Grouse Mountain Estates sues city over gate ban
<p>A gate blocks public access to Grouse Ridge Drive at Grouse Mountain Estates in Whitefish. The subdivision wants to put a gate up on Mountainside Drive.</p>
A homeowners association is challenging the city of Whitefish over a recent decision to stiffen the city’s ban of gated communities.
Grouse Mountain Estates Homeowners Association has filed a lawsuit claiming that because roads within the estates are private they can be closed to the public.
The lawsuit comes after city council in October approved a resolution that strengthens the city’s policy on gated communities and amends city engineering standards to specifically prohibit gated subdivisions with private roads.
Grouse Mountain Estates installed temporary gates in the subdivision to keep drivers from cutting through the subdivision during reconstruction Highway 93. Later, the association decided to install permanent gates on opposite ends of Mountainside Drive.
The homeowners association last month filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Flathead County District Court claiming that the resolution does not apply to Grouse Mountain Estates.
Grouse Mountain Estates Homeowners is not to be confused with the similarly named Grouse Mountain Homeowners Association. Grouse Mountain Estates includes homes that are served by Mountainside Drive.
In its lawsuit, Grouse Mountain Estates claims that gates are allowed on the roads based on the 1997 final plat for the subdivision that certified that roads within the subdivision are private and exclusive.
“Having no legal authority to prevent the installation of gates, the City attempted to create its own authority by passing [the resolution],” the complaint states.
The homeowners association claims there is enough public traffic on the private roads to warrant permanent gates, saying in a letter to the city that the temporary gates “generated a very desirable and tranquil atmosphere” by eliminating through traffic on Mountainside.
It asked the city for a permit to install the gates, but was advised no permit was needed, according to court documents. After spending $11,700 on gates and beginning installation, Whitefish City Manager Chuck Stearns contacted the homeowners association president to discourage him from installing new gates.
City Attorney Mary VanBuskirk sent a letter to the homeowners association stating the city’s position that the resolution applies to Grouse Mountain Estates and prohibited it from installing new gates.
In a staff report by VanBuskirk, she noted the exhaustive planning effort to draft the 2007 growth policy that identified residents desire to maintain access to all subdivisions in the city. She noted the strong public sentiment against gated communities in Whitefish.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the resolution doesn’t apply to Grouse Mountain Estates. The subdivision has vested rights in a private and exclusive road that can be closed to the public, and the resolution unlawfully interferes and impairs those rights, the complaint alleges.
The lawsuit also claims that the city resolution is unconstitutional because it violates due process.
The separate Grouse Mountain Homeowners Association involves houses along Whitefish Lake Golf Club and is served by Fairway Drive. Representatives of the Grouse Mountain association have said they are opposed to permanent gates.