Use Variance to Expand Gravel Operation South of Lolo

I find it ironic that Missoula County will devote the time and resources to look up each petition signer opposing the variance to confirm if they reside within CDZ#40. In my opinion, it apears they do not dedicate the time or resources to look up the location of a pit on a Zoning Variance Permit to confirm if it is located in a residentially zoned area. Hmmm.

I'm commenting as a neighbor in opposition to the Western Materials gravel pit expansion.

I watched the entirety of both meetings, most recently the one held on April 4th, 2024 and have several comments in opposition to Western Materials' expansion. I reside with my wife roughly 3/4 of a mile to the southwest of Western Materials' gravel operation. While the operation itself doesn't impact us in terms of noise, dust, light pollution or odor, we do suffer from the added traffic congestion at the Rowan/93 South intersection and on the frontage road which has yet to be addressed adequately.

First, while the county touts zoning as being the only mechanism communities have to protect the character of their neighborhoods, they clearly don't hold citizen zoning in high regard and county staff made that very clear in the April 4th meeting. Missoula County residents should be on notice that while the county will offer zoning up as a solution, they are demonstrably and openly antagonistic against the citizen initiated versions.

Second, the county is acting almost in a representative capacity for the applicant, advocating for them and letting the applicant's counsel opine on questions of law and procedure which should be the purview of the County's counsel. Look at the FAQ section to the right, which is clearly one-sided. Interested parties, if looking solely at the "FAQs" are not getting the full story- rather they are getting what amounts to an endorsement from the county to the detriment of all whom this expansion would impact.

County counsel admittedly has no opinion about what legal processes should have happened regarding previous expansions. Rather than admitting such and bringing on counsel who does know what should have happened, they consulted applicant's counsel provide guidance, a clear conflict. Isn't the county supposed to be neutral? There is not just an appearance of favoritism, they have demonstrated this time and again that they don't care about existing zoning, the malfeasance which got us to this point, nor the significant impact on those near the pit. The focus is almost entirely on the "hardship" inflicted upon Western Materials. Not to mention, that they are creating their own hardship by contracting to purchase a property they do not have a legal right to exploit yet.

Next, the "hardship" argument is weak considering the reams of facts which point to this not being legal or practical. Western has 20-25 years worth of material in their existing footprint, plenty of time to find an alternative source which is economically feasible.

Lastly, as a real estate professional, I can say with relative certainty, that the stick the applicant is wielding regarding the residential development potential of the proposed add-on is next to nothing. Very few residential buyers would be compelled by the prospect of a gravel pit next door to them. The applicants and the owners of the adjacent land know this. It's only of value to the applicant since the applicant destroyed their property value.. Win win for Western. A loss for everyone else in the vicinity, especially the owners of the add-on, expansion property.

The opposition provides compelling arguments in both law and equity against allowing this operation to continue, much less expand further. The applicant's arguments are weak at best and riddled with "negligent misrepresentations" at worst. The County Commissioners should require the applicant to correct the errors in their factual record, then deny this variance request.

I'm commenting as a neighbor in opposition to the Western Materials gravel pit expansion.

I watched the entirety of both meetings, most recently the one held on April 4th, 2024 and have several comments in opposition to Western Materials' expansion. I reside with my wife roughly 3/4 of a mile to the southwest of Western Materials' gravel operation. While the operation itself doesn't impact us in terms of noise, dust, light pollution or odor, we do suffer from the added traffic congestion at the Rowan/93 South intersection and on the frontage road which has yet to be addressed adequately.

First, while the county touts zoning as being the only mechanism communities have to protect the character of their neighborhoods, they clearly don't hold citizen zoning in high regard and county staff made that very clear in the April 4th meeting. Missoula County residents should be on notice that while the county will offer zoning up as a solution, they are demonstrably and openly antagonistic against the citizen initiated versions.

Second, the county is acting almost in a representative capacity for the applicant, advocating for them and letting the applicant's counsel opine on questions of law and procedure which should be the purview of the County's counsel. Look at the FAQ section to the right, which is clearly one-sided. Interested parties, if looking solely at the "FAQs" are not getting the full story.

County counsel admittedly has no opinion about what legal processes should have happened regarding previous expansions. Rather than admitting such and bringing on counsel who does know what should have happened, they consulted applicant's counsel from GLR to provide guidance, a clear conflict. Isn't the county supposed to be neutral? There is not just an appearance of favoritism, they have demonstrated this time and again that they don't care about existing zoning, the malfeasance which got us to this point, nor the significant impact on those near the pit. The focus is on the "hardship" inflicted upon Western Materials. Not to mention, that they are creating their own hardship by contracting to purchase a property they do not have a legal right to exploit yet.

Next, the "hardship" argument is weak considering the reams of facts which point to this not being legal or practical. Western has 25+/- years worth of material in their existing footprint, plenty of time to find an alternative source which is economically feasible.

Lastly, as a real estate professional, I can say with relative certainty, that the stick the applicant is wielding regarding the residential development potential of the proposed add-on is next to nothing. Very few residential buyers would be compelled by the prospect of a gravel pit next door to them. The applicants and the owners of the adjacent land know this. It's only of value to the applicant since the applicant destroyed their property value.. Win win for Western. A loss for everyone else in the vicinity, especially the owners of the add-on, expansion property.

The opposition provides compelling arguments in both law and equity against allowing this operation to continue, much less expand further. The applicant's arguments are weak at best and riddled with "negligent misrepresentations" at worst. The County Commissioners should require the applicant to correct the errors in their factual record, then deny this variance request.

I'm commenting as a neighbor in opposition to the Western Materials gravel pit expansion.

