Changes to Bigfork Neighborhood Plan are an 'injustice'

In my opinion, a grievous injustice has been wrought upon the residents of Bigfork by virtue of the actions of two Flathead County Commissioners.

In 1993, there was concern that unwelcome land use regulations could be imposed on the Bigfork area by county officials. Local leaders formed the Bigfork Steering Committee to survey the wishes of the residents in the area to determine what they would like to see as growth guidelines for the future of the Bigfork area.

The results of the survey were incorporated into the Bigfork Area Land Use Plan. A procedure for processing requests for variations to the plan was carefully included in the plan itself. This procedure has been approved and meshed with other public input processes that are currently a part of the Flathead County Growth Policy.

Recent actions by two of our Flathead County Commissioners have resulted in allowing two land owners to have their property zoned for industrial use. Their property is surrounded by other property that is zoned for suburban-agricultural use in five- and 10-acre sizes. The actual use of one of the properties and an adjacent property is that which, by virtue of the fact that the use existed prior to the approval of the Bigfork Area Land Use Plan, is allowed by a conditional use permit.

Based on questionable advice, and prior to applying for required approval, the owner of one of the properties proceeded to build a structure to accommodate a business which would also require a conditional use permit. Instead of applying for a conditional use permit, the owner joined with an adjacent property owner and sought approval of a zone change.

When their request for a zone change went through the accepted public review process, and was rejected at every level, they filed a law suit against the county.

Subsequently, a review of the Flathead Growth Policy brought about the need for an updated Bigfork Neighborhood Plan, and these two property owners opted to circumvent any further public input by taking their request directly to the county commissioners.

It was at this point where the injustice occurred. The county commissioners approved the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan, but arbitrarily amended it to allow for the requested zone change. Their action, by virtue of the two commissioners who have shown by other actions to be reluctant participants to good planning procedures, virtually circumvented any normally accepted public input process which would have been necessary in order for such a change to be made to the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan.

At this point, it may make sense to accept the current uses of the properties in question, but I think the residents in the Bigfork area should take serious issue with the fact that the actions of these two county commissioners have set a precedent which could negatively effect the public input procedure which is meant to deal with requests for variations to the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan.

If 40 percent of the residents in the effected area express disapproval of the commissioners' action to approve the zone change, the approval can be denied. This is the right thing to do.

Edd Blackler is a Bigfork resident.