Two Whitefish variance applicants choose postponement after board attendance concerns

At public hearings on June 19 the Whitefish Community Development Board heard two variance requests but both applicants elected to delay decisions and return to the board at its July meeting so a fuller membership could consider their applications.

The first request, from Haley and Bevin Evans for 8485 Armory Road, sought relief for a 20-foot front setback and 20% lot coverage to allow construction of a new single-family home on a one-acre lot annexed in early 2024. Planning staff (McDonald) told the board the lot "is significantly below the 2.5 acre minimum required in the WCR zone" and said "Staff have found that, this meets the requirements for a variance." Architect James Kotke, speaking for the Evans, said the owners bought the property under the expectation of 20% lot coverage and 20-foot setbacks and said the family's plan called for a footprint substantially larger than the 2,646.8 square feet that would be buildable under current setbacks. The applicants asked to postpone to the July meeting; staff and board agreed to place the request on the July 17 agenda.

At the second public hearing, for the property at 415 Columbia Avenue, Frank Lam (who identified himself as the property owner) asked to postpone after staff explained the proposal would replace a deteriorated house on two nonconforming substandard lots and would provide relief from side-yard setback and lot-coverage requirements in the WR-2 zone. McDonald reported the proposed home would come close to 46% lot coverage when combined with the existing garage and that staff had received public comment ("bringing the total to 5 comments received" then corrected to "1 in opposition, 4 in [support]"). Lam described the proposed dwelling as a modular home that "would come in 2 pieces and sit on a foundation" and said he wanted to return in July with a fuller board.

Board members explained procedural considerations for applicants choosing to proceed now versus postponing. With only four members present, approval would have required four affirmative votes and therefore a unanimous vote among those present. Board members noted that an unfavorable vote could mean the applicants would need to show a manifest error or a substantial change in facts to reapply; staff said there was not a simple time limit on reapplication. After discussion both applicants requested postponement to the next meeting; the board agreed to schedule both matters for the July meeting.

Quotations in this article are taken from the meeting transcript of June 19. The board did not take final action on either variance at the June 19 meeting; the board will consider both applications again on July 17.