County OKs controversial subdivision near Whitefish

The Flathead County commissioners on Tuesday unanimously approved a controversial 80-acre subdivision south of Whitefish and pleaded with developers and neighbors not to drag out the matter in court.

A preliminary plat application for the Baker 80 subdivision had ping-ponged between the commissioners and the Flathead County Planning Board since last fall, as residents of the adjacent Whitefish Hills Village subdivision argued access to the proposed development shouldn't rely on their privately maintained roads.

The Planning Board recommended the commissioners approve the Baker 80 in September, but county planning staff later determined developer Scott Baker couldn't legally use the roads through Whitefish Hills Village. Noting changes to the staff's findings, the commissioners punted the proposal back to the Planning Board, which dismissed those findings and voted 5-1 to forward another positive recommendation to the commissioners last month.

The Baker 80 would include 16 residential lots north of KM Ranch Road and west of U.S. 93, and it would be accessed from the north via Whitefish Hills Village. In protesting the proposal, Whitefish Hills Village residents have cited concerns about construction noise and added traffic on their streets.

During the last Planning Board meeting, however, several board members said a public-access easement created when the county abandoned a section of road in 2019 trumped those objections. The commissioners followed the same logic but acknowledged their decision may not end the dispute.

"IT'S NOT been an easy decision for me," Commissioner Pam Holmquist said during Tuesday's meeting. "You never want to see something going into the hands of the judicial system … but if it does, hopefully there'll be some resolution for everybody out there. Of course, our job today is just to make sure that this subdivision complies with all of our policies and procedures and documents that we have to go through, and I think we've done that today."

Commissioner Brad Abell concurred, saying he hoped the developer and residents of Whitefish Hills Village would work together "like adults" to craft a cost-sharing agreement for maintenance of the subdivision roads.

"I think both these developments are basically the same kind of development. They're like people that are living there," Abell said. "I think they can coexist, and I hope you guys can come to an agreement and sit down like adults, and keep it out of the courts."

Baker's attorney, Rich DeJana, filed a lawsuit against the county, Whitefish Village LLC and Whitefish Hills Village homeowners in Flathead County District Court in November. DeJana has said that was a preemptive move to avoid missing a statute of limitations deadline.

Kalispell attorney Don Murray filed a response on behalf of the defendants late last month, but it remains to be seen whether either side will pursue the matter in court.

"Both sides will have to evaluate their positions and decide whether they want to proceed," Murray said in a phone call Thursday.

Records on file with the Montana Secretary of State's Office list Whitefish-area resident Tibor Toth as the owner of Whitefish Hills LLC, which developed Whitefish Hills Village.

During Tuesday's meeting, Baker said he's tried to reach a deal with Whitefish Hills Village representatives but received no cooperation.

"All along I have offered to contribute to the cost of road maintenance," Baker told the commissioners. "This has been a real nightmare for me, with this whole process."

Commissioner Randy Brodehl also made a pitch for compromise Tuesday.

"We may not make anybody happy in this, but at least we will have made some progress," he said. "My hope is that we have given the developers and the property owners out there the tools they need to put together a final solution."

BAKER PURCHASED the land for the Baker 80 last year from Don "K" Kaltschmidt, the owner of a Whitefish car dealership and chairman of the Montana Republican Party. For his development, Baker has insisted on providing access via Whitefish Village Drive and Prairie View Drive, which run through Whitefish Hills Village.

Prairie View Drive runs north to south and used to transition into Brady Way. In late 2019, the county abandoned a portion of Brady Way and allowed the Whitefish Hills Village developer to replace it with Whitefish Village Drive, which forms a loop at the south end of the neighborhood.

Whitefish Village Drive is privately owned and maintained but has an easement to maintain public access; state law required the county to maintain access to neighboring Department of Natural Resources and Conservation land when it abandoned the stretch of Brady Way. Certificates filed with the White Hills Village plats, however, say the subdivision roads are "intended to be private in all respects."

INSTEAD OF using the roads in Whitefish Hills Village, Baker could provide access to his subdivision from the south via Prairie View Drive and KM Ranch Road. The county has a public-access easement there, but the road is not fully built and Baker would need to pave roughly 3,000 feet, as opposed to roughly 100 feet on the north side. His attorney, DeJana, told the Planning Board they wouldn't tolerate the added expense.

Before the commissioners voted Tuesday, Murray, the Whitefish Hills Village attorney, argued Baker should use the south approach. And dozens of Whitefish Hills Village residents signed a petition saying they're amenable to the Baker 80 using their roads only for emergency egress, and only if a gate is installed between the two subdivisions.

"If the Baker 80 subdivision uses the Whitefish Hills Village roads, then he impacts 88 lots in Whitefish Hills Village – people who clearly have made a definitive statement that they do not want through traffic on their subdivision roads," Murray told the commissioners. "And they shouldn't have to tolerate that when there's a county road directly from KM Ranch Road to this new subdivision. All the Baker 80 has to do is upgrade that to county standards, as the planning office has recommended."

Reporter Chad Sokol can be reached at 758-4434 or csokol@dailyinterlake.com