A Flathead District Court judge has thrown out Flathead County’s greenbelt zoning classification, saying it constituted spot zoning and was an “abuse of discretion.”

The county commissioners unanimously adopted the controversial general business highway greenbelt zoning designation in 2011 at the request of a group of U.S. 93 North landowners who wanted the new zoning for commercial development of about 60 acres of largely suburban agricultural land along the highway east of the Silverbrook subdivision.

In his ruling issued Wednesday, District Judge David Ortley noted the result of the greenbelt zoning is that not only permitted uses but also conditional uses may be imposed in that zone with limited public comment.

“There is nothing in the commissioners’ decision to rezone the area which establishes a benefit to the neighboring landowners,” Ortley wrote. “It is clear that the commissioners’ decision to rezone the land is unsustainable.”

The greenbelt zoning allowed business and commercial uses on property served by primary and secondary highways in the county as long as property owners met mitigation requirements to soften the visual impact.

Citizens for a Better Flathead and property owner Sharon DeMeester sued the county, asking the court to rule on the legitimacy of the new zoning.

They contended the greenbelt classification created a policy in which every highway in the county was open to major commercial development, and maintained the county failed to follow statutory and regulatory rules in adopting the zoning text and map amendments.

Although the commissioners — who at the time were Jim Dupont, Dale Lauman and Pam Holmquist — saw greenbelt zoning as one more zoning option for property owners, there was stiff opposition.

The county received 881 protests, but that number didn’t meet the 40 percent benchmark under state law to trigger denial.

The Flathead County Planning Board and the Planning Office had recommended the greenbelt proposal be denied. The city planning staffs for both Whitefish and Kalispell also recommended denial of the map change and zone change for the property in question.

In his ruling, Ortley further noted that the map amendment and zone change don’t comply with the county growth policy.

Ortley had a strong opinion about the county’s failure to consider public comment.

“The commissioners’ blatant disregard of public comment is unsupportable,” the judge said. “The commissioners failed to address the public concerns ... and completely failed to address and incorporate those concerns in explaining its decision to make such [zoning] amendments.”

Ortley pointed out that the commissioners “took it upon themselves to have staff check residence addresses of those objecting to the new zone and map and text amendment, and disregarded objections of those that did not live in the immediate vicinity of the area under consideration.”

However, Ortley noted, the new zoning designation could be used throughout the county, “thus any resident in the county could be affected by the change.”

Citizens for a Better Flathead Executive Director Mayre Flowers said the Citizens’ organization hopes the ruling will provide a renewed opportunity for county and city residents and their representatives to work together.

“[We] appreciate the court’s clear recognition of the need for the county and municipalities to work together and its recognition of the need for meaningful consideration of public comment in land-use decisions,” Flowers said.

Officials with the County Attorney’s Office and Planning Office were not available for comment on Friday.

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