Commissioners OK disputed greenbelt zoning

The zoning classification for 16 parcels of property along U.S. 93 north of Kalispell officially was changed by Flathead County commissioners to the new business highway greenbelt zone.

Although the county has stipulated as part of a lawsuit to take no action on the greenbelt zone until a judge rules on the lawsuit, the zone change was finalized.

Deputy Flathead County Attorney Peter Steele said "nothing can be done" on the 16 parcels now zoned as business highway greenbelt until the litigation is resolved.

By law, county commissioners must act on their intent to approve a resolution for zone changes within 30 days after a zone change protest period expires.

The deadline in this case would have been Feb. 18.

If commissioners had taken no action, the zone change essentially would have been denied, although state law is not specific about what happens if a commission fails to act in that 30-day window, Deputy Flathead County Attorney Tara Fugina said.

The zone change still could end up being overturned, depending on the outcome of a lawsuit filed against the county by Citizens for a Better Flathead and Sharon DeMeester.

They sued the county seeking to remove the highway greenbelt zone classification from the county's zoning offerings and to overturn the zone change for these 16 properties. At the time they filed the lawsuit, the zone change hadn't been finalized.

Before voting to change the zoning, commissioners were briefed by county Planning Director BJ Grieve. Grieve pointed out that 306 protests regarding the zone change were submitted to the county.

However, he said, most of the protesters don't live within the U.S. 93 North Zoning District. If 40 percent of the property owners in a zoning district oppose a zone change in that district, commissioners are prohibited from implementing the change. The U.S. 93 North zoning district has 1,069 addresses, Grieve said. Forty percent of that number is 467.

"We did not receive protests from 40 percent of the real property owners in the district," Grieve said.

All three county commissioners said the majority of the protests came from people outside the zoning district.

Commissioner Jim Dupont said people who protest a zone change "need to have some skin in the game to protest, under our rules of engagement. That doesn't always get said."

Dupont said the business highway greenbelt zone classification is an asset to the county and provides better options than other existing business zones.

Commissioner Dale Lauman reiterated comments commissioners have made previously in support of the greenbelt zone.

"The perception out there is that this would allow strip malls along all county roads," Lauman said, but that option already exists in much of Flathead County, he said.

Flathead County has many more miles of unzoned highways than zoned highways, Grieve said.

"People can break ground on a strip mall on an unzoned highway tomorrow," he said.

Meanwhile, no decision is expected on the lawsuit for several more months.

District Judge David Ortley has agreed to issue a summary judgment on the matter sometime after an April 30 hearing. Attorneys for the county, the plaintiffs and the intervenors - who are the affected property owners - have been directed by Ortley to file briefs for his review before that hearing.

Last year the county Planning Board recommended the commissioners approve the zone change for the 16 parcels.

However, the Planning Board initially opposed the creation of the new zone, which commissioners chose to create anyway last summer.

DeMeester and the citizens group oppose the zone classification and zone change because they say it is inconsistent with the county's growth policy. At a December commissioners' meeting, DeMeester said the new zone would allow "almost unlimited commercial development along roads in Flathead County."

About 10 people spoke against the zone change for the U.S. 93 properties during a December public hearing before commissioners. Most cited the adverse effects on their neighborhood if more commercial development takes place near their homes.

Marilyn Noonan, one of the property owners who applied for the zone change, countered that significant commercial development already exists in the highway corridor.

The 16 affected parcels cover 64 acres and are located generally between Ponderosa Lane and Autumn Court.

When giving the zone change initial approval, commissioners removed four parcels from consideration because those lots didn't front U.S. 93.

Reporter Shelley Ridenour may be reached at 758-4439 or sridenour@dailyinterlake.com.