The Flathead County Planning Board voted 4-2 to recommend approval for the latest version of the updated Lakeside neighborhood plan this week, marking a significant step forward for the contentious document.
A crowd of nearly 70 people filled the planning board’s meeting room at the Earl Bennett Building in Kalispell on Sept. 15 to comment on the plan and hear the board’s decision.
Updating the plan has been a three-year process so far, beginning in 2007. The version of the plan approved last week is the 27th iteration, county planner Andrew Hagemeier said.
County commissioners adopted Lakeside’s neighborhood plan in 1995. It has remained the same since then, despite changing conditions and growth in the area. Plan revisions began after the county adopted its growth policy three years ago. State law requires that all neighborhood plans be consistent with the growth policy.
The process has been controversial, prompting at least one lawsuit from landowners in Lakeside and Somers seeking to stop the plan and resulting in several tense public meetings.
However, Lakeside Community Council Chairman Keith Brown told the planning board last week he is confident the latest version of the plan has broad support within the community and that it was developed through open communication.
“It’s been a very good process, not without controversy, but I believe the controversy has been dealt with in a good and ethical manner,” Brown said.
He noted that signs of support and opposition were printed up and available for crowd members to wave in approval or disapproval during the meeting.
Those speaking in support of the plan said it is the result of hours of listening and compromise. Lakeside resident Lona Santana said the volunteer committee charged with updating the document spoke with developers, landowners and those who would prefer to see no growth at all.
“It was all healthy debate,” Santana said. “It’s a middle-of-the-road approach.”
Representatives from the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and Plum Creek Timber Company also spoke in favor of the updated plan.
Those opposed to the neighborhood plan, however, argued that it would allow for high-density growth in the future and that the area could not support such expansion.
Mayre Flowers, executive director of Citizens for a Better Flathead, said the development possible in the plan would be too dense and it should be sent back to committee for closer consideration.
Other plan opponents, including Mark Unruh, said they considered the updated version as a taking of private property.
Unruh said he lives on the northern fringe of the plan, which spans from the Lake County line to Spring Creek Road and from Flathead Lake’s shore to U.S. Forest Service boundaries.
He said he bought his property because there was no zoning or covenants in place.
“I’ve been a pretty good steward of my property. I’m against this plan. I think it takes way too much control of private property,” Unruh said.
Board member James Heim said he supported “version 27” of the plan and also stressed that it is a non-regulatory document.
“I think it’s time to move ahead. It’s not cast in concrete. It doesn’t make anything happen,” Heim said. “It’s just a guide, it’s a vision. I think it’s an outstanding document.”
Board member Mike Mower agreed, saying he was not concerned about sprawling growth because there are other safeguards in place to approve development.
Mower, Heim, Gordon Cross and Marie Hickey-AuClaire voted to approve the plan. Bob Keenan and Charles Lapp voted against it. Frank DeKort, Marc Pitman and Jeff Larsen were not present.
The Lakeside neighborhood plan now moves forward to the Flathead County Commission. The commissioners can choose to have another public hearing, but are not required to. Once the commission makes a decision, there will be a 30-day comment period, at the end of which the commissioners can choose whether to adopt the plan or not.