Vote on Bigfork land plan delayed

Non-regulatory advice or illegal fake government?

Both interpretations surfaced Wednesday at a hearing on the proposed Bigfork neighborhood plan.

The Flathead County Planning Board decided to delay detailed discussion and a vote on the plan until March 25.

Flathead County has several neighborhood plans for built-up unincorporated areas.

These plans are essentially guidelines from which neighborhood land-use advisory committees make non-binding recommendations on land uses to the Planning Board. The Planning Board then makes recommendations to the county commissioners.

The Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee has taken about four years to get its recommended plan for the unincorporated village area to the Planning Board. That time included a local survey, numerous area meetings and feedback from the Planning Board.

On Wednesday, three people spoke against the proposed neighborhood plan, saying it delves too deeply into lighting, parks, architecture, views, excavations, compatible uses and land uses. They argued the neighborhood plan is essentially a set of rules rather than recommendations.

Bigfork business owner Bill Myers contended that the neighborhood plan allows a few people to dictate Bigfork's character according to their personal tastes.

"Who decides what's compatible? Again, it's 'the good taste society,'" Myers said.

Columbia Falls contractor Charles Lapp said the proposed plan would give governing powers to the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee.

"This plan was written with the thought that Bigfork is a governing body of its own," Lapp said.

Until January, Lapp was a part-time government affairs director for the Flathead Building Association until he was replaced by George Culpepper Jr., who was appointed to the Planning Board in December.

Russ Crowder, president of the property-rights organization American Dream Montana, said: "Many recommendations are framed as requirements that illegally restrict use of private property. … It's gonna be a lawyers' full-employment act."

Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee members countered that the plan's guidelines are non-binding on the Planning Board and county commissioners.

Shelley Gonzales, chairwoman of the Bigfork organization's plan-drafting committee, said: " We're not making people comply with anything. We're just making suggestions."

She noted that the proposed plan has gone through some recent heavily attended public workshops.

"Now at the 11th hour, we have people who don't live in Bigfork saying they don't like the Bigfork plan. I feel like we're being bullied." Gonzales said.

Committee member Paul Guerrant said: "We go by county law, not our law."

Planning Board members split on whether the plan was ready to be voted on, needed changing or should be sent back to the Bigfork committee for more work.

Culpepper argued that the plan has numerous questions, inaccuracies and needed more work - and that it would open the county government to lawsuits.

He said that guidelines to discourage some manufactured homes are discriminatory. "My opinion is they don't want low-income families in Bigfork, and that's a problem," Culpepper said.

Board members Marc Pitman, James Heim and Mike Mower said Bigfork residents have the right to say what should go in a non-binding plan for their area - and that the Planning Board is not obligated to follow it when Bigfork land-use matters come before the board.

"It's their planning document. It's their ownership," Pitman said.

Mower said: "It isn't a mandate to do something. It's a philosophy. They're not going to get sued for what is in here. … We've got a lot of neighborhood plans out there, and this is one of the best."

Board members Frank DeKort, Mower and Heim wanted to vote on the neighborhood plan Wednesday.

But the other six board members wanted to delay until March 25 so each could study the plan and have questions lined up for that date.

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