A county proposal to allow accessory dwelling units in most zoning districts was tabled Monday by the Flathead County commissioners after several people testified the zoning amendment needs further study.

The amendment emerged during county Planning Board meetings over the past 18 months as the board studied potential updates to county zoning regulations.

The idea of allowing accessory dwelling units is aimed at preserving the property rights of landowners, promoting the development of affordable housing and financially helping homeowners, according to the Planning Office staff report.

Accessory dwelling units would be allowed in agricultural, suburban agricultural and some residential zoning districts as a permitted use, while such dwellings would be a conditional use in higher-density residential zones.

The amendment defines accessory dwelling units as single, separate living units for stays of 30 days or longer. The dwelling could be no larger than 40 percent of the floor area of the principal home on the property. Only one accessory dwelling could be rented per tract of record.

Bruce Young, a Realtor from Lakeside, said the proposal has some merit, “but it’s far too broad.

“The idealogues on the Planning Board have taken it too far,” Young said, urging further study.

He also noted the property rights argument “swings both ways” in that what’s allowed on one property could adversely affect a neighboring property.

Sharon DeMeester also questioned the property rights argument and said she’s concerned about the potential impact of the zoning text amendment on smaller residential lots.

DeMeester said she lives in a development north of Kalispell that’s governed by covenants, “but across the road there are larger pieces of property ... it would double the density and take away from the rural atmosphere.”

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead encouraged the commissioners to send the proposal back to the Planning Board for additional review.

“As proposed, the simple addition of accessory dwelling units to most zoning districts is lacking in the definitions, standards, criteria for review and measurable goals needed to provide the safeguards that property owners have a right to expect,” Flowers said.

She encouraged the commissioners to allow neighborhoods to petition to add an overlay zone for accessory dwellings. Flowers also suggested requiring a conditional-use permit for accessory dwellings to allow for input from neighbors.

The 40 percent limit on accessory square footage could be problematic, too, Flowers said, because the amendment as written would allow extremely large accessory dwellings to accompany very large homes, since there’s no cap on the size of principal dwellings.

Although studies indicate zoning that allows accessory dwellings would generate about one such dwelling per 1,000 homes, tourism areas “could see a higher level of development if safeguards are not in place to discourage or prevent abuse of this housing for short-term rentals,” Flowers said.

Planning Board member Greg Stevens was at the hearing to defend the proposed amendment. He said allowing accessory dwellings is not only a financial benefit but also a social benefit because renters and landlords could help one another.

Stevens said the Planning Office conducted an exhaustive study of how other areas of the country handle accessory dwellings.

Commissioner Gary Krueger had questions for the planning staff about potential further revisions to zoning regulations to accommodate farm families with vacant dwellings that once housed ranch hands. To preserve the agricultural fabric of many areas, Krueger said many farmers need the ability to be able to rent out those accessory dwellings.

“While this [proposal] is better than what we have now, we need a little more work on the ag section,” Krueger said.

Commissioner Pam Holmquist said she needed time to review additional emails and testimony from the hearing. Commissioner Cal Scott agreed, saying the amendment “seems to be a reasonable start.”

The commissioners tabled a vote on the amendment, but agreed to put it back on the agenda for further discussion in early December.

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