Case Title: RYGG v KALISPELL BOARD OF ADJUSTME

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13033 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STA?'li OF MONTANA 1975 STERLING RYGG and INGA RYGG e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, U L I S P E L L BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF KALISPELL , MONTANA, Defendant and Respondent, and WILLIAM E . ASTLE and DAVID L . ASTLE, Intervenors. Appeal from; N s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel- of Record : For Appellants : Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and P h i l l i p s , Ka l i s p e l l , Montana I. James Heckathorn argued and George B. Best argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondents : Rockwood, Murray and Donahue, K a l i s p e l l , ~ o n t a i a Norbert F. Donahue argued, Kal-ispell, Montana Xstle and A s t l e , Kalispell, Montana William E. A s t l e argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted: December 11, 1975 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by p l a i n t i f f s from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, Flathead County, affirming a variance order granted by the Kalispell Board of Adjustment f o r the operation of a law o f f i c e i n a zoned r e s i d e n t i a l area. P l a i n t i f f s , appellants here, a r e residents of Block 105, Kalispell, Montana. Block 105 .is zonedrag a No. -1 Resi- d e n t i a l D i s t r i c t . The intervenors a r e William E. and David L. Astle, brothers, who a r e lawyers. They purchased a residence i n the zoned r e s i d e n t i a l area and requested a variance f o r the operation of a professional o f f i c e f o r the practice of law i n the r e s i d e n t i a l building located a t 705 Main Street. The application f o r the variance was noticed f o r hearing. P l a i n t i f f s , eight i n number, were present a t the hearing, represented by counsel, and testimony f o r and against t h e variance was heard. The variance was granted with r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t there would be no e x t e r i o r s t r u c t u r a l changes made t o the building and t h a t the use was limited t o two attorneys and two s e c r e t a r i e s . It allowed s i x maintained o f f - s t r e e t parking spaces and a sign erected a s s t a t e d i n a l e t t e r from the Board of Ad- jus tment , P l a i n t i f f s were opponents o r objectors a t the hearing and they sought a w r i t of review i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. The d i s t r i c t court reviewed t h e evidence before the Board of Adjust- ment and affirmed the r u l i n g of t h e Board. It is from t h i s affirmance t h a t the appeal t o t h i s Court i s made. The f a c t s show t h a t the subject property f r o n t s on U.S. Highway No. 93, a primary north-south highway route through Kalispell. It i s s i t u a t e d on the corner of U.S. Highway No. 93 and Seventh Street East; and a t the time of the variance hearing was t h e only existing s i n g l e family use of the four corners of t h e intersection. Also, it is the only s i n g l e family use located on the corner of an intersection from the Flathead County court- house through the c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t of Kalispell. The existing uses of the three corners of t h e intersec- t i o n a r e a multi-family apartment house; a c l i n i c o f f i c e building which includes a mental health c l i n i c with out-patient service and a Carpenters D i s t r i c t Council Office; and a parochial grade school. The southeast corner of Block 105 has an e x i s t i n g law o f f i c e . Across the s t r e e t from t h a t i s a d e n t i s t ' s office. Behind t h e law o f f i c e , fronting on 1st Avenue East, i s an insur- ance office. The objectors were eleven owners of f i v e separate l o t s i n Block 105. Seven out of ten property owners fronting on Main S t r e e t , including t h e applicants, did not oppose the application. The Board did not have formal r u l e s f o r i t s guidance but did have a policy t o consider neighboring commercial properties a s not opposed unless t h e contrary i s expressed. Also t h e policy was t o weigh the views of the neighboring property owners i n reaching a decision i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e e n t i r e community. The subject property was viewed by the Board. The Board s t a t e d , and it is obvious from the foregoing description of the uses, t h a t t h i s area i s i n a t r a n s i t i o n stage. By placing the r e s t r i c t i o n s on the variance granted, the Board made an attempt t o keep the appearance and use limited t o a considerable degree. This appeal i s made on t h e basic proposition t h a t the Board has undertaken t o rezone Block 105 by the expedient of granting continual and successive use variances and t h i s method of rezoning i s improper. In p l a i n t i f f s ' view of the evidence, t h i s was shown. However, whether the "essential character" of the neighbor- hood w i l l be changed does not appear. I n f a c t the contrary appears. In response t o a question concerning a policy of t h e Mayor and the Council on variances, the chairman of the Board of Adjustment t e s t i f i e d : "A. Well, i t ' s s t i l l the same a l l of t h e council together with t h e planning board a r e working on rezoning, not j u s t t h i s area but t h e e n t i r e c i t y and the past thinking has been t h a t i f t h i s area were rezoned, not j u s t t h i s area but Main Street and Idaho S t r e e t , the two U.S. Highways,if they were rezoned, any business could go i n and there could be no stopping it. For instance, the request was made f o r the ~ a c ~ o n a l d ' s Drive-In t o go r i g h t exactly on the property t h a t we a r e talking about r i g h t now