Council revokes conditional use permit for proposed Whitefish Airport hangar after appeals board decision

The Whitefish City Council voted on Feb. 18 to revoke conditional use permit WCUP 24‑05, which had authorized a private airplane hangar as an accessory use at the Whitefish Airport. Staff recommended revocation after the Community Development Board (CDB), acting as a board of adjustment, found that the zoning administrator’s earlier interpretation was in error and that a 300‑foot setback applied.

Background and legal context: The CUP had originally been approved in July 2024 subject to five conditions, including ongoing compliance with adopted city codes and ordinances. A neighbor appeal argued the zoning administrator misinterpreted whether a 300‑foot setback applied to the proposed hangar location. In January the CDB agreed with the appellants and found a 300‑foot setback should have been applied; the approved site does not meet that requirement.

Staff told the council the appeal decision left the city little practical choice: under the code the permit is suspended pending a council hearing, and the CDB decision meant the applicant could not meet the applicable zoning standard on the currently approved site. Staff noted the council could leave the CUP suspended, but the code requires the council to set a hearing and decide whether to lift the suspension or revoke the permit.

Public comment: Several speakers addressed the council. Kate McMahon, one of the appellants, asked the council to revoke the CUP. Mike Casey and Brad Shuster (representing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association regional membership) urged the council to consider the broader appeal standard and the effects on airport development, with the AOPA representative requesting a final ruling on the appeal so parties could seek closure. The council heard from both proponents and opponents before taking action.

Council action and rationale: Councilors said the CDB decision on interpretation is final for zoning appeals; the council’s role at this stage was to determine whether the CUP should be revoked because the project could not meet code as interpreted by the CDB. Planning staff explained there is no practical mitigation that would allow the applicant to meet code for the current site; a building permit could not be issued under the existing approval. Councilors expressed regret for the applicant’s costs but emphasized the need to follow the code and the CDB ruling.

Implications and follow‑up: Planning staff and several councilors said the case exposed unclear language in the zoning code related to setbacks and aviation uses; the council discussed pursuing a text amendment or a more comprehensive study of airport‑adjacent zoning to clarify intent and avoid similar outcomes. Staff noted that if the zoning text changes in the future, an applicant could reapply; the council discussed refunding permit application fees or waiving reapplication fees as an administrative step to address what several councilors described as an issue rooted in the city’s code drafting history.