 |
|
North Lake County Subcommittee
Photo by Dale Dufour
Statement Of Purpose The purpose of the subcommittee is to investigate planning and zoning options for areas adjacent to the Bigfork Land Use Area, which are in Lake County, including Woods Bay, Ferndale, and Swan Sites.These neighborhoods are similar to other neighborhoods around Bigfork, and some formal means of providing a planning and zoning voice to the residents of these areas will contribute to a greater consistency of planning for the Bigfork community. __________________________________________ The North Lake County planning and zoning district subcommittee is actively seeking interest from residents of the East Shore district (between Woods Bay and Yellow Bay) and the Swan Valley. For more information, please contact Leslie Budewitz at 837-6094, leslie@drbeans.com, or come to the subcommittee meetings the 1st and 3rd Fridays of the month 9:00 A.m. starting September 7, 2007 at the Saddlehorn Tower on Grand Avenue. Schedule of Meetings: 11/30/2007 Meet at Ferndale Fire Hall for a Driving Tour at 9:00 am 12/7/2007 Meet at Ferndale Fire Hall Work Session 9:00 am 12/14/2007 Meet at Ferndale Fire Hall Driving Tour 9:00 am 1/4/2008 Saddlehorn Discovery Center 9:00 am 1/18/2008 Saddlehorn Discovery Center 9:00 am Committee Reports August 16, 2007
Community meetings: In June and July 2007, the North Lake County Planning & Zoning Subcommittee held four community meetings to present our ideas for forming a North Lake Co. Planning District and hear public comment. At all meetings, Lake County planning staff was present and provided maps and subject matter expertise. Meetings were held at the Ferndale Cmty Ctr, Yellow Bay Cmty Ctr, Bethany Lutheran Church, and Swan Lake Cmty Ctr. Two subcommittee members also made a presentation at the Swan Sites Homeowners’ Association annual meeting, along with two subcommittee members who are also HOA boardmembers. About 135 people attended the community meetings, and another 50+ attended the Swan Sites HOA meeting. Responses varied significantly from area to area, but were consistent within each area.
The Ferndale meeting (48 people, not including committee members or county planning dept representatives) was attended primarily by Ferndale and Swan Sites residents, along with several Woods Bay residents. Comments strongly favored forming a North Lake Co Planning District. Comments focused on determining appropriate density, and on preserving the environment, specifically water quality, wildlife habit, open space, and access to recreation and public lands. Some were concerned that the proposed Option 1 southern boundary would divide Swan Lake, zoning only the north end of the lake. We also heard concerns about private property rights and the need to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the community. There was some discussion about the role of an advisory council, and how members might be chosen, as well as how regulations are enforced.
The Yellow Bay meeting (about 37 people) was attended primarily by residents of the existing Eastshore Zoning District. The clear consensus was that the existing district meets the needs of the community, and that there is no advantage in joining with other neighborhoods to form a larger district. Much discussion focused on an advisory council, particularly whether a council would help accomplish the goals and objectives of their local zoning regulations. The Eastshore District’s regulations have not been reviewed since 2000; residents agreed to form a committee to review them for possible updates.
The Woods Bay meeting (held at Bethany Lutheran Church meeting) (about 32 people) drew primarily Woods Bay residents, with a scattering from each of the other neighborhoods under consideration. Responses strongly favored forming a North Lake Co. District. A straw vote was taken; 24 voted yes, 2 voted no (one lives in the Eastshore District and voted no to a district that would include that area). Primary concerns were controls on growth and density, and the location of commercial development. In response to a resident’s suggestion that Woods Bay form its own district, others raised practical considerations, such as having sufficient population to draft and review regulations and serve on and Advisory Council, as well as “strength in numbers” and the interconnectedness of the various neighborhoods in North Lake County. Sub-units within the district were also discussed.
