The Kalispell City Council on [date] advanced an ordinance to clarify when and how the city can revoke a conditional use permit, drawing hours of debate over property rights and process safeguards.

Donnie Macbeth, planner II, told the council the draft amendment to chapter 27.33 would explicitly confirm that a CUP may be revoked; require certified‑mail notice to property owners and users; set a notice that identifies material misrepresentations or violated conditions; provide a 15‑business‑day period for compliance (later amended); make council the hearing body and preserve judicial appeal rights to Flathead County District Court, and create a one‑year reinstatement pathway if compliance is restored.

"Prior to revocation, the City must send a written notice of revocation by certified mail to the property owner and the user of the property," Macbeth said, summarizing the proposed process.

Councilors pressed staff on how the revision would interact with state law and prior council practice. Councilor Hunter said the ordinance must not allow revocation for unintentional or projection‑based errors in an original application — such as traffic projections that later prove inaccurate — because that could strip property rights years after investors relied on approvals.

"If a traffic impact study was off by 100%, I think that's something the council would want to consider," Hunter said, but added concerns that revocation based on projections could be unjust.

Several councilors sought tighter language to limit revocation to intentional misrepresentation or clear ordinance violations. Those amendment efforts — including proposals to add the word "intentional" and to strike language describing revocation as a matter of "grace" — failed in roll‑call votes after debate on legal standards and precedent.

Councilor Dowd successfully moved to lengthen the compliance window in the draft ordinance from 15 business days to 30 business days, arguing shorter deadlines can be impractical for government and property owners. The council approved that change by roll call.

After additional debate and motions, the council added clarifying language that the ordinance changes would apply only to CUPs granted after Jan. 15, 2026, to avoid retroactively altering expectations of past applicants. Staff advised that the non‑retroactivity clause would make the amendment’s application clear.

The ordinance remained subject to final readings and formal adoption procedures. City staff and the planning commission recommended the changes as a way to close a gap in the code and ensure due‑process steps are clear to applicants and neighbors.