Back in 2009, HB 1424 <http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2009-10%20ENR/hB/HB1424%20ENR.PDF> amended Sections 43-104 <https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=76517> and 43-106 <https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=76519> in Title 11 (as well as 3 statutes related to County zoning) to add in language about additional public notice requirements (mailings) for various treatment facilities and multiple family facilities. A few of questions on anyone whose had to interpret and apply this provision in the last 14 years that it's been on the books: First, what qualifies as a multiple family facility. I don't find a statutory definition anywhere in the Oklahoma statutes (I searched for both "multiple family facility" and "multiple family facilities" and only found the 5 statutes that HB 1424 added the language to), AG opinions, the OAC or Federal/State cases. In the absence of a statutory definition, that means we go with the plain meaning and understanding. To me, that would mean a facility (structure, building, etc.) where you'd have more than one family unit that residing - so apartment complexes, or maybe a connected set of row townhouses. Would it apply to a multi-family zoning where you'd have separate buildings / structures that were on the same lot/parcel? Second, who has the statutory obligation to send the notice? If you compare the first part of 43-106(A) (that was there before HB 1424 was adopted), there's a 20 day mailing notice obligation for the secretary of the PC or the City Clerk. But when you get to the added language, it imposes a 30 day mailing obligation upon "the entity proposing the zoning change". HB 1424 then included a broad definition of "entity" that includes a municipality, but is not limited to a municipality. To me, the most logical reading is that it is the entity - person, corporation, or City - that is proposing the zoning change. If the zoning change is being initiated by the City on its own initiative, then the City would be the proposing entity. But if it's the owner that has applied for rezoning, wouldn't they (be they a corporation or an individual) be the entity proposing the change? Third and finally, if my interpretation is correct, and it's the applicant seeking a zoning change that would allow for a multiple family facility on the property, then what happens if they fail to comply with this requirement (either fail to mail anything out or they fail to send a notice to everyone within 1/4 mile)? Obviously if we screw up a public notice, then someone sues us (the City) for declaratory and/or injunctive relief. It would seem that the same would be true in this instance since, even though the City wouldn't have had an obligation to send the mailing, it's the City's ordinances and the application thereof to the property that would be at issue. Thoughts? Matt

The statute is poorly worded as to what is meant by multi family facility.. An argument can be made that the additional notice requirements only apply to facilities providing treatment for medical or nonmedical detoxification as these terms are defined pursuant to Section 3-403 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes, Since the language is not clear I have advised my clients to provide additional notice for any zoning classification that allows for multi-family facilities including apartments, duplexes, etc. ection 43-106 - Additional Notice Requirements for Proposed Zoning Changes and Reclassifications Cite as: O.S. §, __ __ ________________________________ A. Except as authorized in subsection B of this section, in addition to the notice requirements provided for in Section 43-104<https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=76517> of this title, notice of a public hearing on any proposed zoning change, except by a municipality acting pursuant to subsection B of this section, shall be given twenty (20) days prior to the hearing by mailing written notice by the secretary of the planning commission, or by the municipal clerk if there is no planning commission, to all the owners of real property as provided for in Section 43-105<https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=76518> of this title. In addition to the notice required in this subsection, if the zoning change requested permits the use of treatment facilities, multiple family facilities, transitional living facilities, halfway houses and any housing or facility that may be used for medical or nonmedical detoxification as these terms are defined pursuant to Section 3-403 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes, the entity proposing the zoning change shall mail a written notice within thirty (30) days of the hearing to all real property owners within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile where the area to be affected is located and shall be responsible for all costs incurred in mailing this notice. The notice shall contain the: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This transmission is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. s/ David A. Davis LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS 4312 N. Classen Blvd. OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118 405 840-6353 405 557-0777 (FAX) ddavislaw@live.com<mailto:ddavislaw@live.com> ________________________________ From: Matt Love <matt.love@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 1:36 PM To: OAMA luistserv (OAMA@lists.imla.org) <oama@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Zoning, Multiple Family Facilities, & Notice Back in 2009, HB 