A new zone classification that recently gained approval from the Flathead County commissioners has stirred up a high level of worry for one county resident.

Mayre Flowers, executive director of Citizens for a Better Flathead, says the new greenbelt classification creates a county “policy that says every highway in the county is open to major commercial development.”

Flowers says a greenbelt zone “is one of the most major changes to how” Flathead County will grow that she has seen in the two decades she’s been doing land-use planning work in the Flathead.

Commissioners passed a resolution of intent to adopt the new zone classification on May 31, opening a 30-day protest period. At the end of the 30 days, they will consider a final resolution. If that’s adopted, the zone becomes part of the county’s zoning policies.

Commissioners overrode a recommendation from the Flathead County Planning Board, which in March voted to send the issue to the commissioners with a recommendation that the general business highway greenbelt zone not be implemented.

County Planning Director BJ Grieve said if the new zone is adopted, no parcel of land in the county would immediately be zoned as a greenbelt.

A property owner would have to request the zone change and go through the standard zone change process, which includes a public hearing and review by the planning office staff.

The greenbelt concept came before the planning board last year when Marilyn Noonan asked about a new zone for property she owns on U.S. 93 North near Kalispell.

In an interview earlier this month, Noonan said she and some of her neighbors wanted to create a zone with bigger setbacks in Flathead County. They also wanted “some landscaping to keep the visual highway corridors a little nicer-looking than current zoning offers,” she said.

Highway corridors in the county aren’t farm land any more, she said, yet aren’t really suitable for residential development, “so we are looking for ways to create commercial opportunities and keep the highway corridors a little more attractive.”

Noonan and some of her neighbors are willing “to accept further restrictions” on the property development, she said. “We’re really trying to make something good here, and I’m hoping it’s something the community would like.”

Noonan said she “reached out to Citizens for a Better Flathead” about her idea last year but received no feedback.

If the new zone is adopted, Noonan plans to pursue a zone change on her property.

The county planning office staff’s finding of facts on the greenbelt zone supported the new zone designation.

Development in the greenbelt zone would require mitigation of visual impacts of commercial development along major roads, unlike other business zones in the county. Special attention would be paid to setbacks, landscaping and signs.

The new zone would recognize that highway corridors are attractive for business because of high visibility and accessibility, but often are in undeveloped areas of the county, the planning staff report stated.

Commercial development along a highway can result in a strip sandwiched between rural residential or agricultural uses, which may result in conflicting land uses, the staff report stated.

The new zone is “a recipe for sprawl,” Flowers said. And Flathead County already has areas with highway commercial sprawl, she said.

Urban sprawl undermines the efforts of people who “have worked hard to retain quality corridors and direct growth toward city centers,” Flowers said. “This degrades the quality of life and walkability and property values in the Flathead.” It also hampers the investment that taxpayers have put into downtown corridors.

Flowers wants county officials instead to focus on using infrastructure more efficiently and not to allow “sprawling commercial development that requires more vehicle trips, less walking and degrades the quality of experience for tourists.”

Grieve counters that the act of adding to the zoning menu “does not in and of itself create sprawl.”

And, he said, the new zone “is meant to enhance walkability by providing for greenbelts which are not required in” other existing business zones.

Flowers dislikes the words that county officials have used when discussing the possible new zone. It’s been referred to as another tool in the tool box. But, she says, it’s a major change in what tools have been in the box before.

She said existing commercial zone classifications have worked in the county.

This new zone, she fears, “essentially means that any type of commercial use is now deemed appropriate on any roads designated as Montana primary or secondary roads.”

Flowers said her group believes “in this current economy, where communities are looking to attract investment, and particularly investment that brings jobs, to not have in place planning tools that support our current business centers,” is inappropriate.

She said she believes the greenbelt zone would provide “an unpredictable climate for any business moving in to the area” because the owners wouldn’t know “what kind of business might move in next door or what kind of standards might be applied.”

That, Flowers said, “is not attractive to new business or to tourism.”

If the commissioners approve the new zone, Flowers said, they are ignoring their “responsibility to protect the economic viability of the county for future economic growth.”

The new zone classification does have more listed uses, Grieve said, but in exchange for having more options, a developer “is going to do more, enhanced mitigation of the impacts of lighting and signage” and have an increased front setback.

County Commissioner Dale Lauman said he supports the new zone.

He knows some people are worried that it adds another layer of zoning, but he does view it as another tool in the tool box.

“People still have to go through the same process as with any zone change,” Lauman said. And that process allows for public input and review.

Lauman is waiting to hear from county residents with opinions about the zone classification. “We’ll see what the 30 days bring us,” he said. “If it brings a lot of protest, then we’ll take that into consideration. It’s wait and see now.”

Reporter Shelley Ridenour may be reached at 758-4439 or sridenour@dailyinterlake.com.