Planners vote down gravel-pit clarification

Definition of 'extraction' is central issue in West Valley dispute

An effort to resolve a festering dispute about gravel pits in the West Valley simply added fuel to the fire.

During a Flathead County Planning Board meeting Wednesday, the board voted 5-3 to recommend denial of a zoning text amendment that would have clarified what type of gravel operations are allowed in the area.

About 50 people attended the meeting. Twenty spoke in favor of the amendment; eight spoke in opposition.

The text change was submitted by Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth, a group that's suing the county for its approval last year of a large, commercial gravel mine near the intersection of Farm to Market Road and Church Drive.

A central issue in that dispute, and in other recent West Valley gravel disagreements, is what's meant by the term "gravel extraction."

Gravel extraction is listed as a conditional use in the West Valley zoning regulations, but it isn't defined.

All other districts in the county use the term "extractive industries," which allows gravel mining and processing activities, such as asphalt and concrete batch plants. However, people who created the West Valley zoning disagree about whether "gravel extraction" includes processing.

Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth proposed that gravel extraction be defined as "the removal of gravel by a landowner or a landowner's agent. Gravel may be crushed and transported, but extraction shall not include processing into asphalt, cement or other end products."

The text amendment also would limit landowners to one active mining permit for every 320 acres they own. The size of the mine would be restricted as well, allowing 10-acre mines for people who own less than 320 acres, and 20-acre mines for people who own 320 or more acres.

"To bring some sort of closure to these disputes, we'd like to get some sort of definition," said Flathead Citizens representative Steve Vandehey on Wednesday. "This is a beginning point to resolving the issue. It's a controlled way for both sides to get what they want - the gravel operators can get the gravel out, but in a way that's acceptable to local residents."

Several proponents said it was crucial that some mechanism be devised to limit the size of industrial operations in the area for safety and quality-of-life reasons. They said they primarily were concerned about the large, industrial mining operations that could generate hundreds of thousands of truck trips during the life of the project.

"We have a grossly underdeveloped road system, we have the new high school coming, new retail centers - this is not the place we ought to be building huge industrial complexes. It's a recipe for disaster," said Nick Aemisegger. "Please, make decisions that are in the best interests of the public."

"We have to draw the line somewhere," said Joe Grana. "Asphalt and concrete plants, trucks running up and down the roads - that isn't why we moved out there. Our health, welfare and quality of life is what matters, and approving big gravel pits causes quality of life to go down. The majority of the people in the West Valley want this amendment."

Opponents, however, said the Planning Board must protect the welfare of all county residents, not just the people who showed up for Wednesday's hearing. They suggested that West Valley represented one of the Flathead's premier gravel sources, and that limiting extraction or processing there would be detrimental to the county.

"Any kind of construction activity you can think of requires sand and gravel," said Cary Hegreberg, executive director of the Montana Contractors' Association. "If you want to mine gravel, you have to go where the gravel is - and the farther you have to haul it, the higher the costs is. There's no way around that."

"This amendment isn't as simple as it appears," Greg Stevens said. "Does it lock up half the gravel resource in the valley? By prohibiting additional processing, does it create a monopoly for other concrete or asphalt plants in the valley? You should examine it further to see what kind of impacts it would have."

Stevens and others suggested that the text amendment was simply an effort to outlaw gravel mining in the West Valley.

"It's an obvious attempt to go after a few property owners who want to put in gravel pits," said Russ Crowder. "It's a special interest amendment that won't serve the general welfare of the county."

Crowder said the concerns people have about traffic safety, road dust and water quality can be addressed through the conditional-use process.

Planning Board member Gene Dziza made the motion to recommend denial of the proposed amendment.

"What I'm hearing people suggest is that we mine gravel at one location and truck it to another for processing," Dziza said. "I don't see where that promotes the health, safety and welfare of the public."

Kim Fleming, who seconded Dziza's motion, was more concerned with the wording of the amendment. She thought it could result in a multitude of small gravel pits, which would be harder to regulate.

Frank deKort said that nobody seemed entirely satisfied with the language of the proposed amendment - including Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth, which submitted a three-page list of "suggestions for tidying up the language" at the beginning of the hearing.

"That's a good indication that this needs more work, but I'm not ready to deny it," deKort said. "I think there should be local control. The West Valley neighborhood needs to come to grips with this. It isn't something we should be deciding on a countywide basis."

Vandehey urged the Planning Board to make whatever changes were necessary to pass on a favorable recommendation.

"It's taken us a year to get here," he said. "Most of you seem to agree that something needs to be done, so I would encourage you to rewrite the amendment so it says what you want it to say."

However, several board members didn't think rewriting it was their job. With one more meeting in May and four scheduled in June, they also didn't think they had the time.

Dziza and Fleming supported the motion to recommend denial with board members Charles Lapp, Randy Toavs and Jeff Larsen. Board members Don Hines, Kathy Robertson and deKort voted in opposition.

The amendment now goes to the county commissioners for a final decision, unless the applicants pull it to make revisions.

In other action Wednesday, the board:

-Unanimously recommended approval of a zone change from R-1 residential to B-2 general business for 6.2 acres off La Salle Road in Evergreen.

-Unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat of the re-subdivision of Lot 6 in Goose Meadows, which would create a four-lot single-family subdivision on 30 acres off Farm Road.

-Unanimously recommended approval of a zone change from R-2 limited residential to R-4 two-family residential for 6.75 acres located at 201 Caroline Point Road, adjacent to U.S. 93 north of Lakeside.

-Unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat for Harmony Homesites, a 19-lot subdivision featuring 15 single-family homes and four townhouse lots on 4.9 acres on the west side of Harmony Road in Evergreen, south of Solberg Drive.

-Unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat of the amended plat of Lot 5 in Cole Ranch Estates, which would create two single-family lots on 13 acres at 536 Rodeo Drive, off Hodgson Road.