The Flathead County commissioners on Tuesday weighed in on recommendations for Whitefish area zoning and lakeshore regulations, bringing the process of establishing county control in those areas a step closer to completion.

The commissioners voted 3-0 to accept a Flathead County Planning Board recommendation to amend the county lakeshore protection regulations to include Whitefish and Lost Coon lakes. Those two lakes were under the city of Whitefish’s planning jurisdiction until a state Supreme Court ruling last year ceded lakeshore oversight to Flathead County.

The commissioners also agreed that the county’s lakeshore regulations need an update and that the Planning Board should prioritize that review when it puts together its annual work plan for the year.

Regarding the zoning in the area surrounding Whitefish, the commissioners opted to send the Planning Board’s recommendation back to the board for further review, though they agreed with some suggestions the Planning Board had offered.

County Planning Director BJ Grieve described the process of finalizing the county’s takeover of the area around Whitefish as a pingpong match of sorts in which recommendations will be bounced back and forth.

Once a clear plan emerges, the process will involve approving text amendments to county zoning and lakeshore regulations. Public hearings will be a part of the process, Grieve said.

“We want to make sure we have a transparent public process,” he said.

Determining a way forward for lakeshore regulations was the easier of the two discussions for the commissioners.

Commissioner Phil Mitchell indicated he’d like to see an update of the county lakeshore regulations done within the next year, but Commissioners Gary Krueger and Pam Holmquist maintained the Planning Board, given its already heavy workload, shouldn’t be strapped into a specific time frame.

Several Planning Board members last month acknowledged the amount of work the Whitefish lakeshore committee put into creating Whitefish lakeshore regulations, and suggested drawing on Whitefish’s expertise in updating county lakeshore regulations.

The commissioners echoed that willingness to tap into Whitefish’s expertise.

“The county regulations definitely need to be updated,” Holmquist said. I’m glad to see the Planning Board [wanting to use] Whitefish regulations in the update.”

Mitchell said he had met with former Whitefish lakeshore committee chairman Jim Stack regarding the differences between the city and county regulations. He also acknowledged the work that’s gone into Whitefish lakeshore regulations.

Several Whitefish residents testified during the public comment session on Tuesday, asking the commissioners not to toss out the proverbial baby with the bath water.

“Don’t destroy the work we’ve done for 40 years,” Whitefish Lake resident Charlie Abell said.

Marcia Sheffels of Whitefish pointed out the Whitefish regulations have been updated five times since 2002, largely because of the rapid growth in Whitefish.

“If it hadn’t been for those regulations and the [lakeshore] committee, we would see a completely different lakeshore,” Sheffels said. “In the bigger picture we have been able to preserve the rusticity” of the Whitefish Lake area.

As part of the process of folding Whitefish and Lost Coon lake oversight into county lakeshore regulations, the county’s Whitefish-specific lakeshore regulations — used prior to the interlocal city-county planning agreement made in 2005 — will be rescinded.

The Planning Board’s recommendation for zoning the area around Whitefish involved, in part, repealing the 1996 Whitefish City-County Mxaster Plan. 

While the commissioners agreed that plan should be repealed, they didn’t agree with the board’s assertion that the county growth policy “possibly” could be amended to add a future map that would draw on the land-use map included in the 2007 Whitefish growth policy as a starting point.

“The only struggle I’m having is I’m reluctant to adopt the 2007 Whitefish land-use plan,” Mitchell said.

Holmquist agreed, saying she “had some heartburn over the map, too.”

While the county growth policy includes a land-use map, it does not lay out future land uses, Grieve said.

“It’s a designated land-use map, more of an inventory of existing zoning districts,” he explained.

The Whitefish map, however, does include future land uses.

Krueger said he was concerned that developing a land-use map based on the Whitefish map may not be able to be accomplished during the time frame when interim zoning is in place.

The Planning Board also recommended replacing the current interim zoning with county-initiated zoning based on the amended county growth policy. The commissioners seemed to be on board with that portion of the recommendation.

They unanimously agreed to have the Planning Board reconsider its recommendation as it pertained to the land-use map, and asked the board to consider the commissioners’ discussion as they proceed. It’s likely the Planning Board will schedule another work session to deal with the Whitefish-area zoning issue.

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