Grouse neighborhood enters gate lawsuit

A homeowners association that doesn’t want gated roads in a neighboring subdivision has filed to intervene in a lawsuit against the city of Whitefish.

Grouse Mountain Estates Homeowners Association first filed a lawsuit last month in Flathead County District Court claiming that roads within the estate are private and can be closed to the public. It is challenging a recent decision by Whitefish City Council to stiffen the city’s ban of gated communities.

The separate Grouse Mountain Homeowners Inc. filed a motion Dec. 17 in court asking to intervene in the case, claiming that a 1996 agreement between the two associations gives its residents access to the roads proposed to be gated.

Grouse Mountain Estates includes homes that are served by Mountainside Drive and Grouse Ridge Drive.

The separate Grouse Mountain Homeowners Inc. includes houses along Whitefish Lake Golf Club and is served by Fairway Drive.

Attorney Terry Trieweiler is representing Grouse Mountain Homeowners Inc.

In a brief to the court, he notes that while the city seeks to enforce its ordinance, Grouse Mountain is seeking to enforce a contractual property right to an easement and should therefore be granted intervenor status. He has also filed a counterclaim in the matter.

Trieweiler, in court documents, claims that residents in the Grouse Mountain section of the subdivision make use of Mountainside Drive daily for entering and exiting the subdivision. The proposed gates “will impede and obstruct their access and travel over a roadway to which they are entitled to reasonable use.”

Trieweiler says the gates proposed for Mountainside Drive would violate the 1996 agreement between the two associations providing residents with mutual access for Fairway Drive and Mountainside Drive. In addition, the city conditioned its approval of the subdivision on the easement agreement “to ensure street access through each subdivision,” according to documents.

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.

Earlier this year, Grouse Mountain Estates installed temporary gates on Mountainside to keep drivers from cutting through the subdivision during reconstruction of U.S. 93 West.

Later the association decided to install permanent gates on opposite ends of Mountainside, but that project was put on hold following the city’s resolution.

The homeowners association last month filed a complaint for declamatory judgment in district court claiming that the city’s resolution does not apply to Grouse Mountain Estates.

In its complaint, Grouse Mountain Estates claims that gates are allowed based upon the 1997 final plat for the subdivision that certified that roads within the subdivision are private and exclusive.

In 2001 and 2002 Grouse Mountain Estates installed gates on Grouse Ridge Drive.

“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.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the city resolution doesn’t apply to Grouse Mountain Estates.