I watched the entirety of both meetings, most recently the one held on April 4th, 2024 and have several comments in opposition to Western Materials' expansion. I reside with my wife roughly 3/4 of a mile to the southwest of Western Materials' gravel operation. While the operation itself doesn't impact us in terms of noise, dust, light pollution or odor, we do suffer from the added traffic congestion at the Rowan/93 South intersection and on the frontage road which has yet to be addressed adequately.

First, while the county touts zoning as being the only mechanism communities have to protect the character of their neighborhoods, they clearly don't hold citizen zoning in high regard and county staff made that very clear in the April 4th meeting. Missoula County residents should be on notice that while the county will offer zoning up as a solution, they are demonstrably and openly antagonistic against the citizen initiated versions.

Second, the county is acting almost in a representative capacity for the applicant, advocating for them and letting the applicant's counsel opine on questions of law and procedure which should be the purview of the County's counsel. County counsel admittedly has no opinion about what legal processes should have happened regarding previous expansions. Rather than admitting such and bringing on counsel who does know what should have happened, they consulted applicant's counsel from GLR to provide guidance, a clear conflict. Isn't the county supposed to be neutral? There is not just an appearance of favoritism, they have demonstrated this time and again that they don't care about existing zoning, the malfeasance which got us to this point, nor the significant impact on those near the pit. The focus is on the "hardship" inflicted upon Western Materials. Not to mention, that they are creating their own hardship by contracting to purchase a property they do not have a legal right to exploit yet.

Next, the "hardship" argument is weak considering the reams of facts which point to this not being legal or practical. Western has 25+/- years worth of material in their existing footprint, plenty of time to find an alternative source which is economically feasible.

Lastly, as a real estate professional, I can say with relative certainty, that the stick the applicant is wielding regarding the residential development potential of the proposed add-on is next to nothing. Very few residential buyers would be compelled by the prospect of a gravel pit next door to them. The applicants and the owners of the adjacent land know this. It's only of value to the applicant since the applicant destroyed their property value.. Win win for Western. A loss for everyone else in the vicinity, especially the owners of the add-on, expansion property.

The opposition provides compelling arguments in both law and equity against allowing this operation to continue, much less expand further. The applicant's arguments are weak at best and riddled with "negligent misrepresentations" at worst. The County Commissioners should require the applicant to correct the errors in their factual record, then deny this variance request.

Dear Zoning Board and County Commissioners,

I am writing again to implore you to uphold our citizen initiated zoning ZD-40 and deny the use variance for Western gravel’s expansion of the Henrickson Pit and associated Asphalt and Concrete plants.

At our first hearing on Feb 22, you advised a different group of county residents trying to protect their community from subdivision to pursue Zoning regulations as their tool to determine their community’s future landscape and regulations. We, the citizens of ZD40, already have that exact tool established on our side. This specific Zoning, ZD40, was created by our community and for our community, explicitly detailing what was and is best for our small part of the big world. This is our voice. This is our law.
If this Zoning variance were to be granted to Western, I would be hurt and confused- Why would the financial gain for this one company being valued over our community’s existing zoning and the express desires of our community? Especially with many more years of gravel in Western’s other existing pit and countless other gravel pits in Missoula county.

I push back on the “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) argument here, as well. I bought my home in 2018 with the gravel operation (albeit a much smaller one) already in place. I do not expect the Pit to shut down or become become a greenspace for Wintering Elk and our other magnificent wildlife (as wonderful as that greenery might sound).

I simply expect that Western Material and their operation at the Henrickson Pit adhere to our existing Zoning statues.

specifically Section F which states, “Any existing non-conforming uses shall be limited to their present size and not allowed to expand in any form or nature.” The pit and gravel operation has become much larger in the 5+ years my husband and I have lived next door. Just last year alone, a large parcel on the corner of the Old Highway and McClain Creek was dug, about 5 acres of land with a large berm pushed close to both roads, easily seen from aerial imagery. Each of these land use variances they are applying for- Concrete, asphalt, expansion- is contradictory to our explicit zoning and should be denied on that basis. Furthermore, the operation of the mine as it currently exists- in a much larger footprint than legally allowed- needs to be addressed.

Thank you for working with and for our community, hearing us out, and upholding our community’s Zoning.
Best,

Emily Dubrawski
Landowner, Community Member, & Missoula County Resident

Dear Zoning Board and County Commissioners,

I am writing again to implore you to uphold our citizen initiated zoning ZD-40 and deny the use variance for Western gravel’s expansion of the Henrickson Pit and associated Asphalt and Concrete plants.

At our first hearing on Feb 22, you advised a different group of county residents trying to protect their community from subdivision to pursue Zoning regulations as their tool to determine their community’s future landscape and regulations. We, the citizens of ZD40, already have that exact tool established on our side. This specific Zoning, ZD40, was created by our community and for our community, explicitly detailing what was and is best for our small part of the big world. This is our voice. This is our law.
If this Zoning variance were to be granted to Western, I would be hurt and confused- Why would the financial gain for this one company being valued over our community’s existing zoning and the express desires of our community? Especially with many more years of gravel in Western’s other existing pit and countless other gravel pits in Missoula county.

I push back on the “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) argument here, as well. I bought my home in 2018 with the gravel operation (albeit a much smaller one) already in place. I do not expect the Pit to shut down or become become a greenspace for Wintering Elk and our other magnificent wildlife (as wonderful as that greenery might sound).

I simply expect that Western Material and their operation at the Henrickson Pit adhere to our existing Zoning statues.

specifically Section F which states, “Any existing non-conforming uses shall be limited to their present size and not allowed to expand in any form or nature.” The pit and gravel operation has become much larger in the 5+ years my husband and I have lived next door. Just last year alone, a large parcel on the corner of the Old Highway and McClain Creek was dug, about 5 acres of land with a large berm pushed close to both roads, easily seen from aerial imagery. Each of these land use variances they are applying for- Concrete, asphalt, expansion- is contradictory to our explicit zoning and should be denied on that basis. Furthermore, the operation of the mine as it currently exists- in a much larger footprint than legally allowed- needs to be addressed.

Thank you for working with and for our community, hearing us out, and upholding our community’s Zoning.
Best,

Emily Dubrawski
Landowner, Community Member, & Missoula County Resident

In my opinion, it appears pertinent information about property values was omitted in the Missoula County Planning, Development and Sustainability assessment presented at the public hearing held on 2/22/24, which can be evidenced in the video minutes of the meeting.
The state of Montana requires a seller of real estate to provide an Owner’s Property Disclosure Statement, citing lines 10-14 which read:
“Owner executes this Disclosure Statement to disclose to the prospective buyers all adverse material facts which concern the property. Montana Law defines an adverse material fact as a condition, malfunction or problem that would have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of real property, that affects the structural integrity of any improvements located on the real property, or that presents a documented health risk to occupants of the real property, or would impair the health or safety of future occupants of the real property.”
Additionally, “Concerning adverse material facts, Montana Law provides that a seller agent is obligated to:
• Disclose to a buyer or the buyer agent any adverse material facts that concern the property and that are known to the seller agent, except that the seller agent is not required to inspect the property or verify any statements made by the seller; and
• Disclose to a buyer or the buyer agent when the seller agent has no personal knowledge of the veracity of the information regarding adverse material facts that concern the property.”
If a homeowner living near the Hendricksen Pit wants to sell their home, the homeowner would need to disclose the existence of an industrial gravel pit operation in their residentially zoned neighborhood, with asphalt production and concrete production. During the due diligence period, the buyer will usually have ten days to accept or reject the home based on their assessment of material facts.
FACT: there are volumes of documented health risks concerning asphalt production, concrete production and gravel pits citing health risks that would impair the health of an occupant. Please keep in mind, there are children that live, play outdoors and are home schooled nearby whose health would be impaired.
Also, the condition of having asphalt production, concrete production, and an industrial gravel pit near a property would also have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of the property to the seller and to future buyers when they choose to sell, if they can find a buyer.
In my opinion, a buyer would not be willing to accept the health risks to himself or his family or other conditions that go along with this industrial activity and would cancel the purchase contract.
Not finding a buyer willing to accept the health risks and conditions that would be imposed by asphalt production, concrete production and a gravel pit, the homeowner would be required to consider lowering the price continually until they are able to secure a buyer who is willing to accept the health risks and conditions; this demonstrates that this adverse condition would have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of real property for the seller and any future buyer when they choose to sell.
For these reasons stated, I respectfully request the County Commissioners and all entities following, uphold Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by rejecting this variance and any other variance that may be forthcoming.
Article XI, section 1:

(1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. The Montana Annotated to provide a clean and healthful environment by rejecting the request for this variance to this residentially zoned area.
Sincerely,
Liz Heaney

In my opinion, it appears pertinent information about property values was omitted in the Missoula County Planning, Development and Sustainability’s assessment presented at the public hearing held on 2/22/24, which can be evidenced in the video minutes of the meeting.
The state of Montana requires a seller of real estate to provide an Owner’s Property Disclosure Statement, citing lines 10-14 which read:
“Owner executes this Disclosure Statement to disclose to the prospective buyers all adverse material facts which concern the property. Montana Law defines an adverse material fact as a condition, malfunction or problem that would have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of real property, that affects the structural integrity of any improvements located on the real property, or that presents a documented health risk to occupants of the real property, or would impair the health or safety of future occupants of the real property.”
Additionally, “Concerning adverse material facts, Montana Law provides that a seller agent is obligated to:
• Disclose to a buyer or the buyer agent any adverse material facts that concern the property and that are known to the seller agent, except that the seller agent is not required to inspect the property or verify any statements made by the seller; and
• Disclose to a buyer or the buyer agent when the seller agent has no personal knowledge of the veracity of the information regarding adverse material facts that concern the property.”
If a homeowner living near the Hendricksen Pit wants to sell their home, the homeowner would need to disclose the existence of an industrial gravel pit operation in their residentially zoned neighborhood, with asphalt production and concrete production. During the due diligence period, the buyer will usually have ten days to accept or reject the home based on their assessment of material facts.
FACT: there are volumes of documented health risks concerning asphalt production, concrete production and gravel pits citing health risks that would impair the health of an occupant. Please keep in mind, there are children that live, play outdoors and are home schooled nearby whose health would be impaired.
Also, the condition of having asphalt production, concrete production, and an industrial gravel pit near a property would also have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of the property to the seller and to future buyers when they choose to sell, if they can find a buyer.
In my opinion, a buyer would not be willing to accept the health risks to himself or his family or other conditions that go along with this industrial activity and would cancel the purchase contract.
Not finding a buyer willing to accept the health risks and conditions that would be imposed by asphalt production, concrete production and a gravel pit, the homeowner would be required to consider lowering the price continually until they are able to secure a buyer who is willing to accept the health risks and conditions; this demonstrates that this adverse condition would have a materially adverse effect on the monetary value of real property for the seller and any future buyer when they choose to sell.
For these reasons stated, I respectfully request the County Commissioners and all entities following, uphold Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by rejecting this variance and any other variance that may be forthcoming.
Article XI, section 1:

(1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. The Montana Annotated to provide a clean and healthful environment by rejecting the request for this variance to this residentially zoned area.
Sincerely,
Liz Heaney

Dear Zoning Board and County Commissioners,

I am writing again to implore you to uphold our citizen initiated zoning ZD-40 and deny the use variance for Western gravel’s expansion of the Henrickson Pit and associated Asphalt and Concrete plants.

