By Skip Kowalski, President, Bitterrooters for Planning
Credit goes to Stevensville for updating its growth policy. Who knows where it will go or how well it will be received, but the community is at least making an effort to look toward the future. Planning for growth should be viewed as something positive and not something to be avoided. Proactive planning can actually increase property values and provide greater certainty for developers as well as improve social, economic and environmental conditions for citizens. I commend Stevensville for taking the initiative, looking to the future, involving the public and taking positive steps to anticipate and cope with inevitable growth. Ravalli County could benefit from Stevensville’s example.
The October 26th Bitterroot Star reported on Stevensville’s progress in updating its growth policy. Although it provided good background and gave information on how Stevensville residents can become more informed and involved, I especially want to call attention to some disturbing comments made by County Commissioner Greg Chilcott. In responding to Stevensville’s growth policy, instead of considering the health, safety and well-being of all the residents of the county, which is his duty, his comments suggest a willingness to use the power of his position to promote what sounds like a personal agenda. The following explains why.
First, according to the Star, Commissioner Chilcott owns property adjacent to Stevensville, sits on its Planning and Zoning Board and openly admitted that he was acting as a county representative when he “adamantly” objected to Stevensville’s attempt to exercise its legal right to “evaluate the potential for expanding extra-territorial zoning.” In addition, he further admitted that, even though it is the law, he is “adamantly against” such zoning and believes “it’s wrong.” Since he is an adjacent property owner, is it not a conflict of interest for him to represent Ravalli County citizens in this situation? Should he not have requested another commissioner to represent the county? Should he not have at least recused himself and resisted providing comments that were obviously in his self-interest? Furthermore, why is a sitting government official, presumably acting in an official capacity, declaring that he thinks an existing law is “wrong” and implying that it should not be followed?
Second, Chilcott complained that “county residents, like himself…do not get representation at the Town Council (and) have no vote.” He failed to elaborate that the reason for Stevensville needing extra-territorial zoning is because Ravalli County lacks a growth policy – a policy that at one time existed, but that Commissioner Chilcott helped lead the charge to repeal. He also failed to acknowledge that he and his fellow commissioners have worked diligently to weaken prior and more balanced county subdivision regulations that could have been used to help Stevensville address the impacts of subdivisions adjacent to town.
Third, Commissioner Chilcott is reported to have been very critical of Stevensville’s objective of “preserving wildlife corridors” and “discouraging development” along the North Burnt Fork, a tributary to the Bitterroot River. The Commissioner claimed that there was a lack of empirical data to support such a recommendation, yet he used his personal observations of white-tailed deer, one of our most adaptable and prolific big game species, as evidence that wildlife would adapt and that corridors are not necessary. He failed to acknowledge that there are many species of wildlife, other than white-tailed deer, and that many of these species benefit from connected habitats along streams such as the Burnt Fork. These species include a variety of small mammals, songbirds and fish that contribute to wildlife based recreation, a tourism based economy and our quality of life. Unfortunately, he prevailed in getting the Planning and Zoning Board to revise and weaken wording related to wildlife corridors. Recognizing the amount of public input that has already been incorporated in the draft update, his comments show disrespect for some of the important wildlife values that the community wants to maintain as it plans for growth. Hopefully, the Town Council will retain the original wording regarding wildlife corridors in their final draft.
Lastly, Commissioner Chilcott asserted “that recognition of wildlife corridors would lead to development prohibitions.” For Commissioner Chilcott to imply that a total prohibition on development would be the norm is a major exaggeration. When the subdivision review evaluation criteria for wildlife habitat are applied, important mitigation measures may be identified – potentially resulting in the need to redesign the layout of a subdivision. Rarely would it ever completely prohibit development. Ideally, identifying an area as an important wildlife corridor can be to the developer’s advantage. Having that knowledge ahead of time allows the developer to accommodate wildlife needs in the original design, thus eliminating costly re-designs later.
In summary, Stevensville’s attempt to update its growth policy provides a ray of hope for planning in the Bitterroot Valley. Clearly, the citizens of Stevensville want a voice in defining how their community develops in the future and believe a growth policy is the right tool for balancing private and public interests. Unfortunately, Commissioner Greg Chilcott beats a single note drum that planning destroys private property rights and never acknowledges the potential benefits, an attitude promoted by the entire Board of County Commissioners that continues to stifle planning efforts in Ravalli County.
As development appears to be regaining momentum, it is imperative that it is done thoughtfully. Ravalli County needs to acknowledge that there is a price to pay for unmitigated growth and needs to rethink its avoidance of growth related issues. It should follow the example set by the town of Stevensville.