Relatively short deadlines for a study to examine the emergency and to set a hearing to extend the interim zoning might cause planners some heartburn, but seems OK to me from a policy/legal perspective. The problem I see is with the protest provision, which I believe to be unconstitutional. We are currently litigating the validity of the current county zoning protest statute, which is similar.
This is another bill trying to change county interim zoning. Besides requiring a study of why an emergency exists that warrants interim zoning, it also limits the original interim zoning to 182 days (approx. 6 months) and then allows for a one year extension only if there is not a protest from 20% of the owners of the property being zoned.
There is one part that doesn't seem clear to me. It's 4(b)(v) So does the last sentence of 4(b)(v) mean that the public hearing and decision on the extension need to occur 30 days before the expiration of the original district so that the protest period happens within the 182 days? Or, can the original interim district expire during the 30 day protest period but it would still be in effect per 4(b)(v) until the protest period ends? Probably the stricter but it seems to need clarification.
MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE STRICTER INTERPRETATION IS PROBABLY WHAT IS INTENDED. SO, WORKING BACKWARDS FROM THE 182 DAYS, IF WE'D NEED TO HAVE THE 30 DAY PROTEST PERIOD, THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, AND THE "STUDY" COMPLETED BY DAY 182, WE'D PRACTICALLY HAVE TO START SCHEDULING AS SOON AS THE BCC ADOPTED AN IZ.
The new language for 1(b) doesn't seem too bad but the shorter approval times and the protest for the extension are much more restrictive.
THE NEW 1(B) THOUGH WILL RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO EXTEND IF THE STUDY IS NOT COMPLETE, RATHER THAN "GOOD FAITH" EFFORTS WITHIN "A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME."
Allows a 20% minority to control/veto the wishes of an 80% majority of residents who might request an interim zoning action. Unnecessarily limits duration of interim zoning. Requires additional studies to be paid for by the County without providing funds to do so.
Missoula County opposes House Bill 366 - revise interim county zoning, before the House on second reading tomorrow. HB 366 suggests that counties have inappropriately implemented interim zoning to address emergencies and makes the process of responding to an emergency more difficult for counties. It would be more appropriate to clarify the circumstances in which interim zoning may be adopted rather than make the process more difficult. Please oppose HB 366. Respectfully, Dale Bickell on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners
Missoula County opposes House Bill 366 - Revise county interim zoning law, before the Senate on 2nd reading this afternoon. HB 366 limits the ability of a majority of local landowners to effectively protect their private property rights. It also adds the unnecessary burden of onerous and unnecessary restrictions on requests for emergency zoning by a majority of land owners who wish to plan for the future of their property and communities. Please oppose HB 366. Respectfully, Dale Bickell on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners
Dear Ms. Wilson, Please communicate the following message to the Governor regarding House Bill 366.
Missoula County opposes House Bill 366 - Revise county interim zoning law. HB 366 limits the ability of a majority of local landowners to effectively protect their private property rights. It also adds the unnecessary burden of onerous and unnecessary restrictions on requests for emergency zoning by a majority of land owners who wish to plan for the future of their property and communities. Please veto HB 366.
Respectfully on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners,
James McCubbin:
ReplyDeleteRelatively short deadlines for a study to examine the emergency and to set a hearing to extend the interim zoning might cause planners some heartburn, but seems OK to me from a policy/legal perspective. The problem I see is with the protest provision, which I believe to be unconstitutional. We are currently litigating the validity of the current county zoning protest statute, which is similar.
Denise Alexander:
ReplyDeleteThis is another bill trying to change county interim zoning. Besides requiring a study of why an emergency exists that warrants interim zoning, it also limits the original interim zoning to 182 days (approx. 6 months) and then allows for a one year extension only if there is not a protest from 20% of the owners of the property being zoned.
There is one part that doesn't seem clear to me. It's 4(b)(v) So does the last sentence of 4(b)(v) mean that the public hearing and decision on the extension need to occur 30 days before the expiration of the original district so that the protest period happens within the 182 days? Or, can the original interim district expire during the 30 day protest period but it would still be in effect per 4(b)(v) until the protest period ends? Probably the stricter but it seems to need clarification.
MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE STRICTER INTERPRETATION IS PROBABLY WHAT IS INTENDED. SO, WORKING BACKWARDS FROM THE 182 DAYS, IF WE'D NEED TO HAVE THE 30 DAY PROTEST PERIOD, THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, AND THE "STUDY" COMPLETED BY DAY 182, WE'D PRACTICALLY HAVE TO START SCHEDULING AS SOON AS THE BCC ADOPTED AN IZ.
The new language for 1(b) doesn't seem too bad but the shorter approval times and the protest for the extension are much more restrictive.
THE NEW 1(B) THOUGH WILL RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO EXTEND IF THE STUDY IS NOT COMPLETE, RATHER THAN "GOOD FAITH" EFFORTS WITHIN "A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME."
Pat O'Herren:
ReplyDeleteAllows a 20% minority to control/veto the wishes of an 80% majority of residents who might request an interim zoning action. Unnecessarily limits duration of interim zoning. Requires additional studies to be paid for by the County without providing funds to do so.
Sent the following message to Missoula Reps:
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes House Bill 366 - revise interim county zoning, before the House on second reading tomorrow. HB 366 suggests that counties have inappropriately implemented interim zoning to address emergencies and makes the process of responding to an emergency more difficult for counties. It would be more appropriate to clarify the circumstances in which interim zoning may be adopted rather than make the process more difficult. Please oppose HB 366.
Respectfully,
Dale Bickell on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners
The bill has been subsequently amended to 40% (instead of 20%)
ReplyDeleteSent the following to Missoula Senators:
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes House Bill 366 - Revise county interim zoning law, before the Senate on 2nd reading this afternoon. HB 366 limits the ability of a majority of local landowners to effectively protect their private property rights. It also adds the unnecessary burden of onerous and unnecessary restrictions on requests for emergency zoning by a majority of land owners who wish to plan for the future of their property and communities. Please oppose HB 366.
Respectfully,
Dale Bickell on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners
Dear Ms. Wilson,
ReplyDeletePlease communicate the following message to the Governor regarding House Bill 366.
Missoula County opposes House Bill 366 - Revise county interim zoning law. HB 366 limits the ability of a majority of local landowners to effectively protect their private property rights. It also adds the unnecessary burden of onerous and unnecessary restrictions on requests for emergency zoning by a majority of land owners who wish to plan for the future of their property and communities. Please veto HB 366.
Respectfully on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners,
Dale D. Bickell