At our first hearing on Feb 22, you advised a different group of county residents trying to protect their community from subdivision to pursue Zoning regulations as their tool to determine their community’s future landscape and regulations. We, the citizens of ZD40, already have that exact tool established on our side. This specific Zoning, ZD40, was created by our community and for our community, explicitly detailing what was and is best for our small part of the big world. This is our voice. This is our law.
If this Zoning variance were to be granted to Western, I would be hurt and confused- Why would the financial gain for this one company being valued over our community’s existing zoning and the express desires of our community? Especially with many more years of gravel in Western’s other existing pit and countless other gravel pits in Missoula county.

I push back on the “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) argument here, as well. I bought my home in 2018 with the gravel operation (albeit a much smaller one) already in place. I do not expect the Pit to shut down or become become a greenspace for Wintering Elk and our other magnificent wildlife (as wonderful as that greenery might sound).

I simply expect that Western Material and their operation at the Henrickson Pit adhere to our existing Zoning statues.

specifically Section F which states, “Any existing non-conforming uses shall be limited to their present size and not allowed to expand in any form or nature.” The pit and gravel operation has become much larger in the 5+ years my husband and I have lived next door. Just last year alone, a large parcel on the corner of the Old Highway and McClain Creek was dug, about 5 acres of land with a large berm pushed close to both roads, easily seen from aerial imagery. Each of these land use variances they are applying for- Concrete, asphalt, expansion- is contradictory to our explicit zoning and should be denied on that basis. Furthermore, the operation of the mine as it currently exists- in a much larger footprint than legally allowed- needs to be addressed.

Thank you for working with and for our community, hearing us out, and upholding our community’s Zoning.
Best,

Emily Dubrawski
Landowner, Community Member, & Missoula County Resident

Dear Zoning Board and County Commissioners,

I am writing again to implore you to uphold our citizen initiated zoning ZD-40 and deny the use variance for Western gravel’s expansion of the Henrickson Pit and associated Asphalt and Concrete plants.

At our first hearing on Feb 22, you advised a different group of county residents trying to protect their community from subdivision to pursue Zoning regulations as their tool to determine their community’s future landscape and regulations. We, the citizens of ZD40, already have that exact tool established on our side. This specific Zoning, ZD40, was created by our community and for our community, explicitly detailing what was and is best for our small part of the big world. This is our voice. This is our law.
If this Zoning variance were to be granted to Western, I would be hurt and confused- Why would the financial gain for this one company being valued over our community’s existing zoning and the express desires of our community? Especially with many more years of gravel in Western’s other existing pit and countless other gravel pits in Missoula county.

I push back on the “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) argument here, as well. I bought my home in 2018 with the gravel operation (albeit a much smaller one) already in place. I do not expect the Pit to shut down or become become a greenspace for Wintering Elk and our other magnificet wildlife (as wonderful as that greenery might sound).

I simply expect that Western Material and their operation at the Henrickson Pit adhere to our existing Zoning statues.

specifically Section F which states, “Any existing non-conforming uses shall be limited to their present size and not allowed to expand in any form or nature.” The pit and gravel operation has become much larger in the 5+ years my husband and I have lived next door. Just last year alone, a large parcel on the corner of the Old Highway and McClain Creek was dug, about 5 acres of land with a large berm pushed close to both roads, easily seen from aerial imagery. Each of these land use variances they are applying for- Concrete, asphalt, expansion- is contradictory to our explicit zoning and should be denied on that basis. Furthermore, the operation of the mine as it currently exists- in a much larger footprint than legally allowed- needs to be addressed.

Thank you for working with and for our community, hearing us out, and upholding our community’s Zoning.
Best,,

Emily Dubrawski
Landowner, Community Member, & Missoula County Resident

Dear Zoning Board and County Commissioners,

I am writing again to implore you to uphold our citizen initiated zoning ZD-40 and deny the use variance for Western gravel’s expansion of the Henrickson Pit and associated Asphalt and Concrete plants.

At our first hearing on Feb 22, you advised a different group of county residents trying to protect their community from subdivision to pursue Zoning regulations as their tool to determine their community’s future landscape and regulations. We, the citizens of ZD40, already have that exact tool established on our side. This specific Zoning, ZD40, was created by our community and for our community, explicitly detailing what was and is best for our small part of the big world. This is our voice. This is our law.
If this Zoning variance were to be granted to Western, I would be hurt and confused- Why would the financial gain for this one company being valued over our community’s existing zoning and the express desires of our community? Especially with many more years of gravel in Western’s other existing pit and countless other gravel pits in Missoula county.

I push back on the “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) argument here, as well. I bought my home in 2018 with the gravel operation (albeit a much smaller one) already in place. I do not expect the Pit to shut down or become become a greenspace for Wintering Elk and our other magnificet wildlife (as wonderful as that greenery might sound).

I simply expect that Western Material and their operation at the Henrickson Pit adhere to our existing Zoning statues.

specifically Section F which states, “Any existing non-conforming uses shall be limited to their present size and not allowed to expand in any form or nature.” The pit and gravel operation has become much larger in the 5+ years my husband and I have lived next door. Just last year alone, a large parcel on the corner of the Old Highway and McClain Creek was dug, about 5 acres of land with a large berm pushed close to both roads, easily seen from aerial imagery. Each of these land use variances they are applying for- Concrete, asphalt, expansion- is contradictory to our explicit zoning and should be denied on that basis. Furthermore, the operation of the mine as it currently exists- in a much larger footprint than legally allowed- needs to be addressed.

