By Michael Howell
A draft update of Stevensville’s Growth Policy was presented last week to the Stevensville Planning and Zoning Board and will be passed on to the Town Council with some recommended changes before going to a public hearing in early November. The update was prepared and presented by Mathew Rohrbach of Land Solutions, LLC and John Kellogg of Professional Consultants, Inc.
Stevensville’s Growth Policy has a long history. The first Growth Policy, adopted in 2002, was the outcome of over four years of community meetings that culminated in a community workshop where a vision for Stevensville’s future was defined as a desire to maintain “a livable and walkable community.” In response to rapid population growth in Ravalli County during the early 2000s, the town adopted a significant update to the growth policy in 2009. That is the policy that is being updated at this time.
The draft update is the result of a series of public meetings, interviews and questionnaires, as well as a review of current data about the town’s population, employment numbers, and other statistics, as well as changing laws.
Nine key issues, which were identified during the public engagement process, include diversifying Stevensville’s tax base, and issues having to do with water, housing, non-motorized transportation, permitting and enforcing regulations, guiding development patterns south of town, annexation, the downtown, and access to the Bitterroot River.
“The implementation section at the end of this document is the heart of the growth policy as it outlines how Stevensville will achieve its future vision for the town,” it states in the draft policy. The implementation section includes a series of goals, objectives and actions. Together, they are intended to direct how Stevensville will allocate limited resources and develop work plans. For each action, the implementation section identifies the agencies and organizations that will partner on implementation, a timeline under which each action should be implemented and a priority ranking.
The policy contains 13 goals:
• Encourage Reuse and Infill in Existing Commercial Areas
• Retain Existing Commercial and Industrial Enterprises
• Expand Commercial and Industrial Areas in Stevensville
• Provide for Long-Term Supply of Municipal Water
• Provide for a Mix of Housing Options in Stevensville
• Develop a Safe and Accessible Non-Motorized Transportation Network
• Provide for Practical and Consistent Development Environment
• Provide for Coordinated Growth Outside of Town Limits
• Provide for continued success of Downtown Stevensville
• Provide Quality Recreation Opportunities for Stevensville Residents
• Provide Protection of the Natural Environment and Wildlife Habitat as Development Continues
• Uphold Public Safety
• Expand and Maintain Public Infrastructure Commensurate with the Needs of the Community
The draft policy, under the section entitled “Coordination,” outlines the town’s relationship with the county in matters of subdivision development. Stevensville currently has in place extraterritorial zoning extending south of town limits in Ravalli County. Any proposed subdivisions in the extraterritorial zoning undergoes review by the Ravalli County Planning Department to ensure compliance with Stevensville zoning. In addition, when Ravalli County receives a preliminary plat application for a subdivision within one-mile of Stevensville’s town limits, the planning department seeks comment from Stevensville regarding anticipated impacts on the town. In the event annexation is proposed, Stevensville will provide notice and the opportunity for comment to Ravalli County.
One action listed under the objective of providing for coordinated growth outside of Town limits was to “evaluate the potential for expanding extraterritorial zoning in the event of increased growth outside of town.”
State law allows municipalities to zone a mile outside their boundaries if there is no Growth Policy in the county. Since Ravalli County has no Growth Policy, the town has exerted its authority under the law and zoned an area south of town.
County Commissioner Greg Chilcott, who owns property bordering the town, and sits on the town’s Planning and Zoning Board, objected “adamantly” to this action item.
“I don’t like extra-territorial zoning,” said Chilcott. “I think it’s wrong. But it is the law. The courts have found it to be legal. But I think it is wrong. I’m adamantly against extra-territorial zoning. If it was citizen initiated zoning I could go along with it, but as a county representative, I have a mandate to oppose it. If you want to grow, annex it.”
Rohrbach said that state law gave towns the power of extra-territorial zoning when the surrounding county lacks a growth policy in order to ensure that the towns could coordinate development one mile outside their boundaries in a way that they could be annexed as the town grows and not have logical and consistent growth stymied.
