It was a touching moment last Wednesday, December 22, as students and teachers at the Stevensville Junior High all donned t-shirts emblazoned with a picture of the junior high building and the words “Last Ones Out” and celebrated with mixed emotions the fact that they were indeed going to be the last group of students and teachers to exit the old building.

The historic school building, constructed in 1901, is now destined for demolition. All classes once conducted in the building have been moved to temporary places on and off campus for the remainder of the school year.

Despite its historic value and the many memories tied to it, the building was overcrowded and cramped, in need of many repairs, was not exactly handicapped accessible, and constituted something of a fire hazard. The School Board decided the best plan was to demolish the building. Demolition of the building, as well as demolition of the 4 to 6 grade building, was approved as part of the elementary school building bond approved last summer. A high school bond, which included plans for the construction of a music center, multipurpose room, stage, and kitchen, was not approved, but ultimately Superintendent Kent Kultgen was successful in landing a grant of federal stimulus funds to put the whole project back on track.

As a result, of course, the historic junior high building will soon only exist in photos, and in the hearts and minds of those who remember it.

Leave a comment on our blog

Subdivision regulation changes adopted, lawsuit filed

By Michael Howell

At a meeting on Wednesday, December 22, the three outgoing County Commissioners, in a 3 to 2 vote, adopted the latest draft of amendments to the Ravalli County Subdivision Regulations. A lawsuit, filed on behalf of 18 county residents on December 20, challenging the legality of the public process, also asked District Judge Jeffrey Langton to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the county from holding the meeting. The request for an injunction was denied on Tuesday and the Wednesday meeting proceeded as scheduled.

The meeting on Wednesday drew a large crowd with people packing the commissioners’ meeting room wall to wall and spilling over into the hallway.

County Planner Tristan Riddell gave a brief overview of the process which, he said, began in 2008 with direction from the County Commissioners to the Planning Department to move forward with a review of the then-current regulations with an eye towards updating them to make them more efficient and bring them into compliance with certain changes that had been made in state law.

The Planning Department held meetings and open house presentations for the public from May through July of 2009 and issued a report based upon examination of those comments in August of 2009. Based upon comments received upon that report, an initial draft of proposed changes was produced and released for public review on June 1, 2010. Following a 60-day period for public review including Planning Board meetings and Commissioner Work Sessions, those results were tabulated and a summary report was issued. Some changes to the initial draft were made and a final draft was submitted to the County Attorney’s office for legal review. A meeting was held on November 30 to examine the draft and at that time the December 22 meeting for consideration of adoption was scheduled.

Riddell went on to say that the Planning Department was recommending that Chapter 9 of the new draft, dealing with a voluntary program for developers called the “conservation subdivision” option, not be adopted but reserved for future consideration due to a “lack of vetting.”

“The rest got plenty of public comment and legal review,” said Riddell.

Right off the bat Commissioner James Rokosch made a motion to amend the proposed regulation changes to include a section on streamside setbacks and buffer zones. He said the proposed amendment was in congruence with existing regulations in Lewis and Clark County and with what was once proposed by the Ravalli County Streamside Setback Committee.

Commissioners J.R. Iman and Greg Chilcott both objected on the grounds that it had not gone through any public review. Commissioner Kathleen Driscoll said she was in agreement with the need for some streamside setback provisions in the regulations but also had concerns that it had not undergone any public review as part of the current draft. These three commissioners defeated the motion to add it to the draft on a vote of 3 to 2.

Public comment was then heard concerning a motion to adopt the final draft as presented. The Commissioners heard comments from over 40 citizens. People spoke both for and against the proposed rule changes, a good majority speaking against them. Opponents to the regulations could be recognized, whether they spoke or not, by the colored arm bands that they wore.

David Merrick, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Department, said that he was against the regulations because they were “land use restrictions” and he is against land use restrictions.

Fellow plaintiff Dan Floyd lamented that the County Planner could not be in attendance, calling his participation “crucial.” Floyd claimed that the current meeting, being held during regular hours, was in violation of an Attorney General Opinion because it deprived working people of the chance to participate. He also claimed that the regulation changes, being more strict than state law, lacked the proper scientific foundation and cost analysis required by law.

Keith Kubista referred to the proposed regulation changes as “an assault on private property rights.”

A few different people argued that the new changes were “too subjective” and would inevitably lead to lawsuits. Frank Lipus said that one example of the subjective nature of the regulations was in the determination of what constitutes a “High Fire Hazard Area.”

