A Flathead County District Court judge has denied a homeowners association request to participate in a lawsuit against the city over whether a neighboring subdivision is allowed to have gated roads.

Grouse Mountain Estates Homeowners Association filed a lawsuit last year in district court claiming that roads within the estate are private and can be closed to the public, and therefore it should be allowed to install gates on Mountainside Road. It is challenging a decision by Whitefish City Council that stiffened the city’s ban on gated communities.

The separate Grouse Mountain Homeowners association filed a motion asking to intervene in the case.

Judge Robert Allison on March 31 denied the motion telling Grouse Mountain Homeowners association it could not join the lawsuit.

Allison ruled that Grouse Mountain Homeowners interest in the case is fully represented by the city’s participation in the lawsuit.

“The City represents the interests of all city residents in the outcome of the case to enforce the ordinance and keep Mountainside Drive open to the public traffic,” he wrote in his judgment. “The interest in keeping Mountainside Drive open to public travel by enforcement of the ordinance is adequately represented by the City.”

Grouse Mountain Estates includes homes that are served by Mountainside Drive and Grouse Ridge Drive.

Grouse Mountain Homeowners association involves houses along Whitefish Lake Golf Club and is served by Fairway Drive.

Grouse Mountain Estates’ lawsuit claims that because roads within the estates are private they can be closed to the public.

City Council last fall approved a resolution that strengthens the city’s policy on gated communities and amends city engineering standards to specifically prohibit gated subdivisions with private roads.

Grouse Mountain Estates installed temporary gates in the subdivision to keep drivers from cutting through the subdivision during construction on U.S. Highway 93. Later the association decided to install permanent gates on opposite ends of Mountainside Drive.

The Estates homeowners association filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in District Court claiming that the resolution does not apply to the neighborhood.

Grouse Mountain Homeowners in December filed a motion asking to intervene in the case. It claims that a 1996 agreement between the two homeowners associations gives its residents access to the roads proposed to be gated and that the planned gates would violate that agreement.

Allison disagreed that Grouse Mountain Homeowners should be part of the case. The ordinance has been enacted, he noted, and there is justiciable controversy regarding its application to the Estates and Mountainside Drive.

“However, no gates have been installed and there has been no interference with the easement interests of [Grouse Mountain Homeowners] or breach of contract,” he said.

Allison noted that Grouse Mountain Homeowners’ easement with the Estates would not be impaired by a decision in the case and should gates be installed later on Mountainside Drive it could then “initiate an action to enforce the easement.”

Grouse Mountain Estates claims that gates are allowed on the roads based upon the 1997 final plat for the subdivision that certified that roads within the subdivision are private and exclusive.

“Having no legal authority to prevent the installation of gates, the City attempted to create its own authority by passing [the resolution],” the complaint states.

The homeowners association claims there is enough public traffic on the private roads to warrant permanent gates.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the city resolution doesn’t apply to Grouse Mountain Estates.

Allison also lifted a stay on the a motion for summary judgment from the Estates Homeowners. The case is scheduled for oral arguments for the summary judgment on June 17.