The Flathead County Commission intends to pursue an interim zoning district for the so-called doughnut planning area outside Whitefish.
During a Nov. 21 hearing, the commissioners said the recent vote in Whitefish to repeal the 2010 interlocal planning agreement between the city and the county has caused a dilemma for the county.
In Whitefish’s interpretation, repealing the 2010 version of the interlocal agreement means going back to the 2005 agreement. The commissioners, however, do not believe the 2005 agreement exists anymore.
“That obviously creates issues with the county,” Commissioner Jim Dupont said.
Dupont said one of the problems with the Whitefish vote was that Whitefish residents cast the ballots, but people living in the doughnut could not, which brings the situation back to the issue of “no representation.”
“That’s the whole ball game for me,” Dupont said.
The county also sent out a survey to doughnut area landowners, asking who they would prefer to have planning control. The results came back 1,234 in support of the county and 471 for the city.
The commission now has to figure out what to do, Dupont said. He recommended not reverting back to the 2005 agreement and supported the idea of the county taking back jurisdiction of the doughnut.
Commissioners Dale Lauman and Pam Holmquist agreed with Dupont. Lauman said the issue of doughnut jurisdiction control has caused “confusion and animosity” and he would like to see a smooth transition for doughnut residents.
Lauman said he thought the 2010 agreement was “workable,” and that the county went “as far as we could go with negotiations.”
Holmquist said it is important to give doughnut residents some direction moving forward and that the county should take jurisdiction over planning.
Flathead County Planning Director BJ Grieve presented the commission with several options for the doughnut, including implementing an interim zoning district based on the 1996 Whitefish City-County Master Plan recognized in the Flathead County Growth Policy.
The plan already includes zoning areas outside of the city limits but within the doughnut, Grieve said, and it could be updated while the interim district is in place. The interim district would exist for one year with the possibility of a one-year extension, he said.
If the commissioners decided to update the 1996 master plan, Grieve said the county would work with an ad hoc committee of doughnut residents in the process. And if the updated plan is adopted, a permanent zoning district could be put in place, he said.
In the event that the county decides to adopt an interim zoning district, Grieve said the areas within the doughnut that are already zoned by the city would be rezoned with the “closest equivalent” county zone that also conforms to the 1996 master plan.
The planning department would have to “hustle” to get all of this done in two years, Grieve said, but the commission could schedule a public hearing for the interim zoning decision in about five weeks.
Dupont said he thought interim zoning is “the way to go,” and he liked the idea of the ad hoc committee consisting of doughnut residents. Lauman said he thought interim zoning could help ease the transition from city to county control.
The commissioners will vote on a resolution of intent to adopt an interim zoning district on Nov. 28. This does not create the district, but instead puts the county’s intent in writing, the commissioners said.
In an interview last week, Dupont said he hoped that the county could put a plan together that would be acceptable to the city and the county, and therefore divert litigation over the doughnut.