Panel agrees on 'doughnut' plan

A compromise may have been reached in the long-running dispute over the Whitefish “doughnut area.”

The City-County Planning Jurisdiction Interlocal Agreement Committee reached a consensus Tuesday night on what to do about governance of county property that surrounds the city of Whitefish, also known as the “doughnut area.”

The compromise still has to be approved by the Whitefish City Council and Flathead County commissioners.

The committee voted in favor of Option A.a, which will allow the county commissioners to review some 65 Whitefish ordinances passed since Feb. 1, 2005.

The county would have 12 months to initiate review of the ordinances. If the county requests a review and re-enactment of particular ordinances as they relate to land in the doughnut, it will pay “reasonable” costs for the city to review and re-enact the ordinances.

Whitefish would have 12 months from the day it receives the review from the county to enact any changes.

The county’s review would include a summary of necessary modifications to existing legislation. Existing legislation would remain in effect until/unless the county commissioners revoke their consent, which could happen after they receive ordinance modifications from Whitefish.

In other words, the county has the final say on Whitefish’s ordinances as they effect the doughnut area.

The committee discussed putting a cap on planning costs associated with ordinance modifications, but agreed that the City Council and commissioners would need to confer with their attorneys before deciding what the caps would be.

An interlocal agreement giving Whitefish planning and zoning control over the area approximately two miles from city limits was put in place in 2005, but the county rescinded it in 2008. The city sued the county and lost an initial ruling, but Flathead District Judge Katherine Curtis put the 2005 agreement back in place pending the city’s appeal to the Montana Supreme Court.

Passage of the Critical Area Ordinance in February 2008 is what precipitated the county withdrawing from the interlocal agreement, Whitefish City Manager Chuck Stearns said. That ordinance provides protection for water quality in streams, creeks and Whitefish Lake with erosion control standards, limits building on steep slopes and controls how building is done, he said.

“State laws allow us to go certain distances from the city,” Stearns said.

Whitefish attorney Sean Frampton, who represents Heiko Arndt and Westridge Investments LLC, which intervened in the lawsuit, endorsed Option A.a over three other alternatives.

The committee met in a small room at the Whitefish Library, which was packed with 50-plus people and got increasingly warm as the meeting went on.

Temperatures of some in the room already were high, as revealed during public comment at the beginning of the more-than-three-hour meeting.

Doughnut resident Robert Dennis Ray was the first to speak. “What right do they have to put a stake in the ground [on my property]?” he asked. “I want nothing to do with Whitefish. I’m tired of big government, and that’s what Whitefish is becoming.”

Vic Smith said: “If you want to have Whitefish control your property, you can be annexed.” He complained about building contractors having to meet with city and county officials, which increases his costs.

Leslie Marquardt owns a tract of land in the doughnut that she said has been rendered unbuildable.

She explained that setbacks were enlarged on her land near Whitefish Lake because of the Critical Area Ordinance. If the powers that be don’t come to a resolution that allows her to build on her property, “You’ll be hearing from me.” 

Marquardt, whose family’s history in the Flathead Valley goes back four generations, said she supports the environment, but not at the expense of her private property rights.

At the end of the meeting, Stearns tried unsuccessfully to get the committee to pass a statement of support for creating a land-use advisory committee for the doughnut area.

This would be similar to those that already exist in Bigfork and Lakeside. Although committee members said they are not opposed to the idea, the consensus was that was not their duty. 

Committee member Lyle Phillips, who lives in the doughnut area, said state law requires residents to initiate creation of a land-use advisory committee.

“There’s a lot of compromise on both sides,” said committee member Diane Smith, who also lives in the doughnut area. “We’re on the 10-yard line. Let’s get it across the goal-line.”

The Whitefish City Council will consider the agreement at its first meeting in October, committee members said.

Reporter Caleb Soptelean may be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at csoptelean@dailyinterlake.com.