County growth policy update begins

Water quality and a need to keep development closer to cities surfaced as key concerns as Flathead County got a jump-start on updating its growth policy Wednesday night.

The county is required to update the policy every five years. The current growth policy was adopted in March 2007, which gives the county 17 months until the five-year mark in 2012.

 The Flathead County Planning Board held a public workshop Wednesday to take comments on areas they believe need updating.

Eight people spoke during public comment.

Several residents suggested directing growth to certain areas of the county instead of having growth countywide, and a couple want the county transportation plan implemented.

Dave Brant said he has been ranching between Kila and Marion since 1968. He wants to “try to contain development on the fringes” by giving incentives for development closer to cities and towns. Brant noted development on the south side of Mount Haskill northeast of Whitefish, for example, is an area that’s very difficult for police, fire vehicles and school buses to access.

“You folks are saddled with a tough call” in terms of private property rights, he said. “It’s certainly something that needs to be addressed.” Brant suggested the county “work on strong-arming Plum Creek from doing its development.”

Richard Siderius of Kalispell asked for more restrictions on waterfront development.

At the very least, the county should not let the current growth policy be diluted, he said.

Edd Blackler of Bigfork asked for protection of water and the aquifer, and suggested creation of a regional sewer facility.

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead is concerned about the effect proposed changes to subdivision regulations will have on water quality. She also would like the county to encourage cluster development on agricultural lands and strengthen access to public land.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks representative John Vore asked for more specific guidance on subdivision applications. Additionally, the county should strive to work out differences between conflicting goals and policies.

Noting the policy contains goals, county Board of Adjustment member Gary Krueger said the policy “is of little reference value in land-use planning.” He wants the policy to be more educational about the process for changing zoning.

“The public needs to understand why” various boards make decisions, Krueger added.

Planning Board Chairman Gordon Cross said one of the board’s two standing committees will take the public comments and form a scope of work. That document will be brought to the Planning Board in the future, and eventually be forwarded to the county commissioners for review.

Cross noted that maps need to be updated as part of the process.

County Planning Director BJ Grieve noted the committee meetings will be posted on the county website.

Reporter Caleb Soptelean may be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at cspotelean@dailyinterlake.com