 |
|
|
|
Ruling on land favors Bryant |
|
|
Wednesday, 03 June 2009 |
A Saline County Circuit Court has ruled in favor of the city of Bryant in an annexation dispute with the city of Benton.
In Judge John Cole’s ruling, he determined that the city of Bryant substantially complied with island annexation laws and granted summary judgment to Bryant regarding a 2005 Springhill Road annexation.
The ruling may be appealed, Benton City Attorney Brent Houston said.
Houston said there were two central issues in the case. One involved the lack of notification to all the property owners in the annexed area; and the other involved the placement of the planning jurisdiction line between the cities by the two planning and zoning commissions. Benton officials contended the planning jurisdiction line was a bar to annexation past that point.
Houston said Cole determined that Bryant in 2005 “substantially complied with the procedural steps for annexation and that the placement of the planning jurisdiction line by the two commissions was not a bar to annexing past that line by Bryant.”
“What occurred in 2005 was that the two planning and zoning commissions agreed to move the planning jurisdiction line,” Houston said, but added that there is “case law that indicates that cities are not bound by the planning jurisdiction lines in annexation.”
“In this case, Benton asserted that this line inferred this was where the future boundary line between the two cities would be situated and that Bryant violated this agreement by annexing past that line,” Houston said.
Officials of Bryant contended the agreement was only to “move the planning jurisdiction line, nothing more,” Houston said.
Cole upheld Bryant’s position, Houston said.
Houston further said the minutes of the meeting verify that the two commissions agreed to move the planning jurisdiction lines, but said they do not confirm that an actual agreement was reached between the two cities with respect to the city limits.
“It only dealt with the planning jurisdiction line,” Houston said.
The ruling essentially states that “a city can annex into another city’s planning jurisdiction,” Houston said.
“People really believed there was an expressed agreement between the two cities, but it’s just not stated in the minutes,” Houston said.
Benton Mayor Rick Holland said city officials “obviously are disappointed in the ruling.”
“We had negotiated with the city of Bryant in good faith when this started, and we fully expected this land south of Highway 5 would have been part of the city of Benton,” he said.
“We would have taken voluntary annexations from those property owners if we had known this would happen. When the city of Bryant did the island annexation, we were taken by surprise.
“It will be up to the council now to determine whether we appeal the ruling,” Holland said.
Several aldermen declined to comment on the issue, referring the matter to the city attorney.
An attempt was made to reach Bryant Mayor Larry Mitchell, but Mitchell did not return a call by press time.
Some time back, the late Frank Large, who was serving on the Planning Commission and attended the meeting in which the planning jurisdiction lines were agreed upon, provided the Courier with his account of the negotiations leading to the mutual agreement of the two commissions.
“We negotiated for them to have the north side of the highway where they were going to have the new Bryant school,” Large said. “They wanted that, and we said ‘OK.’ That at one time was in Benton’s jurisdictional planning, but we gave that up and took the south side of Northlake. And then we came down Springhill Road and said that would be the boundary; they would take the east side and we would take the west side where Hurricane Lake was.”
Two exceptions were made there, which Benton officials agreed to, Large said. “Jim Lagrone had property on the west side and so did David McCorkel. They wanted to be in Bryant, but they were on the west side. We cooperated and agreed to let them (Bryant) have the two pieces of property. Then we came down Springhill to where it’s already in Bryant south of there — that was all Bryant anyway, so there was no issue. We just went over to Hurricane Lake trailer park and Hurricane Lake Estates and all of that was put into the Benton jurisdiction. Then on the south side of Highway 5, we agreed that would be Benton and on the corner of Springhill and Highway 5 it would be Bryant.”
Large said Benton did not change its planning area.
“The planning commissions and then both councils approved it,” Large said.
Previously, George D. “Bucky” Ellis, chairman of the Benton Planning and Zoning Commission, said it was his belief that “this was where the city could grow to when they set the line.”
“Using common sense, people would say that this is the area that would come into our city,” Houston said. “Unfortunately, the law doesn’t back up that belief. That’s the problem we have.
“The other issue regards whether Bryant complied with island annexation statutes. There is proof that they did not fully comply,” Houston said.
“At least one owner did not receive notification,” the city attorney noted. “They didn’t have the owner’s address. This was borne out in discovery.
“What the judge said is they didn’t have to have ‘full’ compliance, but ‘substantial’ compliance.’ He said they had ‘substantially’ complied with the statute.”
Houston questions, however, whether substantial compliance is sufficient for island annexation.
“We’re considering our options,” Houston said. “If there is a basis for appeal — and at this time I believe there is — I plan to do so. I believe the strongest argument will be whether or not the judge used the correct standard (substantial compliance) in finding that Bryant had complied with the procedural aspects of annexation. There is proof that not all of the landowners were notified.”
|
|
|
|
Razorbacks
