Swan Valley Planning Committee

2025 Swan Valley Neighborhood Plan - An update to the 1996 Swan Valley-Condon Comprehensive Plan

The Swan Valley Planning Committee presented a revised public draft of the Swan Valley Neighborhood Plan on October 21st, 2025 to the Swan Valley Community Council. The Community Council made an affirmative recommendation on the plan at the November 18th meeting. The Missoula Consolidated Planning Board had a hearing on the plan on December 16th, also making an affirmative recommendation. Staff will present the Swan Valley Neighborhood Plan to the Missoula County Board of County Commissioners at 2 p.m. on Thursday, January 29, 2026 at the Sophie Moise Room, Missoula County Courthouse, 200 W Broadway in Missoula.

You can view the revised draft of the plan here. Paper copies of this document are available at the Swan Valley Library.

The plan is in the adoption process, and the following boards will review and make recommendations on it before it goes to the county commissioners for approval:

Swan Valley Community Council: a recommendation was made at the November 18th, 2025 meeting
Missoula Consolidated Planning Board: a recommendation was made at the hearing on December 16th, 2025
Board of County Commissioners: 1st meeting scheduled for January 29th

Feedback on the plan is important, please provide comments and questions below in the "Questions" section.

The Swan Valley Planning Committee was a sub-committee of the Swan Valley Community Council tasked with exploring ideas, opportunities, and applications for land use planning tools that could be developed to address residents’ concerns around growth in the Swan Valley.

Members of the Planning Committee were appointed by the Swan Valley Community Council on Nov. 21, 2023. They were directed to explore land use issues the community is most concerned about, and what planning tools might best address those issues. The Planning Committee determined to pursue updating the 1996 Swan Valley Neighborhood plan, which was approved by the Swan Valley Community Council. The Community Council disbanded the Planning Committee by vote on October, 21st 2025 after presenting the draft neighborhood plan.

Planning Committee Members: Helene Michael, Luke Lamar, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Joan McGuire, Marcia Tapp (non-voting member), Tom Parker, Jon Simon, Christian Spilker, Len Kobylenski, Christine Straube (non-voting member), Bill Lombardi, Jenny Rorher (non-voting member and note taker).

This webpage is a place for the community to track the activities of the planning process, find resources, such as the 1996 Swan Valley Neighborhood Plan, and keep track of meeting times and dates. Find the agenda, meeting times, and dates for the Planning Process under the "key dates" widget on the right-hand side.

2025 Swan Valley Neighborhood Plan - An update to the 1996 Swan Valley-Condon Comprehensive Plan

You can view the revised draft of the plan here. Paper copies of this document are available at the Swan Valley Library.

The plan is in the adoption process, and the following boards will review and make recommendations on it before it goes to the county commissioners for approval:

Swan Valley Community Council: a recommendation was made at the November 18th, 2025 meeting
Missoula Consolidated Planning Board: a recommendation was made at the hearing on December 16th, 2025
Board of County Commissioners: 1st meeting scheduled for January 29th

Feedback on the plan is important, please provide comments and questions below in the "Questions" section.

Have a question about what the Swan Valley Planning Committee is working on? Ask us!

We will try to respond within ten business days.

Share I have asked several times to see the actual number of the 20-year projected population based on permanent and seasonal residents, as required by MCA 76-25-203. MCA is very clear that both permanent and seasonal populations are to be used for the population projections. However, according to MC voice answers, the planning committee used only the permanent population of 529 residents for the population projected and housing needed for that population. Why is Montana law not being followed? on Facebook Share I have asked several times to see the actual number of the 20-year projected population based on permanent and seasonal residents, as required by MCA 76-25-203. MCA is very clear that both permanent and seasonal populations are to be used for the population projections. However, according to MC voice answers, the planning committee used only the permanent population of 529 residents for the population projected and housing needed for that population. Why is Montana law not being followed? on Twitter Share I have asked several times to see the actual number of the 20-year projected population based on permanent and seasonal residents, as required by MCA 76-25-203. MCA is very clear that both permanent and seasonal populations are to be used for the population projections. However, according to MC voice answers, the planning committee used only the permanent population of 529 residents for the population projected and housing needed for that population. Why is Montana law not being followed? on Linkedin Email I have asked several times to see the actual number of the 20-year projected population based on permanent and seasonal residents, as required by MCA 76-25-203. MCA is very clear that both permanent and seasonal populations are to be used for the population projections. However, according to MC voice answers, the planning committee used only the permanent population of 529 residents for the population projected and housing needed for that population. Why is Montana law not being followed? link

I have asked several times to see the actual number of the 20-year projected population based on permanent and seasonal residents, as required by MCA 76-25-203. MCA is very clear that both permanent and seasonal populations are to be used for the population projections. However, according to MC voice answers, the planning committee used only the permanent population of 529 residents for the population projected and housing needed for that population. Why is Montana law not being followed?