Chilcott said that county residents, like himself, who live within a mile of Stevensville, do not get any representation at the Town Council, they have no vote, and yet the town wants to exert power over their decisions about how to use their own property. He said that appeared to be unconstitutional to him.
Town Councilor Bob Michalson said that it sounded like Chilcott wanted the ultimate decision about development around Stevensville to be in the hands of the County, even though the law recognizes the interest that a municipality has in its ability to grow.
Michalson said that Chilcott raised some interesting issues and the discussion should be carried forward to the public. “That is why we are here,” said Michalson, “to discuss these issues.”
It was agreed to note that the Planning and Zoning Board could not reach consensus over this action item.
Chilcott also disagreed with the objective of “preserving wildlife corridors” by “discouraging development in the North Burnt Fork Creek corridor leading to the Bitterroot River.” He called the data about the corridor “less than empirical.”
“I have whitetail, for instance at my place,” said Chilcott. “We get a social perception that wildlife needs space, but deer have very well adapted to the urban environment. Using that to strip property rights is not justified.”
Rohrbach said that the aim was not to stop development but to recognize the values that exist that you want to preserve. He suggested changing the wording to “promoting conservation” instead, or just supporting the conservation efforts that are taking place in the Burnt Fork.
Chilcott insisted that recognition of wildlife corridors would lead to development prohibitions.
“If my wife has cancer and I need money, but I live in a wildlife corridor, someone like Jim Rokosch and the Bitterrooters for Planning would come along and bash me with it and say you can’t develop it,” said Chilcott.
Rohrback reminded everyone that a future land use map was not zoning and could not be used as the only reason to stop a subdivision.
The board agreed to recommend changing the policy to read preserving and supporting the preservation of agriculture and open space instead of preserving a wildlife corridor.
Chilcott also objected to the objective of providing free Wi-Fi in town. He said it’s called free, but someone pays. He said he didn’t consider it an element of any Growth Policy.
In the section entitled Subdivision Review, it is noted that Montana state law requires growth policies to include statements on how governing bodies will conduct subdivision review. Specifically, state law requires growth policies to state how subdivision primary review criteria will be defined and evaluated in making decisions regarding proposed subdivisions as well as how governing bodies will conduct public hearings on proposed subdivisions.
Currently Stevensville addresses subdivision review within its development code by requiring that proposed subdivisions be reviewed in accordance with the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act – MCA 76-3. However, the requirements of MCA 76-3 are not intended to serve as local subdivision regulations but rather direct Montana cities and counties on what must be included in local subdivision regulations and how subdivision review must occur.
Stevensville does not currently have local subdivision regulations as required by MCA 76-3-501, and thus the town is not compliant with Montana’s Subdivision and Platting Act,” said John Kellogg.
Ravalli County was in a similar situation back in the 1990s when it approved a large subdivision in the Burnt Fork area. In that case, the county’s subdivision regulations relied on state law but had no process for implementing the state’s required criteria. The decision in favor of the Burnt Fork Citizens Coalition led to the adoption of subdivision evaluation criteria by the county that is currently in use today.
Rohrbach said that the policy was a way of suggesting that the town needs to become compliant with state law and adopt some appropriate subdivision regulations.
A section called “Conditions, Trends and Projections,” is full of maps, graphs, charts and statistics concerning population. There are maps showing existing and proposed non-motorized transportation improvements, water and sewer improvements, future land use, zoning, parks, soils and areas of potential annexation. There are charts showing population figures and projections, employment by industry with projections, housing with projections, earnings, and many other statistics and projections.
An appendix includes the survey results and public comments received concerning the Growth Policy.
A meeting on the Growth Policy is tentatively scheduled for November 9, 2016 at Town Hall. The draft may be viewed on the internet at www.planstevensville.com.