A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Whitefish board grants setback and lot-coverage variance for Evans property

July 08, 2025 | Whitefish, Flathead County, Montana


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Whitefish board grants setback and lot-coverage variance for Evans property
The Whitefish Community Development Board on July 17 approved a variance allowing property owners Bevan and Haley Evans to replace and expand a residence on an annexed, substandard lot by reducing the required front setback to 20 feet and increasing permitted lot coverage above the WCR standard, as described in the staff report.

Planner Lauren McDonald told the board the lot had been annexed to the city in early 2024 and rezoned from Flathead County to Whitefish County Residential (WCR). McDonald said the original lot is substandard for WCR zoning and that staff found the application met the variance findings, including that strict compliance would limit reasonable use and that the hardship was not created by the applicant. She summarized the applicants’ materials showing the existing accessory dwelling occupies about 4 percent of the lot, WCR would allow about 10 percent coverage, and the applicants requested increased coverage (the staff presentation identified a minimum request shown as 17 percent on slide 6 and a proposed figure in the packet approximating 20 percent).

Applicant Bevan Evans spoke in support, identifying himself as the owner at 485 Armory Road and saying he and his wife sought to make the lot buildable for their family. Vice Chair Toby Scott, who seconded the motion to approve, said the annexation and subsequent application of WCR rules created “an unfortunate set of circumstances” and that granting the variance would allow the family to proceed.

Board member John raised concerns that the proposal might not meet the requirement that a variance be the minimum exceedance of zoning requirements and suggested a smaller footprint could be possible; staff and other board members countered that the staff packet and slides show the requested coverage is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. At the roll call the board approved the variance with one dissent: Heberling voted no; the remaining board members voted yes.

The board’s formal action grants the variance as proposed by staff and recorded in the staff report. Board members noted the applicants may appear before the City Council for related approvals or for final acceptance of the annexation details.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee