Judge OKs 'doughnut' injunction

District Judge David Ortley on Friday granted a preliminary injunction to stop county interim zoning in the two-mile planning “doughnut” around Whitefish.

Ortley’s ruling allows Whitefish to retain planning control of the doughnut and prevents Flathead County commissioners from taking any further action on imposing interim zoning or other county regulations in the doughnut until the case is resolved.

The city and county previously had agreed to a “stipulation” agreeing to the preliminary injunction and an interim jurisdictional plan for the doughnut area.

At the heart of the case is a long-running dispute over which government — city or county — has jurisdiction in the two-mile extraterritorial area.

Ortley’s ruling follows a hearing on Monday involving four plaintiffs who sued the city of Whitefish, asking the court to throw out the city referendum that repealed a 2010 interlocal agreement.

Attorney Duncan Scott, who represented the four plaintiffs in the case, welcomed Ortley’s ruling.

“Now we can focus on the case merits, which we think means liberating doughnut property owners from Whitefish’s unreasonable regulations without representation,” said Scott, the attorney for the four plaintiffs — Lyle Phillips, Anne Dee Reno, Ben Whitten and Turner Askew.

Ortley also granted intervenor status to four referendum supporters:  Whitefish residents Dan Weinberg and Ed McGrew and doughnut residents Mary Person and Marilyn Nelson. They support the city’s efforts to maintain jurisdiction.

Ortley concluded his ruling with these words:

“It is patently obvious that the stakes are high and the city and county, along with those property owners within the extraterritorial area who may be subject to conflicting regulations, have much to gain, and lose, in the resolution of this matter.

“As obvious, but perhaps lost or forgotten in the legal wrangling, are the rest of the citizens of Flathead County who, while not directly affected by zoning within the ETA, nonetheless have an interest in seeing this matter resolved on its merits and without unnecessary uncertainty and the expense of protracted litigation.”