Acknowledging that zoning the “doughnut” area around Whitefish puts Flathead County in “uncharted water,” the county commissioners on Tuesday began considering an interim zoning proposal.

Several people who testified at a public hearing about the interim or emergency zoning maintained there’s no rush to establish temporary zoning that would be in place for a maximum of two years.

Instead, they suggested the county Planning Board hold workshops and study what kind of zoning would be best for the area around Whitefish.

The commissioners will meet at 11 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 9, to determine how to move forward with the proposed interim zoning.

Jurisdiction of the roughly 2-mile area around Whitefish reverted to county control following a Montana Supreme Court ruling in July.

Until the county can establish zoning in the doughnut, however, it remains a jurisdictional “no man’s land” in some respects. City laws such as the critical areas ordinance, lighting regulations, erosion plans and even city-approved planned-unit development projects have been tossed out by the high court ruling.

“Everything outside of Whitefish that’s a ‘W’ zone, we’re not enforcing or administering,” county Planning Director BJ Grieve said.

The interim zoning proposal extends approximately 1 mile from Whitefish city limits, excluding areas that already have county zoning.

Grieve stepped the commissioners through the complex history of zoning in the doughnut, pointing out that the 1-mile area of city control was in place prior to the interlocal agreement signed by the city and county in 2005 that created the two-mile doughnut of city jurisdiction.

The 1-mile doughnut of city planning jurisdiction — and city zoning — began in the early 1960s.

“The interim zoning focuses on Whitefish zones that were never adopted by the county,” Grieve said.

In general terms the proposed interim zoning district would replace city zoning classifications with similar county zoning classifications, but it creates two new zoning classes to replace Whitefish zoning that has no county equivalent.

Whitefish City Council member Frank Sweeney suggested the county adopt the city zoning that has been in place in the doughnut to give residents a measure of predictability.

“We have important interests in these areas,” Sweeney said, pointing out that Whitefish asked for an opportunity to collaborate on an orderly transition of jurisdiction.

Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead also supported the idea of keeping the current city zoning in place because it’s consistent with the city’s long-range planning.

“There is no emergency or risk to public health, safety or welfare, based on the zoning that is currently in place,” Flowers said. “There is simply a legally mandated court decision that transfers who reviews development requests moving forward.”

Flowers said this could be easily done, much in the same way the county adopted unique zoning for the West Valley Neighborhood Plan or the West Glacier Canyon Area Land Use Regulatory System.

Kalispell attorney Duncan Scott, who represented a group of residents in a lawsuit over the doughnut, agreed that the “reason for swift [zoning] action has disappeared.” He urged the commissioners to move the discussion to the Planning Board for a series of evening workshops, “to see what doughnut residents want.”

Scott added that the interim zoning “has been mirrored to reflect what Whitefish wants,” not necessarily what’s best for doughnut residents.

If the interim zoning is approved, Whitefish’s low-density resort residential and business service district zones — zoning classifications that have no county equivalent — would be replaced with new county resort residential and business service district zones.

Whitefish created a business service district zone a few years ago to accommodate commercial growth on Montana 40 near the intersection of Dillon and Conn roads. Several residents of that area expressed their desire to retain the rural character along Montana 40 and keep commercial growth to a minimum.

“Whitefish was careful to draw parameters” about commercial activity on Montana 40, Claire Strickler pointed out. She said she hoped county zoning won’t allow businesses such as a 24-hour convenience store in that neighborhood. 

Marvilla Davis agreed, saying Montana 40 isn’t suitable for any kind of industry or gas stations, for example.

“I ask the county to take into account what Whitefish was trying to do,” Davis said.

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