The Swan Lake meeting (about 22 people) produced consensus that a planning & zoning district covering that area is not necessary or clearly not desired, even though residents expressed an understanding of the potential benefits. Comments focused on the lack of need for more regulation, the difficulty and cost of enforcement, and and concerns about private property rights and the need to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the community. The role of an advisory council was again discussed, with some concern expressed about whether local residents would have sufficient voice. At least one person felt the Swan Lake area is not likely to see more growth or development.
Written comments: We received about 40 written comments. Every comment from a resident or landowner in Ferndale, Swan Sites, and Woods Bay favored forming a North Lake County Planning District. Every comment from Eastshore opposed forming a district that included the Eastshore; several comments supported forming a district for the other neighborhoods under discussion. Written comments from Swan Lake and Swan Valley were mixed. One Swan Lake resident wrote to express approval, suggesting that community sentiment might change as we get closer to county approval.
We were not able to determine whether landowners in the existing Lower Bug Creek zoning district, which occupies about two sections along the west shore of Swan Lake, would like to join a larger district or remain separate. Two homeowners on West Cedar Bay, between the proposed southern boundary of Option 1 and Lower Bug Creek, expressed a strong desire that that area be included.
Future meetings: The subcommittee will resume regular meetings on the 1st and 3rd Fridays of the month, starting Friday, Sept. 7, at 9 a.m. at the Bigfork Chamber of Commerce.
Plan & Recommendations: We recommend moving forward with the process of forming a planning and zoning district that includes Woods Bay, Ferndale, and Swan Sites, the area along West Cedar Bay Drive, and possibly the Lower Bug Creek district. We will work with Sue Shannon, Lake County Planning Dept director, to plan the next stages. Work to be done includes drafting regulations, forming groups within specific areas to identify existing property uses (also using county information), asking property owners to identify the uses they would like to see for their property (at public meetings or by written survey), and determining whether a neighborhood plan is necessary.
We welcome new membership on the subcommittee, including Flathead County residents experienced in these issues. "The best way to predict the future is to create it" Peter Drucker Comment sheets and meeting notes are too extensive to ost online, but may be reviewed on request. Date: March 15, 2007 Recommendations: We recommend proposing to the Lake County Commissioners and the community the formation of a North Lake County Planning & Zoning District. Lake County adopted county-wide Density Zoning in 2005; the proposed district would supplement that existing zoning. Lake County landowners and residents’ responses to the BSC’s 2005 Community Planning Survey show a strong interest in local planning & zoning, although respondents were not asked about forming a new P&Z district. The subcommittee views a planning & zoning district as a tool to give local residents and landowners a voice in the growth and development of the community, providing both developers and residents and landowners with guidelines for changing uses of property while protecting property values, and providing a process to ensure predictability. We also recommend holding public hearings in June in the East Shore district and in Swan Lake/Swan Valley to present our proposal and ask for comment, to help us determine whether residents and landowners in those areas are interested in joining a North Lake Co. P&Z district. Process to date: The Bigfork Steering Committee (BSC) formed the Lake County Subcommittee in October 2006. The Subcommittee has met 18 times. Members have researched state statutes and the practices in other counties, talked with planning department staff in Lake & Flathead Counties, and met twice with Joe Potoczny, a former longtime member of the Lake County Planning Board who lives in Ferndale. We corresponded with planning staff throughout the region, the Montana Association of Counties, and the legislative policy office of the MT Legislature. We have reported regularly to the BSC. Structure: We propose that the new Planning & Zoning include a seven member elected Advisory Council charged with: 1) reviewing proposals for subdivisions and zoning changes within the district, holding public hearings and making recommendations to the county Planning Board and Commissioners or Board of Adjustment; 2) working with BLUAC to review proposals within the Bigfork Neighborhood Zoning District that may affect residents of the North Lake County district and provide similar input to BLUAC; and 3) regularly reviewing and updating