CH asked 23 days ago

MCA 76-25-203 is a reference to the Montana Land Use Planning Act, which this plan is not required to follow because Missoula County is not required to adopt its growth policy under MLUPA. Required elements of a county Growth Policy are listed under MCA 76-1-601.
Requirements for a neighborhood plan are not defined but generally assumed to be consistent with the Growth Policy itself.
Share The letter from Josh Slotnick, County Commissioner, “The County does not have an agenda for The Swan. We want the community to come up with a shared vision-even if that vision is -“we don’t want any plan, and we don’t want any zoning”. At least then we would know. I personally hope the swan can arrive at a vision for the future that is more inspiring “no plan”. Ultimately though, the plan is up to you folks involved. We’ll help, but it’s yours, not ours.” The letter clearly shows that the county does not have any reason to update the SV plan or to add zoning for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It also suggests that any zoning in the plan is citizen-requested, since the community can decide to have no plan and no zoning. If the SV plan is county-initiated, when did Missoula County vote to review and update the SV neighborhood plan? When and how did Missoula County task the SV Council to form the planning committee? If the SV plan zoning recommendations are County-initiated, for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, what is the reason/purpose Missoula County has to add any zoning or regulations to the Condon area? on Facebook Share The letter from Josh Slotnick, County Commissioner, “The County does not have an agenda for The Swan. We want the community to come up with a shared vision-even if that vision is -“we don’t want any plan, and we don’t want any zoning”. At least then we would know. I personally hope the swan can arrive at a vision for the future that is more inspiring “no plan”. Ultimately though, the plan is up to you folks involved. We’ll help, but it’s yours, not ours.” The letter clearly shows that the county does not have any reason to update the SV plan or to add zoning for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It also suggests that any zoning in the plan is citizen-requested, since the community can decide to have no plan and no zoning. If the SV plan is county-initiated, when did Missoula County vote to review and update the SV neighborhood plan? When and how did Missoula County task the SV Council to form the planning committee? If the SV plan zoning recommendations are County-initiated, for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, what is the reason/purpose Missoula County has to add any zoning or regulations to the Condon area? on Twitter Share The letter from Josh Slotnick, County Commissioner, “The County does not have an agenda for The Swan. We want the community to come up with a shared vision-even if that vision is -“we don’t want any plan, and we don’t want any zoning”. At least then we would know. I personally hope the swan can arrive at a vision for the future that is more inspiring “no plan”. Ultimately though, the plan is up to you folks involved. We’ll help, but it’s yours, not ours.” The letter clearly shows that the county does not have any reason to update the SV plan or to add zoning for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It also suggests that any zoning in the plan is citizen-requested, since the community can decide to have no plan and no zoning. If the SV plan is county-initiated, when did Missoula County vote to review and update the SV neighborhood plan? When and how did Missoula County task the SV Council to form the planning committee? If the SV plan zoning recommendations are County-initiated, for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, what is the reason/purpose Missoula County has to add any zoning or regulations to the Condon area? on Linkedin Email The letter from Josh Slotnick, County Commissioner, “The County does not have an agenda for The Swan. We want the community to come up with a shared vision-even if that vision is -“we don’t want any plan, and we don’t want any zoning”. At least then we would know. I personally hope the swan can arrive at a vision for the future that is more inspiring “no plan”. Ultimately though, the plan is up to you folks involved. We’ll help, but it’s yours, not ours.” The letter clearly shows that the county does not have any reason to update the SV plan or to add zoning for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It also suggests that any zoning in the plan is citizen-requested, since the community can decide to have no plan and no zoning. If the SV plan is county-initiated, when did Missoula County vote to review and update the SV neighborhood plan? When and how did Missoula County task the SV Council to form the planning committee? If the SV plan zoning recommendations are County-initiated, for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, what is the reason/purpose Missoula County has to add any zoning or regulations to the Condon area? link

The letter from Josh Slotnick, County Commissioner, “The County does not have an agenda for The Swan. We want the community to come up with a shared vision-even if that vision is -“we don’t want any plan, and we don’t want any zoning”. At least then we would know. I personally hope the swan can arrive at a vision for the future that is more inspiring “no plan”. Ultimately though, the plan is up to you folks involved. We’ll help, but it’s yours, not ours.” The letter clearly shows that the county does not have any reason to update the SV plan or to add zoning for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It also suggests that any zoning in the plan is citizen-requested, since the community can decide to have no plan and no zoning. If the SV plan is county-initiated, when did Missoula County vote to review and update the SV neighborhood plan? When and how did Missoula County task the SV Council to form the planning committee? If the SV plan zoning recommendations are County-initiated, for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, what is the reason/purpose Missoula County has to add any zoning or regulations to the Condon area?

CH asked 23 days ago

Thank you for your comment. The Swan Valley Planning Committee was a sub-committee of the Swan Valley Community Council tasked with exploring ideas, opportunities, and applications for land use planning tools that could be developed to address residents’ concerns around growth in the Swan Valley.
Members of the Planning Committee were appointed by the Swan Valley Community Council on Nov. 21, 2023. They were directed to explore land use issues the community is most concerned about, and what planning tools might best address those issues. The Planning Committee determined to pursue updating the 1996 Swan Valley Neighborhood plan, which was approved by the Swan Valley Community Council.
Share In an MC Voice answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." I think whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or is trying to cover up for the planning committee’s and the county's MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county staff at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard. on Facebook Share In an MC Voice answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." I think whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or is trying to cover up for the planning committee’s and the county's MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county staff at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard. on Twitter Share In an MC Voice answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." I think whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or is trying to cover up for the planning committee’s and the county's MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county staff at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard. on Linkedin Email In an MC Voice answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." I think whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or is trying to cover up for the planning committee’s and the county's MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county staff at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard. link

In an MC Voice answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." I think whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or is trying to cover up for the planning committee’s and the county's MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county staff at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard.

