Subdivision rules delayed

Public objections raised during a more than seven-hour-long hearing Thursday night caused the Blaine County Commissioners to postpone adoption of a new county subdivision ordinance.

"Given the exercise we’ve just been through, I think the public deserves a chance to look at the changes and comment," Commissioner Mary Ann Mix suggested near 2 a.m. Friday morning.

A din of challenges from landowners, attorneys and engineers drove the commissioners to re-word many criteria in proposed amendments to the 17-page ordinance. The comments included technical points as well as philosophical objections to government interference in private property rights.

The main issues of contention revolved around the ordinance’s provisions regarding development of agricultural land. The Blaine County Comprehensive plan mandates preservation of agriculture, but court appeals of county restrictions resulted in several court decisions finding that the subdivision ordinance did not clearly define how that was to be done.

In August 1997, the county set a moratorium on development of agricultural land to give it time to rewrite its subdivision ordinance. An extension of that moratorium in December expanded it to include applications for re-zones and terrain zoned as residential-agricultural transition land.

In suggesting that adoption of a new ordinance be postponed, Mix added that she understood "what the ramifications of this are," referring to a window the delay will open for developers.

The moratorium ends Friday. Any subdivision or re-zone applications submitted between then and the date when a new ordinance is passed will fall under the existing subdivision rules, which could produce more court challenges.

Of the 50-some who testified Thursday night, very few had anything supportive to say about the proposed changes to the ordinance.

Harlig set off the hearing by reading aloud a written note from an anonymous source aloud.

"Please be aware of what you are locking the farmer into," the note said.

Southern Blaine rancher Katie Breckenridge presented a petition with 215 signatures which she said represented "over 40,000 acres" to the board.

"We’re here and we’re here in numbers because we feel the agricultural community has a noose around its neck," Breckenridge said of her peers’ concerns about the ordinance’s impact on property rights.

"We feel there is a way to find a solution to all this," Breckenridge added.

But due to the clamorous criticisms of the group’s two lawyers, Gary Slette and Evan Robertson, the "solution" was not the document before the board that day.

The attorneys were afforded almost an hour of the hearing time when person after person conceded to them the allotted three minutes they had to make statements.

Slette called the proposed changes "an arbitrary vision" giving county planners too much leeway to impose anti-development views.

Slette called several rules for water, sewer and power utilities onerous and pre-emptive of state authority, which already monitors them.

"Ought not you defer to the entities that have jurisdiction over a subject matter?" he asked.

Slette also alleged the county was trying to prohibit subdivision with an overly subjective ordinance.

"What the subterfuge may actually be is, ‘We’re not going to allow any more subdivision in our county, to suit our traveling public,’" he said.

Slette’s colleague Robertson added that the ordinance, "looks very confiscatory" and warned the board to examine the proposed amendments in light of private property rights issues.

Other strong criticisms came point-by-point from engineer Dick Fosbury.

Fosbury presented what he said were flaws in the ordinance’s management of avalanche zones, sewage disposal and street requirements.

The commissioners made many adjustments to the ordinance as a result of public comments.

In the case of utilities regulations, many of the standards became slightly less rigorous to meet individual circumstances.

# 

Of the few who did speak on behalf of the county’s efforts, many said other programs would be needed as well.

"Get the ball in motion," Blaine County Rancher’s Association President Larry Schoen said of a Transfer of Density Rights (TDR) Program.

Under TDR, allowable density throughout the county would be shifted from agricultural areas to areas closer to towns. Owners of agriculturally zoned land could sell density rights to developers of land closer to population centers.

Harlig said the county is still pursuing this and other plans to supplement the subdivision ordinance, such as a Save Our Open Space bond issue and grants to preserve ag land.