1424<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebserver1.lsb.state.ok.us%2Fcf_pdf%2F2009-10%2520ENR%2FhB%2FHB1424%2520ENR.PDF&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WT1xgTFTBFe%2BF2D1e%2FqG1JTcK4Esl6RaZEzN8PNoJ2Q%3D&reserved=0> amended Sections 43-104<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscn.net%2Fapplications%2Foscn%2FDeliverDocument.asp%3FCiteID%3D76517&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AkHITGMhxVZuE2oOZCuy9bRU740YrcFnkHp45NcNspE%3D&reserved=0> and 43-106<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscn.net%2Fapplications%2Foscn%2FDeliverDocument.asp%3FCiteID%3D76519&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NNq5uZ48g9sK6KUlejPy7UMN7lygZEcenvzeWtmHntU%3D&reserved=0> in Title 11 (as well as 3 statutes related to County zoning) to add in language about additional public notice requirements (mailings) for various treatment facilities and multiple family facilities. A few of questions on anyone whose had to interpret and apply this provision in the last 14 years that it's been on the books: First, what qualifies as a multiple family facility. I don't find a statutory definition anywhere in the Oklahoma statutes (I searched for both "multiple family facility" and "multiple family facilities" and only found the 5 statutes that HB 1424 added the language to), AG opinions, the OAC or Federal/State cases. In the absence of a statutory definition, that means we go with the plain meaning and understanding. To me, that would mean a facility (structure, building, etc.) where you'd have more than one family unit that residing - so apartment complexes, or maybe a connected set of row townhouses. Would it apply to a multi-family zoning where you'd have separate buildings / structures that were on the same lot/parcel? Second, who has the statutory obligation to send the notice? If you compare the first part of 43-106(A) (that was there before HB 1424 was adopted), there's a 20 day mailing notice obligation for the secretary of the PC or the City Clerk. But when you get to the added language, it imposes a 30 day mailing obligation upon "the entity proposing the zoning change". HB 1424 then included a broad definition of "entity" that includes a municipality, but is not limited to a municipality. To me, the most logical reading is that it is the entity - person, corporation, or City - that is proposing the zoning change. If the zoning change is being initiated by the City on its own initiative, then the City would be the proposing entity. But if it's the owner that has applied for rezoning, wouldn't they (be they a corporation or an individual) be the entity proposing the change? Third and finally, if my interpretation is correct, and it's the applicant seeking a zoning change that would allow for a multiple family facility on the property, then what happens if they fail to comply with this requirement (either fail to mail anything out or they fail to send a notice to everyone within 1/4 mile)? Obviously if we screw up a public notice, then someone sues us (the City) for declaratory and/or injunctive relief. It would seem that the same would be true in this instance since, even though the City wouldn't have had an obligation to send the mailing, it's the City's ordinances and the application thereof to the property that would be at issue. Thoughts? Matt

David, I had the exact thought - this had to have been intended to reach treatment type facilities and was just using several different terms to try to catch them all. But I don't think that's what was intended, at least with reference to "multiple family facilities". When I went through the legislative history, the Bill as introduced only referenced multiple family facilities. The Bill Summary said it was about "multiple housing units". It passed the house, passed out of committee in the Senate, but then there was a floor amendment on 4/16/2009, a copy of which I cannot find anywhere on the Legislature's website. But I did find a new Bill Summary for the version that the Senate adopted (the floor substitute) that was dated 4/27/2009. That Summary said that the Bill created notice requirements for treatment facilities, transitional living facilities, halfway houses, and housing or facilities used for medical or nonmedical detox (notice multi family is gone). The House rejected the Senate Amendments and it went to conference, and what came out of the conference committee was the language we now have. Ironically, there was yet another Bill Summary released the same day as the Conference Committee Substitute which didn't mention multifamily housing. But the Conference Committee Substitute definitely included that language. I wish I could find the Floor Amendment version that the Senate actually voted on. I suspect that it didn't contain a reference to multiple family facilities. Which would make sense given what came out of the Conference Committee - a version that appeared to marry together what the House Authors were after (multiple family facilites) and what the Senate Authors were after (treatment facilities). Obviously as a matter of legislative drafting, it would have been a bit cleaner if they had just said "multiple family facilities or treatment facilities, including transitional living facilities, halfway houses and any housing or facility that may be used for medical or nonmedical detoxification" - that would make clear that there were two different types of facilities they were targeting. By jamming MFF into the middle of the list, it made me initially think that they were really only talking about treatment type facilities. But in light of the ambiguity in the text, and then the legislative history, I think an argument can be made that, despite the poor drafting, this notice requirement applies to both multiple family facilities