Stormwater law stalled again

There still is no consensus on Whitefish's proposed stormwater law.

After listening to nearly three hours of public testimony on Thursday, the Whitefish City-County Planning Board decided to recommend that the city extend for another six months an emergency drainage ordinance already in place, and form a committee to fine-tune a plan that would become a permanent law.

"Where I come from you don't turn in your homework half done," Planning Board Chairman Martin McGrew said, voicing his reluctance to send the proposed law to the City Council. "The more you dive into it, it's so complicated. Some things will get us into big trouble."

The idea of forming a broad-based committee to study the proposal did not have unanimous board support. Four of the nine members felt the board itself should handle the study, but the committee idea squeaked by on a 5-4 vote.

"Appointing another committee is ridiculous," board member Scott Sorensen said. "We're the group to do it."

The City Council will consider the board's recommendation on March 19. City Manager Gary Marks said he hasn't consulted with the city attorney, but doesn't think extending the emergency ordinance will pose a problem.

"I think we could extend it one way or the other," he said.

THE LATEST version of the stormwater law was intended to be an interim ordinance until the Whitefish Growth Policy is in place. It would prohibit development on slopes in excess of 30 percent. That's been the hot-button issue, but testimony revealed confusion about many other elements of the proposal.

Greg Carter, a Whitefish engineer and developer, said the proposed law doesn't adequately address vacant property.

"The way it's written, a landowner of vacant property doesn't know what will be approved," Carter said.

Carter was the first to suggest the proposal isn't ready for City Council perusal and needs further study.

Mark Van Nyhuis pointed out that not all property owners were notified in a mailing sent out by the city, and said it's crucial that owners of riverfront property know what's going on since the law would create new setbacks for construction.

Some testified that the 100-foot setback in urban areas and 200-foot setback in rural areas are arbitrary and excessive.

Some didn't see a problem with the 100-foot riverbank setback. Leo Keane, a builder and small developer, said he believes the latest version of the proposal "has a lot of potential but may need some fine-tuning." Keane owns waterfront property in Minnesota, where a 100-foot setback is the norm, and doesn't find it "onerous in the least.

"It's protecting the resources and it levels the playing field," Keane said.

Greg Gunderson, a professional forester, found problems with proposed regulations that would prohibit mechanized equipment for building trails and require replacement trees to be at least three inches in trunk diameter. Mechanized equipment is quicker and no more invasive than hand-cutting a trail, he said. He had concerns about the environmental effects of requiring large replacement trees.

Don Kaltschmidt said he doesn't like the "one size fits all" mentality of the latest version of the ordinance. He pointed out that city bike paths are planned within the proposed setbacks.

"When a municipality can do it, why can't private property owners?" Kaltschmidt asked. "Our property rights are being trampled on. This it too much of an extreme and too much regulation."

WHITEFISH'S STORMWATER saga has dragged on for nearly two years, becoming a confusing quagmire of proposed regulations.

It began in July 2005 when the City Council adopted its first emergency ordinance, putting development on hold in sensitive drainage areas until a stormwater master plan could be completed. That plan was approved in March 2006.

In April 2006 the council moved forward with another emergency ordinance that put interim regulations in place, allowing engineering to proceed on projects delayed by the first emergency ordinance.

By October 2006 the city was ready to proceed with a permanent version of the stormwater ordinance that would protect certain environmentally sensitive areas and critical drainage areas. Then it became a proposed interim ordinance, with a permanent version promised once the growth policy is completed.

The Planning Board rejected the initial proposal for an interim ordinance largely because of the 30 percent slope restriction, and sent it to the City Council in November. A month later the council bounced it back to the Planning Board for further review after two opposite drafts of the law emerged.

DESPITE the delay in passing a stormwater law, the planning board proceeded on Thursday with three related public hearings - and voted to recommend approval of all three measures.

They include:

. Amending the zoning regulations to require a zoning compliance permit prior to any terrain disturbance for development and prior to any construction activity. It applies to areas in the city's planning jurisdiction where a building permit isn't required.

. Amending zoning regulations to prohibit onsite excavation for development until the city approves a site plan.

. Amending city law to include certain environmental protection standards set forth in the stormwater law (once it's approved) as permissible deviations under the provisions of a planned-unit development.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com