Draft 'wrong in so many ways'

Proposed subdivision regulations get public spanking at four-hour hearing

Flathead County's draft subdivision regulations received a largely negative reception during a four-hour public hearing Wednesday.

More than 100 people attended the meeting, which took place before the three county commissioners. Most either spoke against the draft or applauded others who did.

Lack of public involvement was cited as a major concern by many speakers.

Although a handful of surveyors, engineers and specialists were invited to provide input on the new regulations more than a year ago, much of the document was written in isolation. It wasn't released for public review until the end of February.

"We don't like this fast-track [process]," said Clarence Taber. "We don't like the speed this is going. A lot of people are upset. If [county residents] are going to have something we own, then we need to work on it together."

"You worry about lawsuits, but if you ram this through the way it's proposed, you'll be assured of lawsuits," said Fred Hodgeboom. "There's no way anyone can read this and understand how it differs from the existing regulations. We deserve to understand what changes are being proposed, and why the planning staff thinks this is the best way to go about achieving compliance with the growth policy."

County officials said the reason the draft is being brought forward so quickly is because state law requires subdivision regulations to be in compliance with the growth policy.

"The existing regulations don't comply with the [new] growth policy or meet state statutes, so holding off for six months isn't an option," said Commissioner Joe Brenneman.

Several speakers questioned whether that's really the case.

Former Flathead County Planning Board member Charles Lapp, for example, noted that state law also requires neighborhood plans to be in compliance with the growth policy - yet none of the county's existing neighborhood plans are fully compliant with the new growth policy.

The Planning Board and commissioners addressed that issue by inserting a statement in the policy that says existing plans will remain in force until they're brought into compliance.

Lapp and others questioned why that same thing couldn't be done with the subdivision regulations.

Moreover, current Planning Board member Gordon Cross questioned whether the draft regulations are truly compliant, given that they were written before work on the growth policy was completed.

Cross also was concerned that so little effort was being invested in the subdivision regulations, whereas dozens of meetings and multiple public hearings were held on the nonregulatory growth policy.

"What we basically have now is a first draft," he said.

Kalispell land-use attorney Ken Kalvig agreed, noting that the Planning Board and commissioners spent several months working on the growth policy and revising it to address issues raised by the public.

"People tonight are overwhelmingly saying they aren't happy [with the draft subdivision regulations]," Kalvig said. "So please take the time and do this right. This is important stuff."

Not everyone was unhappy that the regulations went too far. About a fifth of the 45 speakers said the regulations didn't go far enough, particularly about water quality.

"Property rights don't include the right to pollute our water," said Linda Winnie. "I'd like to thank the Planning Office for providing some clear standards that will serve as a guide to development and to protect the natural resources that are so important to us."

One area Winnie did find fault with was the section on stream setbacks and buffer zones. It currently says setbacks "may be required," but doesn't indicate when or what size they should be. She encouraged the commissioners to set a clear, numerical standard.

Wade Fredenberg with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the exact size of the setback can be discussed, but the need for setbacks is beyond debate.

"There are no shortcuts to protecting stream corridors," he said. "We're interested in participating in more discourse, to try and come up with a standard we can all live with."

Many of the comments Wednesday were general in nature. There also were multiple threats of litigation or political reprisals, as well as complaints that the draft regulations were unreasonable and onerous.

Concerns were raised about the impact they might have on affordable housing. There were also several calls for removing any ambiguous language in the draft, so the regulations can be interpreted clearly and consistently.

"Make sure you don't approve a document that lets people use their personal views to decide what can or can't happen in Flathead County," urged Donna Thornton.

Overall, people seemed to think the proposed regulations need a lot more work.

"These are a train wreck," said Johna Morrison of the draft. "They aren't in compliance with state law, and there will be lawsuits. We need to take more time and have more public meetings."

Bigfork businessman Bill Myers said it might be easier to just start over.

"This document is wrong in so many ways, you don't need to wait for further review," he said. "It needs to be thrown out."

The commissioners took no action Wednesday. They're scheduled to consider the draft April 9.

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