Planning in the Flathead a damaged system
Last week the Flathead County Planning Board voted 5-1 to pass on a recommendation to approve the North Shore Ranch subdivision to county commissioners. The 286-lot subdivision would still double the size of Somers, even after the developers dropped the number of lots following a 2006 defeat at the Planning Board.
Despite the final vote, all six members present expressed some level of concern about the development's density. They all expressed concern that it was too many houses too close to the Waterfowl Production Area on Flathead Lake's North Shore.
But all five of the members who voted to recommend approval to the county commissioners followed their concerns over density with one more worry: That they didn't see anything they could do that was legally defensible to deny the application.
This is the peculiar world that the county inhabits. While the North Shore Ranch is a thoroughly planned project that meets — and often exceeds — minimum requirements, when developers are looking to build in an unzoned area it's almost impossible for them to lose.
On unzoned land it's an "anything-goes" world that property rights zealots adore but where neighbors often watch their bucolic views turn into Any Suburb, USA.
County-wide zoning has been shot down before and sentiments don't seem to have changed much — unless the proposed change affects a neighboring property.
It's hard to blame the county for this too; their sometimes short-sightedness is understandable as there can't be much of a view from under that huge pile of litigation. When they do deny applications, which isn't all that often, they get sued.
But something needs to happen, whether it is expanded neighborhood plans or changing state law to make the county growth policy legally binding. The planning process needs help.
Montanans are known for their independence and aversion to any level of government telling them what can or can't be done. But, at least in this Valley, there's also a high propensity for them to support property rights feverishly — until someone's desire to do something with their property doesn't jive with the tone of their neighborhood.
Residents of the Flathead have wanted it both ways for too long. Huge public turnout for a series of recent applications has showcased concerned neighbor after concerned neighbor preface their comments with, "I believe in a person's right to do what they want with their property, but…"
The public either needs to get behind a comprehensive planning policy or learn to live with disappointment when a Wal-Mart moves in down the street.
—Alex Strickland