Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tamarack Meadows topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Columbia Falls over retention ponds, buffer and county jurisdiction for Tamarack Meadows
Summary
Residents urged city officials to enforce a protected buffer and raised sediment, noise and disclosure concerns about retention ponds built for the Tamarack Meadows subdivision; city staff said the city lost extraterritorial planning jurisdiction to Flathead County in June 2024 and that DEQ and the county are reviewing environmental concerns.
Columbia Falls residents confronted city officials over stormwater retention ponds, vegetation removal and the future of a creekside buffer at the Tamarack Meadows subdivision during public comment.
At an Aug. meeting, longtime resident Ann Halter told the council that retention-pond locations and tree removal were not clearly disclosed in earlier public materials and said that if the public cannot see all relevant plans, “public comment really is a joke.” Scott Lottman and other neighbors described sediment washing into the creek, nonstop construction noise and the loss of a treed buffer that once screened the development from adjacent yards.
Julie Mitchell, a nearby property owner and former geology teacher, pointed to Resolution 1891 and its Attachment A, saying the approved conditions required that the creek-side buffer “remain undeveloped in a natural state.” She cited state code that, in her view, requires a new public hearing when there are “significant changes” to approved plats and asked how the council intended to ensure that protections survive later county administration.
City staff and the city attorney replied that Condition 18 of the original preliminary-plat approval requires a plat note on the final plat dedicating the open space and a buffer to be kept undeveloped, and that retention ponds and the stormwater drainage plan were part of the public packet. City staff said the city relinquished extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction outside city limits in June 2024 under Senate Bill 382, placing final plat approval and compliance review largely with Flathead County and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The city said it can provide historical records and packet materials to county and DEQ officials as needed but does not have enforcement authority outside its municipal boundaries.
Several residents described conflicting communications between city and county planners about who is responsible for enforcing the original conditions. Paul Krueger said emails and verbal statements he collected sent mixed messages about responsibility and urged the city to help resolve the specific mapping conflict that placed retention ponds inside an area residents say was to remain undisturbed.
City staff said DEQ and the Flathead County Conservation District are aware of citizen concerns and are assessing potential environmental impacts. The council invited residents to continue pressing the county and DEQ while the city provides documentation and historical context to those agencies.
The council did not take a binding local action to alter the subdivision at the meeting; staff advised residents to attend county hearings and said the county will check that preliminary-plat conditions have been met before issuing final plat approval. The city manager said staff will continue to coordinate with the county and DEQ and provide the public packets and stormwater plans that were on file during the original review.
