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.