Thank you for working with and for our community, hearing us out, and upholding our community’s Zoning.
Best,,

Emily Dubrawski
Landowner, Community Member, & Missoula County Resident

I am opposed to the expansion.
This gravel pit was not, and is not a legal nonconforming industry. All Permits authorized after the Property was included in the Legal Zone 40 in 1976 were not within Montana State Law. The Permits authorized by the Montana DEQ, and the Missoula Board of County Commissioner's were not issued within Montana State Zoning laws.
If this illegal gravel pit operation is allowed to continue, people with homes within 3 miles will continue to suffer blight in their environment. This is unlawful and injurious. Redress for neighbors damaged personal health and noxious air and sound environment can result in financial punitive action by a sympathetic Court of Law. And should be!
Gerald Reynolds

I would like to go on record as opposing the use variance to expand the existing gravel pit. The pit does not fit in with the aesthetic of the surrounding area. It is already an open scab on the face of a beautiful rural residential area. I did not spend my hard earned money purchasing a beautiful rural residential property to have this small scale operation expanded to a much larger non conforming intrusion. If I wanted to purchase property near a huge gravel pit, I would have purchased elsewhere. I would prefer several smaller pits run for shorter periods of time.

To my commissioners, I am writing to you as a nurse, farmer, mother, leader of an award-winning environmental stewardship program at a local hospital, and as a member of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. I strongly oppose the use variance requested by Western Materials as it will have significant detrimental impacts on our local environment, the health of my children and my neighbors, and the future health of inhabitants of this valley. Human health is intricately tied to the health of the environment in which we live. Open gravel pit mining can cause the following negative health impacts:

- Increased respiratory diseases from increased air pollution through the dust and particulates that are inevitable byproducts of open pit mining in addition to the exhaust produced by the equipment used for mining and the trucks used to haul the products.

- Chemical exposure and poisoning as mining operations use a plethora of chemicals in their production processes: THIS IS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN AS THEY SHARE MY AQUIFER AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DRAINING MY AVAILABLE WATER WITH OVERUSE OR WORSE, CONTAMINATING MY WATER KEEPS ME AWAKE AT NIGHT.

- Noise pollution that can contribute to and exacerbate hearing loss, increased stress, sleep disturbance, and cardiovascular disease

- Psychological and social impacts due to the disruption of landscapes, increased traffic, noise, and loss of habitat for our local Elk herd.

This operation is located next to a protected wetland and about a mile and a half away from the Bitterroot River. Expanding this operation increases the risk for polluting our water, a resource that we cannot live without.

The only real way to mitigate the above concerns is to DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. Please note, that even with a denial to expand their operation that my neighbors and I are already impacted by the current operations. The health costs to our citizens cannot be mitigated by Western Material.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2016.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.212
DOI: 10.5172/rsj.2013.23.1.60.
Mactaggart, F., McDermott, L., Tynan, A., & Gericke, C. (2016). Examining health and well‐being outcomes associated with mining activity in rural communities of high‐income countries: A systematic review. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 24(4), 230-237.
Karlović, Igor; Marković, Tamara; Smith, Andrew C.; Maldini, Krešimir. Hydrology (2306-5338) , Apr2023, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p99, 11p. Publisher: MDPI., Database: Biomedical Index
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131834
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.212

This is a reprint of a published article that can help give understanding to some questions you may have.