as well as a variety of treatment facilities. Matt On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1:56 PM david davis <ddavislaw@live.com> wrote: > > The statute is poorly worded as to what is meant by multi family > facility.. An argument can be made that the additional notice requirements > only apply to facilities providing treatment for medical or nonmedical > detoxification as these terms are defined pursuant to Section 3-403 of > Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes, > Since the language is not clear I have advised my clients to provide > additional notice for any zoning classification that allows for > multi-family facilities including apartments, duplexes, etc. > > > *ection 43-106 - Additional Notice Requirements for Proposed Zoning > Changes and Reclassifications * > Cite as: O.S. §, __ __ > ------------------------------ > > A. Except as authorized in subsection B of this section, in addition to > the notice requirements provided for in Section 43-104 > <https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=76517> of > this title, notice of a public hearing on any proposed zoning change, > except by a municipality acting pursuant to subsection B of this section, > shall be given twenty (20) days prior to the hearing by mailing written > notice by the secretary of the planning commission, or by the municipal > clerk if there is no planning commission, to all the owners of real > property as provided for in Section 43-105 > <https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=76518> of > this title. In addition to the notice required in this subsection, if the > zoning change requested permits the use of treatment facilities, multiple > family facilities, transitional living facilities, halfway houses and any > housing or facility that may be used for medical or nonmedical > detoxification as these terms are defined pursuant to Section 3-403 of > Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes, the entity proposing the zoning > change shall mail a written notice within thirty (30) days of the hearing > to all real property owners within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile where the > area to be affected is located and shall be responsible for all costs > incurred in mailing this notice. The notice shall contain the: > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: *This transmission is protected by the Electronic > Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be > delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended > only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is > or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and > confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, > copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in > error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original > message. * > > s/ David A. Davis > LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS > 4312 N. Classen Blvd. > OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118 > 405 840-6353 > 405 557-0777 (FAX) > ddavislaw@live.com > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Matt Love <matt.love@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2023 1:36 PM > *To:* OAMA luistserv (OAMA@lists.imla.org) <oama@lists.imla.org> > *Subject:* [Oama] Zoning, Multiple Family Facilities, & Notice > > Back in 2009, HB 1424 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebserver1.lsb.state.ok.us%2Fcf_pdf%2F2009-10%2520ENR%2FhB%2FHB1424%2520ENR.PDF&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WT1xgTFTBFe%2BF2D1e%2FqG1JTcK4Esl6RaZEzN8PNoJ2Q%3D&reserved=0> > amended Sections 43-104 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscn.net%2Fapplications%2Foscn%2FDeliverDocument.asp%3FCiteID%3D76517&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AkHITGMhxVZuE2oOZCuy9bRU740YrcFnkHp45NcNspE%3D&reserved=0> > and 43-106 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscn.net%2Fapplications%2Foscn%2FDeliverDocument.asp%3FCiteID%3D76519&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NNq5uZ48g9sK6KUlejPy7UMN7lygZEcenvzeWtmHntU%3D&reserved=0> > in Title 11 (as well as 3 statutes related to County zoning) to add in > language about additional public notice requirements (mailings) for various > treatment facilities and multiple family facilities. A few of questions on > anyone whose had to interpret and apply this provision in the last 14 years > that it's been on the books: > > First, what qualifies as a multiple family facility. I don't find a > statutory definition anywhere in the Oklahoma statutes (I searched for both > "multiple family facility" and "multiple family facilities" and only found > the 5 statutes that HB 1424 added the language to), AG opinions, the OAC or > Federal/State cases. In the absence of a statutory definition, that means > we go with the plain meaning and understanding. To me, that would mean a > facility (structure, building, etc.) where you'd have more than one family > unit that residing - so apartment complexes, or maybe a connected set of > row townhouses. Would it apply to a multi-family zoning where you'd have > separate buildings / structures that were on the same lot/parcel? > > Second, who has the statutory obligation to send the notice? If you > compare the first part of 43-106(A) (that was there before HB 1424 was > adopted), there's a 20 day mailing notice obligation for the secretary of > the PC or the City Clerk. But when you get to the added language, it > imposes a 30 day mailing obligation upon "the entity proposing the zoning > change". HB 1424 then included a broad definition of "entity" that includes > a municipality, but is not limited to a municipality. To