Bigfork Neighborhood Plan grinds through workshop session

The Flathead County Planning Board and members from a pair of Bigfork committees went through the laborious task of work-shopping each page of the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan on Thursday evening. The end result looks to be a plan with language that more closely reflects the Flathead County Commissioners’ view that such advisory documents are non-regulatory.

A workshop session for the plan was originally scheduled for July, but postponed indefinitely until the commissioners ruled on language in the zoning regulations concerning the regulatory nature of neighborhood plans.

Members of the Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee and the Bigfork Steering Committee sat in with the planning board to address lingering concerns over language in the draft plan, an update to the original neighborhood plan created in 1993.

Planning board chairman Gordon Cross suggested inserting language on the first page of the plan that states unequivocally that the document is non-regulatory.

“It is understood that the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan is not a regulatory document and does not confer any authority to regulate its provisions. The goals, policies and text included herein should be considered as a detailed description of desired land use in the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan Area,” reads a portion of Cross’ proposed prelude.

Though no particular section was subjected to drastic changes, there was an overall lean away from the terms “shall” and “required” to more non-regulatory-sounding words like “should” and “encouraged.”

The “shall” vs. “should” debate has come up many times amongst the Bigfork committees, and the planning board seemed split on how they viewed the usage.

“My feeling is that as long as it says at the beginning that it’s non-regulatory, I’m not going to get hung up over ‘shall’ and ‘should,’” Cross said.

Planning board member Mike Mower, however, said it seemed contradictory to say something is required when, in fact, it cannot be mandated.

Flathead County Planning Office Assistant Director BJ Grieve sided with Mower, noting that goals stated in the plan using “should” could still be implemented using zoning and the accompanying public process. Grieve also said that in the plan’s day-to-day use at his office, having to explain that a “required” goal was actually optional would be cumbersome.

The section of the plan regarding proposed architectural and sign standards was the primary sticking point for this issue, since the document lists requirements beyond Flathead County regulations.

“You have to differentiate between what is a wish and what is a law,” Cross said. “It seems to me you need to soften it in some way.”

Bigfork resident and long-time opponent of the plan, Bill Myers, commented early and often during the meeting, but took special umbrage to the building and sign standards section.

“This infuriates me, to say it politely,” he said, arguing that attempting to pin down the “character of Bigfork” was too subjective.

Cross also expressed concern with two sections of the plan carried over from the 1993 version that discourage the use of Class B and C manufactured homes. He said he felt the restriction clashed with goals of increased affordable housing.

“I’m not sure people were as concerned about affordable housing in 1993 as they are now,” he said.

The revision of the original 1993 Bigfork Neighborhood Plan has been under way for four years, and with approval from the planning board and county commissioners still required, it looks as though the soonest the new version would be enacted is mid-2009.

BLUAC Secretary Sue Hanson said the plan will likely go back before the planning board for their vote in mid-February.

A yet-to-be-determined meeting will be held between the BLUAC and BSC to discuss changes recommended by the planning board and update the document. To be enacted, the commissioners must approve the plan and a 30 day protest period must be observed.

And by the end of Thursday’s workshop, protests were certainly fewer, thanks in large part to the softened language and lack of confusion of the document’s regulatory status.

Even Myers was more satisfied with the outcome. “I think guidelines are good, but a lot of people get touchy when you try to micromanage private property,” he said. “I think this thing is heading in a lot better direction than it was a few years ago.”