Opponents gather to speak against commissioners plan

Judging by comments made Tuesday, there s almost no support in Flathead County for a lengthy moratorium on new growth-policy amendments.

The concept was soundly denounced during an hour-long discussion with county commissioners.

The commissioners responded by asking the Flathead County Planning Office and Flathead County Planning Board for recommendations about how to handle the influx of amendment applications.

Although essentially acknowledging that the moratorium idea is dead, they left open the possibility that fewer amendments would be processed during the immediate future.

More than 60 people attended Tuesday s meeting. A quarter of them including several attorneys, landowners and developers spoke in opposition.

Only three people spoke in support.

The possibility of a moratorium came up this past week during consideration of the 1,460-acre Two Rivers amendment.

Given the amount of staff time needed to handle such massive land-use changes, the commissioners suggested that these private amendments either be put on hold until the county s overall growth policy update is completed next year, or that the number of amendments be slowed down somehow.

The concern, Planning Director Jeff Harris said, is that if we keep amending a plan that we re going to replace anyway, it may cause a delay in getting the new [overall growth policy] in place.

Tuesday s meeting was an opportunity for members of the public to express their views about this issue.

Several people said they thought it would be inappropriate to stall amendments that have been submitted to the planning office. If a moratorium is imposed, they said, it should take effect sometime.

Give it six, seven, eight weeks. Set a date that makes sense, advised Kalispell attorney Rich DeJana.

DeJana represents Semitool Inc., which recently submitted a land-use change from agricultural to industrial for 70 acres surrounding its manufacturing plant.

The Semitool application is one of three growth policy amendments that awaits processing by the planning office. The others are the 800-acre Quarter Circle Ranch Neighborhood Plan south of Bigfork and the 2,800-acre Riverdale Neighborhood Plan north of Kalispell.

Two other applications have gone through the planning office and planning board and await commissioners approval.

DeJana suggested that if the county continues to process growth-policy amendments, it might actually help the overall policy update.

We need to stop looking at these as independent [land-use changes], he said. If the amendment has merit now, then it should have merit next year and should be incorporated into the new growth policy.

By providing the information necessary to complete the update, DeJana said, these amendments could simplify the process and lead to a better overall document.

The moratorium concept also drew opposition from major landowners.

We have the land, and we re scared we aren t going to be involved in the [planning] process, said West Valley farmer Bruce Tutvedt. We re afraid you ll develop a plan and then ask us what we think.

The Two Rivers amendment and the more recent Riverdale Neighborhood Plan, for example, were submitted by farmers and other longtime property owners. In both cases, the applicants said they pursued these projects because they wanted more say about how their land develops.

The possibility that a moratorium would hurt the local economy and lead to higher land prices was raised as well.

Diane Taylor, however, said a moratorium wouldn t be the worst thing that could happen in the Flathead.

This is a beautiful valley but so was Los Angeles, Taylor said. All we do is change the plan. Maybe if we just followed it, that would work better. Big Sky had a moratorium for four years because of water quality issues, and that had no [long-term] negative effect. I hope you don t let this valley turn into L.A. because of a lack of planning.

After the public comment period, the commissioners agreed to continue processing the Semitool, Riverdale and Quarter Circle Ranch amendment applications.

They asked the planning board and planning office for recommendations about how to process applications in a way that won t derail or detract from the overall growth-policy update.

Any new applications, the commissioners said, would be subject to these recommendations, assuming the recommendations are approved. Another public hearing likely will be held before any final decisions are made.

The planning board is expected to take up this matter during its July 27 meeting.

The commissioners wanted the board to consider it during its July 13 meeting, but not enough time existed to meet the public notice requirements.

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com.