Subdivision near Whitefish fuels debate over public access

The Flathead County Planning Board on Wednesday recommended approval of plans for an 80-acre subdivision south of Whitefish over objections from neighbors who say access to the proposed development shouldn't rely on their privately maintained roads.

The contentious debate over the proposed Baker 80 subdivision dragged on for hours Wednesday night. Neighbors, lawyers and the developer behind the project, Scott Baker, waited to make their case to the Planning Board in a chilly, unheated Flathead County Fairgrounds building where the meeting was held.

"This whole thing from Day One has been a nightmare. This has cost me a fortune with attorney fees," Baker told the board. "I have tried to bend over backwards to try and placate these people that are upset about me using that road. I have every legal right in the world to use that road."

It was the second time the Planning Board was forced to consider a preliminary plat for the Baker 80 subdivision, which would add 16 residential lots north of KM Ranch Road and west of U.S. 93, about 4 miles south of Whitefish. The neighborhood, as Baker has proposed, would be accessed from the north via Whitefish Village Drive and Prairie View Drive, which run through the existing Whitefish Hills Village subdivision.

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, as Montana law required when the county abandoned it. Certificates filed with the White Hills Village plats, however, say the road "is intended to be private in all respects."

Baker faulted Flathead County Planning Director Mark Mussman for the confusion, and Baker's attorney, Rich DeJana, said the developers of both subdivisions had been sold "a bill of goods."

Whitefish Hills Village residents have protested Baker's planned subdivision, saying they don't want heavy trucks or construction vehicles traversing their quiet streets, nor do they want the added traffic that 16 new homes would bring.

"We were told that our roadways were private," resident Pam Ellis told the Planning Board on Wednesday, noting she and her neighbors pay dues to their homeowners association to cover road maintenance. "The county is not paying for maintenance on any of those roadways."

The board first recommended approval of Baker's application in September, but details of the public-access issue arose as the proposal was headed to the Flathead County commissioners for final approval. County planning staff wrote, "Upon extensive legal review, it appears Whitefish Village Drive is not available to provide access to the proposed lots of the Baker 80 subdivision."

In October, the commissioners punted the application back to the Planning Board, saying the matter demanded more public input and the board needed to weigh in again because substantial changes to the application were being proposed.

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 about 3,000 feet, as opposed to roughly 100 feet on the north side.

DeJana, Baker's attorney, said they wouldn't tolerate the added expense. They have filed a lawsuit and threatened to serve it if the county doesn't approve their application unchanged.

"I know what 'public' means, and I know what 'access' means, and I know what 'easement' means. It's nothing difficult. It means you've got a right to go in and out through those easements," DeJana told the board. "And yet now we're being told, for some reason, we can't use it."

The board on Wednesday again approved Baker's plan to provide access via Whitefish Hills Drive, a move that will force the commissioners to resolve the public-access conflict.

The vote was 5-1, with board member Sandra Nogal voting in opposition. During the meeting, Nogal questioned why Baker and DeJana wouldn't agree to the "neat and tidy" solution of accessing the Baker 80 subdivision from the south.

"I'm just trying to understand why you want to go through and put Whitefish Hills Village through this, as a neighbor. You've got your own access, and this effort to me doesn't look like it's a well-thought-out process. It's just been unbelievably painful," Nogal told DeJana.

"We can argue the legalities, and everything is vague in this forever, because that's all we have that the county has given us," she said. "But I am forced to look at this from simply a practical standpoint."

ALSO WEDNESDAY, the Planning Board unanimously recommended that the commissioners approve developer Paul Wachholz's preliminary plat application for Wild Bill Reserve, which would create six residential lots on 160 acres near Kila. The board also approved a variance that would allow Wild Bill Road to remain unpaved, after neighbors voiced concern that a paved road would be hazardous and more difficult to maintain in the winter.

The board also unanimously approved a proposal from Donovan Bergeson, who owns an RV dealership along U.S. 93, to rezone about 14 acres of neighboring land to allow for light industrial use. The property, which abuts the highway and straddles Scenic Ridge Road, is currently zoned for suburban agriculture with 10-acre minimum lot sizes.

Bergeson has said he plans to add fencing and storage units to the property to store RVs. The city of Kalispell opposed the rezoning, but Bergeson argued the land's proximity to the county landfill makes it a good fit for industrial commercial use.

The Planning Board also approved proposals to rezone two suburban agriculture properties in Kalispell – 15 acres at 239 Fox View Trail and 10 acres at 940 Ranch Lane in Kalispell. The rezonings, proposed by River Design Group on behalf of the landowners, would shrink the minimum allowed lot sizes from 10 acres to 5 acres.

Lastly, the board approved a request from the Middle Canyon Land Use Advisory Committee for a text amendment that will allow businesses to house employees in "work camps," including trailer homes, in West Glacier.

"This amendment gives local business owners the flexibility to provide seasonal housing in the form of a work camp while ensuring the health and safety of their employees and the community," the committee wrote.

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