and it was discouraged but there was no formal action taken. It j u s t d i d n ' t receive encouragement. The Mayor and the Council have constantly preferred t o have t h i s area i n discussion remain a s residence and l e t variances be granted which would enable more pleasant and a s a t i s f a c t o r y t r a n s i t i o n . I t In t h e context of the e n t i r e testimony, it was c l e a r t h a t only variances which would be compatible with the remaining r e s i d e n t i a l use were considered. W e find t h e issue here i s whether a use variance granted a f t e r s t a t u t o r y procedures have been followed can be s e t aside without a showing of an abuse of discretion? In the i n s t a n t case has any such c l e a r showing been made t o j u s t i f y ' r e v e r s a l of t h e decision of the Board of Adjust- ment or the affirmation thereof by the d i s t r i c t court? Three cases i n Montana e s t a b l i s h t h e c r i t e r i a and authority f o r variances. Freeman v. Board of Adjustment, .97 Mont. 342, 34 P.2d 534; Lambros v. iss sou la, 153 Mont. 20, 452 P. 2d 398; andwheeler v. Armstrong, M o n t . , 533 P.2d 964, 32 St.Rep. 314, a l l recognize the ~ o a r d ' s power t o grant use variance of t h i s type. The c r i t e r i a established by the foregoing cases are: 1) The variance must not be contrary t o public i n t e r e s t . 2) A l i t e r a l enforcement of the zoning ordinance must r e s u l t i n unnecessary hardship, owing t o conditions unique t o the property. 3) The s p i r i t of the ordinance must be observed, and substantial j u s t i c e done. F i r s t , a s previously indicated, we a r e not here concerned with a change i n the e s s e n t i a l character of the neighborhood. W e recognize t h a t p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t a combination of numerous use variances over t h e years has e s s e n t i a l l y changed the character of the neighborhood, but t h i s long period change does not a f f e c t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r application f o r a variance. P l a i n t i f f s c i t e S t a t e ex r e l . Russell Center e t a l . v. City of Missoula, Mont . , 533 P.2d 1087, 32 St.Rep. 292, a s being analogous because there a change from r e s i d e n t i a l use t o commercial parking use was considered a factor, but there t h i s Court said t h a t t o secure such a change required compliance with s t a t u t o r y methods of rezoning, r e f e r r i n g t o sections 11-2704 and 11-2705, R.C.M. 1947. While t h i s Court did not r e f e r t o section 11-2707, R.C.M. 1947, the Board of Adjustment function, it not being necessary, neither did it r e j e c t it. Russell Center - con- cerned t h e question of whether a building permit could authorize a use variance without some compliance with the general zoning s t a t u t e s and ordinances. Whether the Board of Adjustment has a general discretionary power t o grant use variance i s controlled by Freeman, Wheeler, and Lambos. There is simply no showing t h a t t h e f i r s t t e s t concerning public i n t e r e s t was met by p l a i n t i f f s . A s t b the hardship t e s t , b a s i c a l l y p l a i n t i f f s argue t h e Astles have created t h e i r own hardship and had knowledge of the r e s t r i c t i o n s when they bought the property. Thus they argue Astles have not met the showing necessary. I n Freeman t h i s Court i n the year 1934 established broad principles which a l l of the subsequent cases have r e l i e d upon. In Freeman a permit f o r a combined grocery s t o r e and residence was sought i n a r e s i d e n t i a l zone i n Great F a l l s . The Board of Adjustment granted the permit i n an order which found t h a t t h e variation of the terms of the zoning ordinance would not be contrary t o the public i n t e r e s t ; t h a t owing t o special conditions, a l i t e r a l en- forcement of the provisions would r e s u l t i n unnecessary hardship; and t h e variation of the ordinance should be allowed so t h a t t h e s p i r i t of t h e ordinance should be observed and substantial j u s t i c e done. The Court a t t h a t time did not discuss with s p e c i f i c i t y f a c t o r s going t o the determination of unnecessary hardship but did discuss whether o r not a zoning ordinance would be constitutional a t a l l because of the invasion o r unjust limitations upon the f u l l use and enjoyment of property, including i t s value and i t s use. Having determined t h a t property cannot be placed i n a s t r a i t j a c k e t and t h a t what i s reasonable a s t o a r e s t r i c t i o n today might not be reasonable tomorrow, the Court reviewed the evidence and found substantial evidence t o move the discretion of t h e Board and affirmed the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s review. In Freeman the opponents argued t h a t the property owner's only reason f o r building the new s t o r e was because the s t o r e he had occupied i n the same block, but i n another zone, was not a s desirable a s a new building would be. However, the Court found t h e hardship s u f f i c i e n t l y shown. Freeman i s r e a l l y not much d i f - ferent than t h e i n s t a n t case, except t h a t here the Board of Adjust- ment went further t o protect the other owners by applying the additional r e s t r i c t i o n s . In Freeman, t h e Court held i n e f f e c t t h a t t h e variance f o r hardship i s not a limited power f o r minor variances but of a general nature and discretionary with considerable l a t i - tude. W e find then, a f t e r reviewing the record, t h a t there was substantial evidence t o move the discretion of the Board under t h e c r i t e r i a previously established and t h a t t h e appellants have not shown an abuse of discretion. W e affirm. J u s t i c e / J , ( 3 4 & 2 L We Concur: