Missoula commissioners signal intent to adopt Swan Valley neighborhood plan, add floodplain and fire-resiliency edits

The Missoula County Board of County Commissioners voted Jan. 29 to adopt a resolution of intent to adopt the Swan Valley neighborhood plan as an amendment to the county's growth policy, with amendments to the plan's future land-use map to reflect FEMA floodplain mapping and edits to the fire-resiliency section.

County planners said the plan is a policy document, not a regulatory zoning ordinance, and staff emphasized that adding the floodplain designation to the future land-use map aligns the plan with existing FEMA designations rather than imposing new regulations today. Lauren Ryan, planner with the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, told the board the neighborhood plan is the product of more than two years of public engagement and a community questionnaire intended to capture local values on housing, development, natural resources and infrastructure.

Ian (Speaker 16), a planning staff presenter, described three alternatives the committee presented to residents: alternative 1 (targeted zoning to restrict large resort, heavy industry and tall telecom towers), alternative 2 (alternative 1 plus residential-density and minimum-lot-size limits) and alternative 3 (an advisory-only plan without zoning). He said the recommended plan as amended by staff and the board would reflect community priorities while adding the floodplain-based land-use designations and modifying several fire-protection strategies.

Public comment at the hearing was lengthy and divided. Grace Salote, chair of the local community council and a long-time Condon resident, urged the commissioners to approve the community's recommendation and implement alternative 1, saying the committee worked for more than two years to reach a compromise. "After so much work going into this, I ask you as commissioners to please approve our neighborhood plan for our community and zone our alternative 1," Salote said.

Other speakers raised procedural concerns and technical questions. Connie Hunt said several early planning-committee meetings lacked posted minutes and that minutes for multiple meetings were missing from the public record, which she said undermines public transparency. "Without meeting minutes, the public doesn't know what would be discussed or whether a quorum was present," Hunt said. Charles Perniciero, who said he attended the committee meetings, asserted that the alternatives had been presented as policy options and not as zoning ordinances and asked the board to review meeting minutes and materials before final adoption.

Jonathan Simon, a former Condon planning-committee member, urged quicker regulatory follow-through, saying past neighborhood plans had been put on a shelf after adoption. Simon said the plan explicitly asked the county to pursue area-specific commercial zoning to protect rural character and recommended the county continue implementation work beyond policy adoption.

During staff discussion the board included two targeted amendments in the motion of intent: changes to the fire resiliency section requested by a commissioner (reordering objectives and clarifying vegetation-management language) and changes that would align the plan's future land-use designations with the county's existing flood-hazard mapping. County staff and the floodplain administrator said the floodplain map became effective in 2019 and that putting the designation into the plan simply acknowledges existing FEMA-based flood-hazard zones; staff said that alone does not impose new flood-insurance requirements or immediate regulatory changes, but it could affect future zoning if the county later pursues regulatory overlay zones.

A commissioner moved the resolution of intent "as amended" to list the fire- and floodplain-related edits; a second commissioner supported the motion and the board voted by voice, with commissioners responding "Aye." The board set the adoption hearing for Feb. 12 in the same room and indicated the public-comment period remains open until that date.

What happens next: The board's action on Jan. 29 was a resolution of intent; formal adoption will be considered at the Feb. 12 hearing. If the board later pursues zoning based on the plan, that would involve a separate public rulemaking process and further hearings.

Sources: Presentations and staff comments by Lauren Ryan and Ian (planning staff); testimony from community members including Grace Salote, Connie Hunt, Charles Perniciero and Jonathan Simon.