Ravalli County Clerk and Recorder Regina Plettenberg said that the county has only received a couple of applications for condominium declarations outside of municipalities in the last few years. But within the last few weeks, however, the county has received at least five applications for condominium declarations in unincorporated areas of the county. The five proposals altogether would create close to 500 condo units in the north part of the valley. All of the applications were submitted by Missoula law firms along with the claim that the condominium proposals were exempt from subdivision review under Montana law and should be filed by the Clerk and Recorder immediately.

Condominiums, which are generally subject to review as subdivisions, may be exempt from subdivision review, according to Ravalli County Subdivision Regulations, provided they are constructed on land divided in compliance with the county regulations and with the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and if the approval of the original division of land expressly contemplated the construction of condominiums, or the condominium proposal is in conformance with applicable zoning regulations, where zoning regulations are in effect. All the proposals claim that the latter is the fact, making the proposals exempt from subdivision review and asking for the Clerk and Recorder to file them immediately without any review.

Plettenberg hesitated to record the declarations, she said, because she was concerned about the lack of review by the Planning Department and the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). She said that, traditionally, the Clerk and Recorder's Office had the county Planning Department and DEQ review condominium applications before they were filed. She said that she hesitated because of the sheer number of applications coming in at once and due to the unprecedented size and design of the condominium proposals.

They come with names that evoke the natural beauty and splendor of the valley: Elk Mountain Condominiums, Sand Hill Ridge Condominiums, Fields Condominiums, Mission Glen Condominiums, and Stonebridge Condominiums. But they are huge compared to past developments, she said. One proposal alone, the Stonebridge Condominiums, located adjacent to the recently denied Aspen Springs Subdivision in the Eight-Mile area, proposes constructing 234 condo units on 85 acres. All the recent proposals differ from traditional proposals in that they appear to include lawns around the individual condominium units.

Plettenberg said that condominium units differ from normal residential subdivision dwellings in that the individual condominium owner does not own the land that the building is on, nor do they own the building. She said, "They own the space that they occupy." In this case, that is the space corresponding to where the building and the lawn area are located.

She said that her concern was that these developments would have impacts on the roads, on schools, on fire departments, law enforcement, and the public safety and welfare in general. As a result, she decided to ask the County Attorney for guidance concerning the proper review procedure for condominiums before recording them. She asked him what documents need to be included with a proposed declaration, since some of the applications contained no information about proposed septics or wastewater disposal. She asked if the proposals needed to be examined by the Planning Department or the Department of Environmental Health and when a preliminary declaration may be filed while further information is gathered.

According to County Attorney George Corn, who issued a memorandum in response to Plettenberg's request, proposed condominiums must be reviewed by the Planning Department to determine if the statutory exemption really applies and that this examination would include review under existing zoning regulations since the exemption requires conformance with local zoning regulations.

Corn also stated that state law requires sanitation review of all condominiums, including those that fall outside subdivision review, although there is no requirement that condominiums undergo sanitation review twice, if they have already been previously reviewed and found to be in compliance. Corn said that these reviews would need to be done before the filing of a final declaration.

"The filing of the final declaration submits the property to the Unit Ownership Act," wrote Corn, "and makes the property susceptible to conveyance of individual units. Lack of approval of a sewage system or any other necessary review can be fatal to condominium projects. If a developer is allowed to record a condominium declaration and sell units, but is then unable to proceed, the County may be exposed to liability."

He stated that this local review was especially important since the state review process of the act was repealed and no alternative enforcement actions have been enacted.

"It may be misleading to publicly record a proposed project that cannot be legally completed. The better public policy would be to require review before recording the final declaration, to protect potential purchasers and shield the county from liability," wrote Corn.

He recommended that the Clerk and Recorder continue to follow established procedures that require review by the necessary departments to ensure that the proposals meet the requirements of state law before recording them.

Tristan Riddell, of the Planning Department, said that he was aware that the Clerk and Recorder's office had received a "bombardment of condominium proposals" but said that he has not seen any yet. But he assumed that they would come through his office for review to see if they met the requirements for exemption from subdivision review.

Once a condominium declaration has been approved and built, it may, at a later date, be turned into a subdivision. This has already occurred at least once in Ravalli County. The Kootenai Creek Village condominiums, located near Stevensville, were subdivided a few years after the condominium project was approved and built. Lot lines in the subdivision were drawn in some cases right through the buildings to separate ownership and the condominium owners were then vested with ownership of the land and their portion of the building. Effects upon the environment and county services were deemed nil in the subdivision review process since the number of residences and amount of traffic, etc., remained unchanged and were thus not affected by the subdivision of the property.

Both the Senate and House have approved legislation amending the laws governing condominium regulations. It is being sent back to the Senate for consideration of amendments.

