The Flathead County Board of Adjustment voted unanimously Tuesday night to deny a request for a change to a conditional-use permit that would have allowed a gravel pit in West Valley to operate an asphalt and concrete batch plant as well.

About 80 individuals, mostly West Valley residents, attended the board’s public hearing at the Expo Building at the Flathead County Fairgrounds. The hearing lasted about four hours, ending just before 11 p.m.

The application was submitted by Rob Koelzer of Schellinger Construction Company on behalf of Section 16 Family Limited Partnership for a property located at 3427 Farm to Market Road. Koelzer had requested an amendment to a condition in the property’s existing permit that specifically states asphalt and concrete batch plants are prohibited.

The condition was added back in 2010 when the permit for gravel operations was approved after it was brought to both Flathead County District Court and the Montana Supreme Court. This history of litigation and the courts’ decisions to make batch plants an actual prohibited use were two of the board’s key reasons for eventually voting to deny the permit, though a few acknowledged an asphalt plant would benefit the valley as a whole.

Koelzer was the first to present Tuesday evening and addressed numerous concerns that had been brought forth by nearby residents and by the West Valley Land Use Advisory Committee, which recommended the proposal be denied on multiple counts.

Over the course of an hour he called several experts to the microphone to detail traffic impact studies and groundwater research projects. In addition to these experts, Koelzer presented a decibel study that estimated additional noise from an asphalt plant would be minimal. He also emphasized the plant would be portable, would be utilized only when needed and should a fire occur, the local fire department would be capable of handling such an incident.

At the end of his presentation, Koelzer addressed the crowd, saying they are “committed to being a good neighbor,” and wished to work with landowners to address their concerns.

His presentation was followed by nearly three hours of public comment.

Those who spoke in opposition said an asphalt plant would slash property values, undermine the longstanding West Valley Neighborhood Plan, bring in additional fumes and dust and, if approved, could set a dangerous precedent for other proposed projects in the valley.

“What are the implications of your decision tonight?” asked Kalispell attorney Donald Murray, who represented West Valley residents. “If you say yes, then the die has been cast. What is to stop you from denying future proposals?”

One engineer questioned the validity of the traffic and groundwater impact studies and others added the residential nature of the neighborhood has only increased since the original permit was approved and that the prohibiting of batch plants should be treated as an actual prohibited use, not a condition that can be amended.

“These [batch plants] were denied years ago because they weren’t true to the character of the neighborhood,” one attendee said. “And I think we should step back and ask, why are we even standing up here today?”

WHAT MANIFESTED throughout the public hearing was an economic push and pull that Flathead County residents and businesses are becoming increasingly familiar with. As the valley continues to expand, there is a push for development — whether it be residential, commercial or industrial — and a pull from those who believe their overall quality of life is now in jeopardy because of said proposed developments. This reality, which is certainly not unique to Flathead County, made the board’s decision a difficult one.

“I wish this valley was like it was when I was a kid, too. But it can’t be,” said board member Ole Netteberg. “A lot of people are moving to this valley and we are going to need a lot more infrastructure. We are going to need batch plants to handle the load, but where?”

Board member Calvin Dyck offered similar remarks.

“We have to recognize that asphalt is an important product and commodity. This is something we need,” Dyck said. “But we have to go back in history and look at the decision that was made then. And at this point, I don’t feel comfortable changing that in any way, shape or form.”

The board also suggested this request become a means for taking a second look at the county’s zoning regulations and neighborhood plans which, at some point, should be adjusted to accommodate future growth.

“We have to figure out ways to adapt to growth,” Dyck said.

Reporter Kianna Gardner can be reached at 758-4407 or kgardner@dailyinterlake.com