After nearly four hours of discussion on Wednesday, the Flathead County Planning Board emerged with recommendations for Whitefish area zoning and lakeshore regulations.

The county is tasked with determining how to move forward with permanent county zoning in the “doughnut” area around Whitefish following a Montana Supreme Court ruling in July that ceded planning control from the city of Whitefish to Flathead County.

Another piece of assuming control of that area is handling lakeshore protection regulations for Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes, which had been overseen for decades by the now-defunct Whitefish Lake and Lakeshore Protection Committee.

The Planning Board recommendations will be forwarded to the county commissioners for final consideration.

Picking a favored zoning option from a matrix of 10 scenarios spurred a lot of board discussion.

In the end the board voted 5-3 to recommend a zoning option that would repeal the 1996 Whitefish City-County Master Plan — the county’s most recent master plan for the area outside Whitefish — prior to the expiration of interim zoning. Interim zoning was approved for the doughnut area as a placeholder until a final plan materializes.

The board further recommended that the county possibly amend the county growth policy to add the future land-use map from Whitefish’s 2007 growth policy and revise the text as needed. Then the county could consider replacing interim zoning with county-initiated zoning classifications based on the county growth policy.

Board member Greg Stevens said that given all the testimony from doughnut residents, he would “have a tremendous amount of heartburn” imposing the Whitefish growth policy on land outside of Whitefish.

Board member Ron Schlegel said he wants doughnut residents to have a say in whether they want to be zoned or not; otherwise it seems like “strong-arming” from the county.

If the county adds the 2007 Whitefish land-use plan to the county growth policy, however, it could equate to adopting a neighborhood plan without the text.

“That could be easy to litigate,” said board member Noah Bodman, a Kalispell attorney. “I want the county to zone areas where it’s appropriate.”

Bodman favored an option that would update the 1996 plan but limit the scope of the update to a future land-use map and associated text.

But Stevens said he didn’t like the idea of having to update the clearly outdated 1996 plan.

Board member Jeff Larsen said he views options that called for updating the 1996 Whitefish plan or modifying the 2007 Whitefish plan as a “long, arduous process.” He favored the option that was chosen.

“I haven’t seen a real clamoring for us to zone people,” Larsen said. “I’m not for updating any plans.”

Larsen maintained the chosen zoning option will work because the county has two key tools at its disposal: The county growth policy and a state compatibility statute that stipulates zoning regulations must be made compatible with the zoning ordinances of nearby municipalities.

Bodman, along with board members Jim Heim and Gene Shellerud, voted against the favored option that would repeal the 1996 plan.

The board had a somewhat easier time choosing one of six options for lakeshore regulation governance. By a 7-1 vote, board members agreed to recommend amending the county lakeshore protection regulations to include Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes. Heim was the lone opponent.

A second prong to the lakeshore decision was recommending that the county review, revise and update its lakeshore protection regulations. That review would be prioritized as the Planning Board puts together its annual work plan.

Several board members acknowledged the amount of work the Whitefish lakeshore committee put into creating Whitefish lakeshore regulations, and seemed open to drawing on Whitefish’s expertise in updating county lakeshore regulations.

“It’s pretty clear the Whitefish regulations are the result of a lot of hard work and thought,” Bodman said. “That hard work that went into Whitefish [regulations] should be preserved and broadened to benefit all county lakes.”

Bodman added that there’s more consistency for property owners in general if the county has one set of lakeshore regulations administered countywide.

Larsen said a review of Whitefish lakeshore regulations made him realize the county’s lakeshore regulations need to be updated and “it’s easier to update one set of regulations.” He, too, said the county would benefit by adopting various elements of the Whitefish regulations.

Bodman added that “a good set of regulations can address problems somewhat universally.”

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