Permit revocation law would shake business confidence

Kalispell City Council is veering toward turbulent skies again as it considers options for revoking conditional use permits.

Last September, the council revoked the Flathead Warming Center’s permit, even though the low-barrier homeless shelter had not violated any of the conditions outlined on its approved document. Instead, Council relied on its interpretation of broken promises that they said were made in the application process. 

The shelter rightly sued, which ended in a settlement that reinstated the center’s permit and required the city to pay $140,000 in legal fees.

The ink is barely dry on that check, and the city is getting tangled up with the issue again.

Council is expected to vote on a proposed zoning ordinance amendment that would allow the city to revoke a conditional use permit if it determines there were “misrepresentations” made in the property owner’s permit application, “whether deliberate or unintentional.”

This loose language should have all Kalispell property and business owners on edge.

Conditional use permits allow property owners to use their land in ways not typically permitted in certain zones. Once issued, a property owner should feel confident in proceeding with their endeavor, as long as they follow the document’s predefined conditions.

The proposed amendment offers no assurance that will be the case and gives the city leeway to revoke a permit based on individual interpretations of an application — feelings — not clearly defined rules. In other words, it opens the council to making arbitrary decisions and more legal trouble.

Council already wields the power to deny a permit application or set strict conditions for approval. Once those conditions are set, revocation should only be allowed when an owner is in plain violation of those requirements. It should be a black-and-white decision, with no opening for politics or emotional whims.

Another proposed ordinance change would strip a property of the conditional use permit when the real estate changes ownership. This tips the scales against any business owner looking to sell their operation, as a prospective buyer has no guarantee the business would be allowed going forward.

Imagine a restaurant owner or hotelier trying to sell their business if buyers aren’t assured the use will be permitted. The value of a hard-earned business would be unfairly diminished with this new rule.

The city is right to revisit its permit revocation processes, as the dispute with the Warming Center exposed its lack of protocol. But these new amendments are setting the city up for even more legal trouble while jeopardizing the confidence of the entire business community.