Dan Cox questioned the need to take any action since whatever decision was made was already scheduled to be reviewed once the three new commissioners take their seats in January. A meeting has already been scheduled for a re-examination of the regulation changes on Monday, January 3, 2011 with three new commissioners on board.

Planning Board member Skip Kowalski spoke in favor of the regulation changes. He said that he supported private property rights, but he also supported responsible growth and was opposed to the hidden costs of private development being passed on to the taxpayer. He said that the proposed changes primarily just streamline the process, addressing some longstanding legal issues with changes in state law. He said that most of the changes were based on requests by the developers to make the process easier and less costly.

Doug Soehren agreed, saying that there was nothing extreme about the proposed changes.

Bill LaCroix said that it was the protest against the new regulations itself that was “an extreme reaction based on misinformation.” He said the new regulations should have been approved a long time ago.

Local attorney Curtis Cook spoke in favor of the new regulations, saying that they were designed to meet the requirements of state law. He said there was no reason for the commissioners to step back from changing the regulations to meet state law.

“It’s not right to get to this point and then back off,” said Cook.

John Carbin echoed this concern, saying, “It’s one thing to go two steps forward and one step back, but let’s not go two steps forward and ten steps back.”

Larry Campbell said that he was concerned about unregulated activity affecting his property rights.

Les Rutledge, a long time member of the Planning Board, said that most of the changes to the regulations were to correct grammar or spelling or to improve organization. The more substantive changes were to bring them into congruence with new state law. He said that those opposed to the changes should take it up with their legislators. He said all the changes are for the good and will help everyone, including the developers.

Following the public comment, Commissioner Rokosch moved to adopt the draft as written.

Riddell reiterated the Planning Department’s recommendation that Chapter 9 be reserved for future determination so the proposal could be vetted by the public.

Rokosch defended his motion, arguing that it was only a voluntary incentive program and no developer had to use it if they didn’t want to.

Commissioner Driscoll moved to amend the motion to exclude Chapter 9. In a 4 to 1 vote every commissioner but Rokosch voted to exclude Chapter 9.

The motion to approve the new regulations, with Chapter 9 excluded, was then approved on a 3 to 2 vote.

Commissioners Chilcott and Iman cast the dissenting two votes. Chilcott said that in his mind the draft regulations had not gone through the proper public process.

“It’s a bad idea to rush this,” said Chilcott. “We should wait for the best document.”

Iman said that he, too, felt the document had not been properly vetted and that many questions were not answered.

The lawsuit filed over the process on Monday, two days prior to the meeting, lists 18 petitioners including Charles Donaldson, Harold Mildenberger, John Greathouse, William Menager, Jan Wisniewski, Don Dunbar, Marty and Stacy Auch, Dwain Rennaker, Darrel Sperry, Willie Shrock, Ronald Porter, Sue Jones, David and Leona Merrick, Roger Mikesell, Dan Floyd and Ed Sperry. The petitioners are represented by Helena attorney Gregory Duncan.

Besides asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the meeting (which was denied), the petitioners also asked for a declaratory judgment that the Commissioners and the Planning Department have not complied with the law requiring public comment and review prior to adoption. They asked for a declaration that the proposed regulations need to be presented to the community for public comment due to the fact that they had been substantially changed from the comment period that took place in June and July 2010 that led to the initial draft. Judge Langton also denied the petitioner’s request for an order to show cause, writing, “Denied on the face of it” on both orders with no further comment.

In their lawsuit, the petitioners allege that oral comments during the public comment portion of the process were not included or considered. They allege that the Planning Board meetings were “intentionally cancelled by supporters of the Bitterrooters for Planning” for the purpose of preventing the public from commenting on the changes and the full Planning Board from considering them. They accuse both the Planning Board and the Planning Department of trying to delay public access to the revised document for as long as possible.

The petitioners complain that Chapter 9 was added without any chance for the public to review or comment on it; that substantial changes were made to the regulations without public review that will require 20 engineering reports rather than the current number of seven, and could be interpreted to require a complete Environmental Impact Statement; and that the section about what was originally called the “Wildland Urban Interface” was changed to “High Fire Hazards Area”, but without adequate criteria for determining what property falls under that criteria.

They call the changes “so global and vast in nature as to render these revised regulations as a totally new document.” They accuse the outgoing commissioners of “ram-rodding” the adoption of the new regulations. They claim that the new regulations will “have the impact of stopping all land development, as well as economic development” due to additional expenses associated with compliance. The petitioners claim that damages to themselves would include the diminution of the value of their land, the inability to subdivide certain lands that are subdivide-able under current Montana and federal regulations constituting an illegal taking of property without compensation, and that it will damage the economy by diminishing sales of goods and products and interfering with the flow of commerce.

