County hears from both sides on setbacks

Another hearing scheduled Oct. 30

By JOHN STANG/Daily Inter Lake

Government land grab or a needed protection of water quality?

Both views came through loud and clear Thursday at the Flathead County commissioner's hearing on whether to order setbacks on construction along the area's rivers and streams.

'I believe these arbitrary setbacks are being used as an excuse to steal people's property," Jeff Larson told the commissioners.

But Wade Fredenberg, representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, maintained the regulations are based on 'good sound science."

The commissioners will hold a second hearing at 6 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 30, at Flathead Valley Community College's Arts and Technology Building. At a later date, the commissioners will discuss the proposed setbacks and vote on them.

The county adopted most of its revisions to subdivision regulations in August 2007.

A year ago the property-rights organization American Dream Montana sued the county to contest the new subdivision regulations -Êalleging they are an illegal confiscation of land. Then the group put the lawsuit on hold until the commissioners act on the setback regulations, with the idea of amending the litigation at that time.

Meanwhile, the regulations on streamside setbacks remain unresolved and now are being considered by the commissioners. These setbacks are supposed to apply only to lands to be subdivided.

After scrutinizing numerous studies and receiving public input, the county planning staff and board tried to achieve a middle ground in the setbacks recommended by various scientists.

Proposed setback widths will be measured from the high-water mark to the edge of the 100-year flood plain as shown on a Federal Emergency Management Agency map or:

n The Flathead River and its three forks, Stillwater River, Whitefish River and Swan River, would have 250-foot setbacks with 100-foot vegetative buffers.

n Ashley Creek (from Smith Lake to the Flathead River) and the Fisher River would have 200-foot setbacks with 75-foot vegetative buffers.

n All other streams would have 60-foot setbacks with 50-foot vegetative buffers.

Because of public complaints about a 'one size fits all" policy, the county is proposing a riparian management plan that would allow a developer to request some flexibility with setback requirements.

Twenty-six people spoke of the roughly 50 people at Thursday's hearing. Fifteen opposed the proposed setbacks, and 10 supported them. One speaker's stand could not be determined.

Organizations opposing the proposed setbacks included American Dream Montana, the Flathead Building Association, Flathead Business and Industry Association and the Northwest Montana Association of Realtors.

Supporters included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana Conservation Voters, Flathead Lakers, Flathead Basin Commission and Citizens for a Better Flathead.

The opponent's main points included:

n A strongly felt view that the setbacks would take away control of their own lands, and essentially would turn those plots into government-controlled preserves.

n Feelings that the regulations would be a 'one-size-fits-all" law, when subdivided streamside lands should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

n Complaints that the proposed county setbacks are greater and stricter than the corresponding state laws.

n Contentions that the science behind the proposed setbacks should be re-examined.

'I don't think these hard-to-meet regulations are going to make a better product in the end," Charles Lapp said.

David Brant said: 'I look at it as condemnation without compensation."

A.V. Salyer, who described the proposed regulations as socialism, said 'if it isn't in the state law, you don't have the right. … I don't want the county commissioners telling me what to do on 250 [streamfront] feet of my property."

Supporter's main points included:

n Huge numbers of studies back the proposed setbacks.

n The water quality in the streams need strong protection for ecological, quality-of-life and tourism reasons.

n The proposed revisions include some flexibility for case-by case approaches.

n Wildlife tends to move along streams, and the buffers are needed to help that movement.

'We think you're on the right track," Richard Siderius told the commissioners.

Loren Kreck argued that the setbacks are needed to prevent development from slowly chipping away at the quality of water in streams.

'These things are lost incrementally -Êone at a time," Kreck said.

Karen Reeves cited a previous speaker who wanted to be able to build on a portion of his land in a flood plain.

'The problem is [the commissioners would] get sued if you approve a subdivision, and it gets flooded down the road."

Reporter John Stang may be reached at 758-4429 or by e-mail at jstang@dailyinterlake.com

Dont Delete unless your sure!!!