Board: Progress was made during setback workshop

Despite a discontented crowd and a number of audience outbursts, the Flathead County Planning Board managed to make headway on riparian setbacks during a subdivision regulation workshop Thursday night.

The meeting was attended by nearly 40 people, some expecting the opportunity to give their comments prior to any board decisions.

Gordon Cross, who was acting as board chairman in Gene Dziza's absence, began the meeting by notifying the group that contrary to the printed agenda, public comment would be held at the end of the three-hour meeting.

At the initial setback workshop Oct. 18, public comment was taken until the end of the three-hour meeting. The board decided those comments were sufficient and closed public comment at the end of that meeting.

A good portion of those attending Thursday's workshop left upon finding out the board would not take public comment until the end of its discussion.

Even more members of the public left when a brand-new setback proposal was introduced by Cross.

Taking previous public comments into consideration, Cross drafted a new set of setback regulations and e-mailed it to Planning Board members prior to Thursday's workshop. The proposed language was in large part borrowed from setback regulations in Missoula County.

Some people attending the meeting said they felt it was unfair for the board to discuss a proposal that had not been reviewed by the public.

Charles Lapp, a local developer and former member of the Planning Board, later said: "If we are expected to comment, we need to know what we are commenting on."

But Lapp also said that introducing new proposals the night of the workshop has been common practice at many of the subdivision workshops, which have taken place every other week since this summer.

Lapp, who has attended all the workshops, said this example was simply more dramatic due to the sensitive nature of the issue and the public's interest.

"But they could've handled it differently," Lapp said.

Planning Director Jeff Harris said he felt Cross' last-minute proposal was "totally appropriate."

Harris also said that he thought the new proposal was a good one and would be a great deal more flexible than the last one.

Like the original proposal, Cross' proposal included set numeric distances from different-size rivers: 250 feet for the four main rivers in the valley, 200 feet for smaller rivers and 100 feet for perennial streams.

The proposals involve how far structures would be required to be set back from local waterways.

But unlike the old proposal, Cross' proposed language included an option for developers to submit a "riparian resource management plan" along with their subdivision application, rather than adhering to one-size-fits-all setback distances.

The management plan would include a site map showing buffer areas, drainage, slope, topography, riparian resources, associated flood plains and vegetation. It also would include a mitigation plan outlining how the area would be restored or enhanced.

A maintenance and monitoring plan also would be required, outlining how the riparian area would be cared for after occupancy.

One major policy left out of the newly proposed regulations involved exempting areas within municipal sewer districts. The old proposal stated, "Areas within a municipal sewer service district providing sewer service to proposed subdivisions are exempt from setback requirements."

This policy would affect areas such as Bigfork, Lakeside and Evergreen.

By the end of Thursday's workshop, the Planning Board had worked through nearly half of the document. When the workshop continues in two weeks, many more changes will likely be made to the proposed setback regulations.

Harris speculated that the board could add the municipal sewer exemption policy back in, but that he expected they would amend it to include minimal setbacks rather than none.

Representatives from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks spoke during the workshop about the science behind setbacks.

Wade Fredenberg of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded to a number of comments made at the Oct. 18 workshop.

"The idea that there is no science behind setbacks is complete hogwash," he said.

Fredenberg and Mark Deleray of Fish, Wildlife and Parks both said the science of setbacks are based on hundreds of studies.

Their main point: The larger the setbacks, the more is protected.

Deleray and Fredenberg also compared the two approaches to setbacks. They said that the standardized approach, appointing one distance for each river, is easy to understand and inexpensive to administer. But a standardized approach does not take into account individual situations and it may not protect enough in some cases.

As for the site-specific approach to setbacks, its strengths include taking a number of important factors, such as soil type, slope and stream type, into account when deciding on a setback distance.

Fredenberg said, "If we can come up with something that meets on some common ground, then that would be a big step forward."

The next subdivision regulation workshop on Nov. 15 will continue discussion of riparian setback proposals. The board will not take public comment on the setback issue.

Reporter Amy May can be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at amay@dailyinterlake.com