08/02/06 Wilson/Glacier Mall Lawsuitattorneys at Law
We
mofds, WotfandSher-wood
A ProfessionatLimitedLiability Tartnership
Lznda M. Deola
Brenda �inrf�ef.7�ali
.7onatlran Jt Mod -
,lames r1'. 2ynolls
�re<ferck �' Strerxuofld
Debora![ S. Smik
David -IT. W wilso4 ,7r.
August 2, 2006
Mr. Charles Harball
Kalispell City Attorney
P. O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Glacier Mall lawsuit
Dear Mr. Harball:
401.Nortfr Last Chance tWlnf
.7{elnq .iylantann r96D1
(406)442--3261
!2�at.. (406)443294
E'maik, 6afionormslaw. net
I am the attorney representing the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the
County Commissioners' decision approving the Growth Policy Amendment and zoning
changes to allow construction of the Glacier Mall. As you probably are aware, earlier
this year, the Montana Supreme Court issued a decision affirming Judge Stadler's
ruling in part, but remanding the case to the District Court.
It is my understanding that the City is considering amending the Kalispell
Growth policy to allow similar uses on this property as were provided for in the county
growth policy amendment and zoning of this property. I understand that as the city
does not have planning jurisdiction in this area, this growth policy amendment would
be triggered by a request annexing the area around the proposed Glacier Mall into the
City. It is my further understanding that the County is assuming that with the Supreme
Court's decision, the developers should be ready and able to proceed with the next step
with the project. We have a different view of the impact of the Courts decision,
however, and would ask you to review the decision. (North 93 Neighbors v. Board of
County Commissioners, 2006 MT 132) Importantly, the Court found the Commissioners'
approval of the growth policy amendment without taking into account public comment
to be "unreasonable and an abuse of discretion." The Court then reversed and
remanded:
The District Court must evaluate whether the Board satisfied this
obligation by requiring the Board to demonstrate what issues, if any, were
raised through the public comment process that were not addressed by
the Planning Office report. The Board must further demonstrate to the
District Court that it evaluated such issues with the requirements of the
Growth Policy.... We reverse and remand for this limited purpose. If the
District Court determines that the Board failed to satisfy this obligation, or
if the record proves insufficient to determine whether the Board complied,
it should send the case to the Board for development of the factual record
that it relied upon in making its decision.
In other words, unless and until the Commissioners can demonstrate that they
have met the Court's requirement that their decision reflect the public comment
submitted following the issuance of the staff report, the legal status of the Growth
Policy Amendment, and the zoning amendment that relied upon it; remains in doubt.
As such, the still pending resolution of key issues in this suit awaits future court
hearings and rulings.
I would be happy to talk to you further about this matter.
cc: North 93 Neighbors
c�--i"avid K. W. Wilson, Jr.
2