County quashes large-tract zoning proposal
By a 2-1 vote with Joe Brenneman dissenting, the Flathead County commissioners put the kibosh on a proposed large tract rural zoning classification Tuesday morning.
The zoning would have given large landowners another option for developing their land by using conservation easements to increase density on a project. The new classification was intended to protect continued traditional natural resource-based uses in rural locations, but has been controversial because of density concerns, complexity of the proposal and the potential for unintended consequences.
Density would start at one single-family residence per 40 acres, but that could be reduced by putting open space under conservation easements and transferring density to a project site. Density would be capped at one unit per 2.5 acres, but developers submitting an overall development plan could be given one single-family residence per acre.
A group of about 20 people showed up to speak during the public hearing before the commissioners.
Commissioner Jim Dupont said he’d read the document two or three times and was “still somewhat confused on what it says or doesn’t say.”
Dupont said he could support large tract rural zoning if it was restricted to F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Co. or Plum Creek Timber Co. It costs too much for others to implement, he said.
Although Dupont said the document could be improved down the road, “I don’t feel right now we need this,” he said, before making a motion to reject it.
There are some ideas and situations that need to be looked at, Commissioner Dale Lauman said, noting a part dealing with off-site zoning gave him “a little heartburn.”
Much of the large landowners’ land doesn’t currently have zoning, but if they receive approval for large tract or other zoning, there would be benefits, Brenneman said. First, developments would be more likely to be approved if zoning exists, and secondly, a subdivision that is built with zoning is much more legally defensible, he maintained.
Although some members of the public complained about a lack of notice, including one farmer who just found out about it the day before, Brenneman noted there were 21 public meetings and two public hearings on the matter. Brenneman said he supports a public workshop on the document, but the other commissioners didn’t agree.
Planning Board Chairman Gordon Cross said the board has spent more time on large tract rural zoning in the five years he’s been on the board than anything else, except for the county growth policy and subdivision regulations.
“We’ve made some very major changes to it as a result of comments,” Cross said, calling it a balanced document. “I don’t know if it can be greatly improved because of the competing interests here.”
Plum Creek representative David Greer said large-tract rural zoning offers better choices than currently exist. Using 40-, 80-, and 120-acre agricultural zoning creates squares on the landscape, he said.
Robin Steinkraus of the Flathead Lakers said criteria for where subdivisions could be located is needed in the document. She wants 100-foot buffer zones for streams and wetlands, and a larger buffer than 100 feet for rivers.
Paul McKenzie of Stoltze said the company owns 38,000 acres, only 30 percent of which is zoned. It “has some tools in it that work for landowners in certain locations,” he said. He called it “a way the landowner can get some value for conservation easements.”
Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead called the proposal “anywhere, anything zoning.” The three largest landowners in the county — Plum Creek, Stoltze and Montana Forest Products — own 52 percent of the land, she said. Because it has a large potential impact, it “needs to go back to the drawing board.”
Reporter Caleb Soptelean may be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at csoptelean@dailyinterlake.com