Case Studies

North Jefferson County Zoning Committee Reaches Consensus

The proposal by a Montana cement plant to burn hazardous waste raised public health and environmental concerns for nearby neighbors. In response, the Jefferson County Planning Board appointed a committee to draft zoning recommendations that would address the concerns of the community. The 11-member committee worked for six months to develop these recommendations, which were refined and adopted as part of the Jefferson County Vicinity Plan.

Location: North Jefferson County
Objective: Seek agreement on a zoning ordinance.
Duration: Six months (1996)
Status: Agreement was reached; zoning proposals were approved and implemented.
Parties: Jefferson County Planning Board, Agriculture, Business and industry, Realtors and developers, Local.

The Issue
In 1995, North Jefferson County's largest industrial facility, a cement plant, announced a proposal to burn hazardous waste in its incinerators. The cement plant was near a school and housing developments around Montana City, and local residents voiced concern about possible harmful effects from plant emissions. The effort to prohibit the burning of hazardous waste at the cement plant stimulated a general interest in zoning as a way to control land use and development in North Jefferson County.

History
The cement plant's proposal received heavy coverage by the media. It also generated public debate about the potential risks to public health (particularly to the students at the nearby elementary school) and the environment. For some people, the debate also raised general concerns about ongoing development and competing land uses in this rapidly growing part of the county.

In February 1996, the Jefferson County Planning Board appointed 11 people to the North Jefferson County Zoning Committee. Members of the committee were selected to represent various interests within the community. The planning board asked the committee to develop preliminary zoning recommendations that would reflect the goals and objectives already set forth in the North Jefferson County Vicinity Plan. The board also requested that the zoning recommendations reflect the desires of the community as much as possible. To this end, the committee was told to seek agreement among the range of interests in North Jefferson County. To assist the committee, the planning board asked the Montana Consensus Council to help facilitate the process.

The Process
The committee quickly developed ground rules and a time line. The original 11 members also decided to invite the fire chief and two additional interests--realtors and developers--to participate.

The committee drew up a work plan that outlined four key steps toward developing the zoning recommendations. These were: (1) build a shared understanding of the legal requirements and issues related to zoning; (2) review the goals and objectives set forth in the North Jefferson County Vicinity Plan; (3) identify specific zoning issues and develop proposals for addressing them; and (4) draft the proposals into formal recommendations.

The committee met a total of 10 times between February and June of 1996. At the outset, the Jefferson County Attorney briefed the group on zoning law. Members then set themselves the task of pursuing agreement on zoning recommendations until they either reached agreement or became locked in an impasse. One of the most difficult issues to resolve was the question of whether zoning would prohibit the burning of hazardous waste and, if so, under what conditions. The committee also struggled to balance private property rights with the community's desire for orderly development. To keep the discussion moving forward, the facilitator recorded and continually reviewed tentative agreements as the zoning proposals

Results
The committee recommended that North Jefferson County consist of a single zoning district divided into various land-use classifications. Members of the committee reached agreement on and wrote purpose statements for each classification and also spelled out what types of land uses were permitted, allowed with conditions, and prohibited for each classification. The committee defined key terms and prepared an initial, rough-cut mapping of the zoning classifications. Finally, the committee reached agreement (subject to further review and approval by the industrial representative) of a prohibited-use statement for all zoning classifications that addressed the treatment, storage, disposal, or incineration of hazardous waste.

These recommendations were given to the planning board, which began to refine them through a rulemaking process. The board held public hearings then submitted the recommendations to the Jefferson County Commission. After additional public hearings and refinements to the classifications, the commission adopted the zoning plan, implemented as part of the North Jefferson County Vicinity Plan.

The commission's zoning decision incorporated the committee's recommendations with one important exception. Late in the process, the Jefferson County Attorney advised the County Commission that the recommended single zoning district divided into various land-use classifications would not meet the letter of Montana law. The law required each classification to be a separate zoning district so that landowners within it could protest the regulations. If the protest received enough support, that zoning district would be nullified.

Committee members publicly expressed surprise and disappointment over the county attorney's advice, which contradicted the briefing given to the committee at the outset. Had they known of the legal restraints on zoning earlier in the process, they said, their recommendations would have conformed to the law. The miscommunication, however, was not fatal to the process. In implementing the new zoning plan, the County Commission followed the attorney's advice and designated 10 zoning districts in North Jefferson County. In the end, only one of the 10 districts was nullified by protest from the residents.

Major Lessons
(1) Consensus processes, when inclusive of all community interests, can effectively produce successful county zoning regulations.

(2) Although the planning board selected the participants and defined the agenda, the committee functioned well and reached consensus. In general, consensus processes are more effective when the participants select their own representatives and help shape the agenda. In this case, the committee did add additional participants who were not on their original list.

(3) At the outset of any consensus process, the working group or committee should seek timely and accurate advice from experts on any constraints relevant to the issue at hand, including legal, administrative, policy, or technical information. This will help avoid the frustration of working hard to reach agreement on a solution, only to see it altered or dismantled to meet unanticipated constraints.

For further information, contact Matthew McKinney, Public Policy Research Institute, The University of Montana, 516 N. Park Ave. Helena, MT 59601, (406) 457-8475, matt@umtpri.org.