A zoning lawsuit filed by Whitefish against Flathead County has been decided in favor of the county.

Flathead County District Court Judge Amy Eddy ruled in favor of the county in a dispute over the rezoning of a parcel of farmland in the former “doughnut” area.

Whitefish filed the lawsuit in 2015 and Eddy ruled on the matter in February, reaffirming a decision made by county commissioners in the matter.

The lawsuit stems from commissioners’ decision in June 2015 to allow a request by Evan Shaw to rezone his 62-acre property north of the intersection of Montana 40 and Whitefish Stage Road. Shaw was also named a defendant in the lawsuit.

Commissioners approved the rezone which shifts the minimum lot size of the property from 10 to 5 acres.

Whitefish at the time voiced its opposition to the rezone and later filed the lawsuit claiming the county commissioners did not consider input when rezoning the parcel and asking the court to reverse the decision. In its suit, the city claimed the rezone shouldn’t be allowed because the commissioners failed to follow state law, which requires the county’s zoning decisions be guided by its growth policy, community goals and the pattern of development. It also argued that the county’s decision “constituted illegal spot zoning.”

The court disagreed.

In court documents, the city argued that the property is designated in the county growth policy as “important farmlands,” which calls for densities of one unit per 20 acres or more. In addition, the city claims the rezone does not comply with the county master plan.

In her decision, Eddy points out that the county planning staff report notes that the farmlands designation is part of a land use map that “depicts existing conditions” and is subject to amendment.

“The Commissioners interpreted differently the significance of the map,” Eddy said, noting that its clear that commissioners considered the map along with the text of the county growth policy as they are required to do.

“While the Commissioner’s interpretation of the map’s temporal meaning may not be the same as the City’s, [the staff report] clearly indicates that the Commissioners in fact considered the map and the text,” she said.

The decision points to a Montana Supreme Court case that determined that while the county doesn’t need to address every aspect of the growth policy in detail it must give sufficient consideration to pertinent concerns. It notes that the city raised concerns that future septic systems on the Shaw property may someday fail and that the development may not meet setback requirements from the Whitefish River under the Whitefish Water Quality Ordinances.

“Septic systems and setbacks are issues that will be addressed when and if Mr. Shaw submits a plat application,” Eddy said. “The Commissioners had no obligation to speculate what may go wrong and incorporate these predictions into their findings.”

On the spot zoning issues, Eddy notes that the new zoning of one house per 5 acres is “nearly indistinguishable” from the previous zoning allowing for one per 10 acres. She goes on to say that to be considered spot zoning the change would have to benefit the landowner at the expense of surrounding landowners.

“Landowners surrounding the Shaw property will not be detrimentally affected by the possible addition of [six] homes,” she said.