Board approves West Valley gravel pit … again

The Flathead County Board of Adjustment voted 3-1 Tuesday night to approve a conditional-use permit for a gravel pit in West Valley.

Board member Tony Sagami voted in opposition, and the board's fifth member, Mark Hash, recused himself from the meeting.

The gravel pit, owned by Bruce Tutvedt, has been the source of a lengthy neighborhood dispute, legal fighting and has forced the county to rewrite language in its zoning regulations.

The Tutvedt Family Trust was first issued a conditional-use permit for a 320-acre gravel pit in June 2005. The permit allowed for crushing and screening as part of the operations. A request to include asphalt and concrete batch plants was denied by the board.

Controversy grew due to the distinction between terms "gravel extraction" and "extractive industries" found in the West Valley Neighborhood Plan and the county's zoning regulations. The terms existed without definitions.

Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth filed suit to challenge the board's decision to issue the conditional-use permit, saying that crushing was not allowed under the neighborhood plan. Citizens also argued that the West Valley Zoning District was a residential area and therefore banned gravel pits.

Tutvedt also sued over the board's decision to deny asphalt and concrete batch plants.

District Court ruled in favor of the board and found that the conditional-use permit was issued correctly. Subsequent motions by Citizens and Tutvedt were denied, and both parties appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.

On Jan. 3, the Supreme Court issued its ruling that reaffirmed the District Court ruling, which stated the Board of Adjustment had the power to prohibit the batch plants.

The court also found that the board failed to address numerous issues including:

. The distinction between "gravel extraction" and "extractive industries" as it applies to crushing operations.

. Whether the gravel pit operation was an "industrial use" or incidental to normal farm operations.

. Impacts to traffic and the road system.

. Impacts to water quality.

The court ruled that the conditional-use permit was unreasonable and that the board had abused its discretion due to a lack of findings on traffic, roads and water quality.

The case was then remanded back to District Court. On May 19, District Court ordered that the board adopt findings of fact related to gravel terms, traffic, roads and water quality.

The battle returned to the West Valley on July 29, when the West Valley Land Use Advisory Committee listened to Tutvedt's application. The meeting turned into a marathon session, and left some West Valley residents complaining of mismanaged public comment and of collusion between Tutvedt and advisory committee chairman Gary Krueger.

Krueger also runs a pit in the West Valley.

"That's just what you're going to hear from people who don't know the integrity of the people they are talking about," Krueger said Tuesday.

Krueger also said his board did a better job of handling all the information than the Board of Adjustment.

"West Valley had it right," he said. "We said there shouldn't be any conditions that the findings of fact don't support."

Attorney Tammi Fisher, who represented Tutvedt, argued at Tuesday's meeting that the board should not be adding any conditions and that neither the Supreme Court nor the District Court ordered more conditions.

"I implore you to follow the court order," Fisher said. "You're not trying to expand the conditional-use permit. You're just trying to fix the issues."

Fisher also argued that most of the nine additional conditions were illegal, already regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality or beyond the scope of the county's regulations.

The board felt that Tutvedt had met the courts' order by supplying studies on roads, traffic and water quality. The only real issue of contention arose when board member Sagami pointed out that the road study included just one core sample from West Valley Drive, which led him to vote against the permit.

Public comment went back and forth between those who supported the pit and those who opposed the pit. A large contingent of employees who work for Schellinger Construction, which operates out of the Tutvedt pit, told the board that the gravel pit meant good-paying jobs for a lot of county citizens.

Drivers for the company also touted their history of safe driving.

West Valley resident Clara LaChapelle, who has been a vocal critic of Tutvedt throughout the process, presented photos of Schellinger trucks that she said proved the pit was a safety hazard.

LaChapelle said the trucks take up the whole road when making turns, and she has accused the drivers of blowing through stop signs and running people off the road.

Schellinger has not been ticketed for any traffic violation in West Valley.

In her lengthy statement, LaChapelle complained of dust, illegal operation during off-hours, water quality problems, breakdown of the roads and loss of wildlife.

Other West Valley residents spoke out against the pit, saying the issue was not about good jobs or the availability of gravel but about homeowners having to deal with gravel pit operations.

Tutvedt said that of the 12 people who live on property bordering his pit, only two were against it.

David Blasdel is one of the supportive neighbors.

"Growth gives people the chance to stay here and make a living," he said. "We can't help but grow in the West Valley. We're in an area where the gravel is at."

Blasdel also said that the Schellinger drivers were some of the best he's seen.

Flathead County Planning Board member Gene Dziza also spoke in favor of the pit.

"We own a house on Church Drive, and we're OK with it," Dziza said.

Some residents, including West Valley Land Use Advisory Committee member Mark Schwager, argued that the area's neighborhood plan does not allow for the pit.

Although the plan does ban industrial uses except those related to normal farming operations, gravel extraction is explicitly listed as a conditional use in the West Valley.

A survey taken in 1996, which helped guide the neighborhood plan, also showed that about 75 percent of the respondents said sand and gravel pits were an acceptable land use within the community.

Few people left the Tuesday meeting satisfied. West Valley residents were upset that the board granted the permit, and Tutvedt was upset over the additional conditions. Rumblings of further litigation began before the room was empty.

"This has to come to rest at some point," Fisher said.

Reporter Michael Richeson may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at mricheson@dailyinterlake.com