Lake Co. density map under fire

By ANDREW FISH / for the Eagle

The Lake County Density Map, a zoning document that has been in effect since October of 2005, is under fire and potentially facing an initiative to repeal it in its entirety.

What is the density map?

The density map is an outgrowth of the Lake County Growth Policy which was adopted in August of 2003 as an update to Lake County's 1988 General Plan. One of the stated purposes of the policy, which is not a regulatory document but serves as a framework to guide development, is to "facilitate future growth and development in ways that limit the negative impacts of growth." The County developed the density map in 2005 as a tool to achieve objectives found in the growth policy.

The density map was based on an unwritten policy that the County had been using. Without some sort of document to back it up, this unwritten policy was not enforceable. By creating a written policy under the provisions for creating zoning regulations (76-2-205, Montana Code Annotated), the policy became enforceable.

The key feature controlled by the map is the density of development in a given area. Density is defined as "the average number of residential, commercial or industrial units allowed per acre." The densities on the map range from 1.5 acres per unit to 40 acres per unit.

At issue

Ronan resident Steven Robinson is spearheading the move to put the repeal of density map on the November ballot. Robinson says he is not opposed to growth happening in a wise and prudent manner, but feels that the density map represents a serious encroachment on individual property rights. Though he has not been directly impacted by the density map, Robinson heard the complaints of those that had and felt it was time for him to act.

In his opinion, the county commissioners and planning staff are using the density map to advance their own anti-growth agenda. "Hearing all the complaints from people over the valley, seeing the process they went through and the government's increasing encroachment of people's rights. It's the right thing to do," Robinson said. "It violates basic principles of private property rights."

In addition to resisting what he feels is an encroachment on individual rights, Robinson feels that the map is unnecessary. A former resident of Portland, Ore., Robinson feels that he has witnessed density problems first-hand and that Lake County is not facing them. He cited the average population density given by the U.S. Census Bureau, which is 17.7 persons per square mile, and added that if relatively densely populated areas such as Polson, Ronan, St. Ignatius and Arlee are removed from the equation, then the figure will drop significantly. "If no other county in the state has a density map, why do we need a map?" asked Robinson.

According to Robinson, during the public process that led to the creation of the density map, the people at the meetings expressed substantial oppostion towards the density map. Tony Marshall, a realtor from Polson, was present at several of the public meetings and recalls significant opposition. He also recalls very impassioned, sometimes tearful, pleas from both sides of the issue. Robinson said the commissioners ignored this opposition and created the density map anyway. He feels that by getting the issue on the ballot, he will be giving the people a chance to have their voices heard. "I trust in informed voters more than bureaucrats with supposedly noble intentions," said Robinson.

Amazed by the passion that people exhibit when they approach him, Robinson feels that he'll easily collect enough signatures to get the measure on the November ballot. He associates that passion with the poor experiences residents have had with the county and to a general resistance to government taking of property rights. Marshall agrees, stating that while many people are not and may never be effected by the density map they still have a strong reaction against what they see as a government imposition. He feels it's a philosophically-based objection more than anything.

As of Tuesday, Robinson said he has collected nearly 2,000 of the 2,538 signatures necesarry to put an initiative on the ballot. Though the signatures have not been verified by the county, Robinson is confident that he will gather the required number and that voters will see the issue on the November ballot.

The County responds

According to Lake County Commissioner Paddy Trusler, the primary reason the density map was developed was to deal with the lawsuits that resulted from the use of an unwritten policy. Prior to the implementation of the map, the County was using an unwritten policy to guide density decisions. This led to the County being taken to court by both developers and landowners adjacent to developments. Trusler said that having a written policy developed with public input is the best way to insure that everybody is held to the same standards. "Any time you have courts decide land use policy rather than the public," Trusler said. "That's a bad thing."

Property rights were a key consideration when developing the map, said Trusler. He feels that people need to recognize that property rights work two ways and that there is a need to balance the rights of individual landowners with the rights of adjacent landowners. Trusler said that the map accomplishes that and gives landowners a sense of security because they know what will be developed around them. "Quality of life is the biggest reason people are here," said Trusler. "They like the open space, the area. The density map provides for preservation of that. We get more people complaining that it isn't strict enough."

Trusler agreed that at the present time, Lake County does not have a density problem. However the commissioners felt that it was far better to be proactive in dealing with the potential issue rather than to wait until there is an issue. "The density map is intended to provide for orderly growth, cost-effective delivery of services and to protect sensitive areas of Lake County," said Trusler.

During the public review process, there were people that said they didn't want a density map said Trusler. However, given the potential for litigation in the absence of a map, the commissioners felt it was in the best public interest. He said that often the comments were of a very general nature, with people expressing their opinion that they didn't like the map but not commenting on how it could be made more amenable to them. Even so, the map was revised 11 times based on public input said Sue Shannon, Director of Planning for Lake County.

Trusler said that other counties in the state are looking at what Lake County has done as a model. Mark Holston, Public Information Officer for the Flathead Basin Commission, agreed. The commission was created by the State Legislature in 1983 in order to monitor and protect the water quality in the Flathead Basin. Holston said that the density map is "very proactive and responsible and in some ways, way ahead of Flathead County." Recently the Commission presented their annual stewardship award to Lake County and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes for their collaboration in the area of land use planning, particularly the density map.

In the end, Trusler said that even if the map is repealed, the subdivision review process will still be there. He also feels that the move to repeal is being driven by misinformation and a misunderstanding of the review process. "It's not my right to tell people whether or not to sign the petition," said Trusler. "But I do want people to be informed on what they are signing and if it's what they want for Lake County."