Missoula County approves Lolo Ranch boundary relocations to consolidate 18 tracts into 14

Missoula County commissioners approved a request to relocate common boundaries and apply agricultural aggregation exemptions for Lolo Ranch, a roughly 2,456‑acre property south of Lolo and north of the county line, consolidating 18 existing legal tracts into 14 proposed tracts. The change, presented to the Missoula County Board of Commissioners by staff, is intended to align parcel boundaries with current ranch uses and to allow clearer negotiation with potential conservation easement holders. Staff told commissioners the ranch is unzoned and lies within the 2002 Regional Land Use Guide for Lolo, with more intensive residential designations edging toward Highway 93 and open/resource designations on the western slopes. Jenny Dixon, a staff member who presented the report, said none of the existing tracts exceed 320 acres and that the proposed tracts would range from about 71 acres to 694 acres, with only one proposed tract larger than 320 acres. That 694‑acre parcel, Dixon said, could—under the county’s 160‑acre exemption—be divided in the future into multiple 160‑acre parcels without further review. Staff concluded the application did not meet the county’s “evasion” threshold and recommended approval. The staff memo listed subdivision‑level impacts that would apply only if the property were later reviewed as a subdivision, including required road and nonmotorized facilities meeting county standards; potential traffic mitigation and a traffic impact study per Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) comment, with a possible warrant for a traffic signal, roundabout or other intersection control at Rowan Road and Highway 93 South; fire‑suppression plans addressing water supply and emergency access; building and fire code compliance; an 11% parkland or cash‑in‑lieu requirement for major subdivisions; mitigation for prime farmland soils identified by the NRCS at the northeastern corner; riparian resource protection and management plans for McLean Creek and secondary drainages; and geotechnical studies or no‑build designations for slopes over 25%. Scott, an engineer with Performance Engineering who represented the applicant, said the proposal “really align[s] these boundaries with the uses of the ranch, following the natural barriers, separating out the irrigated lands from the plateaus from the mountain,” and described the work as “cleaning up what was out there” to support ranch operations and potential conservation easements. Staff also noted the property is listed for sale as a ranch with a residence. There was no public comment posted on Missoula County Voice as of the meeting and none offered in the room. Commissioner (mover) moved approval of the application “based on the findings and conclusion in the staff analysis and as presented in the exemption application and affidavit”; Commissioner (seconder) seconded the motion. The board voted in favor; the motion passed with an aye vote. After the vote, a representative for the applicants thanked the commissioners. The approval authorizes the boundary line relocation and agricultural aggregation exemptions as described in the staff packet for the 18 legally described parcels. Because the county concluded this was an exemption rather than a subdivision, the county did not impose subdivision conditions now; staff noted the subdivision‑level mitigation items above would be considered only if future development triggers subdivision review.