Flathead County District Court Judge David Ortley ruled last week that the county’s two-year-old greenbelt zoning classification constituted spot zoning and was an “abuse of discretion.”

The controversial general business highway greenbelt zoning designation was unanimously adopted by county commissioners Jim Dupont, Dale Lauman and Pam Holmquist in 2011.

A group of landowners on U.S. 93 north of Kalispell had requested the new zoning classification so they could develop commercial sites on about 60 acres of mostly suburban-agricultural land near the Silverbrook subdivision.

The greenbelt zoning allowed business and commercial uses along primary and secondary highways in the county if property owners met requirements to soften visual impacts, including setbacks and landscaping.

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.

In his July 3 ruling against the zoning, Ortley said the greenbelt classification allowed permitted and conditional uses with limited public comment. He also noted that the map amendment and zone change for the 60-acre property didn’t comply with the county growth policy.

The county had received 881 comments opposed to the new zoning, but that number didn’t meet the state’s 40 percent threshold to trigger denial.

The Flathead County Planning Board and planning staffs at the county, in Kalispell and in Whitefish all recommended denial of the map change and zone change for the 60-acre property.

In his ruling, Ortley noted that the commissioners had disregarded comments from people who did not live in the immediate vicinity of the 60-acre property. But the new zoning designation could be used throughout the county, he said, and “any resident in the county could be affected by the change.”

“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.”