Whitefish plans zoning lawsuit against county
Whitefish will likely file a lawsuit against Flathead County following a decision by county commissioners to rezone farmland in the former “doughnut” area east of city limits.
“I am very concerned,” council member Jen Frandsen said of the zone change. “I think our community should be, as well.”
Evan Shaw asked for the zone change on his 62 acres of land north of the intersection of Montana 40 and Whitefish Stage Road. Commissioners last month approved the request, which shifts the minimum lot size for the property from 10 to 5 acres in size.
In a unanimous vote on July 6, council directed city staff to “take the appropriate legal action” as necessary to protect the city from the zone change. City Manager Chuck Stearns said the motion is intended to authorize the city attorney to file a lawsuit against the county.
“As we approach this problem, I’m going to rely heavily on [the city attorney’s] advice on the best way to approach this,” councilor Frank Sweeney said. “To ensure that the county does continue to respect our growth policy and zoning.”
In a letter to commissioners, the city previously stated its opposition to the zone change. The city maintains that it’s not consistent with the 2007 Whitefish growth policy and land-use map that discourages rezoning areas outside the city until the city meets a 50 percent threshold on its infill policy.
“State law does require [the county] to look at our zoning and make things as compatible as possible,” Whitefish Planning Director Dave Taylor said. “There are several issues with that property in regards to its compatibility with Whitefish’s 2007 growth policy.”
At the time of the vote, Commissioner Phil Mitchell said the county now has planning control over that zoning district as a result of the decision by the state Supreme Court that returned planning jurisdiction to the county.
Taylor outlined the city’s objections.
He said the 62 acres falls within the urban growth boundary of the city’s extension of services plan and is directly adjacent to properties served by the city sewer and water.
“Rezoning the property to a higher density has the potential to impact city infrastructure and long-range planning conducted by the city,” Taylor said in his letter to commissioners.
Taylor notes that five-acre lots or smaller, if clustering is used, are platted adjacent to the Whitefish River and could end up having failing septic systems or wells, which would require the city to extend services to remedy the problem. If that happened, the city would have to include the properties in city limits and the infrastructure may not comply with city regulations.
In addition, the potential development of the property, because of its location next to the river, might not be in compliance with the city’s water quality ordinance, which would require a 75-foot setback.
Earlier this month, a neighborhood campaign to halt the zoning request with the county fell short of its goal. Only 31.9 percent of property owners in the Southeast Rural Whitefish Zoning District filed a formal protest over the rezone, while 40 percent was needed to stop it.
Neighbors were concerned about the precedent the zone change would set for the rural area.