Whitefish City Council says it would rather see a new home constructed on a lot on Whitefish Lake, rather than allow the reconstruction of a home that currently sits in the lake.

Council last week on split vote of 5-1 denied a request for a lakeshore variance to reconstruct and expand a house on Birch Point Drive.

Mark and Shelly Elliott had requested the minor variances to complete work on the home they say is currently uninhabitable.

Councilor Katie Williams was the sole vote against.

As part of the reconstruction, the owner was proposing to repair the foundation and to vertically expand the house, which is located in the lake and lakeshore protection zone.

Councilor Andy Feury said the request goes too far beyond just reconstructing the house that already exists on the lot. He also took exception to plans to not reconstruct a deck on the front of the home.

“I live on the lake and I know this house and it looks like junk,” he said. “Fixing the house is not going to clean up what it looks like because we’re still going to see the beat-up deck, and they’ll be back looking to reconstruct the deck that is located in the lake.”

“I do understand that the house is substandard and that it needs to be redone,” he added. “But when we start talking about foundation repair, we’re suddenly basically building a new house, not repairing what’s there.”

Councilor Richard Hildner agreed saying he would have a hard time approving a request that did nothing toward making the structure comply with lakeshore regulations.

“I hate to second-guess the homeowner, but why not scrap this and start over,” he said. “There has to be some alternative that would move us closer to some lakeshore protection.”

The city’s lakeshore regulations allow the remodeling and maintenance of buildings, but additions or enlargements must conform with regulations, and no permanent dwelling units can be constructed in the lakeshore protection zone.

Planner Bailey Minnich said a portion of the home is located in the lakeshore protection zone and the deck of the home is in the lake.

The owner requested reconstructing the oldest portion of the structure, and where the building is currently an ‘A’ frame to change to a more traditional square-shaped structure with a new roof shape. Thus, a change in shape would expand the structure vertically within the setback requiring a variance, according to the planning department staff report.

The homeowner had requested to repair the foundation also. The existing foundation and building are cracking and decomposing due to the proximity of the structure to the water, according to the staff report, and if left untreated the “existing building has the potential to begin contaminating the lake.”

Representing the owner, Chuck Birgensmith of Apex Restoration and Remodel said the footings of the foundation are cracking and the plan would be to create a concrete slab under the home to repair it.

Birgensmith said the house is unusable, but even with reconstruction he could “build something similar to the A-frame that’s there.”

“They’re trying to get it back to reasonable use,” he said. “We’re still using the original footprint.”

The homeowner argues they are unable to reconstruct the home on a different location on the property, but due to the size of the lot and setbacks, saying that strict enforcement of city regulations would result in an undue hardship.

The lot where the home is located is 66 feet deep, due to location of Birch Point Drive along with zoning setbacks, the lakeshore protection zone and the Water Quality Protection setback, there is only 16 feet of potential buildable area on the property for new construction. This would also be reduced further by side setback requirements of the zoning.

Photos of the home included in the application show the deck in the lake and it appears to have several weathered boards. Though the owner said the plan is to not change the deck, Council seemed to take exception to the idea that the owner wouldn’t return later asking to rebuild it also.

Feury said constructing a new home on the lot would be the best solution, and some other variances could assist in allowing for construction on a small lot.

“We could get a new structure that would clean up a lot of the mess,” he said. “The size of the lot is not a reason to allow them to do this.”

The house was constructed in 1969, according to state property records, prior to the city’s adoption of its Lake and Lakeshore Protection Regulations.