County hit with 4 new lawsuits
Despite an almost unblemished record in court, Flathead County continues to face legal challenges on its land-use decisions.
Four new planning-related lawsuits were filed here in the last month. The county has now been sued 24 times in the last three years in disagreements over various subdivision, gravel pit or growth policy amendment decisions.
This latest slew of cases is notably different, however, in that three of them were filed by developers.
By contrast, only two of the previous 20 lawsuits were developer-driven.
Two of the new lawsuits fault the county for requiring developers to pave county roadways.
How to mitigate the impacts new subdivisions have on county roads has been a frequent topic of discussion for the planning board and commissioners in recent months.
Some people say the subdivision approval process favor developers, allowing them to profit from lax standards while adjacent landowners suffer from clouds of road dust and taxpayers pick up the tab for paving and other infrastructure improvements.
Others say the county is at fault for imposing conditions on a case-by-case basis, rather than updating its regulations so that all developers are treated the same.
Details on these two cases include:
. Plum Creek Land Co., a subsidiary of Plum Creek Timber Co., sued the county commissioners on July 14, because the commissioners required extensive paving along Ashley Lake Road as a condition of subdivision approval.
The condition was imposed on The Preserve at Ashley Lake, a 60-lot project proposed on 646 acres near the foot of the lake, where Ashley Creek begins.
Given the poor condition of Ashley Lake Road, the Flathead County Planning Office initially recommended that Plum Creek rebuild and pave 9,300 feet of the county roadway - 6,300 feet that runs through the middle of the subdivision, plus another 3,000 feet or 50 feet per lot - as well as the internal subdivision roads.
However, when the project reached the commissioners, they asked that six miles of Ashley Lake Road be rebuilt and paved, in part because of estimates that traffic counts along the road would more than double because of this one subdivision. The internal roads also need to be paved.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn both of these conditions, contending that they go well beyond what's allowed by the county subdivision and zoning regulations.
Nothing in state law gives the commissioners the authority to require developers to completely rebuild county infrastructure, the lawsuit says. Moreover, if they're going to require paving or extension of such infrastructure, they need to demonstrate that it "reasonably reflects the impacts attributable to this subdivision."
The lawsuit cites other alleged legal and procedural errors as well.
Plum Creek had to file the lawsuit by July 14, otherwise the commissioners' decision would stand. However, the company reportedly wants to resolve this issue privately, without resorting to court.
It hasn't officially served the lawsuit, meaning the action is currently in limbo. It also indicated that it will voluntarily pave the internal subdivision roads.
. Kathryn Edwards sued the county on July 19, after she proposed a four-lot subdivision along Farm Road, in the Lower Valley.
Given the numerous complaints in that area about road dust and traffic volumes, the commissioners required her to pave the portion of Farm Road that abuts the property.
As with the Plum Creek lawsuit, this action contends that the commissioners don't have the statutory or regulatory authority to require paving of a county road. It notes the commissioners previously approved several other subdivisions in the area without requiring them to do any paving, and says there's no evidence that these four lots would significantly increase traffic along Farm Road.
Disputes about gravel pits have prompted several legal challenges over the last 18 months, including a June 30 petition from West Valley gravel pit owner Joe Beasley.
Beasley asked the District Court to review the Flathead County Board of Adjustment's decision to revoke a 1997 conditional-use permit for a 15-acre mine he acquired last year near the intersection of Farm to Market Road and Church Drive.
The board felt the previous owner hadn't met all of the conditions listed in the 1997 permit. Consequently, it ruled that the permit had expired and that Beasley needs to submit an entirely new permit application.
Beasley contends that the decision constitutes an illegal taking, because it prevents him from the complete use of a gravel resource, as allowed under state law. He also felt the board didn't have the authority to revoke a permit.
The fourth new lawsuit reverts to form, raising many of the same complaints that have been cited - typically unsuccessfully - in several previous lawsuits.
On July 17, Friends of Little Bitterroot Lake, Janet Thon, John Cloninger and Janet Stern all sued the commissioners over their approval of Haskell's Pass subdivision, a 78-lot project proposed by Plum Creek Land Co. on 851 acres located north of Little Bitterroot Lake.
The lawsuit says the environmental assessment and planning staff report failed to adequately address potential impacts to water quality. It also contends that the subdivision violates the Little Bitterroot Neighborhood Plan because many of the lots are less than 10 acres in size.
A typographical error in the lawsuit mentions "Sky View," an apparent reference to Skyview Estates No. 2, a 25-lot subdivision near Manning Road and Farm Road, in the Lower Valley. A 2004 lawsuit involving that project was ultimately decided in favor of the county.
Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at bspence@dailyinterlake.com