It makes no sense to spend much time and energy creating a neighborhood growth plan if that plan is just going to be ignored. The people who help put these plans together do so because they expect their efforts to have an impact on the future of their neighborhoods. If they didn't, they probably wouldn't bother.
And so they are rightfully upset when new developments are approved with no consideration given to the guidelines they work so hard to compose.
It looks like a Montana Supreme Court decision issued earlier this month could change that.
The court's decision centered on a lawsuit filed against the Flathead County Board of Adjustment after a company sought permission to open a gravel pit and asphalt plant, despite the fact that the neighborhood plan for the area didn't allow commercial operations.
The county board went ahead and issued a permit for the pit, but held back on the asphalt plant - which prompted the company, as well as residents of the neighborhood, to sue the board.
In its defense, the board was trying its best to follow a state law that seemed to hold zoning regulations above neighborhood growth plans. The court, however, interprets that law differently. It gives neighborhood plans more legal weight, but only so far as they relate to zoning, and only so far as they are backed up by other laws or regulations.
And there's no telling yet if this weight will carry inside city limits, where a very different zoning-approval process holds sway.
Here in Missoula, we don't have to reach far back into our memories to recall another Montana Supreme Court case that substantially reduced the influence of neighborhood plans. In fact, we're reminded of it every time we drive past the stretch of West Broadway where a new Safeway is being built.
The building was put on hold for more than two years while a lawsuit wound its way through the court system. That lawsuit was brought by a group of Missoula residents who felt its approval violated the guidelines drawn out by the Northside/Westside Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan. The courts disagreed, saying that City Council gave adequate consideration to the plan, and that such plans can't be used as regulatory documents anyway because they usually include at least some goals that can't be met by a reasonable zoning proposal.
A recent Missoulian story quoted the court: “To impose such a requirement would remove flexibility from a city's review of zoning proposals and make growth policies a rigid regulation.”
We're not entirely sure why “flexibility” is a good thing. It seems to us that this “flexibility” has so far resulted in a mountain of lawsuits that are slowly - and at considerable taxpayer expense - leading to more rigid regulations anyway.
In fact, we think that the more “rigid” our zoning regulations are, the more developers and residents will know what to expect. Developers who know what to expect will take on a lot less risk when proposing new buildings. Residents will know that their hard work creating plans for their neighborhoods won't go to waste. And the city will face a lot fewer lawsuits.
As it is, the latest Supreme Court decision is sure to be a central issue in a new lawsuit filed against the city of Missoula. Three residents and a neighborhood association are suing the city over Sonata Park, a 37-home development approved on 34 acres in the upper Rattlesnake. The neighborhood growth policy calls for less than a dozen houses on the property, but it hasn't been updated in many years.
The case is sure to be only one of several filed in Montana in the coming months, and we can only hope they lead to a clearer, if less flexible, regulatory picture.
In the meantime, the city of Missoula will remain in a no-win situation. If it uses a neighborhood plan to turn down or alter a zoning proposal, it could be sued by developers. If it doesn't use them, it could be sued by unhappy residents.
That leaves only one way for the city to avoid a lawsuit: stall. Of course, city officials can't wait too long to decide on new development. That, too, could lead to a lawsuit.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)