Overhaul of lakeshore rules nearly finished
The most significant update of Whitefish Lake lakeshore-protection regulations in more than a quarter century is nearly ready to hand off to the city of Whitefish and Flathead County for final approval.
Whitefish Lake and Lakeshore Protection Committee members are working through a final hurdle - proposed changes governing nonconforming structures on the lake - and committee chairman Jim Stack hopes for a consensus at the group's meeting on Feb. 11.
Lakeshore regulations always have been complex, Stack said, because regulations pertaining to a particular project often can be spread through multiple chapters. And after more than two decades of administration and amendments by four different planning offices, the time had come for an update to make the regulations easier to understand.
Stack said the committee wants to avoid the kind of controversy spurred by Whitefish's critical-areas ordinance that imposed building restrictions in drainage-challenged areas.
"The Whitefish Lake Protection Committee is trying very hard to do this the right way by addressing any controversial areas prior to going to the first public hearing," he said. "We want to emphasize that this is not a critical-areas ordinance, and tightening of the regulations wasn't even among our primary objectives.
A COUPLE of lakeshore committee members met with a group of concerned lake property owners last week to discuss the rewrite of regulations, and among the concerns was new language for nonconforming structures.
Lakefront property owner Murray Craven said owners of nonconforming homes want assurance the new regulations will protect their investment.
"If you had a nonconforming structure and it burned down, then a lot of lots would have a difficult time rebuilding" because of the steep terrain in some areas, Craven said. "At the end of the day, we all want water quality and aesthetics, but if it's a taking of property, it will be a fight."
Craven questioned why the lakeshore committee is pushing the regulation revamp through in midwinter, when a majority of property owners with nonconforming structures aren't here.
There's also the question of jurisdiction to resolve, Craven said. The "doughnut" lawsuit - to decide whether the county or city will govern the two-mile planning area outside of Whitefish - has not yet been resolved.
"No one knows where jurisdiction lies," Craven said.
When the county rescinded its interlocal agreement for planning in the doughnut, it took back properties that originally had been under county zoning, Whitefish planner Nikki Bond said. That left a mixture of city- and county-zoned properties along Whitefish Lake, and two sets of regulations to govern them - the city's current lakeshore regulations and the county's 2004 regulations.
The lakeshore regulation rewrite began two years ago when the city appointed an ad hoc committee of city and county representatives and gave them one year to complete the project, Bond said. The city later gave the committee a one-year extension to complete the new regulations. That deadline has expired.
One of the most troublesome existing regulations - allowing complete replacement of a nonconforming structure with a 20 percent reduction in surface area - already has been deleted from the rewrite. That amendment was added about eight years ago, but "turned out to be a disaster," Stack said.
"It has not worked in real-time application, because old dilapidated boathouses or structures have been replaced with new construction of a more permanent and lasting nature," he said. "It has also created complaints of inequity from the majority of lakeshore owners who aren't allowed to build new structures in the lakeshore protection zone."
Instead, the committee has proposed a regulation that would allow up to 50 percent of a nonconforming structure to be replaced through routine or necessary maintenance over a five-year period. One-hundred percent of access stairways could be replaced as necessary maintenance with a permit; and 25 percent of the siding or roofing could be replaced as routine maintenance without a lakeshore permit.
Another option for the committee is to consider adopting the county's regulations as they pertain to nonconforming structures, Stack said.
It's a possibility, he said, but committee members would need to evaluate whether the county regulations could be further clarified to reduce potential violations and maintain a balance between protecting property rights and protecting the lake.
"The county regulations have the same complexity problem that Whitefish [lakeshore] regulations do," Stack said. "You have to read the entire 46-page document that in itself tends to create violations when people don't understand it."
The Whitefish Lake Protection Committee meets at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 11, at the Whitefish Planning & Building Department conference room, 1005 C Baker Ave.
After the committee has recommended approval, the regulations will be posted on the city of Whitefish Web site. The proposal then will move through a dual approval process with public hearings by both the Whitefish City Council and Flathead County commissioners.
Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com