CAO gets new name in amended document
A new name tops the list of proposed
changes to the controversial Critical Areas Ordinance that are set
to be reviewed by city council next month. The Whitefish
City-County Planning Board approved sending the amended document
forward, although the group has serious reservations about whether
they’ve done enough to mend the controversial ordinance.
Accompanying the amended document, the board will also send council
a letter regarding their lingering concerns.
Council requested changes to the
ordinance this past summer after some Realtors, builders and
property owners complained the law is too confusing and is
negatively impacting property values.
The planning board held three work
sessions while crafting the suggested amendments.
The most obvious amendment comes from
the recommendation of changing the name of the law to the water
quality protection ordinance to better reflect the goal. All
references to critical areas in the document have been changed to
water quality protection.
The amendment with the most impact is
the elimination of references to steep slopes. Planning director
David Taylor had noted at an August work sessions that the steep
slope part of the ordinance was the most faulty and confusing.
Staff wants to change the focus of
slope concerns to strictly developed areas with a 10 percent or
greater slope that are within 200 feet of lakes, rivers, streams
and wetlands. A geotechnical letter will still be required and a
definition of “slope” has been added.
The steep slope requirement was
previously geared toward any development site with a 40 percent or
greater slope.
Erosion control is still a requirement,
which had been mentioned at past work sessions as the most
effective part of the law. References to “allowable discharge” were
deleted and all erosion control standards were put in a separate
chapter.
A table summarizing lake, stream and
wetland buffers and setbacks was added for easy reference.
Kalispell attorney Duncan Scott spoke
to the planning board at their Dec. 15 meeting and addressed a
number of concerns he still has with the document even after the
lengthy amendments. Planning board members took note of his
comments.
Scott suggested the trimmed down
36-page document lacks key definitions and is too vague. He said it
leaves many decisions to the discretion of only city employees and
that it still hurts property values.
“You can’t read this and come to any
firm conclusions,” Scott said of the document. “There are a lot of
areas where I could point out substantial problems.
“I can’t understand this [document] and
I [read ordinances] for a living. I pity the person who wants to
add a deck and needs to hire a lawyer.”
Scott said the amended ordinance only
changed the name to be more politically correct. He suggested the
board start over and write a six-page document that addresses water
quality specifically.
Planning board member Ken Stein asked
Scott if he’d be willing to join the board in a work session and
help them “hammer this out.”
Scott mentioned that he has attempted
to draft a shortened document and said he’d be willing to work with
the board.
Stein noted that city staff has spent
an “ungodly amount of hours” on the amendments and that he didn’t
want to diminish their work, but “we owe it to the community” to
consider Scott’s suggestions.
Board member Ken Meckel shared some of
Scott’s concerns, but said the board was given a limited scope from
the council about changing the document.
“I think we’ve improved it a lot,”
Meckel said. “We’ve satisfied the job and we should turn it back to
the council.”
Board member Diane Smith said the
document could be further improved.
“It think it’s better, but I don’t
think it does what it needs to do,” she said.
Planning director David Taylor agreed
that it’s still a bloated document, but said “we’ve cut it down
considerably.”
Board member Greg Gunderson said the
improvements were substantive and that he’d like to see council
take the issue by the horns.
“I feel like we’ve done what we were
asked to do,” he said.
After discussion the board voted to
send the revised document to council for their approval. Smith was
the lone dissenting vote. They unanimously agreed to have city
staff write a letter to council regarding the concerns brought up
by Scott.