1 / 26

County Zoning Protests Legal Challenges Update

County Zoning Protests Legal Challenges Update. Helen Thigpen Staff Attorney Legislative Services Division Montana Legislature Education and Local Government Committee November 18, 2011. Zoning 101.

adlai
Download Presentation

County Zoning Protests Legal Challenges Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. County Zoning ProtestsLegal Challenges Update Helen Thigpen Staff Attorney Legislative Services Division Montana Legislature Education and Local Government Committee November 18, 2011

  2. Zoning 101 • Local mechanism to regulate the use, location, or character of buildings or structures (land use). • Definition = legislative division by a local government of a region into separate districts (zones) that have different regulations for uses within the districts. • New York City adopted first zoning code in 1916. • Early zoning codes developed primarily for safety purposes. • A Local government may regulate building size or height, density, setbacks, green space, cell towers, industrial uses, adult businesses, etc.

  3. Police Power The basis and authority to zone is the police power. Police power = the government’s power to protect the public’s health, safety, and general welfare. The police power is inherent to the state, but has been delegated to local governments through enabling legislation for zoning.

  4. Growth Policy Zoning implements a growth policy. The growth policy -- aka the master plan/comprehensive plan. Blueprint for future development in a community. Not regulatory (but may become regulatory in certain cases). Must include certain items and may include certain items. (See 76-1-601, MCA) No zoning without a growth policy (except Part 1 zoning). Zoning regulations must substantially comply with growth policy.

  5. Municipal Zoning • Governing body may zone to promote health, safety, morals, or general welfare. • Hearing and notice procedure must be followed. (See 76-2-303, MCA) • Regulations must be in accordance with the growth policy (growth policy required). • Board of adjustment may be established for variances. • Interim (aka emergency) zoning allowed. • Protest allowed, but governing body may override.

  6. Citizen Initiated (Part 1) Zoning Also known as “Part 1” zoning. Zoning district may be created upon petition of 60% of the “affected real property owners”. District cannot be less than 40 acres. Growth policy not required (development pattern). Protest authorized (Area may not be included in zoning district for 1 year if successful). Protest allowed, but no override by governing body.

  7. County Initiated (Part 2) Zoning Also known as “Part 2” zoning. Initiated by county commissioners. May be adopted for all or part of a jurisdictional area. Growth policy required. Specific procedures for adoption. (See 76-2-205, MCA) Interim zoning district or regulations allowed. Protest allowed, but no override by governing body.

  8. Zoning Protests -- Montana • Municipal Zoning (76-2-305, MCA) • Protest the amendment of the zoning ordinance. • Owners of 25% or more of the area of the lots included in the change or those lots or units that are within 150 feet of the change. • Governing body may override. • Citizen Initiated Zoning (Part 1) (76-2-101, MCA) • Real property owners representing 50% of the titled property ownership. • If successful, BOC may not create the district and the area may not be included in a district for 1 year. • BOC may not override. • County Initiated Zoning (Part 2) (76-2-205, MCA) • 40% of real property owners or real property owners representing 50% of the titled property ownership taxed for agricultural purposes or as forest land. • If successful, BOC may not adopt zoning resolution or district and another zoning resolution may not be adopted for 1 year. • BOC may not override.

  9. A Closer Look Protest of County Initiated (Part 2) Zoning 40% of the real property owners within the district whose names appear on the last-completed assessment roll Real property owners representing 50% of the titled property ownership whose property is taxed for agricultural purposes under 15-7-202 or whose property is taxed as forest land under Title 15, chapter 44, part 1

  10. Option 1: Based Upon % of Real Property Owners Example: 18 people in the proposed zoning district.

  11. Option 1: Based Upon % of Real Property Owners 10 of the 18 people are real property owners.

  12. Option 1: Based Upon % of Real Property Owners 4 or more (40%) of the real property owners are needed for a successful protest.

