Gravel pits: County moves to revise limits
Seven months ago, the Flathead County commissioners approved a zoning text amendment that dramatically increased the number of zoning districts where gravel pits can be prohibited.
On Monday, they tentatively accepted new language that would dial back most of the increase, pulling the county's regulatory authority back closer to where it used to be.
The language was recommended by the Open-Cut Mining Advisory Committee, a six-member group made up largely of gravel industry representatives.
The recommendation will be forwarded to the Flathead County Planning Board for a public hearing, after which it returns to the commissioners for final action.
A date hasn't been set yet for the Planning Board hearing on this proposal.
This is the latest move in an 18-month-long dispute that started after JTL Group requested a zoning opinion from then-Zoning Administrator Forrest Sanderson that eliminated the county's ability to impose any conditions on most gravel pits in the valley.
That decision prompted a court case as well as a legislative "fix" that clarified that local governments could impose conditions on gravel pits in nonresidential zoning districts and prohibit pits in residential areas.
However, the fix didn't define which areas qualify as residential.
Flathead County commissioners subsequently approved a zoning text amendment in August 2005 that said any zoning district that lists single-family homes or similar residential uses as a permitted use was considered a residential district specifically for the purposes of regulating gravel mines.
The net effect of the amendment was that the county now can prohibit mines in all "R"-designated residential districts - as well as in 5- and 10-acre suburban agricultural districts and 20-, 40- and 80-acre agricultural districts in situations where mines would have negative impacts that couldn't be mitigated through conditions.
Commissioners Gary Hall and Joe Brenneman recognized that the amendment wasn't perfect when they approved it. Consequently, they appointed the Open-Cut Mining Advisory Committee to look for ways to improve the language so that it protected county residents without unduly hindering large landowners and gravel-pit operators.
After meeting several times, the committee recommended that the AG-20, -40 and -80 agricultural districts be removed from the list of residential areas.
Two committee members - Ron Buentemeier, general manager of F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co., and Bruce Tutvedt, a West Valley farmer and gravel-pit owner - recommended that contiguous timberland or agricultural tracts of 15 acres or larger also be removed from consideration.
Planning Director Jeff Harris agreed that removing the AG-40 and -80 districts made sense, but he wanted AG-20 to stay on the list because it's typically residential in nature.
He also was concerned about Buentemeier's suggestion, saying it dealt with land uses, which should be addressed through the growth policy or through neighborhood plans rather than through zoning regulations.
Nevertheless, the commissioners on Monday unanimously agreed to send both recommendations to the county planning board for a public hearing.
If the new language is accepted, the county could no longer prohibit new gravel mines in the agricultural zoning districts or in any 15-acre-or-larger tract of timberland or agricultural land, although reasonable conditions could still be imposed on projects in these areas.
Essentially, the revised language is an effort to move the county's regulatory authority back toward what it was before JTL requested the zoning opinion.
The main difference would be in SAG-5 and -10 suburban agricultural districts: Before this whole issue came up, new mines could not be prohibited in these districts; now they can be, even under the revised language.
Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com