The Flathead County Board of Adjustment at its June 1 meeting came to the conclusion that Whitefish Lake does not qualify as an airport, thus denying a permit application for a floatplane hangar.
The application, submitted by David and Melissa Rubin, a Texas couple with a property at 761 Delrey Road on Whitefish Lake, was an appeal requesting the board to take up discussion over the lake’s status as an airfield.
Travis Denman of Denman Construction, representing the applicants, requested a conditional-use permit for the property to construct an airplane hangar/boathouse.
Citing Montana law that states, “aircraft landings and takeoffs from the public waters of this state are lawful if proper safety precautions … are taken,” Denman requested a zoning interpretation from the county’s planning department in early March.
“It is our understanding that our clients may land their aircraft on Whitefish Lake and dock their aircraft at their property, similar to the float plane tours that pick up and drop off from the Lodge at Whitefish Lake,” he wrote in a letter to Planning and Zoning Director Mark Mussman. “However, instead of docking their plane at their property, for both environmental reasons and aesthetics, our clients were intending to pull the plane out of the water on a rail system similar to their boat and store in an airplane hangar/boathouse.”
The submitted letter had renderings of the property, which included the proposed floatplane hangar.
According to Flathead County zoning regulations, aircraft hangars on properties within or adjoining an airport/landing field require an Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
Mussman responded on March 31, denying the permit and the interpretation of Whitefish Lake as a landing field. He cited county zoning regulations that define “airport” as “any runway, landing area, or facility whether publicly or privately owned and operated and which is designed, used or intended to be used … for landing and taking off of aircraft.”
While aircraft are allowed to use public lakes for take-offs and landings, Mussman said that there was never an intention to consider the lake a landing field.
The Rubins and Denman appealed the decision to the Board of Adjustment. In the application for appeal, the couple listed “extensive time and money” that went into years of construction drawing, including the “boathouse/airplane garage.” In addition, they felt Mussman had erred in his interpretation of the lake not as a landing field.
During the meeting, Mussman reiterated that the county couldn’t issue a permit for an aircraft hangar because both state law and county regulations defined an airport as being “intended or designed” for aircraft use. To issue a permit under those conditions would classify Whitefish Lake as being designed or intended for use as an airport, just as any other runway in the county.
One board member, Ole Netteberg, recused himself from the discussion, while the other four — Cal Dyck, Gina Klempel, Roger Noble and Tobias Liechti — voted unanimously to deny the permit.
“I don’t feel the need to set a precedent and say that all the natural lakes and whatnot are airfields,” Liechti said. “I think it’s pretty clear, if you want to build a hangar, it needs to be in a designed airport.”
Mussman noted to the board, however, that nothing prevents the applicants from constructing an accessory building on their property, and as long as it meets all zoning requirements as well as lake and lakeshore regulations, it was not the county’s job to police what was stored in the building. As long as the building permit was not specifically for a hangar along Whitefish Lake, a floatplane could theoretically be stored in a building along Whitefish Lake.
The applicants listed a rail system in order to bring the floatplane up from the lakeshore, and such a project would have to receive a permit for construction in the Lakeshore Protection Zone from the county as well as a permit from the City of Whitefish for any construction below the low water line.