West Valley gravel pit OK'd, asphalt plant denied

The Flathead County Board of Adjustment issued a split decision Tuesday, approving a conditional-use permit for a controversial gravel pit in the West Valley but denying a related asphalt plant.

The decision came at the end of a 4 1/2-hour public hearing. Barring a lawsuit by the applicant and/or the opponents, it is final.

About 100 people attended the meeting. More than half spoke about the permit, which would allow a 320-acre gravel pit to operate at the southeast corner of the intersection of Farm to Market Road and Church Drive.

Opponents said the project would lead to the industrialization of the West Valley, ruining the area's rural character and destroying the quality of life that residents enjoy today. They cited concerns about water quality, traffic safety and property devaluation as reasons to deny the application.

"The West Valley is nothing but simple families, simple homes and simple farmers," said Skip Willis. "We want you to listen to us: We don't want our quality of life affected by this. There's nothing like [this pit] out there."

The permit was requested by the Tutvedt Family Partnership. It would allow the extraction and processing of sand and gravel, together with a crushing machine. An asphalt batch plant also was included in the request.

The pit would be developed 40 acres at a time. It would be operated by Schellinger Construction.

"No more than 80 acres would be active at any one

time, including the ongoing operations and reclamation," said Flathead County Planner Kirsten Holland. "The estimated reclamation date for the initial 40 acres is 2015."

If the remainder of the property contains a similar amount of gravel, that means the mine could be in operation for the next 80 years.

Most opponents asked the board to deny the permit or at least delay approval for an indefinite time while various studies are done about water quality, traffic and other potential negative affects.

"In the history of the United States, no gravel pit permit has ever been revoked," said Tom Clark, whose great-grandfather homesteaded in the West Valley in 1891. "I know for a fact that none have ever been revoked in Flathead County. You can't make this decision lightly. Once it's done, it's there forever."

However, Kalispell attorney Kent Saxby said that state law doesn't allow the pit to be prohibited. He said the board only could impose reasonable conditions on its operation.

"The law very specifically provides that gravel pits and their associated activities must be allowed in nonresidential areas," Saxby said. "The board only needs to decide whether this is a residential or agricultural area, and there's no question that it's agricultural. The closest neighbor is at least a quarter-mile away, and most of the adjacent property - as well as the [mine site] itself - is agricultural."

Saxby said that the West Valley has a long history of gravel extraction. Three pits were in operation when the West Valley Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1997, he said. Another was approved just a few months after the plan took effect, and the Board of Adjustment approved permits for two expanded pits last week.

Saxby also cited written testimony from the lead planning consultant who helped craft the plan, as well as the chairwoman of the West Valley steering committee who helped get the plan adopted. Neither recalled any detailed discussions about or opposition to commercial gravel pits when the document was being developed.

Others, though, said a large commercial mine and industrial plant clearly violated the plan, which was intended to protect the neighborhood's rural agricultural nature.

"The intent was to strictly limit commercial and industrial operations," said Bill Breen, who was also on the original steering committee. "The issue here isn't jobs or taxes. The issue is whether a [commercial] gravel pit is an appropriate land use for the West Valley. In my opinion, it isn't."

Board President Dennis Rea thought that gravel extraction was allowed by the plan, but that any related processing was prohibited.

"I have no problem with the gravel pit, but as soon as you start manufacturing asphalt or concrete, to me it becomes industrial," he said.

Board member Scott Hollinger agreed with Saxby, saying state law only allowed the board to impose conditions on the proposal.

However, after changing a few of the permit conditions - and adding limitations to the hours of operation and on gravel hauling during the morning and afternoon school rush hour - Hollinger's motion to approve the permit failed on a 2-2 vote, with Rea and David Van Dort opposed.

Prompted by Rea, Hollinger then changed his motion to include a prohibition on asphalt and concrete plants. That proposal was approved 3-1, with Van Dort opposed.

Tuesday's meeting included several unusual occurrences that could play a role in any subsequent lawsuits.

Board member Gina Klempel, for example, whose husband owns a gravel pit near Bigfork, recused herself during a previous hearing on this application, yet declined to do so this time.

Van Dort, who is also a member of the West Valley Land Use Advisory Committee, previously voted to approve the permit, yet voted against it Tuesday.

Consequently, it remains to be seen whether this is the final chapter in the Tutvedt gravel pit saga.

Finally, at the end of Tuesday's meeting, Van Dort announced his resignation from the West Valley committee and the Board of Adjustment. He said he's retiring in a few weeks and wants to reduce his stress load.

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