homes cars jobs apartments Merchandise Announcements

Archives > News > Local Montana

Print | E-mail | Text Size

Stream setback decisions could be made case by case  

Published: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 8:29 AM CST

By John Stang / The Daily Inter Lake

The Flathead County Commissioners want to deal with stream setbacks on a case-by-case basis in the county's new subdivision regulations.

The commissioners also want to keep homes from being built on flood plains on subdivided land.


The actual vote on the entire subdivision law will be at 11 a.m. Dec. 8. The proposed regulations do not apply to existing property as long as it is not subdivided.

All three commissioners agreed Monday not to install definite distances on setbacks for homes on subdivided land next to rivers and streams.

The setbacks issue has been controversial over the last six weeks, with property rights advocates clashing with people wanting greater protections for streams.

Commissioner Joe Brenneman pushed for dealing with subdivided streamside land on a case-by-case basis, with vegetative buffers to be required to prevent water and chemicals from freely flowing into rivers and creeks.

Fellow commissioners Gary Hall and Dale Lauman agreed with that approach.

"I think we have a lot of adequate controls. ... I think it should be site-specific," Lauman said.

The commissioners left language intact in the proposed regulations that would require a subdividing party to account for vegetation types, vegetation buffers, slopes, drainage, soil makeup, potential disturbances to riparian areas, and plans to stabilize stream banks.


"I hate to be the generation that enjoys it, but to also say: 'We didn't quite take care of it,'" Brenneman said.

County Planning Director Jeff Harris argued for specific setback distances from streams.

"If you don't tell [developers and homeowners] what to expect, they'll do too little or too much. ... How do you say what's appropriate? ... I think people are looking for more consistency."

The commissioners said they believe county zoning regulations contain adequate setback requirements -- without adding setbacks to the new subdivision regulations.

The setback distances in zoning laws range from 20 feet to at least 150 feet, Harris said.

However, at least one-third of the county is not zoned, so those zoning setbacks are not applicable in those unzoned areas, he said in arguing for specific setback distances in subdivision regulations.

Mayre Flowers, director of Citizens for a Better Flathead, contended that smaller developers would fare better with definite distances with which they could comply without needing to pay for studies and experts to map fuzzier and easier-to-dispute setbacks.

Charles Lapp, representing the Flathead Building Association, thought the commissioners' stance was a good compromise in the setback dispute.

In originally coming up with setback recommendations, the county planning staff and board tried to achieve middle ground in the setbacks recommended by various scientists and the public.

The original proposed setback widths were to be measured from the high-water mark to the edge of the 100-year flood plain as shown on a Federal Emergency Management Agency map or:

• The Flathead River and its three forks, plus the Stillwater River, Whitefish River and Swan River would have had 250-foot setbacks with 100-foot vegetative buffers.

• Ashley Creek (from Smith Lake to the Flathead River) and the Fisher River would have had 200-foot setbacks with 75-foot vegetative buffers.

• All other streams would have had 60-foot setbacks with 50-foot vegetative buffers.

Organizations opposing these proposed setbacks include American Dream Montana, the Montana Environmental Consultants Association, the Flathead Building Association, Flathead Business and Industry Association and the Northwest Montana Association of Realtors.

Supporters of the setbacks included the University of Montana's Flathead Lake Biological Station, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Flathead Wildlife Inc., Flathead Ducks Unlimited, Flathead Trout Unlimited, the Flathead chapter of the Audubon Society, Montana Conservation Voters, Flathead Lakers, Flathead Basin Commission and Citizens for a Better Flathead.

The biological station said even greater setbacks are needed.

In a letter to the commissioners, the station said that setbacks would help cut back on nutrient concentrations in the Flathead's rivers and lakes. In a few years, the federal government will limit nutrient concentrations in stream and lakes, which will require expensive improvements on sewage treatment plants.

Reporter John Stang may be reached at 758-4429 or by e-mail at jstang@dailyinterlake.com



 
 


Reader Comments

Views expressed in reader comments are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Hagadone Montana Publishing, LLC or its member newspapers. Users of the Web site can remove offensive comments by using the "Remove Comment" feature provided. (see rules) --- Webmaster


Don't see your comment? It could be your browser settings.

Posted by:Abenaki 2008/12/03 08:27:57 AM
garius: Agree with your comments but "mispelled is incorrect. Try 'misspelled'. Wouldn't want you to have to retake English as well. And it's "crowd" not 'croud'. Whew
Block this blogger Remove this comment

Posted by:garius 2008/12/02 10:21:17 AM
then you need to retake History as it used to taught. Property rights are one of the foundational or rights of liberty. Without the right to own and use property as we see fit there can be no individual liberty. There have been studies that show the positive connection between private ownership and liberty. We all want clean water but at what cost. We have to be very careful about giving up our rights and liberties. Once you start in that direction it is hard to stop. In this case the science did not justify the huge setbacks and the concomitant loss of property right and liberty.
Block this blogger Remove this comment

Posted by:garius 2008/12/02 10:10:07 AM
To Rebel Rouser and any other preservationists who agree with him/her: Are you saying the property rights are greedy or people who believe in property rights are greedy? If the first is true then your mispelling of croud is probably more than a simple typo and you need to retake middle school English. If you think that people who supporting property rights makes one a greedy PERSON
Block this blogger Remove this comment

Posted by:apottersdaughter 2008/12/02 01:17:44 AM
Again, No Surpise Here
Block this blogger Remove this comment

Posted by:Rebel Rouser 2008/12/02 09:20:24 AM
The problem with this decision is that now the door is left wide open for corrupt commissioners to allow development near the waters edge for friends, cronies, political favors, cash, payola, pats on the back, envelopes under the table, insider trading, etc, etc, if I missed anything, well, I think you get the picture. It is not surprising that Hall and Lauman are all for not defining the setbacks. Did you notice the groups on each side of the argument? On one side you have greedy, property rights at all expense crowed, and on the other you have mostly respectable preservationists trying to keep the water clean. How is this even a choice? Why do the developers, builders, real estate sales people, and property rights advocates not care about the pollution of our areas waterways?
Block this blogger Remove this comment

Express yourself. Register once and comment on any story. Start Here!

User Name: password:
Email:
Comment:
Lost Password? --  Change Password / Name?

Return to: Local Montana « | Home « | Top of Page
 
Today's Weather
Kalispell, MT