Asphalt, concrete plans OK'd

The Flathead County commissioners on Thursday approved a zoning text amendment that will include asphalt and concrete plants in the county’s definition of gravel extraction.

The commissioners’ 2-1 vote — with Democrat Joe Brenneman voting against the amendment — is contrary to recommendations for denial by both the Planning Office and Planning Board.

Commissioner Dale Lauman said it’s time to resolve the gravel issue by adopting a definition, even if it’s not perfect. If it doesn’t work, then the county could make changes later, he said.

Commissioner Jim Dupont, who cast the other vote in favor of the definition, said it just doesn’t make sense to extract gravel from one location and have it processed at another. Dupont and Lauman are both Republicans.

West Valley resident Gary Krueger asked for the text amendment after the County Board of Adjustment last year denied his request for a permit to operate a concrete batch plant on land adjacent to his permitted gravel pit in the West Valley Zoning District.

“This is not an us versus them thing. It’s about a definition for Flathead County,” Krueger said after Thursday’s public hearing. “This is not a land-use issue; it’s a policy issue. And the lack of a definition has led to costly legal battles.”

Krueger said he doesn’t expect to proceed immediately with an application for a batch plant. Given the soft economy, he’ll weigh his options carefully.

Tammi Fisher, Krueger’s attorney, told the commissioners that a countywide definition for gravel extraction is what the state Supreme Court has asked for. It can be applied in other zoning districts with neighborhood plans that address gravel operations, such as the North Fork, Canyon, Riverdale and Bigfork plans, she maintained.

“The Board of Adjustment continues to have conditional authority for any impacts,” Fisher said. “That maintains checks and balances.”

But Planning Director Jeff Harris said the zoning amendment essentially applies only to West Valley.

“Only one district defines gravel use and that’s West Valley,” Harris said.

Deputy County Attorney Jonathan Smith agreed, saying “unless gravel extraction is a permitted use in other [zoning] districts, then it only applies to West Valley.”

Testimony fell on both sides of the issue. The Montana Contractors Association and Knife River sent written letters in support of the amendment. A local truck driver supported the proposal, as did another resident who worked at a gravel-pit processing facility.

Planning Board members Charles Lapp and Jeff Larsen also supported Krueger’s amendment, along with gravel-pit owner Bruce Tutvedt.

“I’ve been at the core of the issue,” Tutvedt said. “It’s a simple policy issue and should be decided here... the Board of Adjustment still has the right to condition” gravel pits.

Tutvedt pointed out that gravel-pit operations already are subject to state environmental review and oversight from the Department of Environmental Quality.

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead said the decision by Dupont and Lauman over the objection of Brenneman “opens the door to the haphazard siting of asphalt and contrete plants anywhere in the county and fails to reasonably balance and protect the property rights of the majority of Flathead County residents.”

 Flowers noted that 80 percent of county residents own less than five acres and 62 percent own less than one acre.

“These families’ greatest financial investment is their home,” she said. “The issue is not about opposing the gravel industry,” she said. “It’s about reasonable and fair balance” and establishing gravel facilities where they’re most appropriate. “We need a solution that balances private property rights and the need for industrial uses in our community.”

Flowers said afterwards that the public needs to realize the commissioners’ decision is appealable by referendum.

“It is time to put this issue to a vote of the residents of Flathead County through a grassroots public initiative ballot process,” she said.

West Valley resident Clara LaChappelle said she’s frustrated because residents’ concerns seem to fall on deaf ears.

“We in West Valley are not being listened to,” she said. “The District Court deemed us a residential area and the Supreme Court backed them up, but the little person is nothing.”

Scott Wheeler, another West Valley resident, said he’s concerned about potential degradation to water resources in the area from asphalt and concrete plants. Air quality also needs to be considered, he said.

Sharon DeMeester wondered if the new definition would set a precedent for a gravel pit at West Glacier. Property values in gravel-producing neighborhoods was another of her concerns.

The Planning Office maintained the zoning amendment doesn’t comply with the West Valley Neighborhood Plan because industrial asphalt and concrete processing activities are part of the proposed definition but aren’t permitted uses within the West Valley plan 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