Critical-areas debate continues tonight

The Whitefish City-County Planning Board will consider another round of revisions to the beleaguered critical areas ordinance as it concludes a public hearing tonight on the drainage legislation.

The meeting, which will allow public testimony, begins at 6 p.m. at Whitefish City Hall.

The board also will consider zoning-regulation amendments suggested by the city planning staff that would mandate zoning compliance permits for new construction in Whitefish's two-mile planning area.

The City Council earlier this year had decided to make the permits voluntary in the planning area outside city limits.

Whitefish Senior Planner Wendy Compton-Ring said the switch to mandatory permits is meant to match language already contained in the critical areas ordinance and is the only way for staff to control development outside the city limits.

THE CRITICAL areas ordinance stems from a recommendation in the city's stormwater master plan calling for tighter regulations in drainage-sensitive areas.

It has been drafted and redrafted over the past year with input from a number of workshops. The proposed ordinance has been one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent years in Whitefish, with private citizens and developers alike worried it will prevent them from building on their land.

And in its final hour before the Planning Board, the ordinance continues to draw concern, even from geotechnical engineers asked to review it.

The only two geotechnical engineers who work in the Flathead Valley "think that geotechnical analysis should be completely split off from other subjects such as erosion control," Whitefish Senior Project Engineer Karin Hilding said in a summary of peer review of the ordinance.

"They specialize in a fairly narrow area of soil stability in relation to building foundations," Hilding said. "They are not trained to look at the site from the broader perspective that [the city consultant] is proposing with his matrix.

"The other geotechnical engineers from outside the Flathead Valley, with many years of experience, also raised questions of how easy such a regulation would be to implement when no one is trained in our area to look at the big picture in relation to hydrology, erosion control, slope stability, etc.," she said.

Hilding further noted that Greg Staffilena with SK Geotechnical Engineering in Billings said the critical areas ordinance "was too complex and confusing and that he had trouble understanding it."

But in general, Hilding noted, the professionals "see a need for more regulation of development of steep slopes in our area."

THE DEFINITION of a reasonable-use permit has been further refined in the latest draft of the ordinance, and appears to limit the size of buildings that may be constructed with such a permit.

The Nov. 13 draft, in explaining reasonable-use exemptions, said that for dwelling units built with an exemption, "a legal and reasonable use may disturb no more than 3,000 square feet or 10 percent of the parcel, whichever is greater, by structures or other land alteration, including grading, utility installations and landscaping, but not including the area used for an on-site sewage disposal system."

Another change omits Whitefish Lake for buffer averaging. In the section dealing with setbacks and buffers, the zoning director has the authority to average buffer widths on a case-by-case basis, where a qualified professional demonstrates all of the criteria are met.

New language also has been added to the ordinance, softening pesticide and fertilizer restrictions in critical stormwater drainages. Previous drafts stated that no fertilizers and related chemicals could be applied within those areas; now the ordinance said chemicals should be applied according to manufacturers' labels and be minimally used.

Greg Carter, a Whitefish Realtor and member of the critical areas advisory committee, said he questions changes such as the allowance of pesticide and fertilizer in critical areas.

"This ordinance, they say, is about water quality," Carter said.

Carter has openly criticized portions of the ordinance, particularly language dealing with construction on slopes. He continues to maintain that more than 100 pages of the proposed ordinance and supplements still don't give a straight answer to property owners about what they can build on their property.

"You'll have to design a house and submit" the plans to the city, he said, and meeting the conditions of the ordinance will cost $10,000 to $30,000 or more.

If the ordinance passes as is, Carter predicted that Whitefish "has only seen the beginning" of a string of lawsuits to come.

The Planning Board is expected to vote on the ordinance at the conclusion of tonight's meeting. The board's recommendation will be considered by the Whitefish City Council during a Dec. 3 public hearing.

If the City Council approves the ordinance, a second reading would be voted on as part of the council's consent agenda at its Jan. 7 meeting.

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