New allegations leveled against Lakeside plan effort

An amended complaint was filed April 26 against Flathead County and the Lakeside Neighborhood Planning Committee regarding the Lakeside neighborhood plan.

The amended lawsuit stems in part from a revised preliminary injunction on the matter issued April 21 by District Judge Stewart Stadler.

Stadler’s ruling continues to prohibit the Lakeside plan from being implemented pending the final outcome of the lawsuit. The case is scheduled for jury trial in December.

Stadler’s ruling was accompanied by a revised finding of fact and conclusions of law. Stadler had issued a preliminary injunction following a Feb. 24 hearing.

His revised findings were based on the same information presented at that hearing and essentially reaffirm the initial injunction.

The findings of fact in the initial preliminary injunction were deficient, hence the second preliminary injunction was issued and included more specific findings, according to Deputy County Attorney Paul Nicol.

Originally, a group of Lakeside property owners sued the Lakeside Neighborhood Planning Committee, former County Planning Director Jeff Harris and Flathead County over the neighborhood planning process.

The amended complaint removes Harris from the lawsuit because he was fired from his job with the county.

The amended complaint also removes all references in the original lawsuit to the Somers Neighborhood Plan because that plan never was implemented and has since been scrapped.

Stadler’s second preliminary injunction denied the plaintiffs’ requests to halt all of Harris’s actions because he doesn’t work for the county and Stadler denied the plaintiffs’ request to issue an injunction regarding the Somers plan because it hadn’t been enacted.

The amended lawsuit adds two new claims.

It alleges that the county commissioners failed to follow state law when they formed the Lakeside Neighborhood Planning Committee and the Lakeside Community Council.

In the complaint, attorney Noah Bodman wrote that it doesn’t appear that county commissioners issued a valid resolution to create either board. In that case, he said, any actions taken by those boards is invalid.

The second new claim is that the when the Lakeside neighborhood group met in private homes, it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The initial complaint alleged that the group met improperly and failed to provide public notice of its meetings and didn’t open meetings to the public. In the amended complaint, Bodman wrote that even if the meetings were properly advertised, they still violated the law by discriminating against disabled people.

Plaintiff Bill Blomgren uses a wheelchair and requires handicap-accessible facilities, Bodman wrote.

In his revised preliminary injunction, Stewart again concluded that evidence demonstrates there was a substantial likelihood that meetings of the neighborhood planning group violated state laws on open meetings.

Nicol said the county plans to respond to the revised complaint Monday.

The amended complaint asks the court to declare the neighborhood planning group and the community council were invalidly created and carry no binding authority, declare the Lakeside plan unconstitutional and therefore of no force and effect and declare that meetings held by the planning group were in violation of the disabilities law.

It also asks that Flathead County be prohibited from pursuing the development of any future neighborhood plans until the court determines an appropriate process for so doing.

The complaint also seeks costs and attorney’s fees and any other relief the court deems appropriate and just.

Bodman said Wednesday the lawsuit questions the process by which the Lakeside plan was created, not the content of the plan itself.

“Establishing a plan based on a committee which wasn’t properly created raises some issues,” he said.

He also said it would have been “easy” for the planning committee to hold meetings in proper places with proper access.

The  property owners who filed the lawsuit questioned a neighborhood planning committee members-only website that they said had been used to conduct business improperly.

The county ordered the website to become public and all documentation with the site be made public. The site was kept open for about a month and was then shut down.

The property owners also allege that the planning group met illegally, decided their group would be by invitation only, decided to not publish public comments on the draft plan and to not share versions of the draft plan anywhere except on the “secret website.”

When the temporary injunction was issued in February, Flathead County Planning Director BJ Grieve said no new zoning districts would be created in the area covered by the Lakeside neighborhood plan, nor would any zone changes or amendments be considered until the trial is completed.

However, he said, variances or conditional uses could be considered in the area because the neighborhood plan doesn’t reference those actions.

Grieve wasn’t aware Stadler had issued the April preliminary injunction and on Wednesday said he’d have to look into the ruling to determine if any changes would be required on the part of his office. Nicol said the county planning office will continue to follow the same guidelines it has since the first preliminary injunction was issued.

The neighborhood planning groups in Flathead County were created as part of the growth policy enacted by the county in 2007. The growth policy is intended to provide guidance for growth in the county and to act as a basis for future land use regulations in the county. Once a neighborhood plan is adopted, it becomes part of the county’s growth policy.

Reporter Shelley Ridenour may be reached at 758-4439 or by email at sridenour@dailyinterlake.com.