Whitefish planning board members on Aug. 27 voted to have staff pursue a feasibility study and preliminary design for a two‑lane alternative egress from the Big Mountain community and added language urging the city council to consider a public‑health‑based moratorium on new subdivision approvals in affected planning areas if a reliable secondary egress is not established within five years of plan adoption.

Why it matters: Board members said existing secondary routes — specifically Haskell Basin/Haskell Creek Road — are not reliable emergency evacuation corridors and should not be presented as such in the growth policy. Several speakers argued that relying on a single narrow or privately owned road increases community risk during a wildfire or other mass‑evacuation incident.

Feasibility study ordered
The board adopted an objective directing staff to “develop a feasibility study and preliminary design for a two‑lane alternative egress from Big Mountain,” a direction supported by multiple board members. Toby (planning board member) framed the change as a practical next step: a “quick and dirty” feasibility analysis would provide a cost‑and‑construction estimate and determine whether any realistic route could be built and funded. Participants discussed early, rough cost expectations; one board member suggested construction costs could approach tens of millions of dollars.

Haskell Basin and safety concerns
Big Mountain Fire District staff and other commenters described Haskell Basin as unsafe for reliable emergency egress in its present condition. A district representative said, according to the transcript, that “this is not a reliable secondary route for emergency evacuation,” and several board members agreed the plan should not endorse that road in its present state.

Moratorium language approved
The board approved adding language asking the city council to consider a public‑health‑and‑safety moratorium on new subdivision approvals in the north‑and‑east portion of the city’s planning boundary if a secondary egress is not established within five years of plan adoption. The motion passed with two members opposed; board discussion acknowledged legal and practical constraints — including annexation complexity and limits on city authority outside city limits — and directed staff to add qualifying language such as “to the extent permitted by the city’s legal authority.” Members noted a moratorium would be a policy signal for council consideration rather than an immediate rule.

Annexation and funding questions
Board members raised annexation and funding realities. Several participants noted that the state, county or a developer typically funds road construction, that condemnation is legally possible but controversial, and that a moratorium on subdivision approvals could be an incentive to spur more serious action by project proponents or agencies. The board did not attempt to write a moratorium ordinance; it asked that staff flag the option and return with legal guidance and feasibility findings.

Discussion vs. formal actions
- Discussion: Many board members emphasized the ember‑storm hazard and the need to plan for structure‑to‑structure fire spread, and residents and fire officials described risks specific to Big Mountain. The group discussed alternatives (Haskell Creek Road improvements, other alignments, condemnation under state authority) and cost uncertainty.
- Direction: Staff was directed to develop a feasibility study and preliminary design for a two‑lane alternative egress from Big Mountain; staff was also asked to draft background material and legal analysis about moratoria and annexation implications for council consideration.
- Decision: The objective directing the feasibility study was approved; a recommendation that the city council consider a health‑and‑safety moratorium (with geographic and legal qualifications) was added to the plan language and approved by the board (vote: passed, 2 opposed).

What comes next: Staff will prepare the feasibility analysis and a short legal memo about moratoria and applicable annexation or permitting constraints, and will report back to the board and city council. The board asked staff to present rough cost ranges and alternatives rather than a detailed, engineered corridor design in the first study.