Trial needed for annexation suit
Posted on Friday, May 9, 2008
BENTONVILLE - The city of Bella Vista followed proper procedures when it annexed 12 unincorporated pockets, but Circuit Judge David Clinger must decide whether each of the pockets fits the factors required by state law.
Clinger issued his ruling Thursday at a hearing on Bella Vista's motion seeking dismissal of the suit.
Several residents and businesses filed suit in August 2007 after the Bella Vista City Council's July 23 decision to annex unincorporated areas within the city limits.
The city added about 360 new residents with the decision to annex the areas.
The council originally tabled the ordinance in May after hearing of disapproval of the annexation from residents of the unincorporated areas at a public hearing. The residents were concerned about possible changes in land use and zoning in those areas, a lack of a planning commission and no obvious benefits from the annexation. The suit states that proper legal notice was not given for a public hearing held May 23 and that the legal description of the annexed areas attached to the ordinance was inadequate. The suit also claims that some of the pockets do not meet the five statutory requirements in order to be annexed • Platted for sale • Held as suburban property • Comprising a densely settled community or growth beyond legal boundary; • Needed for proper purposes, such as the extension of police regulation; or • Deemed valuable for prospective municipal uses.
Clinger found that Bella Vista did follow proper procedure and notice concerning the annexation.
However, Clinger ruled that a trial is necessary in order to determine whether each of the pockets meets the statutory requirements.
Clinger gave the attorney several possible trial dates for next year.
A pretrial hearing in the case is scheduled for 9: 30 a.m. Nov. 6.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online