Sifting through 'gravel'

The Flathead County Planning Board wrestled with a definition of "gravel extraction" for four hours on Wednesday before voting to recommend denial of the proposed definition.

The recommendation now goes to the county commissioners, who will decide what to do with applicant Gary Krueger's proposed text amendment for a definition that includes asphalt and concrete plants.

Krueger was given a conditional-use permit for a gravel-pit expansion in the West Valley Zoning District, but the permit limited post-extraction processing to screening, crushing and washing gravel. The Board of Adjustment earlier this year denied his request for a permit to operate a concrete batch plant on land adjacent to the permitted gravel pit.

He maintains the county needs a clear definition from the commissioners because the Planning Office previously determined that gravel extraction is not synonymous with extractive industries, based on a state Supreme Court ruling in 2008.

The Planning Board's long and arduous discussion began with a conundrum: what to do about a 2005 proposed definition that was taken under advisement by then-county Commissioners Gary Hall and Bob Watne in July 2006. Those commissioners delayed a decision, saying they needed more time to consider alternative definitions. Commissioner Joe Brenneman was absent for the vote.

But more than three years have come and gone and the 2005 application "is still out there to be rendered," Steve Vandehey told the board. "According to our own regulations, the process hasn't been completed."

The 2005 application for a text amendment was signed by Vandehey and listed Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth as the applicant.

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead agreed with Vandehey, saying it's unfortunate the initial proposed definition wasn't brought to the board's attention earlier, but that the application "deserves clear findings.

"The regulations and case law are clear," Flowers said. "The county commissioners were given the task for making a decision. A group of individuals paid to submit a text amendment [the application was signed June 27, 2005] for an issue that remains hot. Those residents should be treated with equal consideration, equal rights and a fair hearing."

Krueger said his due process is just as important and urged the Planning Board to move forward.

To add to the confusion, during the meeting Assistant Planning Director BJ Grieve retrieved the 2005 file from the Planning Office and later in the meeting - after the board had already voted on the definition and moved on to other business - noted that Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth had asked for the application to be withdrawn in June 2007.

Grieve planned to meet with county attorneys on Thursday about the implications of the earlier application.

Board member Charles Lapp pushed for moving forward with Krueger's proposed definition, saying the earlier amendment "is something the county commissioners need to deal with.

"If they made a mess, that's their problem," he said.

Board member Mike Mower took a more cautious approach, reminding board members how much work they had done on the Whitefish "doughnut" jurisdiction issue, only to have authority for the two-mile planning doughnut revert from county to city control while the Supreme Court rules on the case.

Board member Randy Toavs cut to the chase: "Either way, someone is suing."

A motion to wait with Krueger's amendment until the commissioners act on the 2006 amendment failed on a 4-4 tie vote, so the board proceeded to consider Krueger's proposed text amendment.

There's one big difference between the two proposed definitions, though. The 2006 amendment relates only to the West Valley zoning district; Krueger's proposal, if approved, would be applicable countywide.

THE BOARD spent two hours mulling findings of fact for Krueger's application, adding several new findings, among them a statement that it's the Planning Board's position that a definition for gravel extraction should take countywide needs into account, not just West Valley.

Then there was the issue of Krueger's written rebuttal to the planning staff report and comments on 12 of 15 findings of fact. At board chairman Gordon Cross' request, the planning staff had provided a written assessment of Krueger's rebuttal.

In the end, the board adopted the findings of fact and opted to include Krueger's rebuttal as an attachment.

After all that, the board couldn't reach a consensus on the proposed definition at hand and voted 5-3 to recommend denial.

The Planning Office also had recommended denial of Krueger's request, noting that the requested zoning amendment doesn't comply with the West Valley Neighborhood Plan because industrial asphalt and concrete processing activities are part of the proposed definition and are not permitted uses within the West Valley plan area because they're not accessory to agriculture or normal farm operations.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com