Critial-areas ordinance faces scrutiny

Before the public hearing on Whitefish's proposed critical-areas ordinance even began Thursday night, Whitefish Planning Board Chairman Martin McGrew told the crowd more than 50 people that there was no way the hearing would conclude in one night.

The public hearing on the controversial ordinance, which would regulate development in sensitive drainage areas, was extended due to the large number of people wishing to comment but also to give members of the public another opportunity to participate.

Thursday's public hearing followed a Sept. 13 open house, at which city officials talked to Whitefish residents about their concerns with the ordinance.

The critical-areas ordinance is Whitefish's first attempt at a comprehensive document that would 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 of the ordinance was completed in July after more than two years of controversy.

After hearing a presentation from the consultants who drafted the ordinance Thursday night, the board listened to about an hour of public comment.

Some of the comments dealt with specific points of contention within the document, but most had to do with broad concerns about the intent of the ordinance.

Leslie Mercord said she felt the board's actions could diminish some landowners' property values significantly.

Mercord explained that she and her husband recently bought a piece of property in Whitefish with the hopes of one day building a home.

But according to Mercord, because her property has a small stream running through it, under the critical-areas ordinance her land is considered unsuitable for building.

"I don't understand how you can just change the rules and then back-date them years and years," she said. "With the swipe of a pen, your property can become worthless."

Steven Gordon was one of two people who spoke largely in favor of the document.

He said he became interested in the issue after receiving an anonymous letter in the mail speaking out against the ordinance, using what he called propaganda and scare tactics.

Gordon pointed out that many people have said the ordinance is too technical and difficult to understand. He countered that the document had been constructed by a competent advisory board and includes language that may be difficult to understand but would hold up in a lawsuit.

"The advisory committee came to a consensus," Gordon said. "It is a very sound document."

Debbie Biolo had concerns that the ordinance would make affordable housing in Whitefish even more difficult to attain. She also had many questions about the process taken to draft the ordinance.

"The ordinance is just getting more and more broad as it goes on," she said.

Biolo also doubted that the ordinance truly reflected the public's desire. "I think this needs to go to the ballot to truly get a community consensus," she said.

Vick Smith simply posed a quick question to the board: "I don't think there is one person in this room that doesn't love Whitefish. So how come we can't get an ordinance that we can all agree on?"

The public will have another opportunity to give comments at the next public hearing on Oct. 18.

The public will also be able to attend public workshops with the Planning Board on Sept. 27, Oct. 4 and Oct. 11.

Reporter Amy May may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at amay@dailyinterlake.com