The Whitefish Community Development Board voted to recommend denial of WCUP 25-05, a conditional-use permit for a retail store proposing to sell hard liquor in a commercial storefront.

Board members said the store’s proposed operation — retail merchandise plus a full liquor offering rather than a restaurant or cabaret with meals — does not fit the neighborhood’s established character and compatibility expectations. The board amended the staff’s draft findings to state that the project is not compatible with the neighborhood and community and added a sentence saying, “As a retail chain that sells merchandise and liquor, this is not consistent with established community character.”

Why it matters: The board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, which has the final decision. Board members discussed legal limits of local authority and the interplay with state liquor licensing. Staff and board members noted that the state issues liquor licenses but that the city regulates land use through conditional-use permit (CUP) authority; the board concluded it has discretion under local CUP rules to find the use incompatible with the neighborhood.

Board discussion and actions: Members debated whether the city’s earlier cabaret/restaurant carve‑out (intended to allow food-plus-entertainment uses downtown) applied here; staff advised that the 1997 provision referenced restaurants with beer and wine and does not automatically permit a retail hard-liquor operation. Several board members said granting a CUP could set a precedent allowing retail shops to acquire liquor licenses and operate with limited food service, potentially changing community character. Others cautioned the board against basing decisions on applicant resources or presumed national ownership.

The board amended finding No. 7 (compatibility with neighborhood) and directed staff to revise the written findings of fact to support a motion to deny. Board member Toby moved to deny WCUP 25-05 consistent with the revised finding; the motion was seconded and the board voted to deny the CUP recommendation (final tally recorded by the board: 5 in favor of denial, 4 opposed). The board recorded that the item will proceed to City Council with the board’s recommendation to deny and revised findings.

Legal and process points: Board members repeatedly clarified that their role is to recommend findings of fact to the City Council; the council will consider any legal questions about state liquor licensing. Staff recommended consulting the city attorney at the council hearing for definitive interpretation of state versus city authority.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt any city ordinance changes or issue a binding prohibition on liquor licenses in the zoning district; the action is a recommendation to City Council. The board did not conclude that state law forbids a denial — staff recommended the council could request legal guidance from the city attorney.

Next steps: Staff will rewrite the findings of fact reflecting the amended language and the recommendation to deny; the matter will be set for City Council consideration where the final legal determination will be made.

(Ending) The board’s recommendation does not itself bar a state liquor license; it forwards the board’s factual findings and recommendation to the City Council for final action.