Flathead County's newest commissioner and one more "doughnut" resident are the latest people to ask the court for permission to intervene in the city of Whitefish's lawsuit against the county over planning control of the two-mile area around Whitefish.

Commissioner Jim Dupont and Whitefish area resident Anne Dee Reno have filed an application to intervene because they both favor county control of the doughnut area, according to court records.

"Dupont believes that previous commissioners should not be able to bind future commissioners on legislative issues such as enacting zoning and growth policies in the doughnut," the application said. "He believes that past commissioners should not have the power to cede legislative authority to another municipality, leaving his constituents without representation on issues concerning planning and zoning of their property."

Tammi Fisher, the lawyer representing Dupont and Reno, said "Jim didn't even get into office before his hands were tied" by the pending lawsuit.

Reno maintains that Whitefish's critical-areas ordinance, passed last year to govern construction in sensitive drainage areas, "imposes rules and costs on her land [and] was foisted on her by politicians she cannot vote for [or against]."

She alleges she will suffer economic damages of unknown amounts if her property is put back under Whitefish's control.

Dupont and Reno maintain that the interlocal agreement between Whitefish and the county - which was rescinded last year by the county commissioners and is the focus of the lawsuit - is unconstitutional because it allows for legislation and taxation without representation.

A year ago, Heiko and Elizabeth Arndt and Westridge Investments, a California holding company, asked to intervene because they claimed their property was being negatively impacted by Whitefish zoning regulations and a growth policy that includes the doughnut.

Whitefish City Attorney John Phelps told Fisher in a letter that "only the parties to the interlocal agreement have the right to litigate its validity and interpretation," and that he will "actively oppose" intervenors.

THE DOUGHNUT lawsuit was sent by the Montana Supreme Court back to Flathead District Court for further consideration in December. Since then, District Judge Katherine Curtis has issued a preliminary injunction - as directed by the high court - stopping the county from taking control of the doughnut.

Three weeks ago the Northwest Montana Association of Realtors asked the court for permission to file an amicus or "friend of the court" brief to weigh in on the negative impact it believes reversing the county's action will have on property owners and the real-estate industry.

Curtis has not yet ruled on any of the intervention and amicus requests.

Fisher said her clients are concerned with the merits of the case, not the injunction issue.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com