Page 6 - Flathead Beacon // 10.1.14

6 | OCTOBER 1 , 2014 NEWS FLATHEADBEACON.COM
County Considers Whitefish Lakeshore Regulations
READER POLL
FLATHEADBEACON.COM
Will You Support Kalispell’s Proposed Levy to Increase Funding for EMS?
51% YES 49% NO TOTAL VOTES: 96
Will Republicans Maintain a Majority in Both Chambers of the Montana Legislature?
66% YES 34% NO TOTAL VOTES: 90
Do You Agree with Flathead County’s Decision to Enforce Interim Zoning in the Whitefish Doughnut Area?
67% YES 33% NO TOTAL VOTES: 83
ONLINE POLL RESULTS ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC
Six options outline the potential future for the regulations, which may revert back to generic county control
By MOLLY PRIDDY of the Beacon
Now that Flathead County has taken over jurisdictional control of the planning area around Whitefish called the dough- nut, it is time for the county to answer the question: What’s next?
That question and expectations of an impending answer have been pressed upon the Flathead County Planning Board, which met on Sept. 24 for a public work- shop on the future of lakeshore regulation and jurisdiction in the Whitefish area.
The planning board was also sched- uled to have another public workshop on the same topic on Oct. 1 at 6 p.m. at the Earl Bennett Building in Kalispell.
The Flathead County Planning and Zoning Department developed six options for the lake and lakeshore regulations:
1. Amend the Flathead County Lake and Lakeshore Protection Regulations (LLPR) to include Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes
2. Option 1, then revise and update the Flathead County LLPR in the next fis- cal year
3. Continue using Flathead County’s LLPR that were used prior to the in- terlocal agreement between the county and Whitefish
4. Adopt the city’s Whitefish Area Lake and Lakeshore Protection Regulations, which the city used during the interlo- cal agreement
5. Work with the public to create new Whitefish and Lost Coon lakeshore regulations agreeable to both govern- ing bodies, which will adopt them sepa-
Whitefish Lake. BEACON FILE PHOTO
Former state senator Bob Brown said he hoped the board would recommend to the Flathead County Commission Options 3 or 4, and not 1 or 2, because of the de- cades of work put into the Whitefish Lake- specific regulations.
“Most importantly to us was that the local people be involved,” Brown said of the protection committee.
Jim Stack, the current president of the Whitefish Lakeshore Protection Commit- tee, said he hopes the board keeps the reg- ulations in place because Whitefish Lake has circumstances unique to other lakes in the county.
For example, in two summer months, the water level can drop 4.5 to 6 feet, he said, and this knowledge allows for ap- propriate building projects. If a landown- er didn’t know this, their docks or decks could be destroyed.
“These regulations are here to protect the property owners,” Stack said. “Please don’t take us back 20 years.”
Whitefish Lake resident Lyle Phillips, who was part of the lawsuit, said he op- posed having the city involved in the reg- ulations at all, because he doesn’t want to lose representation.
Whitefish City Councilor Richard Hildner read a letter from Whitefish May- or John Muhlfeld, who stated that the Whitefish City Council “fully supports re-establishing the lakeshore protection committee as a joint planning committee with Flathead County.”
Muhlfeld wrote that he is opposed to Options 1 and 2, due to the elimination of Whitefish Lake-specific regulations, and would prefer Option 4. Option 3 would also be acceptable, he wrote.
“I ask that we all set aside politics and do what is best for our City’s municipal water supply,” Muhlfeld wrote.
The county planning board will make a recommendation to the Flathead Coun- ty Commission, which will make the final decision on this matter.
[email protected]
New to Camas Creek
6.
rately
Discuss with the city a mutual agree- able arrangement to give the city lake- shore jurisdiction for Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes.
About 24 people were present for the Sept. 24 meeting, and multiple people spoke about their preferences for the fu- ture of the regulations. Duncan Scott, who represented the county and doughnut residents throughout the legal wrangling between the county and the city, said he preferred Option 1, because the county al- ready regulates more than 50 lakes.
Option 4 would put doughnut resi- dents back under city rule, Scott said, which would likely rekindle “the bitter- ness of the doughnut fight.” Option 5 isn’t feasible, he said, because Whitefish has al- ready proven it cannot work constructive- ly with others.
Option 6 would also disenfranchise doughnut citizens once again, Scott said.
Russ Crowder, representing American Dream Montana, said he also agreed with Option 1, and that the county should try to listen to doughnut residents on this issue.
However, multiple people spoke in fa- vor of keeping the Whitefish lakeshore protection regulations in place, because they were developed through the White- fish Lakeshore Protection Committee, which is made up of lakeshore landowners.
Great DIY Gi fts for Christmas!
w
755-9276
338 Main St. • Kalispell
ww.camascreekyarn.com
Needlepoint Punchneedle Counted Cross Stitch All types of Embroidery Tatting Blackwork & Redwork
CHECK OUT OUR CLASS SCHEDULE AT camascreekyarn.com
FREE & FEE CLASSES