After months of discussion and public workshops, the Flathead County Planning Board has finally decided on its recommendations for planning and zoning, and lakeshore regulations in the former Whitefish “doughnut” area.

Following about three hours of discussion Dec. 17, the planning board voted 5-3 to recommend a zoning option that would repeal the 1996 Whitefish City-County Master Plan and consider amending the county growth policy to add the future land use map from the 2007 Whitefish growth policy. It would also consider replacing the interim zoning with county zoning classifications based on the growth policy.

The Flathead County Planning Board recommendations will be forwarded to the county commissioners for final decisions.

Interim zoning in the area was adopted in September following a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that gave the county jurisdiction over the 2-mile planning “doughnut.” The interim zoning will expire at the end of one year unless extended for up to one additional year.

Board member Greg Stevens said he has heard from people in the doughnut and that he would have “heart burn” about using the Whitefish growth policy for land use regulations outside town.

“They didn’t want to be part of Whitefish,” he added.

Board member Tim Calaway said he would prefer to hear from residents in the doughnut on how they would like to be zoned rather than imposing zoning onto the properties.

“Let people come in and say what they want,” he said.

Board member Noah Bodman likened the adoption of the Whitefish 2007 growth policy to adopting a neighborhood plan without the text.

“If the foundation for the zoning is shaky, it opens us up to litigation,” Bodman said.

Instead, he advocated for an option that would update the 1996 plan by only looking at the future land use map and associated text. Under that option, the interim zoning would be replaced with existing county zoning classifications to match the updated plan.

Whitefish Planning Director Dave Taylor previously said the city preferred an option that calls for updating the 2007 Whitefish Growth Plan and then implementing special county zoning classifications to match permitted uses in Whitefish zoning.

Board member Jeff Larsen dismissed updating the 1996 Whitefish master plan or the 2007 Whitefish growth policy as a “long, arduous process.”

He advocated for the option selected.

“It’s better to leave it unzoned than to have forced participation,” he said. “We need to consider zoning rather than just putting zoning on everyone.”

He noted the chosen option will work because the county has the tools to make it work — the county growth policy and the state require zoning to be as compatible as possible with the nearby municipality.

Board members Noah Bodman, Jim Heim and Gene Shellerud voted against the favored option to repeal the 1996 plan.

Discussion on lakeshore protection regulations moved more quickly lasting about an hour. Following that, the board voted 8-1 to recommend amending the county lakeshore protection regulations to include Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes. Heim was the sole vote against.

The board also recommended the county review and update its lakeshore protection regulations. It stated that the review should be prioritized as part of the planning boards annual work plan.

The City-County Lake and Lakeshore Protection Committee, which dealt with Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes, was suspended this summer following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Six options were presented to the planning board for its recommendation on how to handle lakeshore protection.

Several planning board members noted the hard work put into creating the Whitefish lakeshore regulations. They said folding some of the Whitefish provisions into county regulations would benefit every lake in the county.

“A lot of hard work and attention went into those regulations,” Bodman said. “A lot of the Whitefish regulations can be implemented on any lake in the county.”

A few board members said using more than one set of regulations within the county would be confusing, so it made more sense to update the county regulations.

“We serve the people of Flathead County and there needs to be one set of regulations,” Larsen said. “It’s really important that we get our regulations updated.”

Larsen said reading the Whitefish lakeshore regulations made him realize the county’s regulations need to be updated, noting that it would “benefit all lakes in the county.”

Board member Gene Shellerud added that Whitefish Lake is important to those who live there, “the life they have up there, we have to be careful not to change.”