the district’s zoning regulations. Although Lake County has several existing Planning & Zoning Districts, none includes an advisory council. We believe residents and landowners in a potential North Lake County district will want a voice in how regulations governing planning & zoning within the district are interpreted, applied, and revised. An advisory council is a proven method for doing that, as shown by Flathead County’s experience in Bigfork and elsewhere. Advisory Council hearings are also a useful way to gather public comment, which is then shared with planning staff, the Planning Board, and the Commissioners. The Advisory Council will work closely with the Planning Dept staff. Regulations for the proposed district will include methods for cooperation with the Bigfork Zoning District. We also recommend that BLUAC revise its bylaws to allow for cooperation with the North Lake County District. Possibilities include: 1) whenever a proposal is received for land within two miles of the border between the two districts, the Planning Dept staff will send the proposal to the Planning Dept and Advisory Council members of the adjacent district for review. 2) when the Advisory Council considers proposals for projects within the two mile corridor, the Advisory Council of the adjacent district should be allowed to participate in the hearing and discussions, as nonvoting members; 3) Advisory Council members and residents and landowners in the adjacent districts will be encouraged to comment on proposals in the adjacent district, whether or not the proposed projects are within the two mile corridor. The BSC is also an important tool for encouraging cross-county cooperation and communication. In forming this subcommittee, the BSC expressed a strong interest in exploring the possibility of a district that encompassed parts of both Lake and Flathead Counties. After extensive research, the subcommittee recommends against such a proposal, for the following reasons: - State statutes do not authorize counties to form planning boards or zoning districts that cross county lines, and no such districts or boards have been set up. (In contrast, statutes specifically authorize city-county boards, which exist in several communities.) We received conflicting advice on the legality of such a board and district from the MT Assn of Counties and the Legislature’s policy analyst. - A cross-county district would require formation of a special Joint Planning Board for the district, which then reports to and requires a decision by both sets of County Commissioners. This is a complicated structure adding expenses for administration and elections, and adding to the workload of both county’s planning staff. - Both counties would have to amend their growth policies. (Lake County adopted a Growth Policy in 2003; Flathead County’s policy is approaching adoption.) - Any entity attempting to interpret and administer zoning regulations of two counties is faced with reconciling differences in the counties’ regulations and philosophy. Lake and Flathead Counties have taken very different approaches to zoning regulation; definitions and classifications vary significantly. - In recent years, more development has occurred on the Flathead Co. side of Bigfork than the Lake Co. side; if that continues, a joint district would place a disproportionate burden on Lake Co. planning staff and Advisory Council members. - Because of the complicated structure and possible legal issues and challenges, forming a joint district could take several years. The subcommittee concludes that the complications of a joint district outweigh the benefits. But recognizing that Bigfork is a cross-county community, we have looked for other ways to ensure cross-county cooperation and continuity and built that into our proposal (see above). Boundaries: In forming this subcommittee, the BSC asked us to consider covering all of SD 38, the area surveyed in 2005. Subcommittee members live in Woods Bay, Swan Sites, and Ferndale. Members made extensive efforts to contact people living in the East Shore, Swan Lake, Swan Valley neighborhoods, and while some expressed interest and attended some meetings, no residents of those areas have regularly participated in subcommittee meetings. Representatives of the three major timberland owners – the State of Montana, Plum Creek, and Stoltze – are active subcommittee members. Members have not come to a consensus on the southern boundary of a potential district. After exhaustive discussions, we have concluded that we are not yet in a position to determine the southern boundary, and need more public input. North: county line West: Flathead Lake East: a line east of Range 18W, corresponding with the western edge of the federal land. This will include within the district all developed roads east of Hwy 83. South: Three options exist (see map): Option 1: This option includes the neighborhoods of Woods Bay, Swan Sites, and Ferndale, and would incorporate the existing Swan Sites Zoning District and possibly the proposed Kootenai Lodge Zoning District. The line is the section line 2 miles N. of T. 26 (between sects 20 and 28), starting at Birch Tree Lane in Woods Bay (the northern boundary of the East Shore Zoning District) and running east to about 1 mile south of where Sunburst Lane meets Hwy 83, but including all of West Swan Shore Road north of the existing Lower Bug Creek District. An area of approx. 30 sq. miles. (In comparison, the Bigfork District is 39 sq. miles.) In a straw vote, this option got 5 votes. - A smaller district could probably be formed sooner than a larger district, important to Woods Bay residents, who have formed a wastewater authority but need to have a use-based (vs. density-based) zoning plan in place. - Residents of these neighborhoods are closely affiliated with Bigfork, and are already familiar with the BLUAC process. - The district could be expanded later, if residents of other neighborhoods want to join. - A smaller district, comparable in size to the Bigfork District, may be more manageable. Option 2: This option includes Swan Lake, and would incorporate the existing Lower Bug Creek and East Shore Zoning Districts. To avoid splitting the East Shore District, the line would start at the Yellow Bay Clubhouse on Hwy 35 (mile marker 18), run east to the mountains, then jog north to Bug Creek Road, and run east along the lines between T. 24 and 25. An area of approx. 150 sq. miles. Straw vote: 1 vote. - Some subcommittee members favor proposing a larger district, allowing neighborhoods further south to opt out during the formation process, based on experience in the Bigfork District indicating that it is easier for a group of area residents/landowners to opt out of a proposed planning district at the time of its formation than to seek inclusion later, when they are reacting to an undesirable proposal - Would promote more standard land uses over a larger area. - Possible lack of interest among residents. - A larger district may be harder to organize and administer. - Would include wildlife range at south end of Swan Lake. Option 3: This option includes all of the current high school district 38. The line would start at the Yellow Bay Clubhouse on Hwy 35 (mile marker 18), run east to the mountains, then jog south to Fatty Creek Road and run east halfway through the middle of T. 23. An area of approx. 240 sq. miles. Straw vote: 2 votes. - Same comments as Option 2. - A district with the same boundaries as the high school district may be more easily understood than other definitions used in the other options. - Distance may make residents less willing to run for Advisory Council or attend meetings. - The rural character of this added acreage differs somewhat from other areas in the proposed district. All three options would probably include subzones for various neighborhoods within the district. Process for forming a new district: - The Lake County Commissioners have accepted the BSC and Woods Bay surveys; no further surveys are needed, so long as the proposal includes only areas already surveyed. - Hold public meeting to flesh out local concerns and issues. (Summer 2007) - Draft regulations, working with Planning Staff, using survey results and public comment. - Public hearings to discuss draft regulations; revise draft regulations as needed. (Summer 2008?) - Submit proposed district & regulations to Commissioners for approval by resolution (Sect. 76-2-202(1), MCA). Commissioners may require revisions to draft regulations. - Commissioners hold public hearings (procedure set out in Sect. 76-2-205, MCA; includes 30 day protest period). - Appoint/elect Advisory Council. - Advisory Council draft bylaws for approval by County Attorney and Commissioners. - Request changes in BLUAC bylaws to allow for cross-county cooperation. The Planning Dept director is still researching the legal basis for an Advisory Council; a neighborhood plan or growth policy may be needed. We recognize the importance of holding public meetings during the summer, when seasonal residents may participate. Budget requests: we will ask the BSC to pay for advertising for public meetings. Summary of recommendations: * North Lake County Planning District is proposed to provide Lake County residents similar expectations to Flathead County neighbors. * Public meetings are planned to gather input from the community, including Ferndale, Woods Bay, Swan Sites, East Shore and Swan Lake area residents. * Advisory Council is proposed to serve as "local connection" to Lake County Commissioners. * Three different Planning District boundary options are under consideration. The Bigfork Steering Committee accepted the recommendations.
__________________________________________________________ North Lake County Subcommittee Members: Leslie Budewitz, Ferndale Chair Paul McKenzie, Stoltze Lumber Ken Miller, Swan Sites Paul Rana, Woods Bay Dan Roberson, DNRC, Swan Valley Unit Bruce Solberg, Ferndale Emily Tice, Woods Bay Steve Zabaro, Ferndale |
 |
