The Flathead County Planning Board last week moved forward on a more detailed outline of how to begin a county-sanctioned neighborhood plan, but softened its approach by removing language that would have required large percentages of landowners to support a plan.

Following controversy earlier this year over a proposed Somers Neighborhood Plan, the board was asked to develop new language for the county growth policy that would clarify the process of starting a neighborhood plan.

At issue was a confusing sentence in the growth policy stipulating that "a clear majority" of landowners and residents desiring a neighborhood plan could take steps to develop a plan. The "clear majority" issue stymied the Somers planning effort and also was used to snuff out an Evergreen neighborhood planning effort earlier this year before it got off the ground.

"Right now the system does not work," Planning Board Chairman Gordon Cross said.

Cross said new language that requires neighborhood plan organizers to collect signatures representing ownership of at least 10 percent of the parcels with tentative boundaries is reasonable. The 10 percent benchmark triggers the distinction between informational meetings and moving forward with the planning process.

"We're trying to strike a balance," Cross said.

In the end, though, the board opted to strike proposed language that would have required a final plan to be supported by at least 50 percent of all landowners signing a petition or 60 percent of landowners responding to a poll via ballots mailed by the Planning Office.

Also removed was a stipulation that of the 60 percent of poll respondents, a minimum of 30 percent of landowners would be required to respond to a poll for a plan to move ahead.

Instead, the board said a proposed plan must be supported by "a clear majority of both landowners and acreage within the established plan boundaries." Also added was a footnote explaining that each taxable parcel would be entitled to one signature regardless of the number of owners.

THE MAJORITY of public comments favored leaving the growth policy as it is regarding neighborhood plan initiation. Of 11 letters sent to the Planning Office, 10 were against making changes; one favored the revised language.

Audience members at the Oct. 14 meeting also favored leaving things as they are.

"There's tremendous misinformation out there about what a neighborhood plan can or can't do," said Joe Ruffolo, acting president of the Helena Flats Land Use Advisory Committee. "This won't help people tell them what they can and can't do. I'm a little uncomfortable saying there has to be a threshold" of support for a plan.

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead said testimony given recently regarding the Lakeside Neighborhood Plan showed that "the process is working ... to burden this more in the beginning is unnecessary.

"At this point, you have to trust your planning staff," Flowers said.

Sharon Demeester said getting petitions signed by such a high percentage (the 50 percent requirement) would be difficult.

Board member Charles Lapp said he has been critical of adding more steps to the process and believes the growth policy currently outlines the process adequately.

The addendum now goes to Deputy County Attorney Jonathan Smith for review of its compatibility with the growth policy before it is submitted to the county commissioners for final approval.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com