me, the most > logical reading is that it is the entity - person, corporation, or City - > that is proposing the zoning change. If the zoning change is being > initiated by the City on its own initiative, then the City would be the > proposing entity. But if it's the owner that has applied for rezoning, > wouldn't they (be they a corporation or an individual) be the entity > proposing the change? > > Third and finally, if my interpretation is correct, and it's the applicant > seeking a zoning change that would allow for a multiple family facility on > the property, then what happens if they fail to comply with this > requirement (either fail to mail anything out or they fail to send a notice > to everyone within 1/4 mile)? Obviously if we screw up a public notice, > then someone sues us (the City) for declaratory and/or injunctive relief. > It would seem that the same would be true in this instance since, even > though the City wouldn't have had an obligation to send the mailing, it's > the City's ordinances and the application thereof to the property that > would be at issue. > > Thoughts? > > Matt >

Actually, I just found the Senate Floor Substitute - it was under Amendments and I didn't catch it originally because it was dated 4/2/09 but wasn't actually substituted until a General Order on 4/16/09. http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2009-10%20FLOOR%20AMENDMENTS/Senate/HB1424%20(4-02-09)%20(BROGDON)%20FS%20FA1.PDF As I suspected, the Senate version did not include any reference to multiple family facilities. Also, the Senate Floor Substitute was the draft of the Bill that included new language to define "entity". On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 2:17 PM Matt Love <matt.love@gmail.com> wrote: > David, > > I had the exact thought - this had to have been intended to reach > treatment type facilities and was just using several different terms to try > to catch them all. But I don't think that's what was intended, at least > with reference to "multiple family facilities". When I went through the > legislative history, the Bill as introduced only referenced multiple family > facilities. The Bill Summary said it was about "multiple housing units". It > passed the house, passed out of committee in the Senate, but then there was > a floor amendment on 4/16/2009, a copy of which I cannot find anywhere on > the Legislature's website. But I did find a new Bill Summary for the > version that the Senate adopted (the floor substitute) that was dated > 4/27/2009. That Summary said that the Bill created notice requirements for > treatment facilities, transitional living facilities, halfway houses, and > housing or facilities used for medical or nonmedical detox (notice multi > family is gone). The House rejected the Senate Amendments and it went to > conference, and what came out of the conference committee was the language > we now have. Ironically, there was yet another Bill Summary released the > same day as the Conference Committee Substitute which didn't mention > multifamily housing. But the Conference Committee Substitute definitely > included that language. > > I wish I could find the Floor Amendment version that the Senate actually > voted on. I suspect that it didn't contain a reference to multiple family > facilities. Which would make sense given what came out of the Conference > Committee - a version that appeared to marry together what the House > Authors were after (multiple family facilites) and what the Senate Authors > were after (treatment facilities). > > Obviously as a matter of legislative drafting, it would have been a bit > cleaner if they had just said "multiple family facilities or treatment > facilities, including transitional living facilities, halfway houses and > any housing or facility that may be used for medical or nonmedical > detoxification" - that would make clear that there were two different types > of facilities they were targeting. By jamming MFF into the middle of the > list, it made me initially think that they were really only talking about > treatment type facilities. But in light of the ambiguity in the text, and > then the legislative history, I think an argument can be made that, despite > the poor drafting, this notice requirement applies to both multiple family > facilities as well as a variety of treatment facilities. > > Matt > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1:56 PM david davis <ddavislaw@live.com> wrote: > >> >> The statute is poorly worded as to what is meant by multi family >> facility.. An argument can be made that the additional notice requirements >> only apply to facilities providing treatment for medical or nonmedical >> detoxification as these terms are defined pursuant to Section 3-403 of >> Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes, >> Since the language is not clear I have advised my clients to provide >> additional notice for any zoning classification that allows for >> multi-family facilities including apartments, duplexes, etc. >> >> >> *ection 43-106 - Additional Notice Requirements for Proposed Zoning >> Changes and Reclassifications * >> Cite as: O.S. §, __ __ >> ------------------------------ >> >> A. Except as authorized in subsection B of this section, in addition to >> the notice requirements provided for in Section 43-104 >> <https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=76517> >> of this title, notice of a public hearing on any proposed zoning >> change, except by a municipality acting pursuant to subsection B of this >> section, shall be given twenty (20) days prior to the hearing by mailing >> written notice by the secretary of the planning commission, or by the >> municipal clerk if there is no