PUBLISHED IN THE MISSOULA CURRENT 2/28/24
“Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) With recent state legislation having cut environmental regulations, the only tool communities have to stop gravel pit proposals is zoning. But if Missoula County grants a zoning variance, that tool could also be rendered useless for a Lolo neighborhood.
The Missoula Board of County Commissioners last week convened the Missoula County Planning and Zoning Commission for a hearing on whether to approve an application from Western Materials, Inc., to almost double the size of its gravel pit along Old Highway 93 midway between Lolo and Florence.
In October, Western Materials president John Kappes applied for a variance to expand the existing 80-acre gravel operation into the adjacent Leibenguth property - three 20-acre and two 5-acre lots to the west - for a total of 150 acres. Kappes was the former president of the Mountain Water Company, which owned Missoula’s water until the city sued and gained control of the water resources in 2020.
The hearing on the variance was initially scheduled for Dec. 7, but by then, the neighbors had started protesting the expansion. So Western Materials requested a delay to address some of the concerns. The commission hearing lasted almost two hours on Thursday, and it was continued until April 4 to give the commissioners a chance to visit the site before taking a final vote.
Kappes told the commissioners that the gravel, sand and pit run being produced in the gravel pit could be used on any kind of construction project, and with all the growth in Missoula and the Bitterroot Valley, more aggregate would be needed.
However, gravel pits aren’t rare. There are already 25 permitted gravel pits in the Bitterroot Valley between Hamilton and Florence at the Ravalli County line with another two proposed, according to the Department of Environmental Quality database. Then another 21 gravel pits are permitted around Missoula between the Ravalli County line and Frenchtown with another two proposed.
The current Western Materials gravel pit would last for another 20 years, so the need to expand isn’t imminent. But the Leibenguth family is preparing to subdivide and develop the property west of the pit.
“When (the Leibenguth family) came to us and were discussing how this would be developed for houses and saying that it’s probably time to do a development, we thought it may be an important time to present this to the community and show that this is an option,” Kappes said. “We have a point in time when we can either build more houses on a gravel resource or take an opportunity to further that gravel resource into the future.”
Kappes said that to address neighbors’ concerns, Western Materials and its engineering firm, WGM Group, have scaled back the original proposal such that excavation would affect only an additional 30 acres, which would give the pit an additional 35 years. Still, the permit granted by DEQ in May 2021 allowed the addition of a double-walled fuel storage tank, an asphalt plant, a concrete batch plant and a wash plant on the southern and southwestern portion of the property. The permit expires in 2045 but can be extended indefinitely.
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has expressed significant concern about the effect of the pit expansion on wildlife habitat and migration corridors. Land just south of Lolo has been considered for conservation easements to allow for a possible wildlife crossing structure across Highway 93.
The county commission wouldn’t need to weigh in except for the fact the gravel pit is in a region that is zoned “residential.” In 1976, area residents initiated a zoning proposal to designate an area between basically Trader Brothers south to Sun Valley Road on both sides of Highway 93 as low-density residential with no resource extraction. The Zoning District #40 resolution passed with 60% of the citizens in favor.
The gravel pit reportedly existed in 1976 - although some commenters dispute that - so it was grandfathered in to ZD#40. But the zoning resolution required that “(a)ny existing non-conforming uses shall be limited to their present size and not allowed to expand in any form or nature.” The neighbors assert that the gravel pit started at 15 acres but has expanded to its current size without the county granting a variance before.
Since October, many of the residents have sent comments and petitions to the county, asking the commission to uphold their residential zoning. Of the 58 households signing the petitions opposing the pit expansion, 34 are in Zoning District #40.
“ZD40 zoning was put in place to protect homeowners, yet here we are striving to protect ourselves, our neighborhood, our health, and our environment due to errors,” one commenter wrote.
After approving some subdivisions in last week’s commission meeting, the commissioners had touted the importance of zoning for maintaining the character of a neighborhood. After residents tried to oppose subdividing a parcel into smaller lots, the commissioners said they couldn’t reject applications just because they don’t like them. Commissioner Josh Slotnick said zoning was the primary mechanism that could regulate density.
“I empathize and sympathize. But the answer to prevent (high density) from happening is to zone it. Density and zoning are linked, and right now, this area is unzoned,” Slotnick said.
However, during the variance hearing that followed, Dan Monroe, who lives on King Road near the gravel pit, pointed out that the DH#40 residents already have zoning in place, but the commission might not stop the gravel pit expansion, which seemed inconsistent. Missoula County planner Jennie Dixon has recommended approval of the variance.
“You approved that subdivision because they didn’t have zoning. But in our community, we do have a legal agreement that says there can be no further significant industrial growth. In my opinion you’d be doing an end-run of our legal agreement by ignoring the legal document we have,” Monroe said.
In fact, there are a lot of people around the state who wish they had the zoning that the ZD#40 neighbors have. Since the 2021 Legislature passed House Bill 599, a nod to industry that stripped a number of environmental protections from DEQ’s requirements for gravel pits and cut the amount of time DEQ had to evaluate applications, more gravel pits have popped up across the state. Some are in appropriate places, like the back 40 acres of a dryland wheat farm, but some have been proposed quite close to what were once quiet neighborhoods.
Residents near Arlee, Elbow Lake, Libby, Ennis, and Gallatin Gateway are suddenly finding themselves next to open pit mines that are allowed to operate 24/7, and they have no recourse because DEQ won’t reject an application and their neighborhoods aren’t zoned to prohibit industrial activity. Some would like to enact zoning now, but the 2021 Legislature also passed House Bill 527, which prohibits zoning regulations from regulating mineral extraction, which includes gravel pits.
Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Libby, who sponsored HB 599 in 2021, has argued that DEQ misinterpreted his bill, cutting regulations further than intended. But he has refused to modify the law, saying instead that “Preemptive zoning is the fix to take care of that.”
By law, Missoula County can grant a variance to a citizen zoning district as long as it’s not “contrary to the public interest where literal enforcement of the zoning regulations would result in unnecessary hardship.” However, Worden Thane attorney Elizabeth Erickson wrote a letter to the Missoula County planner on Feb. 21 saying expanding the gravel pit would be contrary to the public interest and that of the Lolo Ranch LLC. Among other objections, Lolo Ranch started in July the process of getting an “organic” certification for its produce and particles from the asphalt and concrete plant exhaust could jeopardize that.
“Denial of the variance request would not create undue hardship for the applicant,” Erickson wrote, pointing to the fact that the current pit is good for 20 years.
The Missoula Board of County Commissioners have yet to announce when they’ll visit the site.
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.”

To my commissioners, I am writing to you as a nurse, farmer, mother, leader of an award-winning environmental stewardship program at a local hospital, and as a member of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. I strongly oppose the use variance requested by Western Materials as it will have significant detrimental impacts on our local environment, the health of my children and my neighbors, and the future health of inhabitants of this valley. Human health is intricately tied to the health of the environment in which we live. Open gravel pit mining can cause the following negative health impacts:

- Increased respiratory diseases from increased air pollution through the dust and particulates that are inevitable byproducts of open pit mining in addition to the exhaust produced by the equipment used for mining and the trucks used to haul the products.

- Chemical exposure and poisoning as mining operations use a plethora of chemicals in their production processes: THIS IS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN AS THEY SHARE MY AQUIFER AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DRAINING MY AVAILABLE WATER WITH OVERUSE OR WORSE, CONTAMINATING MY WATER KEEPS ME AWAKE AT NIGHT.

- Noise pollution that can contribute to and exacerbate hearing loss, increased stress, sleep disturbance, and cardiovascular disease

- Psychological and social impacts due to the disruption of landscapes, increased traffic, noise, and loss of habitat for our local Elk herd.

This operation is located next to a protected wetland and about a mile and a half away from the Bitterroot River. Expanding this operation increases the risk for polluting our water, a resource that we cannot live without.

