Time Concerns and Edits to Land Use Element

SWAN VALLEY - Members of the Swan Valley Regional Planning Committee (SVRPC) discussed at length the community’s concern that the regional draft plan editing was taking too much time at their meeting March 23. They also addressed and voted on edits to the Land Use Element of the draft plan referring to community comments and edits by attorney Colleen Dowdall and journalist Suzanne Vernon.

Community member Dan Maloughney said community members he talks to are wondering if this is becoming a “committee plan and not a community plan” because it is taking so long and the community comments were not being heard at meetings. Maloughney added that the committee should be commended for changing the hours they met from the afternoon to evening so that more could attend.

The committee agreed with SVRPC member Dave Johnson when he said that they need a succinct document that the committee can present to the community within a reasonable amount of time. The committee voted to review beforehand the entire element to be discussed at the appointed meeting so the process of editing can go more quickly.

The SVRPC voted on the following in the Land Use Element of the draft plan:

• The committee voted with one in opposition to accept Dowdall’s edits to the first three paragraphs of introduction which eliminated excess verbiage. The SVRPC member in opposition member Diann Ericson wanted the deleted original information in an appendix.

The original information contained description of a community’s “culture, values, and priorities” that determines how a community puts its lands to use.

The original information asked the question if the community wanted “a community to be comprised primarily of retirees and seasonal residents” or one that tries to balance an economy based in part on retirees and seasonal residents by attracting young people with families. If they want balance then a strategy that encourages job growth and workforce housing should be considered.

• In the Land Ownership section of the draft plan, the committee voted to accept Dowdall’s edits which removed unnecessary wording. The committee agreed to fact-check percentage and acreage of land ownership in the planning area contained in the element’s sections.

• In the Residential Land Use section, the committee accepted Dowdall’s edits which removed verbiage that was excessive. It now states that lots in the planning area generally are from four to 20 acres in size and the median size is six and eighth-tenths acres. There are 275 lots of 20 to 650 acres in size where new development could occur.

• The Non-Residential Land Use section was discussed more extensively. The committee voted to accept Dowdall’s edits in the first two paragraphs. Ericson, who wanted the original wording to remain, opposed the committee.

The original information called for the plan to identify specific areas sites for additional industrial and commercial businesses. It also said that residents were concerned about appearance of establishments as there are no mandates for fencing or screening [from view of the highway].

The two paragraphs now read: ”Little land is devoted to commercial, industrial, semi-public and community facility type uses. The Economic Development Element lists 25 businesses currently operating in the planning area which account for most of the non-residential land use. Most businesses are located along Highway 83 providing visibility and exposure to highway traffic. Additional commercial and industrial development should be located and developed in a way that enhances the rural character and without detracting from the natural beauty of the area. “

• The committee voted unanimously to accept Dowdall’s edits to the third paragraph of Non-Residential Land Use and also taking out the areas listed where development could occur.

The paragraph now reads: “Additional businesses or industries should be in areas adjacent to existing business and industry. Clustering commercial and industrial development “nodes” would prevent strip development along the highway.”

• The committee voted to keep Dowdall’s addition and edits to the final paragraph with members Pat Sinz and Ericson opposed. They wanted to keep the original wording which suggested appearance standards that “supports the character, quality and scenic attributes of the Upper Swan area.”

The final paragraph of the Non-Residential Land Use section now reads: “Approval of subdivisions for commercial or industrial uses could achieve comprehensive plan compliance by building according to the recommended standards that achieve the goals of protecting rural character without adverse impacts to the things valued by the community.

The next meeting of the SVRPC is Monday, April 17, 7 p.m. at the Swan Valley Community Hall.