planning commission, to all the owners of >> real property as provided for in Section 43-105 >> <https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=76518> >> of this title. In addition to the notice required in this subsection, >> if the zoning change requested permits the use of treatment facilities, >> multiple family facilities, transitional living facilities, halfway houses >> and any housing or facility that may be used for medical or nonmedical >> detoxification as these terms are defined pursuant to Section 3-403 of >> Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes, the entity proposing the zoning >> change shall mail a written notice within thirty (30) days of the hearing >> to all real property owners within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile where the >> area to be affected is located and shall be responsible for all costs >> incurred in mailing this notice. The notice shall contain the: >> >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: *This transmission is protected by the Electronic >> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and intended to be >> delivered only to the named addressee(s) This e-mail message is intended >> only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is >> or may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and >> confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, >> copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in >> error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original >> message. * >> >> s/ David A. Davis >> LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. DAVIS >> 4312 N. Classen Blvd. >> OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73118 >> 405 840-6353 >> 405 557-0777 (FAX) >> ddavislaw@live.com >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Matt Love <matt.love@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2023 1:36 PM >> *To:* OAMA luistserv (OAMA@lists.imla.org) <oama@lists.imla.org> >> *Subject:* [Oama] Zoning, Multiple Family Facilities, & Notice >> >> Back in 2009, HB 1424 >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebserver1.lsb.state.ok.us%2Fcf_pdf%2F2009-10%2520ENR%2FhB%2FHB1424%2520ENR.PDF&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WT1xgTFTBFe%2BF2D1e%2FqG1JTcK4Esl6RaZEzN8PNoJ2Q%3D&reserved=0> >> amended Sections 43-104 >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscn.net%2Fapplications%2Foscn%2FDeliverDocument.asp%3FCiteID%3D76517&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AkHITGMhxVZuE2oOZCuy9bRU740YrcFnkHp45NcNspE%3D&reserved=0> >> and 43-106 >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscn.net%2Fapplications%2Foscn%2FDeliverDocument.asp%3FCiteID%3D76519&data=05%7C01%7C%7C67c8936e71e34605369b08db111e5d54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638122594330308725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NNq5uZ48g9sK6KUlejPy7UMN7lygZEcenvzeWtmHntU%3D&reserved=0> >> in Title 11 (as well as 3 statutes related to County zoning) to add in >> language about additional public notice requirements (mailings) for various >> treatment facilities and multiple family facilities. A few of questions on >> anyone whose had to interpret and apply this provision in the last 14 years >> that it's been on the books: >> >> First, what qualifies as a multiple family facility. I don't find a >> statutory definition anywhere in the Oklahoma statutes (I searched for both >> "multiple family facility" and "multiple family facilities" and only found >> the 5 statutes that HB 1424 added the language to), AG opinions, the OAC or >> Federal/State cases. In the absence of a statutory definition, that means >> we go with the plain meaning and understanding. To me, that would mean a >> facility (structure, building, etc.) where you'd have more than one family >> unit that residing - so apartment complexes, or maybe a connected set of >> row townhouses. Would it apply to a multi-family zoning where you'd have >> separate buildings / structures that were on the same lot/parcel? >> >> Second, who has the statutory obligation to send the notice? If you >> compare the first part of 43-106(A) (that was there before HB 1424 was >> adopted), there's a 20 day mailing notice obligation for the secretary of >> the PC or the City Clerk. But when you get to the added language, it >> imposes a 30 day mailing obligation upon "the entity proposing the zoning >> change". HB 1424 then included a broad definition of "entity" that includes >> a municipality, but is not limited to a municipality. To me, the most >> logical reading is that it is the entity - person, corporation, or City - >> that is proposing the zoning change. If the zoning change is being >> initiated by the City on its own initiative, then the City would be the >> proposing entity. But if it's the owner that has applied for rezoning, >> wouldn't they (be they a corporation or an individual) be the entity >> proposing the change? >> >> Third and finally, if my interpretation is correct, and it's the >> applicant seeking a zoning change that would allow for a multiple family >> facility on the property, then what happens if they fail to comply with >> this requirement (either fail to mail anything out or they fail to send a >> notice to everyone within 1/4 mile)? Obviously if we screw up a public >> notice, then someone sues us (the City) for declaratory and/or injunctive >> relief. It would seem that the same would be true in this instance since, >> even though the City wouldn't have had an obligation to send the mailing, >> it's the City's ordinances and the application thereof to the property that >> would be at issue. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Matt >> >