Kalispell Zoning Ordinance 1677 Public Comment from Isabella Brown Aimee Brunckhorst
From: Isabella Brown <isabella brown @forwardmontana.org>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 6:35 PM
To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject: EXTERNAL Public Comment 12/15 meeting on Kalispell Zoning Ordinance 1677
Good evening, Mayor and Councilors,
My name is Bella Brown, and I'm speaking today regarding the proposed amendment to the city's
conditional use permit revocation process.
I want to start by acknowledging the stated intent of this amendment: clarity. Clear processes
matter, and predictability in land use decisions benefits everyone from neighbors, businesses,
nonprofits, and the City alike. However, clarity alone is not enough if the outcome creates
uncertainty, risk, or inequitable impacts for community-serving uses.
As written,this amendment significantly expands the City Council's discretion to revoke a
conditional use permit by framing CUPs as a "matter of grace" rather than as a reliance-based
approval that property owners,tenants, and service providers plan around often at significant
financial and human cost.While staff has noted that revocation would require a preponderance of
evidence,the criteria remain broad, and the timeline for compliance{15 business days}may be
unrealistic for many uses.
This is especially concerning for nonprofits, affordable housing providers, and essential services,
such as warming centers, childcare facilities, and supportive housing.These uses already operate
with thin margins and high regulatory scrutiny. Introducing additional uncertainty into their land-
use approval undermines long-term planning and could discourage organizations from locating or
remaining in Kalispell.
I'm also concerned about due process and proportionality.While the amendment outlines notice
and a hearing, it does not sufficiently distinguish between minor, correctable issues and serious
violations that warrant revocation.Without clearer thresholds or graduated enforcement options,
revocation becomes a blunt tool rather than a last resort.
Finally, I want to emphasize the broader context. Kalispell is navigating real challenges around
housing affordability, homelessness,workforce retention, and economic stability. Land use policy
should support solutions to those challenges—not create additional barriers for the very uses that
help address them.
I urge the Council to consider:
Adding stronger procedural safeguards and clearer standards for revocation
Explicitly protecting existing CUP holders acting in good faith
1
Ensuring that essential community services are not disproportionately impacted
Treating revocation as a last-resort enforcement mechanism, not a default option
Clarity should build trust—not fear. I ask that you either amend this proposal to better balance
enforcement with fairness or pause adoption until those protections are in place.
Thank you for your time and for considering the real-world impacts of this decision.
Respectfully,
Isabella Brown
Flathead Voter Engagement Organizer
Forward Montana
2