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.