Board wants it deleted

The Flathead County Planning Board has recommended that the county growth policy be amended to remove references to the interlocal agreement between Whitefish and the county.

The board met in Whitefish on Wednesday to give area residents an opportunity to weigh in on the county's takeover of the two-mile planning "doughnut" outside city limits.

The interlocal agreement, which went into effect on Feb. 1, 2005, gave the city jurisdiction over planning, zoning, subdivision review and lakeshore and flood-plain permitting in the doughnut area.

In March, the county commissioners rescinded the agreement, largely because Commissioner Gary Hall maintained Whitefish's new growth policy has an "anti-growth" agenda and the city's new critical-areas ordinance unfairly affects doughnut residents. That, and because doughnut residents cannot vote for city officials and have no representation within Whitefish, led to the unilateral move.

Commissioner Joe Brenneman opposed the dissolution of the agreement. The city of Whitefish appealed a District Court ruling allowing the county to take over the doughnut, and is awaiting a decision from the state Supreme Court.

BUT FOR now, county growth-policy text amendments are necessary for the county to establish jurisdiction over lands in the doughnut.

The Planning Board voted 6-2 to rewrite two policies and delete another policy that referred to the interlocal agreement.

Reclaiming jurisdiction over the doughnut has been - and continues to be - a difficult and confusing process. The steps necessary to complete the takeover and what to do first had Planning Board members wondering if they should postpone action.

Major questions about zoning, the Whitefish growth policy, state law and current litigation all hang over the county's head.

If a high-court ruling comes down that favors Whitefish, all of the county's work could be in vain.

"It seems like we're putting the cart before the horse," board chairman Gordon Cross said. "I just think we're buying a pig in a poke. There are too many unanswered questions at this point."

Whitefish had enacted zoning in the doughnut that has no match under county zoning regulations. For example, Whitefish zoning allows 2.5-acre lots; the county's zoning does not. The city also has zoning that requires connecting to city water and sewer.

Flathead County can't administer that because the city would have control over approving service.

The city has a number of approved projects pending in the doughnut. Does the county sign off on those projects or make them go through the process of county approval?

Mayre Flowers, executive director of Citizens For a Better Flathead, suggested that the county may not have the legal right to unilaterally take over the doughnut.

Montana law states that "if an unincorporated area is within the potential jurisdiction of more than one planning board, then the boundary between the conflicting areas shall be determined by agreement between the planning boards involved with the approval of their respective governing bodies."

Flowers contends that to comply with state law, the county and city must get back to the table and work out the issue.

A serious issue for Whitefish residents was the city's 2007 growth policy. Several people who commented at Wednesday's meeting asked the board to include the new plan as part of the county's growth policy instead of Whitefish's 1996 plan.

"The [new plan] was a real effort from the committee level to really listen to what people had told them," Whitefish City Council member Nancy Woodruff said.

The county, however, hasn't yet reviewed the 2007 plan.

"We could not suggest that you do adopt it [the 2007 growth policy] because we don't know what's in it," Flathead County Planning and Zoning Director Jeff Harris told the board.

Doughnut residents were nearly unanimous in their support for county takeover. They cited arrogant city officials, the lack of representation and falling property values due to Whitefish regulations as key reasons for wanting out.

In spite of potential problems the county could face as the takeover continues, Harris kept an optimistic view of the process.

"It looks more intimidating than it may be," Harris said. "There are going to be things that pop up, there always are, and those will be dealt with at the time they come up. We just need to make sure we do that in a very public way. We can do it."

Reporter Michael Richeson may be reached at 758-4459 or by e-mail at mricheson@dailyinterlake.com