  13. Option 2: Based Upon Ownership of Acres Taxed as Agricultural or Forest Lands Big Sky County Proposed Zoning District Proposed zoning district within Big Sky County.

  14. Option 2: Based Upon Ownership of Acres Taxed as Agricultural or Forest Lands Big Sky County 25 30 9 16 10 Proposed Zoning District. Total of 130 acres 20 10 5 5 The proposed zoning district is mapped according to titled property ownership.

  15. Option 2: Based Upon Ownership of Acres Taxed as Agricultural or Forest Lands Big Sky County 25 30 9 16 10 Proposed Zoning District with agricultural and forest lands in orange. 100 of 130 acres 20 10 5 5 Titled property ownership taxed as agricultural or forest lands.

  16. Option 2: Based Upon Ownership of Acres Taxed as Agricultural or Forest Lands Big Sky County 25 30 9 16 10 Proposed Zoning District with agricultural and forest lands in orange. 100 of 130 acres 20 10 5 5 50% or more identified lands = successful protest (10 options).

  17. Option 2: Based Upon Ownership of Acres Taxed as Agricultural or Forest Lands Big Sky County 25 30 9 16 10 Proposed Zoning District with agricultural and forest lands in orange. 100 of 130 acres 20 10 5 5 Example 1: 55 of 100 acres

  18. Option 2: Based Upon Ownership of Acres Taxed as Agricultural or Forest Lands Big Sky County 25 30 9 16 10 Proposed Zoning District with agricultural and forest lands in orange. 100 of 130 acres 20 10 5 5 Example 2: 50 of 100 acres

  19. Option 2: Based Upon Ownership of Acres Taxed as Agricultural or Forest Lands Big Sky County 25 30 9 16 10 Proposed Zoning District with agricultural and forest lands in orange. 100 of 130 acres 20 10 5 5 Example 3: 50 of 100 acres

  20. Legal Challenges Gateway Opencut Mining Action Group v. Board of County Commissioners of Gallatin County (GOMAG). Williams v. Board of County Commissioners of Missoula County (Williams).

  21. GOMAG May 7, 2008 – Gallatin County adopted interim zoning. County extended interim zoning to May 7, 2010. March 23, 2010 – County passed resolution of intent to create permanent zoning. Protests were received, but the county did not adopt permanent zoning within required time. District Court ruled issue was moot.

  22. GOMAG • Constitutional Arguments: • Unlawful delegation of legislative authority • GOMAG argued that zoning is a legislative (local governing body) decision that cannot be delegated to landowners through a protest provision. • Protest provision may prohibit county from protecting public’s health and safety. • Equal Protection • Non-landowners cannot petition the county regarding zoning protest. • Same as a vote for zoning, which non-landowners cannot give.

  23. GOMAG Supreme Court affirmed. Jurisdiction did not exist and case was moot. No longer “a live controversy” once interim zoning expired. Zoning failed because BOC did not take necessary actions to establish zoning before deadlines expired. “Because the County could take no further action on the Interim Zoning District and it failed to take any action on the proposed Resolution before the May 27 deadline, the District Court correctly determined this matter was moot.” - Gateway Opencut Mining Action Group v. Board of County Commissioners of Gallatin County, 2011 MT 198.

  24. Williams May 30, 2008 – Missoula County adopted North Lolo Rural Special Zoning District(interim). Interim zoning extended to May 30, 2010. April 7, 2010 – BOC adopted resolution of intent to adopt permanent zoning. Five landowners in the district (three individuals and two entities) whose property is taxed for agriculture purposes protested (over 50% threshold). May 14, 2010 – landowner requested court order that 76-2-205, MCA, is unconstitutional.

  25. Williams District Court issued preliminary injunction. Order prohibited Missoula County from acting on protests. County adopted North Lolo Rural Special Zoning District. Motions for summary judgment filed. Protestors intervened. Case is pending in Missoula County. . .

  26. Questions? Contact Information: Helen Thigpen hthigpen@mt.gov 444-3804

More Related