daycare center is not an “offensive trade,” on a small quiet street it can pose analogous conflicts (traffic hazards, noise, parking overflow) that threaten residents’ safety and comfort if unmitigated. Good planning practices urge careful integration of such uses, not an unchecked allowance. The proposed change runs counter to Bozeman’s own goals of preserving neighborhood character and quality of life. It risks unintended consequences, such as de facto commercial operations popping up on residential blocks without proper oversight, potentially eroding residents’ trust in the zoning scheme meant to protect their environs.

Conclusion: Retain Special Use Permit Oversight for Daycare Centers in R-A

In summary, I urge the City to reject the draft provision permitting daycare centers by right in the R-A district. Larger childcare centers, while valuable to the community, behave more like community-commercial uses than home uses in their intensity of impacts. The Special Use Permit process is the proven tool to balance the benefits of such facilities with the need to safeguard neighborhood character, public safety, and residents’ peace. Removing that tool would be a disservice to thoughtful planning. It would deprive the City of oversight and compromise the compatibility standards that have long guided development in Bozeman’s residential districts.

The better course is to continue treating daycare centers in low-density residential areas as a use requiring discretionary approval, subject to case-specific conditions and public input. This approach aligns with established planning practice and the City’s development objectives. By maintaining the Special Use Permit requirement, Bozeman can support the expansion of childcare services in a responsible, context-sensitive manner – ensuring that any new daycare centers truly fit our neighborhoods, rather than being imposed by-right regardless of consequences. I appreciate your consideration and urge you to uphold the integrity of the R-A zone by not allowing this proposed change to move forward.

This is not the solution to the daycare problem in the community and to challenge this proposal is not a mere manifestation of NIMBYism. What has been proposed is simply not sound professional planning practice.