Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

July 25 2016 Volume 10 1 Issue 14 Zoning Bulletin They submitted the petition to the Board of County Commissioners (the "Commissioners").The Commissioners held two meetings on the petition. At the meetings they considered the petition from the Silvertip Landown- ers,as well as protests to the petition that were submitted from other land- owners from within the proposed zoning district(the"Neighbors").Nota- er bly, during the second meeting, the Commissioners acknowledged that k none of the parties had complied with the procedural requirements of Resolution 2009-16 throughout the process.The Commissioner,however, °° the oversight formally found that no parties [had] been prejudiced by hi and both parties [Silvertip Landowners and the Neighbors] were held to the same standards and benefitted from the easier standards applied." The Commissioners initially granted the petition, but subsequently rescinded that grant and voted to deny creation of the zoning district as proposed.The Commissioners cited the reason for denial based on fon-nal protests lodged against it;landowners holding 60.75%of the total acreage in the proposed district had submitted protests opposing the zoning district. Section 76-2-101, MCA, provides that "[i]f real property owners representing 50% of the titled property ownership in the district protest the establishment of the district within 30 days of its creation, the board of county cormnissioners may not create the district." The Silvertip Landowners later filed an action in district court chal- lenging the Commissioners' denial of their proposed "Part 1" zoning district. Among other things,they maintained that the Commissioners ac- tions in denying the petition were"arbitrary and capricious"and therefore void. Both the Commissioners and the Neighbors asked the district court to dismiss the complaint. The district court issued an order granting the Neighbors' motion to dismiss. The court found that the Commissioners had waived compliance with Resolution 2009-16, and"insofar as the resolution is applicable to this case," had acted arbitrarily in doing so because "it permitted the petitioners to avoid requirements pertaining to all similarly situated petitioners at the expense of the Neighbors and other citizens protesting the petition,while unnecessarily limiting information that would have as- sisted in an informed decision by the Commissioners." In dismissing the complaint,the District Court explained that the Silvertip Landowners still had the option of filing another petition with the Commissioners for consideration of the creation of a proposed "Part 1" zoning district in compliance with Resolution 2009-16. The Silvertip Landowners appealed. They argued that the Commis- sioners waived the requirements of Resolution 2009-16, and, contrary to the district court's conclusion, the waiver was valid and did not warrant E dismissal of the complaint. They maintained that the Commissioners could waive the Resolution when, as here, they articulated a reason for doing so on the record,and when no party was prejudiced by the waiver. 8 ©2016 Thomson Reuters