Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Lakeshore topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitefish commenter urges city to press Flathead County on lakeshore rule enforcement
Summary
A Whitefish resident representing the Lakeshore Protection Committee told the council that repeated violations of county Lakeshore Protection Rules are going unaddressed, attached a recent denial of an administrative appeal, and urged the city to signal support and attend a county workshop on LLPR amendments.
Cameron, speaking on behalf of the Whitefish Lake and Lakeshore Protection Committee, told the council that the committee could not reach quorum to vote on two draft letters to the county and has submitted those letters to the city. He said the letters detail "numerous violations of the county LLPRs occurring within Lakeshore Protection Zone abutting Charles and Kelly Pacletts property at 776 Elm Beach Lane" and argued Flathead County, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and other state agencies have too often failed to enforce the rules or require full restoration.
Cameron said an administrative hearing on the Packlett(s) property had been tentatively scheduled for Dec. 10 but "within the last 3 hours, that was denied by the county," and he said the committee included the county denial letter with the materials given to the council. He urged Whitefish leaders and residents to attend a Flathead County Planning Board workshop tentatively scheduled for Jan. 14 to consider amendments to county LLPRs and marina standards.
The comment framed the issue as both environmental stewardship and local enforcement: Cameron asked the city to "continue the long leadership history of working with this committee to support strong Lakeshore protections and to take proactive steps to ensure the city the county is fully aware of community concerns regarding the lack of consistent enforcement of LLPRs on Whitefish Lake." No county or state response was recorded in the meeting record.
Next steps: the commenter asked the council to review the two committee letters and the first eight pages of the administrative appeal file provided in the packet and to consider public coordination with the committee ahead of the county workshop.