The only real way to mitigate the above concerns is to DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. Please note, that even with a denial to expand their operation that my neighbors and I are already impacted by the current operations. The health costs to our citizens cannot be mitigated by Western Material.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2016.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.212
DOI: 10.5172/rsj.2013.23.1.60.
Mactaggart, F., McDermott, L., Tynan, A., & Gericke, C. (2016). Examining health and well‐being outcomes associated with mining activity in rural communities of high‐income countries: A systematic review. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 24(4), 230-237.

Karlović, Igor; Marković, Tamara; Smith, Andrew C.; Maldini, Krešimir. Hydrology (2306-5338) , Apr2023, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p99, 11p. Publisher: MDPI., Database: Biomedical Index
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131834
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.212

To my commissioners, I am writing to you as a nurse, farmer, mother, leader of an award-winning environmental stewardship program at a local hospital, and as a member of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. I strongly oppose the use variance requested by Western Materials as it will have significant detrimental impacts on our local environment, the health of my children and my neighbors, and the future health of inhabitants of this valley. Human health is intricately tied to health of the environment in which we live. Open gravel pit mining can cause the following:
- Increased respiratory diseases from increased air pollution through the dust and particulates that are inevitable byproducts of open pit mining in addition to the exhaust produced by the equipment used for mining and the trucks used to haul the products.
- Chemical exposure and poisoning as mining operations use a plethora of chemicals in their production processes: THIS IS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN AS THEY SHARE MY AQUIFER AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DRAINING MY AVAILABLE WATER WITH OVERUSE OR WORSE, CONTAMINATING MY WATER KEEPS ME AWAKE AT NIGHT.
- Noise pollution that can contribute to and exacerbate hearing loss, increased stress, sleep disturbance, and cardiovascular disease
- Psychological and social impacts due to the disruption of landscapes, increased traffic, noise, and loss of habitat for our local Elk herd.

This operation is located next to a protected wetland and about a mile and a half away from the Bitterroot river. Expanding this operation increases the risk for polluting our water, a resource that we cannot live without.

The only real way to mitigate the above concerns is to DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST. Please note, that even with a denial to expand their operation that my neighbors and I are already impacted by the current operations. The health costs to our citizens cannot be mitigated by Western Material.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2016.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.212
DOI: 10.5172/rsj.2013.23.1.60.
Mactaggart, F., McDermott, L., Tynan, A., & Gericke, C. (2016). Examining health and well‐being outcomes associated with mining activity in rural communities of high‐income countries: A systematic review. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 24(4), 230-237.
Karlović, Igor; Marković, Tamara; Smith, Andrew C.; Maldini, Krešimir. Hydrology (2306-5338) , Apr2023, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p99, 11p. Publisher: MDPI., Database: Biomedical Index

I write in general opposition to the use variance out of concern for the local aquifer that, as neighbors, we all know to be relatively shallow. If I'm reading the submitted DEQ paperwork correctly there may be an existing well that falls within the proposed expansion area with 2' of standing water a 25' depth, which indicates to me that the expansion of this mining operation, while sufficiently far from streamflow groundwater to meet DEQ standards, would be precariously close to our shared underground resource. I believe there is an adequate consensus in peer reviewed studies that demonstrate significant impact on aquifer water quality and levels as a result gravel and sand mining operations; either through direct exposure of the aquifer to air, through disruptions in the land mass, or through (unintended) chemical leach.
As noted by others this is a zoned residential area and the proposed expansion will bring the mining operations westward in line both longitudinally and topographically with the current residential structures. Short of the DEQ paperwork I saw no indication of environmental studies that might address the potential, harmful impact to the local aquifers that supply our neighborhood its means to sustain the residents, our crops, and our livestock.
I would hope that if the county commission are seriously considering this variance they would do so only after such necessary environmental studies have been provided through reputable, objective sources so that they, as commissioners, have done their due diligence to protect the local residents.

I move forward to request an amendment to the Staff Report published on 02/15/2024 by Jennie Dixon regarding the use variance application by Western Materials within ZD#40.
Point #18 of the Variance Findings of Facts presents a summary of the proceedings and hearings through which the statutes of ZD#40 were adopted. However, one important detail was omitted. It states that in April 13, 1976 a “lengthy discussion” took place during the hearing session. This lengthy discussion was in fact related to the “expansion of existing plant facilities”.
Given the fact that the matter discussed in the present application for a use variance is that of a planned expansion of an existing plant facility, it is of the utmost importance to remind the public that the statutes of ZD#40 were heavily debated by the county commissioners and were still adopted and included the clause preventing any existing non-conforming operation to increase in size.
I therefore request the sentence in question in point #18 to copy the minute of the April 13, 1976 hearing and to state the following: ‘After lengthy discussion of the clauses in Missoula County Board’s recommendation relating to expansion of existing physical plant facilities, etc.’

Commissioners,
In advance of this week’s public hearing I would like to draw your attention to troubling elements regarding the gravel pit located within in ZD#40 known as the Hendricksen pit. I request an answer to the following question: how did we get here?
First off, I should not need to remind you that the zoning in which the gravel pit is located is clearly defined as RESIDENTIAL. This has some importance because it seems that for the entire time this pit has existed, this specific point was willfully ignored by the County. Residential means there are people living in the area. Right next to it, within a few feet of the existing operation and of its potential expansion.
It was noted by WGM in Western’s application that the permitting process through which Stan Hendricksen obtained a zoning permit in 2009 to expand from 15 acres to somewhere between 20 to 100 acres was not consistent with established procedures and authorities. I confirmed this with the County’s Attorney’s office and the Planning Department. The process did not follow zoning statutes or authorizations as a use variance was granted to Stan Hendricksen without any public consultation, and the decision to grant the variance was not made by the body with the authority to do so.
This was not the only time the statutes of our zoning were ignored. In 1993, Stan Hendricksen was granted a zoning permit by Missoula County to expand his operation from 5 to 15 acres. The Zoning Compliance Form (dated 6/4/93) states that the operation “is not located within an area zoned as residential”. Given this was nearly 20 years after ZD#40 established the zoning as residential, it is hard to understand how this zoning permit could be legally granted. A hand-written letter is attached to the Zoning Compliance Form by Stan Hendricksen promising to reclaim the area and shut the operation down after the operation reached its 15 acres in size (documents available on the DEQ Public Records Request web page). Not only did Missoula County not ensure that this land was reclaimed, but it is also believed that they did not hold a public hearing at this time as is required by our statutes. Neighbors residing in the area at this time have no recollection of such hearing.
Stan then went to the State DEQ on 6/21/93 to request an open cut permit using the Missoula County Zoning Compliance Form obtained under dubious terms and violating our residential zoning. DEQ granted an open cut permit not to exceed 3.5 acres. This contract also clearly states “no other mining is authorized and mining without a contract is against the law subject to civil penalties”. However, in 2009, Stan Hendricksen was granted a zoning permit and an amendment to his opencut permit allowing him to expand on the grounds that he had already disturbed 40 acres since his previous permit in 1993.
On Feb 15 2024, the official Staff Report from the Planning Department came out in strong favor of the use variance recommending it be granted to Western. Points 18 and 19 of this Staff Report affirm my point that ZD#40 was highly likely implemented IN OPPOSITION TO the mining operations in the area to protect our natural resources and way of life. One gravel pit was clearly mentioned during the hearings in 1975 and 1976 as being a source of nuisance and potentially endangering local natural resources. Washington Construction Company was indeed running a gravel pit operation at the time, but it was on the other side of the old Highway, across from the Hendricksen site. It has been reclaimed since then.
In WGM’s original application (page 25) we see an aerial photo of Hendricksen’s site right next to a much larger pit. DEQ provided a drawn map from 1967 with just one X in the area where both pits are supposedly located. I requested all permits from DEQ related to the Hendricksen pit since operations began, and the only reference to permit #HES-001 found were in documents dating back to 1993. Looking at the documents I was given, it seems Stan Hendricksen’s operation was not permitted when it started and was not the subject of the 1976 hearings, in which case how could it be “grandfathered” into our zoning as WGM claims? In any case, the statutes of our zoning clearly state that ‘any existing non-conforming uses shall be limited to their present size and not allowed to expand in any form or nature.’ This item was also completely disregarded.
In the WGM application Historical Summary “1993: OPG recognizes that the 15-acre mine existed before the zoning and signs a ZCP that allows the 15-acre mining operation as a legal nonconforming use i.e. grandfathered.” This statement appears to be untrue. Is WGM claiming that Stan Hendricksen had a mining permit “HES-001” for 15 acres before 1976 (as stated in their Pre-1976 explanation)? But then went back to DEQ in 1993 (as historical evidence proves) to obtain a 3.5 acre permit? If this is true, why is there no supporting Appendix with this document? I found no evidence of such a document in my records request from DEQ.
Stan Hendricksen’s operation started out on dubious grounds. No documents could be found that support the fact that Stan Hendricksen had a permit prior to 1993. In 1993, the County allowed the operation to grow from 5 to 15 acres while clearly circumventing the statutes of local zoning. In 2009, Stan Hendricksen was allowed by the County to expand massively with complete disregard to due process. Today, this community, while having lived with the nuisance inherent to an ever-growing mining operation located literally in their backyard, is asked to provide their opinion on whether this operation should be allowed to reach a MASSIVE total of nearly 150 acres. From our view, this variance is certainly contrary to public interest and will create more harm to our neighborhood.
The asphalt and cement plant added in July 2016 to the Open Cut Permit #2681 are the result of a series of questionable actions resulting in illegitimate zoning permits coming out of Missoula County. It clearly states in the DEQ Opencut Mining Permit #2681 “The permit does not relieve the operator’s obligation to A. comply with any other applicable federal, state, county or local statutes, regulations or ordinances B. obtain any other permits licenses approvals etc required for any part of the operation.” As a father of three small children, the youngest only 1 year old, I STRONGLY OPPOSE this direct harm to my air and water. Their play area is not 50 yards from this operation. Many neighbors have also expressed extreme concern to their health and well being as a result of this being implemented.
The complete disregard for our zoning statutes over the course of time has led to this present-day situation. The pit has reached a size of about 50 acres of mined land. Depending on the wind direction, the dust generated by the pit can be seen one mile up or down the valley. Lots of people commuting to Missoula daily have expressed how big of an eyesore this pit is. The dozens of dump trucks coming out of the pit loaded with gravel using Highway 93 create a serious hazard for incoming cars.
Had the County upheld our zoning statutes and followed procedures over time, this situation would not exist. In fact, the pit would be closed as per Stan and Missoula County 1993 written agreement. This neighborhood is ready to defend their right to enjoy their property, their health, their safety and their right to access to natural resources. The benefits related to this use variance and to the operation of this gravel pit are entirely biased towards the County and Western. The local community however gets to deal with all the harm. No benefit whatsoever was brought forth to the local residents. And the reason is that there is none.
I am confident in saying that 90% of the landowners within ZD#40 are opposed to this use variance, and had the County not suppressed their voices over the history of this pit, they would have also opposed any proposed permit for expansion and the implementation of a cement or asphalt plant. I therefore request that our zoning statutes be strictly enforced, preventing any additional growth of this gravel pit operation, and that Opencut Permit #2681 amendments #3 and #4 be voided, the terms of which should be submitted to a public consultation.