Density map comment period extended until May

Ethan Smith

Leader Staff

The Lake County commissioners voted to extend the comment period for the county's proposed density map for 120 days on Tuesday, in response to public concerns that not enough residents knew of the map's implications.

In a unanimous vote, the commissioners approved a formal resolution of intent to adopt the Lake County density map and resulting regulations no sooner than May 12, following a sometimes heated public discussion in the city/county planning room Tuesday afternoon in the county courthouse.

The May 12 date means the commissioners can formally approve the density map, or agree to continue discussions and public meetings. The four-month period was suggested by new incoming commissioner Chuck Whitson, who said it would allow his constituents to get through calving season in the meantime before turning their attention to the map and related public meetings.

As an informal aside to the resolution, the commissioners agreed to create an ad-hoc steering committee to help solicit, compile and digest public comments, and to hold public meetings in the evenings when more folks could attend, all in response to comments provided at the meeting. The commissioners said the resolution will be reviewed by the county attorney, but expressed confidence in its merit.

More than 80 ranchers, Realtors, property owners and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal representatives packed the meeting, which was the first one held since the Land Owners Alliance successfully sued in December to have the density map implementation process halted, citing improper public notification as a reason.

LOA spokesman Joe Brooks told the commissioners they should revise the proposed density map by clarifying all the federal, state and Tribal lands on it so folks could get a better idea of just what areas would be affected. The proposed map would impact all unzoned property in the county, except that owned by state, federal and Tribal governments.

"You are asking a large group of people to make a sacrifice that might not be in the best interests of the county in the long run," Brooks said.

Brooks represented many property-rights advocates at the meeting, and expressed frustration with the restrictions the proposed regulations would place on his property. However, several areas of concern based on prior feedback - including family transfers - were revised by the commissioners and put into a new draft regulation document made available to the meeting participants.

The changes didn't satisfy everyone, although several folks who commented at the meeting confessed to having not read the proposed regulations when pressed by the commissioners.

Commissioner Mike Hutchin told attendees that the intention of the proposed map was to protect agricultural areas from urban sprawl, although most of the farmers and ranchers in attendance felt it stifled their ability to subdivide their property to help fund their retirement and families' futures.

"It's imperative that we look at property rights from two ways. You wouldn't be happy with commercial development going on 24 hours a day next door to you," Hutchin said. "Many of these regulations are designed to protect your rights."

Tribal resource planning coordinator Janet Camel also gave a short presentation on the Tribes' perspective, saying that they'd like less density in many areas over what the proposed map stipulates.

"When we're working here with the county and with you (the public), we have a lot of mutual concerns," Camel said, citing open space, air and water quality and wildlife habitat.

Camel said the Tribes are concerned about potential development in and around Pablo and Arlee, specifically, and that the proposed density map doesn't go far enough in protecting water quality in those areas. She said groundwater studies should be conducted to determine how much, if any, growth should be allowed around Pablo and Arlee.

She said the Tribes would like to see one home per 40 acres density in the Jocko, Crows Creek and Flathead river corridors, and in the Ninepipes area, and up to one home per 80 acres in grizzly habitat areas.

"We would impose similar restrictions on Tribal land so you don't feel you are being taken advantage of," she told attendees.

Camel said affordability issues were a major concern for the Tribes, and that controlling growth would keep property more affordable for Tribal members while maintaining their need for open space for hunting and other cultural uses.

"We have 300 Tribal members on their own (reservation) property who can't afford to purchase land because of sky-rocketing real estate prices," said Camel. "You all know how much a small parcel of land costs."

Many other attendees expressed concern with what they saw as more government interference in their lives.

"I find this document to be very disturbing as far as my Constitutional rights to enjoy my property. You'd better take a good look at what you're doing, cause you're headed in the wrong direction," Ronan resident George Stonehocker told the commissioners.

"Far too often we consider private property (rights) last in these decisions. We are losing sight of the concept of property, which the entire notion of freedom is based on," said Rick Jore, of Ronan.

"If at four months, everyone's still sitting on their hands" and not providing feedback, then we'll close the comment period, Commissioner Paddy Trusler said.