Court says gates OK at Whitefish subdivision
<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>
The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that a Whitefish subdivision can install gates and close its private roads to public traffic.
The ruling issued Tuesday upheld a 2015 Flathead District Court decision allowing Grouse Mountain Estates Homeowners Association to close its roads with gates. The high court maintained that the city has to follow the terms of the subdivision’s final plat that allows for the closure.
“The District Court’s interpretation and application of law were correct, its findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and its ruling was not an abuse of discretion,” state Supreme Court Justice James J. Shea stated in the opinion.
The homeowners association filed a lawsuit in 2014 against the city claiming the roads within the estate are private and can be closed to the public.
The lawsuit challenged a city council 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 includes homes that are served by Mountainside Drive and Grouse Ridge Drive.
The controversy arose after the subdivision installed temporary gates during construction on Highway 93 West to keep drivers from using Mountainside as a cut-across.
Later, the association decided to install permanent gates on opposite ends of Mountainside and applied to the city for a permit, but was advised one wasn’t needed. After the Estates began installation, the city gave notification that the new resolution applies to Grouse Mountain Estates and prohibited it from installing new gates.
Grouse Estates argued in its lawsuit 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.
The older Grouse Mountain subdivision, which is served by Fairway Drive, attempted to join the lawsuit as an intervenor, alleging Grouse Mountain Estates gates would violate its existing easement rights. The court did not grant intervenor status.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the city argued that the District Court should have addressed the issue of whether the resolution violates the Grouse Estates constitutional right because “no justiciable controversy existed.” The city also argued that the District Court erred in determining that the Estates constitutionally protected property right in installing gates was vested at final plat approval.
The city argued that gates on Mountainside Drive must be approved by the Public Works Department and must meet city engineering standards. In addition, the city said the conditions of the final plat refer specifically to plans for streets, not gates.
The Supreme Court ruled that the city “cannot now withdraw its approval of that plat” by passing the resolution that prohibits gates on private roads.