County rejects zoning request for outdoor park

The Lake County Commission last week closed the door on a proposal for an outdoor park near Rollins that sparked a massive backlash from nearby residents and property owners, along with others across the country.

During a hearing the afternoon of Tuesday, July 22, Commissioners Bill Barron, Dave Stipe and Gale Decker voted unanimously against approval of a zoning change request by Torsten and Jessica Wedel, who sought to build the park on about 17 acres between Lakeside and Rollins, on the west side of U.S. 93 and just south of Goose Bay and Table Bay.

The Wedels said they intended to provide family-friendly activities for both locals and tourists outside the more popular areas of the Flathead Valley.

The proposed amendment to the county's Upper West Shore Zoning District regulations would have allowed for a range of commercial outdoor recreation activities, including nature viewing, ax throwing, outdoor laser tag, miniature golf, gem mining, rope courses, zip lines, summer day camps, horseback riding, tubing hills and "mountain rides." The amended regulations would specifically prohibit commercial swimming pools, water parks, bowling alleys, RV parks and commercial resorts.

Currently, only a few commercial activities, such as vacation rentals and bed-and-breakfast properties, are permitted in the area subject to the proposed change, known as Sub-District C.

The Wedels, who live in Stevensville, head the North American branch of Wiegand, a German company that manufactures slides, toboggan runs and unpowered roller coasters that many ski resorts use to attract business during the warmer months. The couple insisted that Wiegand was not involved in their plans for the outdoor park.

County planning staff initially recommended approval of the request after researching the proposal, which was submitted in January. However, the County Planning Board, an advisory panel composed of volunteers, voted unanimously in mid-April to recommend commissioners deny the requested zoning changes.

Once publicized, the proposal drew a fervent backlash, primarily on social media platforms. An opposition petition that was created at the national online advocacy website change.org generated more than 35,000 signatures. Lake County’s entire population is about 30,000 people.

County staff also received thousands of written comments.

The April Planning Board meeting drew up to 160 people who attended remotely via Zoom. The board heard from 45 people, 44 of whom expressed opposition to the Wedels’ proposal. The meeting began at 7 p.m. and wrapped up just before 1 a.m. the next day.

The issue first reached commissioners on May 18, when they voted 2-1 to allow planning for the proposal to advance, against the recommendation of the county Planning Board. At the time, Commissioner Barron was the lone dissenting vote.

“This isn’t an approval of the park,” Commissioner Stipe said during the May 18 meeting. “This is just part of the process. People are protesting stuff that hasn’t been petitioned for yet. We have to go through the process.”

Commissioners then initiated a 30-day comment period open only to those who own property within the Sub-District C area of the zoning district. Last week's hearing was set for commissioners to revisit the issue after the second comment period ended.

“As a commissioner, I felt like we took the process to completion,” Commissioner Decker said prior to the July 22 vote. “We started with a proposal that the Wedels brought forward. It went to our Planning Department. It went to the Lake County Planning Board. … We then took comments from those folks in Sub-District C, which I personally felt was important because we had gotten so much comment from all over the place. … and (those comments were) overwhelmingly opposed to approving the text amendment. I think it was about 76% (within Sub-District C) of people said no.”

Prior to the hearing, commissioners met with state employees from the Department of Transportation, who explained the extensive traffic revisions required to make the park safely feasible.

“There was a way to mitigate a lot of the problems that would come up if this proposal had been approved,” Decker said. “I think the noise, the light, the fire, the emergency services ... there’s ways that those could have been addressed. The big one that I kept coming back to was the traffic.

“We talked to the MT Department of Transportation (Monday) and they don’t have a plan to mitigate it, or the money or the engineers. The traffic problem, in the future, is here to stay. It’s not going to go away.

“My decision was based, one, on the public comment, overwhelmingly asked us not to approve it. And I don’t think there’s a solution to the traffic issues. And I don’t think the Montana DOT sees any kind of a solution.”

Barron complimented the submissions received during the most recent comment period.

“The comments we received this time — 47 to 48 comments — they were thoughtful and courteous, and we really respect and appreciate that,” he said.

“Money’s a big issue and (the state doesn’t) have any, and it’s going to take a long, long time (to alleviate traffic issues).”

Several dozen people, most in opposition to the park, attended the July 22 hearing. Once the unanimous vote was announced applause broke out in the Commissioners’ Chambers.