Funding issues raised for critical areas ordinance

City can't charge fees in the 'doughnut' area

By RICHARD HANNERS / Whitefish Pilot

Funding, the appeals process and special wetland protection were among the issues addressed when the Whitefish City Council held a public hearing and two work sessions on the draft critical areas ordinance on Jan. 22 and 28.

? Public works director John Wilson said his earlier estimate that implementing the critical areas ordinance might cost about $150,000 a year needed a second look.

At the time, Wilson said, he thought planning and building fees would pay for work done by the planning department, but there has been a significant decline in the number of permits issued.

An alternative was to use money from the city's stormwater fund, Wilson said, but he had hoped to use the $360,000 a year the fund earned for some maintenance but mostly capital projects, like a $1 million stormwater system for the State Park Road area.

Furthermore, the ordinance creating the city's stormwater assessment fee would need to be reworded so the money could be used for salaries, he said.

City project engineer Karin Hilding noted that the city can't charge fees for properties in the city's two-mile planning and zoning jurisdiction. She also noted that a funding source was needed for people who just come in and ask general questions about the ordinance.

"That's about everyone," mayor Mike Jenson pointed out.

Councilor Nick Palmer asked if the consultants' flow chart could be used to make answering questions easier. He also suggested referring people to the city's list of professionals. He compared the cost to that of hiring an appraiser.

Palmer later told the Pilot that his support of the matrix for addressing steep-slope issues was intended to save property owners the cost of hiring a geotechnical professional.

City manager Gary Marks noted that the city's general fund has been used to pay for staff to answer general questions by people who walked into the planning and building department. Something like that could be done with the stormwater fund, he suggested.

"I don't like people being told to get their questions answered by paid experts," Marks said. "The city should answer their questions."

? City planning director David Taylor, who is also the city's designated zoning administrator, said reasonable-use exceptions should be issued by the zoning administrator, not another body.

"It's just like any other administrative ruling," he said.

Taylor said that arrangement would speed up the decision process, and he noted that most RUEs that have been granted dealt with minor development issues, like driveways.

As for appeals, city attorney John Phelps said the city was limited to the Board of Adjustment. He said he wrote a legal opinion on this point early in the public process and submitted it to the Critical Area Advisory Committee.

Sean Frampton, a local attorney who has attended many of the critical areas ordinance meetings, had asked that the Board of Adjustment hold "de novo" hearings — disregarding the zoning administrator's ruling and hearing all the evidence from scratch.

Phelps, however, disagreed.

"Since the zoning administrator is the most experienced and knowledgeable zoning official on the city's staff, and charged with interpretation and enforcement of our zoning ordinances, it would seem unwise to have the Board of Adjustment completely disregard the zoning administrator's decision,"

? Councilor John Muhlfeld, who was a member of the Critical Area Advisory Committee, wanted to know why the buffer for high-value wetlands was reduced from 125 feet to 100 feet.

The requirement applied to the only fen in the ordinance's jurisdiction, located just north of Blanchard Lake, and to lakeshore wetlands found along Blanchard Lake. Residents of the Blanchard Lake area had expressed strong opposition or support for the extra protection.

Hilding said a compromise was for a 75-foot buffer for wetlands at Blanchard Lake so the neighbors could all get along. She also noted that some people wanted the measure to protect wildlife habitat, not just water quality.

The council unanimously approved Muhlfeld's motion to reinstate the 125-foot buffer for high-value wetlands.

? The first reading on the critical areas ordinance will continue to the council's Feb. 19 meeting. The second reading is scheduled to take place March 3 so the ordinance can be implemented by April 2, the same day the current interim urgency ordinance expires.