Group seeks to stop District 5 commissioner election

By Michael Howell

The same group of ten people who did achieve an injunction from Missoula District Court Judge John Larson to prevent the "holdover" commissioners, Alan Thompson and Greg Chilcott, from having to run for office again following the successful ballot initiative that mandates an increase in the number of county commissioners from three to five, are now asking Larson to extend that injunction to include the commission seat in District 5, currently occupied by Howard Lyons.

The plaintiffs in the case - Fred Thomas, Frankie Laible, Bill Hester, Gene Williams, Dave Hurtt, Dorothy Berry, Gary Zebrowski, Dale Dye, Dave Woodgerd and Dan Huls - in their initial lawsuit asked Judge Larson to invalidate the entire ballot initiative and stop the entire election. They claimed in the lawsuit that Ravalli County never officially changed the form of government from the "elected county official form of government" to a "Commission form of government" in 1976 due to alleged errors committed by the Government Study Commission at the time. As a result, they argued, the county is restricted to a three-commissioner board serving six-year terms. They asked the judge to suspend the elections for the five-commissioner board and nullify the ballot initiative.

The group also claimed that voters were not sufficiently informed that approval of the ballot issue to increase the number of commissioners would require that all five seats would go up for election instead of just the two additional seats. They also claimed that the special election was invalid because the election date was not set by the County Commissioners, but was set by the Government Study Commission. They asked the judge for an injunction preventing the elections.

After granting a temporary restraining order that would prevent preparations for an election, Larson issued an order allowing the elections to go forward in three districts, but precluding elections in the districts currently represented by Alan Thompson and Greg Chilcott. Although he found the case unlikely to succeed on the merits on every issue, he decided to allow Thompson and Chilcott to retain their offices without running again until a decision could be made at trial. He did so in consideration of another initiative in which the voters declined a ballot initiative that would have required concurrent elections. He reasoned that the voters defeated that initiative in order to assure continuity in government. And since the Government Study Commission did not address the issue of how a transformation to a five-member commission could take place and still respect the voters' disapproval of concurrent terms, he decided to allow the "holdover" commissioners to be exempt from the election in order to "preserve the status quo" while the issue was decided at trial.

However, Larson decided that since newly elected commissioner Howard Lyons was running unopposed, election on that seat would not be enjoined.

Plaintiffs in the case are now arguing that since Lyons has now drawn an opponent, Carlotta Grandstaff, running as an Independent, he should be treated like the other two holdover commissioners.

"He was elected to a six-year term in office," they claim. "He should not be forced to run for re-election only a few months after he has been sworn into office."

Obscenity Ordinance petition withdrawn

By Michael Howell

Dallas Erickson has withdrawn his petition to place an obscenity ordinance on the 2008 ballot in order to revise it. He hopes that the revised petition will be approved in time to place it on the same November 2008 election ballot.

The initial petition was approved for circulation by District Court Judge Jeffery Langton after a four-year review, but signature gathering was going a little slow. At the same time potential legal problems with the initiative were uncovered through research, according to Erickson.

The original ordinance was written six years ago, he said, and, in the meantime, with the help of a legal intern's research, it was discovered that two court cases have since been decided that raise serious questions about final Supreme Court approval of the ordinance as written.

Erickson said that the two cases, one in Montana and the other in federal court, have established that homosexuality is "a normal activity." He said that, relying on such rulings, the Supreme Court could decide to invalidate the Ravalli County Obscenity Ordinance as it is written.

The County has already asked for a judicial review of the ordinance.

As a result, Erickson decided to withdraw the initiative and prepare a new one that could possibly pass judgment by removing certain wording from the document. He said that with some minor adjustments of language a new petition could pass the bar, even given the new court rulings. He said that given the questions raised by the court rulings, it made sense withdraw the petition and rework it. He said that the revised petition could still qualify for the same election ballot as the previous initiative, which is in November, 2008. He said that testing the current petition in court would cost a lot of time and resources for his group and the county.

"It makes sense to make these minor adjustments first," said Erickson. "We decided that this is the best way to go."

He said that the issues raised in the two court cases had to do with rights to privacy and that it would not be hard to remove that issue from the case by adjusting the language of the petition. He wants to be sure that the ordinance will stand up to Supreme Court review because he is sure that it is going to be challenged, he said.

Helicopter flights explained

By Michael Howell

The deep, resonant whop, whop, whop of a Huey helicopter flying low over the north valley last weekend was enough to turn the stomach of a Vietman veteran suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and raised questions among some other residents.

Don Misevic, Manager of the Stevensville Airport, said not to worry. The helicopter was not armed, was not on any mission, in fact it was just out testing its recent repair job. It was a series of test flights involved in adjusting the balance of the rotor blades in a helicopter that had been in for repairs at the local Pit Stop.

"It took eight guys working seven days a week for 40 days to make those repairs," said Misevic. He said it also took an uncommon number of test flights to make the final adjustments to the blade balance. But by noon on Saturday, the helicopter was on its way back to its base in eastern Oregon in running condition.

Misevic said that it was an extensive repair process that took a lot of testing. "It was not an everyday deal," said Misevic.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2006 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney