Whitefish stalls vote on control outside city

A proposal to give the city of Whitefish more control in its unincorporated planning area was put on hold Monday to allow time for county officials to address their concerns.

At issue are proposed laws that would require a zoning compliance permit for any new construction or remodeling and an approved site plan for development-related excavation in the city planning area that extends roughly two miles outside city limits.

While city officials maintain they need more control in areas where building permits are not allowed, neighbors in the planning area and county Commissioner Gary Hall said this kind of regulation isn't what anyone had in mind when the county and city agreed on the planning area a couple of years ago.

"I had a nagging feeling" this would happen, Hall said.

The county and city spent more than four years negotiating a planning-boundary agreement that would give Whitefish more oversight of its planning area but still preserve the rights of residents who can't vote for representation in city elections.

At one point, Hall was the lone commissioner in support of the boundary agreement, but he gained more support when Commissioner Joe Brenneman came on board in January 2005 and the agreement passed.

Hall said he understands the city wants subdivisions in its unincorporated area "to look like the DNA of Whitefish," but noted the proposals fly in the face of the communication and cooperation that was promised when the boundary agreement was approved. Residents in the unincorporated planning area are in the district Hall represents.

While the proposed zoning compliance permit isn't a building permit per se, it works much the same way in that prior to undertaking any construction, development or expansion of a permitted or accessory use, the property owner must get a permit from the Whitefish Planning and Building Department.

The same holds true for any excavation planned for development purposes in the planning area.

"I'm not for building permits in the county," Hall said. "I will never be in support of it."

Hall said he does, however, support design standards for the gateways into communities.

Dwayne Becker, who has lived for 37 years on Monegan Road - the eastern fringe of the Whitefish planning area - said he attended all the joint meetings that were held when the boundaries were being negotiated and remembers "a lot of talk about taxation without representation."

He, too, said that promises were made that now seem to be falling by the wayside.

"Now it appears that if we decide

to build a shelter belt, or a lean-to for our tractors or a pole barn," we'll be required to get a zoning-compliance permit," Becker said. "Our worst fears are coming true. Does this seem fair that you can tell us what to do?"

City resident Greg Carter agreed with Becker, saying the proposal is way too restrictive.

"These people don't even get the chance to vote for you," Carter said. "We ought to enforce what was in place when they were brought in" to the city's jurisdiction.

WHITEFISH PLANNING Director Bob Horne pointed to several examples of zoning violations, maintaining that city involvement up front could have spared property owners the expense and frustration of having to alter homes.

One home built 10 feet too far into the setback area on Blanchard Lake Road had to be ripped up and 10 feet shaved off the structure to come into compliance with city zoning.

Horne told of one contractor who violated a condition of plat by excavating for a home foundation too close to a stream.

While several council members voiced support for the zoning compliance and site-plan permits, the council agreed to table a decision and give the county time to "work things out" with the city.

Council member Nancy Woodruff, who voted against tabling the matter, said it "doesn't make sense to having zoning and not enforce it.

"The county's not active there," Woodruff said. "If we don't enforce it, then there's no zoning."

City Manager Gary Marks said the proposed laws would be more restrictive only in the sense that "there'll be more enforcement now."

Both the council and members of the audience had questions about how to pay for the added measure of control. The proposals weren't accompanied by any fee structure or means of funding more zoning enforcement.

"If fees are a concern, I'd rather do it for free than to spend the amount of time we have" correcting zoning violations, Horne said. "It'd save the city money in the long run. It's the process we need."

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