Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014

Home

September 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 17 Zoning Bulletin planning and zoning authority over an extraterritorial area surrounding the city. The Background/Facts: In 2005, the city of Whitefish, Montana (the "City") and Flathead County (the "County") entered into a formal agree- ment concerning planning and zoning authority over an two-mile area be- yond the City limits, conunonly referred to as the extraterritorial area, or the "donut." The 2005 interlocal agreement ("2005 IA") resulted in the City -County Planning Board (the "Planning Board") having jurisdiction over the donut, and the City having exclusive authority to establish and enforce zoning and land use regulations for the donut. By its terns, the 2005 IA could not be altered or terminated without the mutual consent of the City and the County. In 2008, the City adopted a Critical Areas Ordinance ("CAO"). The CAO imposed zoning restrictions in the donut to -protect certain areas from development. The County opposed the CAO and, after the CAO was adopted, the County withdrew from the 2005 IA. The City then filed a lawsuit, seeking to uphold the 2005 IA. Eventually, the City and the County attempted to settle the lawsuit. Ultimately, in an effort to settle the dispute, the City passed Resolution 10-46, authorizing the City to enter into a new interlocal agreement ("2010 IA") to replace the 2005 IA. The 2010 IA made the following changes from the 2005 IA: provided County oversight of the City's exercise of zoning jurisdiction in the donut; al- lowed either party to terminate the IA after giving one year's notice and participating in alternative dispute resolution; and set a five-year duration tern subject to renewal by the parties. City residents unhappy with the decision to enter into the 2010 IA petitioned for a referendum to repeal Resolution 10-46. Ultimately the referendum was put on the ballot and passed. Subsequently, the City deemed the 2010 IA as rescinded and no longer in effect. The City further took the position that the 2005 IA was reinstated in its entirety, and that the City was therefore authorized once again to exercise exclusive juris- diction in the donut. Residents of the City and County (the "Residents") filed a lawsuit chal- lenging the validity of the Referendum. They argued that the citizens' power of referendum and initiative, which only applied to legislative ac- tions, did not extend to Resolution 10-46, which they contended was administrative in nature. The district court agreed with the Residents, and granted them sum- mary judgment. The City, along with citizen intervenors, appealed. On appeal, the City argued that Resolution 10-46 was a legislative act, and therefore the Referendum was valid. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Montana held that Resolution 10-46 was an administrative act not subject to referendum by voters to rescind it. 10 2014 Thomson Reuters