Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants appeal over airport 300‑foot setback interpretation; matter to go to city council
Summary
The Community Development Board found the zoning administrator’s interpretation of a 300‑foot airport setback to be in error and granted an appeal, sending the question of whether accessory buildings at the Whitefish Airport must meet the 300‑foot setback to city council for review of the conditional use permit.
Whitefish — The Community Development Board on Jan. 16 granted an appeal challenging the planning director’s interpretation that a 300‑foot setback in the city’s airport provision applies only to runways/helipads and not to accessory buildings within the airport. The board’s 5‑2 vote means the zoning‑interpretation question will be returned to city council for further review tied to the conditional use permit for a proposed hangar.
Planning staff had concluded the airport‑setback provision was intended to address landing areas (runways, heliports, helipads) and not accessory structures inside a grandfathered airport property. Staff noted multiple small accessory structures already exist on the site and said state airport‑affected‑area statutes apply differently to properties outside an airport than to property inside one. Appellants — led by Robert Horn and Kate McMahon — argued the ordinance is ambiguous, that definitions used by the FAA and Montana Code include airport buildings and facilities, and that the 2014 amendment produced no public record saying the setback was meant to be limited to runways. The appellants provided technical citations and asked the board to recognize they were specifically aggrieved by the interpretation.
Appellants argued the airport’s off‑site impacts (noise, fumes, wildlife conflicts and safety zones) extend beyond airport boundaries and that a looser interpretation could undercut public health and safety protections. Planning staff countered that the airport is a long‑standing, grandfathered facility and that accessory buildings were treated consistently in prior reviews. The proposed hangar lessee, applicant William McKinney, said the project would be an accessory building to the existing airport and not a new airport or runway.
After extended deliberation the board found the zoning administrator’s interpretation was erroneous in this instance and that the appellants had demonstrated sufficient interest to be aggrieved. Staff said the board’s decision will return the matter to city council for a hearing on whether the approved conditional use permit complies with city code; council will decide whether to uphold or reverse the CUP. The board’s action does not by itself revoke the CUP; it directs further review at council level. The board chair asked staff to include a written rationale in the record for council’s review.
The decision highlights ambiguity in the city’s airport language and the need for clearer definitions or a targeted zoning amendment; several board members suggested the city consider an “airport‑affected area” ordinance or an explicit code amendment to clarify setbacks and safety zones for airports, hangars and associated facilities.
