Three Lakeside condominium projects are subject to the county subdivision review process, the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed.

In a ruling last month, the high court upheld Flathead District Judge Ted Lympus’ earlier decision to reject a claim that unzoned property doesn’t have applicable building regulations.

Dennis and Donna Thornton, the Blomgren Family Trust and Jim and Beverly Etzler sued Flathead County after county officials told the Clerk and Recorder’s Office not to accept deeds for the condominium developments until the property owners got formal subdivision approval.

In July 2006 the Thorntons recorded a declaration for the proposed Misty Cliff II project containing 17 buildings and 385 units on unzoned property, and the Blomgrens followed in August 2006 with a similar declaration for the Misty Cliff I project containing four buildings and 105 condo units.

In October 2006 the Etzlers recorded a declaration and bylaws for their proposed Osprey Ridge residential condo project containing 31 buildings and 124 units near Lakeside.

Although the property owners filed their projects separately, they joined together in suing the county.

The Etzlers had obtained approval in 2005 to subdivide their property into five single-family dwellings in accordance with subdivision laws.

But they argued that Osprey Ridge should be exempt from further review because the property is located in the Scenic Corridor Zoning District, according to the Supreme Court ruling.

The Etzlers interpreted a provision saying “no other land use restrictions apply in the [Scenic Corridor Zoning District] other than those relating to signs” as inferring that condos are permitted in the scenic corridor. The high court disagreed, saying they “strain logic” with their interpretation of scenic-corridor regulations.

The Etzlers added a claim for equal protection violations, arguing that other condo projects have been approved that didn’t meet any statutory exemptions. The Supreme Court upheld the District Court ruling that the couple failed to present any “newly discovered evidence” to support their claim.

The Thorntons and Blomgrens argued that their land has never been subject to the Subdivision Act because their parcels were created prior to enactment of the law in 1973 and therefore they should get a “wholesale blanket exemption” from subdivision review. But the Supreme Court said they do not meet the prerequisites for an exemption from subdivision review.

 Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com