Bigfork Plan hits a snag at planning board

The Flathead County Planning Board decided last Wednesday to send the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan through a workshop process before discussing and voting on the document. The workshop was scheduled for June 25.

The long delay before the workshop session was decided on because the planning board will vote on whether to remove a contentious bit of language for the Flathead County Zoning regulations on June 11 and the outcome of that decision could affect any changes made to the plan.

Issues concerning that language were brought up during the public comment period by Charles Lapp, a Columbia Falls developer who served on the planning board in the past.

The regulation confusion surrounds a recent Montana Supreme Court decision concerning a proposed gravel pit in West Valley. In its decision, the court ruled that when a neighborhood plan document is more restrictive than county regulations, the more restrictive policy governs. That decision causes confusion because neighborhood plans have historically been interpreted to be "mini-growth policies", according to assistant planning director BJ Grieve. And growth policies are non-regulatory documents.

Gene Dziza, a member of the planning board, said the Bigfork Plan was the best he's seen and that the process undertaken to gain public input and the special care taken to notify all landowners who's property might have its designation changed.

"I really like the plan," Dziza said. "It just needs a little cleaning up."

Members of the Bigfork Steering Committee — the applicant for the plan — spoke about the process involved and a few area residents made comments supporting the plan during the public comment period. By the time the plan came before the board at nearly 9 p.m., the ranks of Bigfork people had noticeably thinned.

Grieve, who has worked with the BSC on the plan and presented a staff report on it at the meeting, was visibly frustrated by Lapp's comments concerning the zoning regulations.

Grieve said Lapp's concerns have merit and need to be looked at, but that the timing was less than ideal.

"If some of the concerns brought up during public comment could have been brought up just a little bit earlier, they could have been dealt with," he said. "Part of the extensive, exhaustive, four-year public process is to get opinions on things like this."

Grieve pointed out that the plan, in some level of it's draft form, has been available on the BSC's Web site for two years.