Opinions clash on Whitefish drainage law

Is Whitefish's proposed critical-areas ordinance a "brilliant piece of legislation" or a flawed document that needs further review?

It depends on which critical-areas committee member you ask.

Whitefish residents turned out in droves Thursday night to get answers about slope and setback requirements in the controversial proposal that would regulate development in sensitive drainage areas in Whitefish and its planning jurisdiction.

City officials talked with residents during an open house and handed out answers to frequently asked questions plus written responses to criticism launched by a new citizens group, SensibleLandUse.com.

After members of the committee, who worked with consultants to draft the plan, addressed the audience later in the evening, it was clear not everyone is on the same page.

Whitefish City Council member Nick Palmer, a member of the committee, said the more people study the ordinance, "the more you come to realize it's a brilliant piece of legislation" that will benefit Whitefish for generations to come.

"It allows the maximum amount of land to be developed and provides the greatest protection for water resources," Palmer said. "And it does this by allowing each piece to be looked at individually … We'll find a way for you to build there."

Committee member Greg Carter begged to differ.

"Here's the other side of the story," Carter said. "We're not totally in agreement. My personal opinion is that we did not finish the work."

Carter referred to concerns raised by SensibleLandUse.com and said that while he isn't affiliated with the group, it is "fairly accurate about what the ordinance does say."

Regulations for intermittent streams need significant work, Carter said. Proposed setbacks would establish a 150-foot-wide buffer zone - 75 feet on each side - of an intermittent stream that flows continuously for at least some part of the year. That setback zone would be off-limits to building.

Carter pointed out that the 24-page final draft also comes with a 62-page critical lands report that he received just last week.

Committee chairman Alan Elm was unable to attend the meeting due to a knee injury, but sent a message with Carter.

"Alan is proud of the committee's work," he said, "And he has definite concerns and thinks significant change needs to be made.

"Please stay involved," Carter told the audience. "Don't get worn out by the process."

Committee member Richard Hildner said he's pleased with the draft and believes it bridges individual rights with the common good.

"I believe we've reached some accommodation, and the nature of laws is to find common ground," Hildner said.

Chris Ruffatto, who coordinates a water-quality program for Whitefish High School students and has more than 30 years of experience in water resource planning, also sat on the critical-areas committee. He was unable to attend the meeting but sent a letter.

"While the critical lands ordinance may need some fine-tuning, the flyers that have been circulated about town have attempted to negate the hard work of many dedicated individuals whose charge was to represent the community as a whole, not the selfish interests of a few."

Ruffatto maintained the ordinance has not been designed to prohibit development, but rather reflects public sentiment about the need to preserve water quality. And the way to do that "is to protect all riparian areas, especially steep ones, with buffers and setbacks."

THE ORDINANCE represents Whitefish's first comprehensive approach to protect critical drainage areas, including Whitefish Lake and smaller lakes, wetlands, streams, the Whitefish River, critical stormwater drainage paths, and areas with high groundwater and erosion hazards.

The final draft emerged in late July after more than two years of controversy over an emergency law that first put development in sensitive drainage areas on hold until a stormwater master plan could be completed. When that master plan found that critical drainage areas were in jeopardy, the city continued with interim regulations and promised a permanent version once the growth policy was completed.

Slope construction became an early hot-button because the proposed ordinance restricted construction on slopes in excess of 30 percent. It was the focus of a lawsuit filed against the city when a Whitefish couple was denied a reasonable-use exemption to build on a slope steeper than 30 percent.

The final draft takes out references to specific percentages and says that slope construction will be based on evaluation for potential instability and, if necessary, a geotechnical analysis. The angle of repose - the maximum angle at which a pile of loose soil or rock can remain stable - will be used for certain types of sediment.

On the Whitefish River, where existing development between Whitefish Lake and JP Road often is already within 75 feet of the river, the natural buffer would extend to the top of the bank. From JP Road downstream, the natural buffer would be 75 feet or the top of the bank, whichever is greater.

There would be a 100-foot buffer for perennial streams and most wetlands.

THE WHITEFISH City-County Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the ordinance at its Sept. 20 meeting, but the hearing will be held later in the evening because the board also must complete discussion and vote on the Whitefish Growth Policy.

The City Council plans a work session on Oct. 1 and is scheduled to conduct its public hearing on Oct. 15. The council hopes to take final action on the critical-areas ordinance by the end of the year, although the interim ordinance doesn't expire until April 2008.

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