05-09-84 Annexation Committee4:00 P.M. ANNEXATION COMMITTEE May 9,1984
The Committeemet on this date in the Conference Room at City Hall. Present were
of Chairman Manning, Councilman Palmer, C. A. Neier, Bldg. Inspector Petersen and
Attorney Bill Astel.
C. Manning opened the meeting, stating that Mr. Astle requested that he be allowed
to present his "resolution" to the City Council, but it was felt that proper pro-
cedure would be to meet with the committee first.
Mr. Astle stated that the recent meeting with the County revealed that C. Palmer's
concept of the County backing out of zoning was rejected. He stated that he felt the
City would still be the target defendant should the decision betoverturned. He has
checked with state people, who suggest that a disclaimer might be added to the bottom
of the building permit, stating that other laws and ordinances of City/County should
be checked. Nick Verma is Flathead County Zoning Administrator and the City would be
in a bad position in forcing the Comprehensive Plan, both exposure wise and liability
wise.
C. Palmer stated that our building official's job is being wrongly used. It is his
job to make sure that state building codes are met, but permits must be authorized
by the County.
Mr. Astle stated that if his policy is adopted, we would be ready to zone. The
Building Inspector could begin review and be prepared to issue permits; then, if
there are problems, the owner would'have to see county people before the permit could
be issued.
Few areas within the 3 mile area have been zoned, not by the Commissioners but by
petitions from the people involved. Presently zoning requests do not have to comply
with specific requirements for adopted use. They can come up with their own system
and make it as restrictive, or as liberal, as they want. Zoning outside the City is
petition zoning, none is self initiated by the County.
Mr. Astle defined the irrationality of the Comprehensive Plan and stated that if one
looked at the C. P. and the changes for annexations or zoning matters, they would
find it had been changed so drastically by amendments and alterations, it is not even
comprehensible, much less comprehensive, and is being used for many wrong reasons.
He wants to make sure that the City Attorney can say his proposal is legal without
reservation.
C. A. Neier agrees with the philosophy of the "resolution", stating that the County
has us enforcing something we probably should not be enforcing. --
MOTION: C. Palmer moved that he would recommend that the City give notice to the
County that upon X amount of time required for implementation of zoning, plus 30 days,
that our Building Inspector will only act as Building Inspector -and not as Zoning Ad-
ministrator, interpreting the Comprehensive Plan. He further would recommend that in
the event the County would like to relinquish their authority, so the City can then
exercize our legislative right to zone adjacent County property, we would appreciate
hearing of the County's decision within 30 days so that we would have continuing
control. Question called, 2nd by C. Manning. Both voted aye.
June 4 was set as tentative date for Mr. Astle to address the Council. He asks for a
full contingency and members will be polled on anticipated attendance of that regular
Council meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15.
Mr. Astle called on 5/10 to advise that because of his daughter's high sch 1 gs3dua-
tion-on June 4, he would ask to address the Council at the June 18th meetir instead.
ms