Planning commission recommends zoning amendment that clarifies revocation process for conditional use permits amid public concern

The Kalispell Planning Commission on Nov. 12 voted to recommend a city‑initiated zoning text amendment that spells out a process for revoking conditional use permits (CUPs), including notice, an opportunity to cure, a council hearing and a 30‑day appeal to district court.

Staff said the amendment restores and clarifies language previously in Kalispell code and mirrors provisions used by other Montana municipalities. Key elements the amendment would add: an explicit statement that CUPs are revocable; a written notice procedure with a 15‑day cure period; a council hearing following city hearing procedures; criteria the council must find (for example, a material misrepresentation in the original application, noncompliance with the approved application, or violation of conditions); an allowance for reinstatement if conditions are remedied; and a provision that voids a CUP after a year if compliance is not achieved. Staff said the language was developed with the city attorney and reviewed against Whitefish, Flathead County, Helena and Great Falls ordinances.

The amendment prompted sustained public comment. Colton Little and Tanya Horn (director of the Flathead Warming Center) warned the commission the change could be used retroactively to challenge previously issued permits — specifically raising the warming center’s recent legal dispute with the city — and that it would create uncertainty for nonprofits and businesses that rely on long‑standing permits. Horn said that if the amendment is used as a “backdoor attempt” to undo the warming center’s settlement, the organization would litigate: "If this amendment is really about finding a new way to revoke the warming center's conditional use permit, we will fight back," she said.

Other commenters urged the amendment, saying a clear process would avoid ad hoc or legally deficient revocation attempts. During discussion commissioners and staff probed procedural safeguards: what triggers review (complaints or evidence of noncompliance), the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence), notice and cure periods, whether the amendment would operate retroactively, and how it would interact with pending state changes to land‑use law (MALUPA/SB 382). Staff responded that revocation authority has always been within the city’s legal powers but that the proposed text provides clarity and predictable procedures; staff also promised updates to application materials and grant language if the amendment is adopted.

Following extensive questions and public testimony opposing retroactive application, the commission voted to recommend the amendment to City Council. Staff said City Council will consider the proposal on Dec. 1. The amendment, if adopted by council, would create a defined administrative and hearing pathway for the city to address material misrepresentations or noncompliance with CUPs while providing property owners an appeal to district court.