The Flathead County Commission voted 2-1 on Sept. 21 to turn down a new zoning classification that would allow large-tract landowners to create density-based zoning districts instead of lot-based districts.
The large-tract classification was intended to protect traditional natural resource-based uses in rural areas by promoting cluster development and overall development plans to maintain open space, according to the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office.
Natural resource-based uses include agricultural production, rock picking, gravel excavation and timber management.
Density standards would have placed one single-family residence per 40 acres on blocks of at least 320 acres of land. The density could be increased if landowners set aside off-site land for conservation easement.
The text amendment would not have created new, physical zoning districts, but would have been added to the list of possible zones landowners can pursue.
“What you have in front of you today is a text amendment, not a map amendment,” Interim Planning Director BJ Grieve told the commission. “This would just add an item to the menu.”
Any large-tract landowner seeking to implement the zoning would still have to go through the county’s hearing and approval process, county planner Allison Mouch said, and any property owners would receive notification if the zone were pursued on neighboring land.
However, the amendment received considerable opposition from members of the public present at the Sept. 21 meeting.
Bob Spoklie said he thought a new zoning classification would add an extra layer of bureaucracy for residents to cut through to use their own property.
“It seems like every time the government gets in the middle of things it gets longer and longer,” Spoklie said. “The hoops get harder to get through every year.”
Donna Thornton said she was concerned that the large-tract rural designation would lay the groundwork for countywide zoning on currently unzoned land. Property owners have no restrictions on unzoned land in Flathead County.
Mary Ann Applegate told the commission she thought the open space provision was a “regulatory taking of private property” that would further the interests of groups other than private property owners.
“This is a form of socialism,” Applegate said.
The amendment got support from Plum Creek Timber Company, whose representative, David Greer, said it would provide a more-flexible alternative to other available zones. Other districts create little squares of land, he said, whereas this amendment would allow for more open space.
Paul McKenzie of F.H. Stoltze and Land and Lumber said his company supports the amendment, but thought it would not be appropriate everywhere. Of the company’s 38,000 acres, only 30 percent is zoned, he said, and he would not support countywide zoning.
However, if zoning were mandatory, the large-tract classification would be helpful, he said.
“If I had to, this would be a zone I might be interested in,” McKenzie said.
The Flathead County Planning Board endorsed the large-tract amendment, and board member Gordon Cross told the commissioners the board probably spent more time on this amendment in the past five years than any other.
“I think that what we’ve produced here is a balanced response” to all points of view, Cross said.
Several audience members told the commission they had not been provided with adequate public notice of the new amendment, but Commissioner Joe Brenneman pointed out there had been 21 public meetings and two public hearings.
Commissioner Dale Lauman said he had “a little heartburn” about the idea of off-site density, and the idea of guiding landowners toward putting their land under the control of a land trust or government agency in a conservation easement.
Commissioner Jim Dupont said he was still unsure what the amendment would do if implemented.
“I think down the road, certainly this could be improved,” Dupont said.
Brenneman said that while he would not vote in favor of the amendment in its current state, he did not want to throw out a year and a half’s worth of work and suggested a commissioners’ workshop on the document.
Lauman and Dupont disagreed, and voted to reject the amendment, 2-1, with Brenneman dissenting.