Board balks at fast review

By WILLIAM L. SPENCE

The Daily Inter Lake

The Flathead County Planning Board says there will be no growth policy before it's time.

Reacting to a request from the county commissioners that they wrap up their review of the draft growth policy by Oct. 15, several board members Tuesday said they'll take whatever time they need to do the job right.

That approach was supported by the diverse group of people who listened in on Tuesday's work session.

"I think you should be insulted by [the commissioners'] directive," said Barry Conger, who's been to several hearings and meetings related to the growth policy. "Don't bow to the pressure. Your job is to put together something that works for the Flathead."

"I think you guys are doing a wonderful job," said John Parsons, who has attended all of the board's recent work sessions. "You shouldn't be influenced by outside pressure. This is a critical document for Flathead County. Take your time and do [the review] the way you've been doing it."

Monica Jungster, a West Glacier businesswoman who is involved in neighborhood planning, said she was impressed with the level of discussion at the session Tuesday, even if she didn't agree with all the changes made.

She also suggested that "big money" interests and political pressure "aren't the type of things that are going to make a good growth policy for Flathead County."

"This was a great meeting," Jungster said. "I support you guys doing your job. Let's take the time to do it right, whatever the legal ramifications."

The commissioners proposed the Oct. 15 deadline Monday, in part because of legal concerns about their ability to approve new zoning applications.

Based on state laws related to zoning and growth policies, Deputy County Attorney Jonathan Smith has advised the commissioners not to act on zoning requests that can't be finalized before Oct. 1. The Planning Office also has stopped accepting new zoning applications until a new growth policy is adopted.

That moratorium is affecting several recent proposals, including a $20 million planned-unit development project near Bigfork.

"We think there is some urgency in getting through this [growth policy] document," said Jeff Harris, Flathead County Planning director, during Tuesday's work session.

Harris suggested that the dispute over how long the Planning Board should spend on its review stems from misconceptions about the intent of the draft.

Some people have the impression that the policy will be set in stone once it's approved, Harris said, meaning no further refinements could be incorporated into it. Consequently, they're telling the board to slow down and make sure the policy offers enough detail to guide future development.

The Planning Office, however, always has seen this draft as a first step, a "framework" document that will expand over time as more detailed maps, management plans and neighborhood plans are added to it.

"The comments you're getting from the public about taking your time are because they're after a different product - one we didn't deliver and one we didn't want to deliver because it would take way too much time to produce. We don't see this draft as the end point, we see it as a beginning. So why not have something in place while we're working on these other [maps and plans]?"

Planning Board member Gene Dziza said the only misconception is that the board is somehow dragging its feet because it's after the perfect planning document.

"We're not trying to write the Holy Grail of planning," he said. "We're just trying for something reasonable. It seems like we've gotten the directive from the public to take the time and do it right. That's all we're hearing - except from you and two commissioners."

The commissioners' efforts to speed up the growth-policy review are also somewhat at odds with their own pronouncements.

Russ Crowder, a frequent critic of commissioners Gary Hall and Joe Brenneman, quoted from a letter that Hall wrote to the Planning Board in May, after the board split its vote on the proposed 3,800-acre Riverdale Neighborhood Plan.

" 'I'm writing this in part to urge board members to take a more active role in processing plan amendments,' " Crowder read on Tuesday. " 'To hear a board member say, "Let's just let the commissioners deal with it," upset me to the point of wanting to reappoint the whole board. You can make this a legally defensible [neighborhood] plan. Our legal costs are breaking the county; if that isn't important to some of you, then we have a problem.' "

Given that the proposed growth policy leaves a number of questions unanswered about what individual landowners across the valley can do with their property, Crowder suggested that a great deal more time would be needed before the Planning Board can forward a "legally defensible" document to the commissioners.

On Wednesday, Hall said he didn't regret remanding the Riverdale proposal back to the board, but he did regret leaving the Oct. 15 date in a resolution Monday.

The resolution was simply a housekeeping item - drafted in response to a Planning Board request - that reiterated the commissioners' desire for the board to prepare a growth policy.

"When I saw the date in the resolution, I had a little heartburn," Hall said. "I wish I'd followed my instincts and taken the date out. I know the Planning Board is working hard on this and they're doing the best they can to try to get through this thing."

At the same time, the commissioners are concerned that the zoning moratorium will prompt litigation from developers who can't move forward with their projects. And the longer the moratorium continues, the more opportunity exists for that.

To date, the Planning Board has held four work sessions on the draft policy. It's reviewing the goals and policies one by one, together with the additions and changes contained in almost 500 pages of public comment.

The board has been getting through about 10 percent of the goals and policies per meeting. By the end of Tuesday's session, it had looked at about 40 percent of the document, having reached Goal 23 in the transportation section.

At this rate, it's marginally possible the board can get through all the goals and policies by the commissioners' requested Oct. 15 deadline. However, it hasn't addressed the text of the draft policy, much less debated the overall tenor of the document and whether it provides the type of guidance that the board thinks is appropriate.

The board will continue its review at 6 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday in the commissioners' hearing room.