Politics shape critical vote

By RICHARD HANNERS

Whitefish Pilot

An amendment to the city’s controversial Critical Areas Ordinance that would loosen requirements for some existing single-family lots passed a first reading by the Whitefish City Council at their Feb. 17 meeting. The vote was 4-1, with councilor Frank Sweeney in opposition.

Whitefish resident Richard Hildner, who was surprised to be the only person to address the council on the amendment, said he wanted lots within 800 feet of Whitefish Lake to undergo site-stability analysis, not 400 feet as suggested by the amendment.

Sweeney, who said he participated in the long, drawn-out process that created the ordinance, said he was concerned the amendment would weaken the ordinance and water quality in the area could be threatened.

“I’m confused — how can one do an erosion-control plan without doing a site-stability analysis first?” he asked.

Sweeney said he’d seen no science to back up the proposed amendment and wanted further review by hydrology consultant Randy Overton.

Whitefish senior project engineer Karin Hilding explained that the council had directed staff to come up with a “CAO Lite” to reduce time spent by staff.

She said most of the lots that so far had scored high on the site-stability matrix were located along the west shore of Whitefish Lake, which the amendment addresses.

“It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s more straightforward for existing lots,” she said.

Councilor Nick Palmer, who worked on drafting the ordinance since 2006, said he was concerned about “political aspects” and noted that other Montana communities were copying Whitefish’s ordinance for their own use.

“If we really want to protect the lake, we would take out all the houses,” Palmer said. But pushing too hard for minimal benefits “could lead to rebellion.” There could be a “backlash,” he said, and a new council could come in and undo all the work they’d done to protect water quality.

Councilor Nancy Woodruff said she was willing to vote for the amendment, but not for political reasons. She said erosion-control plans would still be required and would protect water quality, while a site-stability analysis would only determine if a building could safely stand on a steep slope.

Woodruff said councilor John Muhlfeld, who was absent, supported the amendment. She recounted how Muhlfeld had accompanied Realtor Greg Carter, a vocal opponent of the ordinance, to visit undeveloped lots in Grouse Mountain Estates. Muhlfeld was unable to explain the need to spend more money on site-stability analysis for the lots, she said.

“I hope I’m not proven wrong later,” Woodruff said, but the amendment made the ordinance more reasonable and effective.