Ruling upholds board decision on West Valley pit

The practical benefits of suing Flathead County came into question again this week with yet another favorable ruling for the county in a land-use planning lawsuit.

District Court Judge Stewart Stadler granted the county's motion for summary judgment in a case related to a West Valley gravel pit.

This is the 11th time in the last two years the county has prevailed in a planning lawsuit. Including both District Court and Montana Supreme Court rulings, it has only lost one case during that period.

Stadler's latest ruling actually addressed two lawsuits over the same issue.

After the Flathead County Board of Adjustment approved a conditional-use permit for a 320-acre West Valley gravel pit last summer, both the mine opponents and the applicant filed suit.

The mine is planned near the intersection of Farm to Market Road and Church Drive.

In response to public concerns on water and air quality, the board prohibited asphalt or concrete batch plants from operating at the mine. The opponents then sued, seeking to overturn the permit approval.

And the Tutvedt Family Partnership sued to remove the batch-plant prohibition.

The lawsuits were later combined into a single action. Stadler said neither plaintiff made their case.

"The issuance of the conditional-use permit was correct both procedurally and substantively," he wrote. "The board took public comment and imposed conditions to mitigate the environmental impact of the gravel pit. Its decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and the decision to approve the permit was not illegal."

The opponents claimed that board member Gina Klempel should have removed herself because her husband owns a gravel pit, but Stadler said there was no conflict of interest.

"Klempel had no private or financial interest in the property at issue," he wrote. "Her participation was necessary for the board to act, and the connection she did have was disclosed."

Stadler also said the board didn't err when it voted on a second motion to conditionally approve the permit, after an initial motion failed.

Stadler also dismissed the applicant's claim that the batch-plant prohibition was illegal because it prevented the complete use of a gravel resource in a zoning district that wasn't specifically identified as residential.

"The board correctly determined that this property is located in a zoning classification which permits, and in which there exists, substantial residential use," he noted. "The property is within a geographic area zoned as residential; therefore, the condition was properly imposed."

This was the last of several gravel pit lawsuits the county was hit with last year. It prevailed in all of the cases.

Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at [email protected]