Leave a comment on our blog

Attempt to serve papers on commissioner draws sheriff’s response

By Michael Howell

According to Penny Howe and Jimmy Canton, the day after the lawsuit against the Planning Department and the Board of County Commissioners was filed in District Court, they went about trying to serve the papers on John Lavey of the Planning Department and the various commissioners.

Howe and Canton said that when they found that Commissioner Carlotta Grandstaff was not in the office on Tuesday, they went to her residence southeast of Hamilton to serve the papers on her. They said Jan Wisniewski, Planning Board member and one of the petitioners in the lawsuit, accompanied them in his own vehicle.

Howe said that she did not observe any ‘no trespassing’ signs so she walked down the long driveway and knocked on the door of the residence. She said that a man told her that Commissioner Grandstaff was not at home and she left.

Canton said the two of them then drove away, but Wisniewski remained parked nearby. Canton said they got a call from Wisniewski saying that three people were loading skis into a vehicle in front of the house and appeared to be preparing to leave. Canton said he drove back and parked at the beginning of the driveway and Howe started walking down the driveway towards the house. He said the vehicle proceeded to drive out the driveway, forcing Howe to jump out of the way to avoid being hit. The exiting car swerved around his vehicle, he said, and proceeded down the road. He said Wisniewski followed the vehicle immediately, but it took him and Howe some time to get going. Howe said that she placed a call to 911 to report that she had almost been run over.

When they did catch up to Wisniewski they saw that he was stopped on the side of the road with two sheriff’s vehicles in front of his car and two behind and a fifth vehicle belonging to Undersheriff Perry Johnson parked nearby. They said that they stopped at the scene and were questioned about why they were following Grandstaff. They said they told the officers that they were trying to serve legal papers on her. Canton said he got his attorney on the phone to talk with the officers and the matter was eventually resolved.

Canton said that he got a telephone call from Johnson the next day saying that it would be alright if he attended the Commissioners meeting on Wednesday.

Commissioner Grandstaff declined to comment on the incident.

Wisniewski could not be reached for comment.

Undersheriff Perry Johnson said that, according to the report he saw, officers did investigate the scene at Grandstaff’s residence and determined that a person had stepped off the roadway away from the tire tracks in the snowy driveway and that the vehicle had pulled off the roadway on the other side as it passed. He said that passengers in the vehicle confirmed that this was the case.

Johnson confirmed that a call had been received from Grandstaff expressing concern about the vehicles following her. He said a traffic stop was made and the people explained that they were trying to serve legal papers on Grandstaff and were following the vehicle she was in, hoping to deliver the papers when she got out of the vehicle at her destination.

“We responded because we wanted to be sure that no one got hurt, we wanted to keep anyone from getting hurt,” said Undersheriff Johnson. “When we got there and talked to all parties we ascertained that no one was in danger.”

At Wednesday’s meeting, copies of a letter to the commissioners from the Bitterroot Human Rights Alliance were distributed in which the group asks the commissioners to remove Wisniewski from the planning board for his role in the incident. They state that Wisniewski has “previously admitted to harassing and stalking another private citizen in this county.”

They want him removed from the Planning Board “as his behavior and attitude is so obviously antithetical to the spirit and mission of our volunteer boards…”

Leave a comment on our blog

Commissioners consider video taping meetings

By Michael Howell

Two weeks ago the Ravalli County Commissioners agreed to hire Planning Board President Lee Tickell for $1 a year to work with the county’s Information Technology expert Joe Frohlic to develop a set of options for audio taping and/or video taping the Commissioners’ meetings. Tickell, who works for Microsoft and has extensive experience with audio/video recording systems, will work with Frohlic to produce a range of options including costs.

“I’ve been advocating this for two and a half years,” said Commissioner Kathleen Driscoll. “I’m pretty empathetic with the citizens’ need to know what the Commissioners are doing,” she said.

“In this day and age it’s absurd not to have good digital recordings of our activities,” said Commissioner Carlotta Grandstaff. “What price do you put on citizen participation?” she added.

Mary Barton, a member of Bitterroot Citizens for Responsible Government, told the commissioners that her organization was prepared to donate $1,000 to help with the project.

“This is not about the county commissioners,” said Barton. “It’s about the citizens and their right to know and participate in government.”

The commission decided to delay any action pending the presentation of some definite options with associated cost estimates by Frohlic.

Those options may be made available before the end of the year and may include the top end option of “live streaming” on the internet, which would allow people with internet access to actually watch the proceedings as they occur.

Leave a comment on our blog

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Legals •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2009 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney