County wants lawsuit settled before reviewing zoning request
The Flathead County Commissioners last
week declined to comment on a proposal by Whitefish city planners
to establish a mandatory zoning-compliance permit for commercial
construction inside the two-mile planning and zoning “doughnut”
area.
According to the new city-county
interlocal agreement, the city is required to present proposed
legislation affecting doughnut property and residents to the county
for review. The county cannot veto such legislation, according to
the new agreement.
But the status of the new interlocal
agreement is unclear because the city’s lawsuit against the county
for unilaterally rescinding the original 2005 interlocal agreement,
filed in March 2008, has not been dismissed by the judge.
Two intervenors in the lawsuit oppose
the new interlocal agreement, five more city and doughnut residents
have requested intervenor status, and a referendum seeking to
repeal the new interlocal agreement could be on the ballot in this
fall’s municipal election.
The mandatory zoning-compliance permit
idea was proposed last year as one of several tools to help the
city enforce zoning in the WB-2 district, which includes city and
county land on the U.S. 93 strip. Lack of enforcement has been
blamed for a number of nonconforming businesses on the strip. The
idea was to require businesses to get a permit before they spend
money on construction.
The Whitefish City Council tabled a
decision on the proposed text amendment for mandatory
zoning-compliance permits in December, saying they wanted to hear
from the county first.
But on Feb. 22, commissioners Pam
Holmquist, Dale Lauman and Jim Dupont said they would rather wait
on Whitefish’s zoning request until the judge makes a final
ruling.
“It surprised me that this came out
before the lawsuit was resolved,” Dupont said.