Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends text amendment clarifying revocation process for conditional use permits after heated public comment
Summary
Kalispell staff proposed a zoning text amendment (KZTA-25-02) to clarify how conditional use permits can be revoked; the Planning Commission recommended the amendment to City Council after heavy public comment arguing the change could be used retroactively to target entities such as the Flathead Warming Center, while others said clearer procedures would improve enforcement and legal certainty.
The Kalispell Planning Commission on Nov. 12 voted to recommend a city-initiated zoning text amendment (KZTA-25-02) clarifying procedures for revocation of conditional use permits (CUPs). Staff said the amendment restores and clarifies language that existed in earlier versions of the zoning ordinance, sets notice and hearing procedures, specifies criteria for revocation, and allows for reinstatement if violations are corrected; the item moves to City Council on Dec. 1.
The proposed text amendment clarifies six areas: (1) that CUPs are revocable, (2) a written notice process identifying alleged violations with a 15-day cure period, (3) that City Council is the hearing body using its procedures, (4) the right to appeal council action to district court within 30 days, (5) specific criteria for revocation (material misrepresentation in the application, failure to comply with the application or conditions), and (6) reinstatement procedures if property is brought into compliance. Staff said much of the language was adapted from prior city ordinance language and from other Montana municipalities and was developed with the city attorney’s office.
Public testimony was extensive and sharply divided. Several speakers — including Colton Little and Tanya Horn, director of the Flathead Warming Center — warned that the amendment could be used retroactively or as a political tool to revoke existing CUPs and specifically expressed concern that it could be used to relitigate actions involving the warming center. Horn said the amendment would undermine predictability for nonprofits and businesses that rely on CUPs to secure investment and operations and warned of the economic and legal consequences if permits became easy to revoke. Other speakers, including Rose Aspig and Kenny Nelson, supported clearer revocation procedures so the city can enforce conditions and reduce litigation exposure.
Commissioners asked staff detailed questions about triggers for review, the evidentiary standard (staff said revocation findings would need to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence), retroactivity, transfer and renewal of CUPs, and how the amendment would interact with upcoming state land-use changes (Senate Bill 382). Staff said the ordinance provides for written notice, a 15-day cure period, council hearings, and an appeal route to district court, and that similar language previously existed in the city code prior to a 2008 rewrite.
After discussion the commission adopted the staff report and recommended that City Council adopt the proposed text amendment; a Dec. 1 council hearing was scheduled. Opponents signaled they may pursue legal remedies if they view the amendment as a back-door attempt to revoke existing permits.
