Planning explained

To the editor,

From what I have read in recent letters to the editor, there seems to be some confusion as to the role of the county planning board and the procedures the board follows. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the process.

Every member of the planning board is required to take an oath to the United States and Montana Constitutions. This is a recognition of the important role assigned individual property rights under our system of governance. Beyond that, there is an extensive body of land-use law, the purpose of which is to severely limit the police power of the state, or in this case county government, to further ensure that those individual property rights are protected.

In its simplest terms, the police power of the county is limited to only taking those actions necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare when considering restricting the use of private property.

Before a proposal is brought before the county planning board, it has already undergone an extensive review process by the county planning department. The role of the "citizen" planning board is to hold a public hearing, review all relevant evidence pertaining to the proposal, then make a recommendation to the county commission. The board may recommend denial, approval or, as is often the case, approval with conditions.

When a property owner brings a proposal to the county, conditions for approval may be added by the county planning staff, the planning board, or the ultimate decision-making authority, the county commission. If these conditions are neither arbitrary nor capricious, and they meet what the courts term as "the test of reasonableness," this is the exercise of the legitimate police power of the county in its effort to protect the public interest.

Before any property owner is denied the use of his property because of concerns dealing with public health, safety or the general welfare, the question is always this: Can these concerns be addressed and mitigated through the imposition of conditions for approval? Most major land-use proposals eventually brought before the county commission for their consideration will have from 15 to 30 conditions for approval added as the proposal has moved through the process.

To the uninitiated, the process might seem to be weighed heavily on the side of the property owner making the proposal. Some of us would argue that is as it should be, given the important role individual property rights play in sustaining the blessing of liberty. The most recent criticism I have seen in this regard, however, seems to be directed at the board's rebuttal policy.

It should be known that this policy is based on long established legal principle, just as a prosecutor in a courtroom is given the last word to the jury before it begins its deliberations. This is because, by law, they both bear the burden-of-proof and deserve the opportunity to respond to all the testimony given, some of which may or may not have been accurate, relevant or truthful. It is a policy and a principle of basic fairness.

As with any government action that has the potential of affecting the lives of many people, when the final gavel falls some people leave extremely happy and convinced that as a board we exhibit the wisdom of Solomon, while others storm out convinced they have just witnessed the rebirth of Hitler's "peoples court."

Jeff Larsen

Flathead County Planning Board