The Whitefish City Council at its Feb. 18 meeting voted 4-0 to revoke a conditional use permit it approved last year for the construction of a hangar at the city’s airport, ending the most recent efforts of a local pilot to develop the property.
The airport is a 4.24-acre grass property that encompasses both city and county land and sits adjacent the Hugh Rogers WAG Park dog park. The airport has been at that location for what Mayor John Muhlfeld at a previous meeting estimated was a length of 60 or 70 years.
The land is owned by Montana Department of Transportation, but leased out to Whitefish airplane pilot Bill McKinney, who applied for the permit to build a 23-foot tall hangar with space for four small planes, a lounge, and bike rentals. McKinney previously said he intended to use two of the spaces for his own planes and rent out the other two.
But some, including people who frequent the dog park and nearby residents, opposed the idea, arguing that it would block scenic views, exacerbate hazards already present because of the airport’s use, and create additional safety risks.
Among the opponents of the hangar who submitted letters or spoke at previous meetings were former city planning director Bob Horne, his wife Kate McMahon, a marketing and communications professional who has done contract work for the city, and two attorneys, Phyllis and Jack Quatman. Those four submitted a letter of appeal through attorney Don Murray in October. At the foundation of the appeal, was the argument that the zoning administrator for the city had incorrectly interpreted a section of city code requiring 300-foot setbacks for airports from adjacent properties.
Dave Taylor, the city’s current planning director, told the Whitefish Community Development Board at its Jan. 16 meeting that he had been involved in writing the section of code in question back in 2014 when the city was dealing with complaints about helicopter activity in residential areas, which is what it was intended to address. The section of code mentions the need for a 300-foot setback for heliports and helipads, but also mentions public and private airports, Taylor explained that the word “airport” should have said “airstrip,” which is how it was originally determined that McKinney’s proposed hangar would be in compliance with city code since the 300-foot setback would therefore not apply to it as an accessory building as opposed to an airstrip or runway.
By a 5-2 margin, the community development board voted in favor of the appeal, which found that the zoning administrator erred in their interpretation, and that the appellants were specifically aggrieved as a result.
In a report submitted to the council, city staff explained that the community development board’s decision had essentially sealed the fate of the hangar. Because of the successful appeal, the hangar could no longer be constructed as proposed because it would not be in compliance with city code, meaning no building permits could be issued by the city for the project.
“They have the final say with respect to the appeal of the zoning administrator’s decision with respect to the setbacks. This is not an appeal of that, if that were to be appealed it would have to go straight to district court. The decision in front of you guys is not to second guess what the community development board decided. Agree or disagree with it, you’re stuck with it,” City Attorney Angela Jacobs told the council. “The decision before you is whether or not to revoke the CUP. Because pursuant to the community development board’s decision, the applicant cannot comply with our zoning code as it stands with the community development board.”
Three of the four councilors who voted to revoke the permit at Tuesday night’s meeting — Frank Sweeney, Ben Davis and Steve Qunell — made it clear that they felt the council had no choice in the matter. Qunell noted that he was one of two community development board members who had voted against the appeal. Mayor John Muhlfeld, and councilors Andy Feury and Giuseppe Caltabiano all had excused absences, according to Sweeney, who led the meeting as deputy mayor.
“I hope people who have spoken against us revoking this CUP understand that we really don’t have a choice,” Qunell said, referencing public comments earlier in the meting that had been made in support of the hangar. “And even if we let it go, the hangar wouldn’t be allowed to be built anyways because city staff would not be allowed to issue a building permit.”
Councilor Rebecca Norton characterized this as an issue that brought to the city’s attention the need for more analysis to be done in that area. “Especially since we have three or four hangars out there and there’s been increased use out there the last five years or so, with the intention to turn this into a more robust airport, it requires us to do a more detailed analysis,” Norton said. “From what I understand this 300-foot setback is only based on helicopters and dust. And so I think the MCA (Montana Code Annotated) reversed a lot of the standards for airports, but we still have to look at safety, and for me I think this is a safety issue for us not to understand more about the impact of having a more active airport in that area.”
The subject was brought back up towards the close of the meeting, when Sweeney directed city staff to rectify the issues with the city code that brought this situation about. Sweeney also suggested that because he felt the city was culpable, that McKinney should be issued a refund for the fee he paid for his permit. City Manager Dana Smith was directed to move forward with the refund after all four councilors agreed with the suggestion.
When asked about McKinney’s options if the city code is changed, Taylor said that he could reapply, but that it seemed unlikely that he would. “He came in and asked us to see if he could get it revoked before it went to the council because he was so sick of the whole process,” Taylor said.