BLUAC recommends denial of North Shore Woods

The Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee voted to recommend the denial of three requests by Longbow Land Partners, Inc. pertaining to the planned North Shore Woods housing development project during its July meeting Thursday.

The Bethany Lutheran Church was once again packed with more than 100 people for the marathon meeting that lasted nearly five and half hours.

The committee heard from more than 20 concerned citizens during the meeting, citing a list of issues with the proposed development, from traffic concerns and school capacity to road conditions and fire hazards while others were more concerned with maintaining Bigfork’s historic small-town feel.

“Bigfork is a village and we are known as a village. This is the first step to Bigfork becoming a municipality and I don’t think the people of Bigfork are ready for that. That’s just not the way we live,” school board member Ben Woods told the committee.“At the school, we are pretty maxed out in the buildings that we have and we are landlocked and can’t build out right now. It would take time for any tax money received from this project to be realized by the school and any kid who is in school during that time will suffer,” he added.

“This is Montana. We have all the land in the world. Why would you have so much space and say we need to have smaller and smaller lots,” Susan Repa asked. “What would be the reason for rezoning? Would it be to make everyone’s life better? Is it to make a prettier area or is it just the greed of being able to sell more lots. I don’t think that is a proper reason for rezoning.”

Located between Peaceful Drive and Bigfork Stage Road (the area behind Dairy Queen to the south and El Topo Cantina to the north), the currently vacant area is proposed to be developed by Longbow Land Partners, LLC of Jackson, Wyoming.

According to a planned unit development overlay application filed with Flathead County Planning and Zoning March 30, the company intends to build 125 single-family units on the property and is asking the county to cut the required lot size in half to do so.

It was this application to change the zoning that BLUAC discussed for the first 3.5 hours of the meeting before voting to recommend denial, hearing concerns from citizens as well as Bigfork Water and Sewer and the Bigfork Fire Department.

“I have a very big concern with the density issue and the setbacks as well,” Bigfork Fire Chief Jeremy Patton said. “The setbacks are my number one concern with this project. Conflagration is the word. That’s what I am concerned about. With the property to the east being heavily wooded and a hot and dry summer like this one, with winds coming from the east and southeast, if there were any wildland fire event to the east of this area it could possibly cause a conflagration in this setting.”

According to Bigfork Water and Sewer District Manager Julie Spencer, a recent study shows the capacity to handle the proposed subdivision, but nothing more in that area.

“Currently, water isn’t the issue. It’s the sewer. Our studies show that we do have the capacity for the 125 lots if that is what is approved, but we do not have capacity beyond that on the water treatment side of things,” she told the committee. “Currently, the engineer who runs our model says to cap capacity at 125 (lots).”

Along with the fire department and Water and Sewer, the committee members also voiced their concerns about the proposal.

“Just because something meets the criteria for a zone change doesn’t mean that it fits the character of the area,” committee member Jerry Sorensen said. “That’s why we have subdivision review. Increasing the density, which is the issue here, seems like it is not suitable for the character of the area.”

“I think the biggest issue is how the proposed zoning change would degredate public safety by increasing traffic and creating a loss of service,” Shelly Gonzales added in her comments. “It would put a strain on the infrastructure and create and all-around environment that is not conducive to a healthy and harmonious living condition in Bigfork.”“It would be great to have a community for people who service the regular people of Bigfork, but listening to the applicant, it sounds like that is not the target market for this development,” Angela DeFries added.

Chany Ockert was the only committee member to vote in favor of the applications, citing Bigfork’s need for affordable workforce housing.

“I don't want Bigfork to be a bedroom community where we have to shop and do everything in Kalispell. How do we prevent that? How do we keep Bigfork a village? We do that by making sure that employees of Bigfork's businesses can live here and be a part of this community. It's the people of Bigfork that make Bigfork a village,” she said. “It's the teachers, the bank tellers, the restaurant staff, the cashiers at Harvest Foods, the pharmacy staff, the staff at our larger businesses, the EMTs & firefighters. If we want to stay a village, then people need a place to buy.”

The only citizen at the meeting to speak in favor of the proposed development was local real estate broker Patrick Pacheco, who addressed the council near the end of the meeting.

“Subdivision is important for Montana. Yes, done properly it does make a difference,” he said. “I understand that you don’t want to live next to a development. This property was for sale. If you didn’t want it developed, you should have put your money where your mouth was and bought it. I’m sorry, but Montana is growing and changing and there is nothing you can do. You can’t stop it…Yes, we need affordable housing, but everybody’s version of affordable is different.”

While the denial of the zone change application essentially rendered the two remaining applications moot, the committee spent more than 2.5 hours discussing them, at the request of the county, before voting to recommend their denial as well.

The applications will now be considered by the Flathead County Planning Board at 6 p.m. Wednesday, August 9 in the South Campus Building at 40 11th St. W. in Kalispell before going before the county commissioners for a final vote at a later date.