Just two weeks shy of a full year since it first went before them, the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan got a unanimous recommendation for approval from the Flathead County Planning Board on Wednesday night.

"We're very pleased to get a unanimous vote," said Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee Chairwoman, and one of the plan's main architects, Shelley Gonzales. "I was shocked."

The plan first went before the board on April 9, 2008, and a workshop was scheduled for last July. That workshop was postponed indefinitely, pending the county commissioners' decision on a piece of zoning language concerning neighborhood plans. The workshop, in which the planning board and members of BLUAC and the Bigfork Steering Committee went through the plan page by page, was held on Dec. 11, 2008, and a hearing was scheduled before the planning board for Feb. 11. At that meeting, discussion of the plan was last on the agenda and as 11 p.m. approached, the board decided to continue the hearing at the March 25 meeting.

This time the board again went through each of the plan's 125 pages, with various members motioning to make changes to bits of language throughout. Those changes were documented in italics so the county commissioners can see the original language along with the planning board's proposed changes.

The discussion got off to a rocky start, with planning board member George Culpepper giving lengthy remarks about the plan's foibles and offering to send it back to BLUAC so that Bigfork residents could make the raft of changes he proposed instead of the county.

"I believe we need to send this back to BLUAC," he said. "I believe, as it stands, the board would have to make significant changes."

Over the course of the three-hour meeting, Culpepper proposed no less than a dozen changes, the vast majority of which were approved by the board.

Culpepper had not yet been appointed when the planning board held the Dec. 11 workshop meeting and told the group at the end of the meeting, "I appreciate you guys bearing with me."

Among the changes made by the planning board was the insertion of language recognizing the need for and role of manufactured homes in providing affordable housing, clarifying language about "preserving the horizon" to reflect an intent to prevent people from building atop ridgelines, and changing the plan's amendment process to better match the one laid out in the Flathead County Growth Policy.

Gonzales said only one of the proposed changes concerned her, one which took out language concerning the need for developers to post reclamation bonds.

"I think it's important that the county should adopt those procedures so developers can't just leave the land a mess," Gonzales said. "But in general, I have no objections to the recommended changes."

The Bigfork committees, as well as citizens, will have one final opportunity to plead their case when the plan is heard by the Flathead County Commissioners in the next few months.

Prior to voting 9-0 in favor of adopting a resolution recommending adding the plan to the county growth policy — a statutory regulation, in lieu of the board's usual recommendation — members of the board commended Bigfork for the energy expended on the plan in the four years it's been in the works.

"I think when it's all said and done, you have a good plan," said planning board member Mike Mower told the Bigfork crowd at the meeting. "I'd like to really commend you for your patience, because this has been a long and tortured path."