Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

Page 6 --November 15, 1995 Z.B. the board of elections. He said Quirke filed the petition under the wrong statute. Although the statute allowed initiative petitions for zoning changes, it applied only to townships that operated under a "limited form of self-gov- ernment,'' which Painesville did not. The statute that did apply to Painesville did not allow initiative petitions for zoning changes. Quirke sued, asking that the court order Patriarca and the township to certify the petition and place the issue on the November 1994 ballot. The court granted Quirke's request. Patriarca and the county board of elections appealed. The court sealed the results of the November election pending the outcome of the appeal. DECISION: Reversed. The township was not a "limited form of self-government," so Quirke could not use an initiative petition to try to rezone his property. The statute under which Ouirke filed his petition allowed initiative petitions as a way of rezoning property, but it applied only to limited forms of self-government. A different statute that applied to all townships created specific methods to amend zoning resolutions. However, that statute did not allow property owners to submit proposed rezoning to a general election. Even if Ouirke had filed the petition under the correct statute, he could not have put the rezoning issue on a general election ballot. I I I I I I I I Ordinance -- Citizens Propose Referendum to Save Military Base The Greens at Fort Missoula v. City of Missoula, 897 P.2d 1078 (Montana) 1995 Fort Missoula in Missoula County, Mont., was originally established as a U.S. military base in 1877. The land had historical significance and the pub- lic often used it for community functions. From 1966, it was used by the University 'of Montana. In 1990, Divot Development bought the property. At the time, the county had the property zoned as a "county zone." Divot then sought to have the property annexed to the city of Missoula. In 1993, the property became an unzoned part of the city. Divot asked the city to rezone the property as an open space district with a planned unit development overlay. The City Council passed an ordinance that called for residential housing and protection for historical buildings and open areas on the property. In response, county and city residents formed a group called Save the Fort Inc. They filed a petition with the county elections office asking for a referendum to repeal the ordinance. The Greens at Fort Missoula LLC acquired the property from Divot. It sued the city, asking the court to declare that the city could not use the refer- endum process to decide the issue. The court let Save the Fort join in the case to oppose The Greens' request. The Greens, the city, and Save the Fort all asked for judgment without a trial. The court granted judgment to the city and Save the Fort. I I I I I I I I I I