CH asked 23 days ago

Thank you for your comment.
Share In the SVPC minutes for Nov 18, 2024 Someone asked if all of this planning is because of the Holland Lake crisis? Jon stated that we are required by the State of Montana to review their Neighborhood Plan every 5 years." However, Jon’s answer is wrong since, according to MCA 76-25-105, Condon is not required to review their plan every 5 years or to update it. Who is responsible for Jon's incorrect information? The planning committee, the SV Council, or did Missoula County tell our community it was required? on Facebook Share In the SVPC minutes for Nov 18, 2024 Someone asked if all of this planning is because of the Holland Lake crisis? Jon stated that we are required by the State of Montana to review their Neighborhood Plan every 5 years." However, Jon’s answer is wrong since, according to MCA 76-25-105, Condon is not required to review their plan every 5 years or to update it. Who is responsible for Jon's incorrect information? The planning committee, the SV Council, or did Missoula County tell our community it was required? on Twitter Share In the SVPC minutes for Nov 18, 2024 Someone asked if all of this planning is because of the Holland Lake crisis? Jon stated that we are required by the State of Montana to review their Neighborhood Plan every 5 years." However, Jon’s answer is wrong since, according to MCA 76-25-105, Condon is not required to review their plan every 5 years or to update it. Who is responsible for Jon's incorrect information? The planning committee, the SV Council, or did Missoula County tell our community it was required? on Linkedin Email In the SVPC minutes for Nov 18, 2024 Someone asked if all of this planning is because of the Holland Lake crisis? Jon stated that we are required by the State of Montana to review their Neighborhood Plan every 5 years." However, Jon’s answer is wrong since, according to MCA 76-25-105, Condon is not required to review their plan every 5 years or to update it. Who is responsible for Jon's incorrect information? The planning committee, the SV Council, or did Missoula County tell our community it was required? link

In the SVPC minutes for Nov 18, 2024 Someone asked if all of this planning is because of the Holland Lake crisis? Jon stated that we are required by the State of Montana to review their Neighborhood Plan every 5 years." However, Jon’s answer is wrong since, according to MCA 76-25-105, Condon is not required to review their plan every 5 years or to update it. Who is responsible for Jon's incorrect information? The planning committee, the SV Council, or did Missoula County tell our community it was required?

CH asked 23 days ago

MCA 76-25-105 is a reference to the Montana Land Use Planning Act. Missoula County adopted its growth policy and all amended neighborhood plans under a different section of law. This plan is not required to follow the Montana Land Use Planning act because Missoula County is not required to adopt its growth policy under MLUPA. Missoula County adopted its growth policy under MCA 76-1-601(4)(a) and (b) which states a growth policy should be reviewed at least one every 5 years.
Share In an answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." Whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or lying to cover up for the planning committee’s MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county people at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard. on Facebook Share In an answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." Whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or lying to cover up for the planning committee’s MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county people at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard. on Twitter Share In an answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." Whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or lying to cover up for the planning committee’s MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county people at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard. on Linkedin Email In an answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." Whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or lying to cover up for the planning committee’s MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county people at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard. link

In an answer to someone else, "The petition with signatures could have been accepted by County staff at any time as a part of public comment. At no point was it not accepted." Whoever answered this was either not at the meetings or lying to cover up for the planning committee’s MCA violations for allowing pubic participation. Just like the false information put into the Aug 18th meeting minutes, saying “we welcome the number of signatures collected by Ed. I attended the SV planning meetings on Aug 18th, Sept 8th, 15th, and 25th. At each of these meetings, Ed tried to give the planning committee the number of signatures, but the planning committee refused to accept and count the 130+ resident signatures opposing any zoning. The county people at the meeting did not speak up and accept the signatures either. Instead, the committee kept saying the signatures only counted for a petition after the county adopted zoning, and the county guy agreed. At no point did the planning committee accept or include those voices before they voted to make a recommendation. At no point did the county people say they would accept the signatures as part of public comment. Not even after Ed said he tried and could not upload the signatures to the county voice in an effort to get those voices heard.

CH asked 30 days ago

Thank you for your comment.
Share At the last SV planning meeting on Sept 25th the minutes show Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube, Jon Simon were at the meeting. However, there were not the required voting members present to hold the meeting or to vote since Christine Straube is a non-voting member. It says right here on the voice - Planning Committee Members: Helene Michael, Luke Lamar, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Joan McGuire, Marcia Tapp (non-voting member), Tom Parker, Jon Simon, Christian Spilker, Len Kobylenski, Christine Straube (non-voting member), Bill Lombardi, Jenny Rorher (non-voting member and note taker). on Facebook Share At the last SV planning meeting on Sept 25th the minutes show Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube, Jon Simon were at the meeting. However, there were not the required voting members present to hold the meeting or to vote since Christine Straube is a non-voting member. It says right here on the voice - Planning Committee Members: Helene Michael, Luke Lamar, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Joan McGuire, Marcia Tapp (non-voting member), Tom Parker, Jon Simon, Christian Spilker, Len Kobylenski, Christine Straube (non-voting member), Bill Lombardi, Jenny Rorher (non-voting member and note taker). on Twitter Share At the last SV planning meeting on Sept 25th the minutes show Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube, Jon Simon were at the meeting. However, there were not the required voting members present to hold the meeting or to vote since Christine Straube is a non-voting member. It says right here on the voice - Planning Committee Members: Helene Michael, Luke Lamar, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Joan McGuire, Marcia Tapp (non-voting member), Tom Parker, Jon Simon, Christian Spilker, Len Kobylenski, Christine Straube (non-voting member), Bill Lombardi, Jenny Rorher (non-voting member and note taker). on Linkedin Email At the last SV planning meeting on Sept 25th the minutes show Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube, Jon Simon were at the meeting. However, there were not the required voting members present to hold the meeting or to vote since Christine Straube is a non-voting member. It says right here on the voice - Planning Committee Members: Helene Michael, Luke Lamar, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Joan McGuire, Marcia Tapp (non-voting member), Tom Parker, Jon Simon, Christian Spilker, Len Kobylenski, Christine Straube (non-voting member), Bill Lombardi, Jenny Rorher (non-voting member and note taker). link

At the last SV planning meeting on Sept 25th the minutes show Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube, Jon Simon were at the meeting. However, there were not the required voting members present to hold the meeting or to vote since Christine Straube is a non-voting member. It says right here on the voice - Planning Committee Members: Helene Michael, Luke Lamar, Grace Siloti, Gary Lazarowski, Joan McGuire, Marcia Tapp (non-voting member), Tom Parker, Jon Simon, Christian Spilker, Len Kobylenski, Christine Straube (non-voting member), Bill Lombardi, Jenny Rorher (non-voting member and note taker).

CH asked about 1 month ago

Thank you for your comment. We have looked into this, and on September 25^th, there was not a quorum present. The vote made during this meeting to recommend Alternative 2 to the Community Council is null and void.
Share § 76-25-104(2)(c). • Minutes must be kept of all meetings of the planning commission. § 76-25- 104(2)(c). • All public comment submitted to the planning commission must be part of the administrative record that is transmitted to the governing body. § 76-25- 201(2)(b), -202(1)(c), -304(2)(b). • Prior to making any recommendation to the governing body, the planning commission must accept, consider and respond to public comment, including public comment on the adoption, amendment or update of a land use plan or map, zoning regulations (including zoning map) or subdivision regulations. It was stated to remove the 1-40 and1‐10 from the community map. Please provide a list of those changes and copy of all changes for review by the Swan Valley Community Council and the community for the mandatory review. government adopts a land use plan and land use map, a planning commission must provide public notice and allow for public participation in accordance with § 76-25-106 before deciding whether to recommend an update of the land use plan or map. § 76-25-202(1)(b). In considering adoption or amendment of a zoning regulation or map, the governing body must find that the public had the opportunity to review and comment on impacts resulting from development in substantial compliance with the proposed zoning regulation, map or amendment. § 76-25-304(5)(d) Once the final draft is completed please provide that to the community. on Facebook Share § 76-25-104(2)(c). • Minutes must be kept of all meetings of the planning commission. § 76-25- 104(2)(c). • All public comment submitted to the planning commission must be part of the administrative record that is transmitted to the governing body. § 76-25- 201(2)(b), -202(1)(c), -304(2)(b). • Prior to making any recommendation to the governing body, the planning commission must accept, consider and respond to public comment, including public comment on the adoption, amendment or update of a land use plan or map, zoning regulations (including zoning map) or subdivision regulations. It was stated to remove the 1-40 and1‐10 from the community map. Please provide a list of those changes and copy of all changes for review by the Swan Valley Community Council and the community for the mandatory review. government adopts a land use plan and land use map, a planning commission must provide public notice and allow for public participation in accordance with § 76-25-106 before deciding whether to recommend an update of the land use plan or map. § 76-25-202(1)(b). In considering adoption or amendment of a zoning regulation or map, the governing body must find that the public had the opportunity to review and comment on impacts resulting from development in substantial compliance with the proposed zoning regulation, map or amendment. § 76-25-304(5)(d) Once the final draft is completed please provide that to the community. on Twitter Share § 76-25-104(2)(c). • Minutes must be kept of all meetings of the planning commission. § 76-25- 104(2)(c). • All public comment submitted to the planning commission must be part of the administrative record that is transmitted to the governing body. § 76-25- 201(2)(b), -202(1)(c), -304(2)(b). • Prior to making any recommendation to the governing body, the planning commission must accept, consider and respond to public comment, including public comment on the adoption, amendment or update of a land use plan or map, zoning regulations (including zoning map) or subdivision regulations. It was stated to remove the 1-40 and1‐10 from the community map. Please provide a list of those changes and copy of all changes for review by the Swan Valley Community Council and the community for the mandatory review. government adopts a land use plan and land use map, a planning commission must provide public notice and allow for public participation in accordance with § 76-25-106 before deciding whether to recommend an update of the land use plan or map. § 76-25-202(1)(b). In considering adoption or amendment of a zoning regulation or map, the governing body must find that the public had the opportunity to review and comment on impacts resulting from development in substantial compliance with the proposed zoning regulation, map or amendment. § 76-25-304(5)(d) Once the final draft is completed please provide that to the community. on Linkedin Email § 76-25-104(2)(c). • Minutes must be kept of all meetings of the planning commission. § 76-25- 104(2)(c). • All public comment submitted to the planning commission must be part of the administrative record that is transmitted to the governing body. § 76-25- 201(2)(b), -202(1)(c), -304(2)(b). • Prior to making any recommendation to the governing body, the planning commission must accept, consider and respond to public comment, including public comment on the adoption, amendment or update of a land use plan or map, zoning regulations (including zoning map) or subdivision regulations. It was stated to remove the 1-40 and1‐10 from the community map. Please provide a list of those changes and copy of all changes for review by the Swan Valley Community Council and the community for the mandatory review. government adopts a land use plan and land use map, a planning commission must provide public notice and allow for public participation in accordance with § 76-25-106 before deciding whether to recommend an update of the land use plan or map. § 76-25-202(1)(b). In considering adoption or amendment of a zoning regulation or map, the governing body must find that the public had the opportunity to review and comment on impacts resulting from development in substantial compliance with the proposed zoning regulation, map or amendment. § 76-25-304(5)(d) Once the final draft is completed please provide that to the community. link

§ 76-25-104(2)(c). • Minutes must be kept of all meetings of the planning commission. § 76-25- 104(2)(c). • All public comment submitted to the planning commission must be part of the administrative record that is transmitted to the governing body. § 76-25- 201(2)(b), -202(1)(c), -304(2)(b). • Prior to making any recommendation to the governing body, the planning commission must accept, consider and respond to public comment, including public comment on the adoption, amendment or update of a land use plan or map, zoning regulations (including zoning map) or subdivision regulations. It was stated to remove the 1-40 and1‐10 from the community map. Please provide a list of those changes and copy of all changes for review by the Swan Valley Community Council and the community for the mandatory review. government adopts a land use plan and land use map, a planning commission must provide public notice and allow for public participation in accordance with § 76-25-106 before deciding whether to recommend an update of the land use plan or map. § 76-25-202(1)(b). In considering adoption or amendment of a zoning regulation or map, the governing body must find that the public had the opportunity to review and comment on impacts resulting from development in substantial compliance with the proposed zoning regulation, map or amendment. § 76-25-304(5)(d) Once the final draft is completed please provide that to the community.

Edward Klassen asked about 1 month ago

The plan with the recommended changes by the Community Council has been posted to the Missoula County voice page and will soon be available at the Condon Public Library. The legal ad notifying the public hearings was advertised in the Missoulian on November 29^th and again on December 6^th, and in the Seeley Swan Pathfinder on December 4^th and December 11^th. Please be aware that Chapter 25 of Title 76 is the Montana Land Use Planning Act, a section of law that does not apply to Missoula County planning (which is MCA 76-01-6).
Share We still have some legitimate issues that must be addressed. The community has not been been given 7 day notifications of the meetings/ adequate notice for the last 3 meetings and many others in the last 2 years. You started they had meetings within someone's home on multiple occasions without notice or public participation. 1. Please provide the meeting minutes for those meetings and the meeting between Council Members and others at Swan Valley Conditions on 17th of November 2025. Also have them entered into the record as required by law. This is the part of the draft minutes that clearly states you did not have a quorum when the subcommittee voted to present the planning to the community members and Council. Swan Valley Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 25, 2025 1. Call to Order: Meeting convened at 5:13 pm (late start due to technical difficulties) 2. Roll Call: Present: Ian Varley, Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti. Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube( non voting member) Jon Simon. With only 5 voting member no quorum was met at the meeting they voted for proposal 2 meaning any business related to that meeting is void. Any business based on that meeting is also void! ☆☆☆☆This was not a valid meeting as stated at the meeting ☆☆☆ If you wish to verify it I have it recorded and the Public guests can also do so Connie Hunt, Rosie and Lane McNealey, Ed Klassen, Dennis Hawver, Katharine Beerr Absent were Lauren R As the planning members you keep avoiding the fact that state law requires a quorum of 50% plus one. Almost none of the meetings had that. The vote by the subcommittee was done at a meeting that only had 4, 5 if you count a call in vote. If only 4 of the 15 members present it has to be redone. If you would have read the rules As I stated you needed 6 makes a quorum. Any if there if any position for zoning or planning you need a supper majority of 7. How is this possible for the subcommittee to present anything without a legal notice and quorum. ☆☆☆ Please have the meeting re done and all subject meetings redone legally as required by law ☆☆☆ on Facebook Share We still have some legitimate issues that must be addressed. The community has not been been given 7 day notifications of the meetings/ adequate notice for the last 3 meetings and many others in the last 2 years. You started they had meetings within someone's home on multiple occasions without notice or public participation. 1. Please provide the meeting minutes for those meetings and the meeting between Council Members and others at Swan Valley Conditions on 17th of November 2025. Also have them entered into the record as required by law. This is the part of the draft minutes that clearly states you did not have a quorum when the subcommittee voted to present the planning to the community members and Council. Swan Valley Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 25, 2025 1. Call to Order: Meeting convened at 5:13 pm (late start due to technical difficulties) 2. Roll Call: Present: Ian Varley, Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti. Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube( non voting member) Jon Simon. With only 5 voting member no quorum was met at the meeting they voted for proposal 2 meaning any business related to that meeting is void. Any business based on that meeting is also void! ☆☆☆☆This was not a valid meeting as stated at the meeting ☆☆☆ If you wish to verify it I have it recorded and the Public guests can also do so Connie Hunt, Rosie and Lane McNealey, Ed Klassen, Dennis Hawver, Katharine Beerr Absent were Lauren R As the planning members you keep avoiding the fact that state law requires a quorum of 50% plus one. Almost none of the meetings had that. The vote by the subcommittee was done at a meeting that only had 4, 5 if you count a call in vote. If only 4 of the 15 members present it has to be redone. If you would have read the rules As I stated you needed 6 makes a quorum. Any if there if any position for zoning or planning you need a supper majority of 7. How is this possible for the subcommittee to present anything without a legal notice and quorum. ☆☆☆ Please have the meeting re done and all subject meetings redone legally as required by law ☆☆☆ on Twitter Share We still have some legitimate issues that must be addressed. The community has not been been given 7 day notifications of the meetings/ adequate notice for the last 3 meetings and many others in the last 2 years. You started they had meetings within someone's home on multiple occasions without notice or public participation. 1. Please provide the meeting minutes for those meetings and the meeting between Council Members and others at Swan Valley Conditions on 17th of November 2025. Also have them entered into the record as required by law. This is the part of the draft minutes that clearly states you did not have a quorum when the subcommittee voted to present the planning to the community members and Council. Swan Valley Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 25, 2025 1. Call to Order: Meeting convened at 5:13 pm (late start due to technical difficulties) 2. Roll Call: Present: Ian Varley, Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti. Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube( non voting member) Jon Simon. With only 5 voting member no quorum was met at the meeting they voted for proposal 2 meaning any business related to that meeting is void. Any business based on that meeting is also void! ☆☆☆☆This was not a valid meeting as stated at the meeting ☆☆☆ If you wish to verify it I have it recorded and the Public guests can also do so Connie Hunt, Rosie and Lane McNealey, Ed Klassen, Dennis Hawver, Katharine Beerr Absent were Lauren R As the planning members you keep avoiding the fact that state law requires a quorum of 50% plus one. Almost none of the meetings had that. The vote by the subcommittee was done at a meeting that only had 4, 5 if you count a call in vote. If only 4 of the 15 members present it has to be redone. If you would have read the rules As I stated you needed 6 makes a quorum. Any if there if any position for zoning or planning you need a supper majority of 7. How is this possible for the subcommittee to present anything without a legal notice and quorum. ☆☆☆ Please have the meeting re done and all subject meetings redone legally as required by law ☆☆☆ on Linkedin Email We still have some legitimate issues that must be addressed. The community has not been been given 7 day notifications of the meetings/ adequate notice for the last 3 meetings and many others in the last 2 years. You started they had meetings within someone's home on multiple occasions without notice or public participation. 1. Please provide the meeting minutes for those meetings and the meeting between Council Members and others at Swan Valley Conditions on 17th of November 2025. Also have them entered into the record as required by law. This is the part of the draft minutes that clearly states you did not have a quorum when the subcommittee voted to present the planning to the community members and Council. Swan Valley Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 25, 2025 1. Call to Order: Meeting convened at 5:13 pm (late start due to technical difficulties) 2. Roll Call: Present: Ian Varley, Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti. Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube( non voting member) Jon Simon. With only 5 voting member no quorum was met at the meeting they voted for proposal 2 meaning any business related to that meeting is void. Any business based on that meeting is also void! ☆☆☆☆This was not a valid meeting as stated at the meeting ☆☆☆ If you wish to verify it I have it recorded and the Public guests can also do so Connie Hunt, Rosie and Lane McNealey, Ed Klassen, Dennis Hawver, Katharine Beerr Absent were Lauren R As the planning members you keep avoiding the fact that state law requires a quorum of 50% plus one. Almost none of the meetings had that. The vote by the subcommittee was done at a meeting that only had 4, 5 if you count a call in vote. If only 4 of the 15 members present it has to be redone. If you would have read the rules As I stated you needed 6 makes a quorum. Any if there if any position for zoning or planning you need a supper majority of 7. How is this possible for the subcommittee to present anything without a legal notice and quorum. ☆☆☆ Please have the meeting re done and all subject meetings redone legally as required by law ☆☆☆ link

We still have some legitimate issues that must be addressed. The community has not been been given 7 day notifications of the meetings/ adequate notice for the last 3 meetings and many others in the last 2 years. You started they had meetings within someone's home on multiple occasions without notice or public participation. 1. Please provide the meeting minutes for those meetings and the meeting between Council Members and others at Swan Valley Conditions on 17th of November 2025. Also have them entered into the record as required by law. This is the part of the draft minutes that clearly states you did not have a quorum when the subcommittee voted to present the planning to the community members and Council. Swan Valley Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 25, 2025 1. Call to Order: Meeting convened at 5:13 pm (late start due to technical difficulties) 2. Roll Call: Present: Ian Varley, Helene Michael (via speaker phone), Len Kobylinski, Grace Siloti. Gary Lazarowski, Christine Straube( non voting member) Jon Simon. With only 5 voting member no quorum was met at the meeting they voted for proposal 2 meaning any business related to that meeting is void. Any business based on that meeting is also void! ☆☆☆☆This was not a valid meeting as stated at the meeting ☆☆☆ If you wish to verify it I have it recorded and the Public guests can also do so Connie Hunt, Rosie and Lane McNealey, Ed Klassen, Dennis Hawver, Katharine Beerr Absent were Lauren R As the planning members you keep avoiding the fact that state law requires a quorum of 50% plus one. Almost none of the meetings had that. The vote by the subcommittee was done at a meeting that only had 4, 5 if you count a call in vote. If only 4 of the 15 members present it has to be redone. If you would have read the rules As I stated you needed 6 makes a quorum. Any if there if any position for zoning or planning you need a supper majority of 7. How is this possible for the subcommittee to present anything without a legal notice and quorum. ☆☆☆ Please have the meeting re done and all subject meetings redone legally as required by law ☆☆☆

Edward Klassen asked about 1 month ago

Thank you for your comment. We have looked into this, and on September 25^th, there was not a quorum present. The vote made during this meeting to recommend Alternative 2 to the Community Council is null and void.
Share So you refuse to answer the question I asked because I made it very clear I was asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes that the SV Council requested to the plan before the SV Council make their final decision and votes. Since the SV Council revisions to the plan are not made available for the public to inspect as of today 11/18/25, 3 hours before the council meeting, the answer to my question is the SV Council will vote without allowing the public to inspect the changes to the plan. This violated MCA for public participation before a final decision is made. Q #1- How much time will the public be given to look at the changes to the neighborhood plan that were requested by our council before the council makes a final decision? A - If the community council makes a recommendation on November 18th, the plan will be updated based on its recommendations and that version will be presented to the Missoula County Planning Board, tentatively scheduled for December 16th 2025. The plan would be available at least 10 days prior to the hearing of the Planning Board. Q #2- There seems to be some misunderstanding of the questions asked, since they are being answered without answering the question. You answered regarding the amount of time the county will give the public to review the county’s changes to the plan, but you did not address the question I asked. I am asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes they requested to the plan before the council makes a final decision and votes to make a recommendation to the county? Or are you saying the public will not be given time by the SV Council to look at the changes made or to comment at the next meeting before their vote? A - If the Community Council votes to recommend the plan with revisions, County staff will update the September 29 draft accordingly. The revised plan will be available for the public and the community council to see 10 days prior to December 16th, 2025. The Community Council will not have the opportunity to make a recommendation on this version again. Similarly, if the Missoula County Planning Board makes a recommendation on the plan, that board will not have an opportunity to make a second recommendation. on Facebook Share So you refuse to answer the question I asked because I made it very clear I was asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes that the SV Council requested to the plan before the SV Council make their final decision and votes. Since the SV Council revisions to the plan are not made available for the public to inspect as of today 11/18/25, 3 hours before the council meeting, the answer to my question is the SV Council will vote without allowing the public to inspect the changes to the plan. This violated MCA for public participation before a final decision is made. Q #1- How much time will the public be given to look at the changes to the neighborhood plan that were requested by our council before the council makes a final decision? A - If the community council makes a recommendation on November 18th, the plan will be updated based on its recommendations and that version will be presented to the Missoula County Planning Board, tentatively scheduled for December 16th 2025. The plan would be available at least 10 days prior to the hearing of the Planning Board. Q #2- There seems to be some misunderstanding of the questions asked, since they are being answered without answering the question. You answered regarding the amount of time the county will give the public to review the county’s changes to the plan, but you did not address the question I asked. I am asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes they requested to the plan before the council makes a final decision and votes to make a recommendation to the county? Or are you saying the public will not be given time by the SV Council to look at the changes made or to comment at the next meeting before their vote? A - If the Community Council votes to recommend the plan with revisions, County staff will update the September 29 draft accordingly. The revised plan will be available for the public and the community council to see 10 days prior to December 16th, 2025. The Community Council will not have the opportunity to make a recommendation on this version again. Similarly, if the Missoula County Planning Board makes a recommendation on the plan, that board will not have an opportunity to make a second recommendation. on Twitter Share So you refuse to answer the question I asked because I made it very clear I was asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes that the SV Council requested to the plan before the SV Council make their final decision and votes. Since the SV Council revisions to the plan are not made available for the public to inspect as of today 11/18/25, 3 hours before the council meeting, the answer to my question is the SV Council will vote without allowing the public to inspect the changes to the plan. This violated MCA for public participation before a final decision is made. Q #1- How much time will the public be given to look at the changes to the neighborhood plan that were requested by our council before the council makes a final decision? A - If the community council makes a recommendation on November 18th, the plan will be updated based on its recommendations and that version will be presented to the Missoula County Planning Board, tentatively scheduled for December 16th 2025. The plan would be available at least 10 days prior to the hearing of the Planning Board. Q #2- There seems to be some misunderstanding of the questions asked, since they are being answered without answering the question. You answered regarding the amount of time the county will give the public to review the county’s changes to the plan, but you did not address the question I asked. I am asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes they requested to the plan before the council makes a final decision and votes to make a recommendation to the county? Or are you saying the public will not be given time by the SV Council to look at the changes made or to comment at the next meeting before their vote? A - If the Community Council votes to recommend the plan with revisions, County staff will update the September 29 draft accordingly. The revised plan will be available for the public and the community council to see 10 days prior to December 16th, 2025. The Community Council will not have the opportunity to make a recommendation on this version again. Similarly, if the Missoula County Planning Board makes a recommendation on the plan, that board will not have an opportunity to make a second recommendation. on Linkedin Email So you refuse to answer the question I asked because I made it very clear I was asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes that the SV Council requested to the plan before the SV Council make their final decision and votes. Since the SV Council revisions to the plan are not made available for the public to inspect as of today 11/18/25, 3 hours before the council meeting, the answer to my question is the SV Council will vote without allowing the public to inspect the changes to the plan. This violated MCA for public participation before a final decision is made. Q #1- How much time will the public be given to look at the changes to the neighborhood plan that were requested by our council before the council makes a final decision? A - If the community council makes a recommendation on November 18th, the plan will be updated based on its recommendations and that version will be presented to the Missoula County Planning Board, tentatively scheduled for December 16th 2025. The plan would be available at least 10 days prior to the hearing of the Planning Board. Q #2- There seems to be some misunderstanding of the questions asked, since they are being answered without answering the question. You answered regarding the amount of time the county will give the public to review the county’s changes to the plan, but you did not address the question I asked. I am asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes they requested to the plan before the council makes a final decision and votes to make a recommendation to the county? Or are you saying the public will not be given time by the SV Council to look at the changes made or to comment at the next meeting before their vote? A - If the Community Council votes to recommend the plan with revisions, County staff will update the September 29 draft accordingly. The revised plan will be available for the public and the community council to see 10 days prior to December 16th, 2025. The Community Council will not have the opportunity to make a recommendation on this version again. Similarly, if the Missoula County Planning Board makes a recommendation on the plan, that board will not have an opportunity to make a second recommendation. link

So you refuse to answer the question I asked because I made it very clear I was asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes that the SV Council requested to the plan before the SV Council make their final decision and votes. Since the SV Council revisions to the plan are not made available for the public to inspect as of today 11/18/25, 3 hours before the council meeting, the answer to my question is the SV Council will vote without allowing the public to inspect the changes to the plan. This violated MCA for public participation before a final decision is made. Q #1- How much time will the public be given to look at the changes to the neighborhood plan that were requested by our council before the council makes a final decision? A - If the community council makes a recommendation on November 18th, the plan will be updated based on its recommendations and that version will be presented to the Missoula County Planning Board, tentatively scheduled for December 16th 2025. The plan would be available at least 10 days prior to the hearing of the Planning Board. Q #2- There seems to be some misunderstanding of the questions asked, since they are being answered without answering the question. You answered regarding the amount of time the county will give the public to review the county’s changes to the plan, but you did not address the question I asked. I am asking how much time the SV Council will give the public to look at the changes they requested to the plan before the council makes a final decision and votes to make a recommendation to the county? Or are you saying the public will not be given time by the SV Council to look at the changes made or to comment at the next meeting before their vote? A - If the Community Council votes to recommend the plan with revisions, County staff will update the September 29 draft accordingly. The revised plan will be available for the public and the community council to see 10 days prior to December 16th, 2025. The Community Council will not have the opportunity to make a recommendation on this version again. Similarly, if the Missoula County Planning Board makes a recommendation on the plan, that board will not have an opportunity to make a second recommendation.

CH asked about 1 month ago

The plan with the recommended changes by the Community Council has been posted to the Missoula County voice page and will soon be available at the Condon Public Library.
Share Q - If the SV plan with option 1 is recommended to the county, will the county change the county's land use map to take out minimum lot size for the Condon area, since they are based on the 1996 plan and outdated? A - The land use map included in the plan has been updated and is based on feedback from the committee and the public. I thought my question was clear, asking if Missoula County will change the county’s land use map to have no minimum lot size for the Condon area if the SV Council recommends the plan with option 1 to the county? on Facebook Share Q - If the SV plan with option 1 is recommended to the county, will the county change the county's land use map to take out minimum lot size for the Condon area, since they are based on the 1996 plan and outdated? A - The land use map included in the plan has been updated and is based on feedback from the committee and the public. I thought my question was clear, asking if Missoula County will change the county’s land use map to have no minimum lot size for the Condon area if the SV Council recommends the plan with option 1 to the county? on Twitter Share Q - If the SV plan with option 1 is recommended to the county, will the county change the county's land use map to take out minimum lot size for the Condon area, since they are based on the 1996 plan and outdated? A - The land use map included in the plan has been updated and is based on feedback from the committee and the public. I thought my question was clear, asking if Missoula County will change the county’s land use map to have no minimum lot size for the Condon area if the SV Council recommends the plan with option 1 to the county? on Linkedin Email Q - If the SV plan with option 1 is recommended to the county, will the county change the county's land use map to take out minimum lot size for the Condon area, since they are based on the 1996 plan and outdated? A - The land use map included in the plan has been updated and is based on feedback from the committee and the public. I thought my question was clear, asking if Missoula County will change the county’s land use map to have no minimum lot size for the Condon area if the SV Council recommends the plan with option 1 to the county? link

Q - If the SV plan with option 1 is recommended to the county, will the county change the county's land use map to take out minimum lot size for the Condon area, since they are based on the 1996 plan and outdated? A - The land use map included in the plan has been updated and is based on feedback from the committee and the public. I thought my question was clear, asking if Missoula County will change the county’s land use map to have no minimum lot size for the Condon area if the SV Council recommends the plan with option 1 to the county?

CH asked about 1 month ago

The Community Council has recommended the Plan to include the land use map that includes minimum lot sizes. The Community Council also recommended that the minimum lot sizes not be implemented through zoning.

Page last updated: 17 Dec 2025, 11:30 AM

Swan Valley Planning Committee

Have a question about what the Swan Valley Planning Committee is working on? Ask us!

Signup Banner

Upcoming Meetings

Documents

Past Meeting Agendas

Meeting Minutes

Who's Listening

Follow Project