Residents warned the Kalispell Planning Commission on Wednesday that giving City Council authority to revoke conditional use permits would stymie economic development.

Commission members at the Nov. 12 public hearing for the proposed zoning ordinance amendment listened to a handful of opponents and supporters before unanimously recommending it to City Council.  

Council is expected to vote on the amendment Dec. 1. 

The proposed amendment outlines the process by which Council could revoke, suspend or reconsider a permit if it determines there were misrepresentations made in the property owner’s permit application, whether intentional or not.  

Critics argued that the amendment would make prospective businesses weary of investing time and money into any endeavor reliant on a permit that could be stripped away.  

“The biggest thing that impacts business is uncertainty,” said Ron Gerson, chair of the Flathead Democratic Party. “If you bring forward that uncertainty it will lead to slower and lower economic growth.” 

Conditional use permits allow property owners to use their land in ways not typically permitted in certain zones. While the current ordinance stipulates that an application can be denied, there is no language outlining the protocol for revoking a permit after it’s been granted.  

That language hasn’t existed in Kalispell’s code since it was changed in 2008, according to Assistant Development Services Director PJ Sorensen.  

City officials maintained that the municipality has always had the power to revoke permits, but the change is necessary to plug holes in the process exposed during Kalispell's yearlong dispute with the Flathead Warming Center.  

“I personally know what it’s like to be wrongfully accused of being inaccurate. That accusation can be used as a weapon,” said shelter Director Tonya Horn, who opposed the amendment.   

The Warming Center filed suit against the city after Council revoked the permit that allowed it to operate as a homeless shelter in September 2024. The shelter argued that the revocation process was illegal and lacked due process.  

The suit was settled in March. The city agreed to permanently reinstate the permit, pay $140,000 in legal fees incurred by the center and issue a public apology to Horn for falsely accusing her of lying during the permit application process.  

Horn warned that allowing permits to be revoked because of inaccuracies on a permit application was a “dangerous game.”  

“That would make every permit holder live in fear that politics could take away their right to operate,” Horn said.  

Horn and other speakers worried that the amendment could be used as a tool to revoke the homeless shelter’s permit once again.  

“We will fight back,” Horn said. “The city has already tried that once. We went to federal court and we stood up for our mission and our rights, and we prevailed. We hope we won’t have to do that again.”  

Development Services Director and interim City Manager Jarod Nygren said that the amendment is not meant to target the Warming Center but is a measure being used by municipalities across the state.  

City staff pulled language from Great Falls’ and Helena’s city codes when writing the proposed amendment. 

Sorensen said that the amendment is meant to put more certainty into what was an uncertain process. 

“It’s not about creating some kind of a tool for the city to go after people,” he said.  

The revised ordinance states that the city must notify the permit holder of any alleged misrepresentations in the permit application or conditions that were violated. The permit holder would then have 15 days to come into compliance and set a hearing date for Council to present its findings of fact. 

THE COMMISSION also recommended two proposed residential developments to Council. 

Developer Roger Foley returned with revamped plans for a new development in South Kalispell after Council nixed his first attempt to build apartments earlier this year.  

The developer is now looking to build 44 townhouse lots on 12 acres wedged between Ashley Creek and Bluestone Drive.  

Council in September voted to annex the property but rejected zoning it RA-1 (residential apartment), instead of zoning the property R-4 (residential).  

The commission also advanced a proposal from LBO Properties LLP to build 111 single-family detached lots and 38 townhome units on roughly 43 acres just south of the LHC gravel pit.  

Both projects are expected to go before Council on Dec. 1. 

Reporter Jack Underhill can be reached at 758-4407 and [email protected].