A Flathead District Court ruling that rejected Flathead County’s greenbelt zoning classification has been appealed to the Montana Supreme Court by the county commissioners.

The commissioners adopted the controversial general business highway greenbelt zoning five years ago 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 suburban agricultural land along the highway east of the Silverbrook subdivision north of Kalispell.

District Judge David Ortley voided the greenbelt zoning in a 2013 ruling, saying it constituted spot zoning and was an “abuse of discretion.” Ortley maintained the result of the greenbelt zoning was that not only permitted uses but also conditional uses could be imposed in that zone with limited public comment.

The county’s greenbelt zoning was intended to allow commercial uses on property served by primary and secondary highways in Flathead County as long as property owners met mitigation requirements to soften the visual impact.

The commissioners’ decision to create the greenbelt zoning was contrary to recommendations from both the Flathead County Planning Board and Planning Office to deny the proposal.

After then-commissioners Jim Dupont, Dale Lauman and Pam Holmquist unanimously adopted the greenbelt zoning classification, Citizens for a Better Flathead and property owner Sharon DeMeester sued the commissioners, alleging the greenbelt zoning created a policy in which every highway in the county would be open to major commercial development.

They further contended the county failed to follow statutory and regulatory rules in adopting the zoning text and map amendments.

“We felt the District Court made a sound ruling,” Citizens’ Executive Director Mayre Flowers said.

Once the judgment in the case was entered into the court, which didn’t happen until early 2015, the county had an opportunity to file an appeal and did so on Jan. 8, asking the high court to reverse the District Court’s decision.

The appeal asks the state Supreme Court to consider whether the information upon which the commissioners based their decision “is so lacking in fact and foundation that the decision is unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

“The District Court never undertook this analysis,” the court brief asserts.

The county alleges that by using incorrect characterizations for the existing and approved land uses and zoning both on and adjacent to the parcels in the greenbelt map amendment, the court reached conclusions that were unsupported by the evidence.

“The court predicated much of its conclusions on its determination that the proposed rezoning failed to comply with the county’s ‘future land use map,’” the brief states. “However, the county’s growth policy does not have a future land use map.”

The commissioners further contend that the court misinterpreted applicable statutory requirements and incorrectly concluded a writ of mandamus was a proper remedy to reverse the greenbelt zoning.

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