Case Title: WHEELER v ARMSTRONG

Citation: 

Docket Number: 12516

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12516 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 JAMES W H E E L E R and EDITH WHEELER, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, -vs - RALPH ARMSTRONG, GEORGE GILLETTE et a l . , Respondents and Defendants, -vs - DEAN H. TRAVIS e t a l . , Intervenors . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Jack Shanstrom, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana Lyman Bennett 1 1 1 argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents : Olson and Gai, Bozeman, Montana Thomas A. Olson argued, Bozeman, Montana For Intervenors: Brown and G i l b e r t , Bozeman, Montana Gene I. Brown argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: March 6 , 1975 Decided: AFR - 3 19% Filed: - 3 4 1 9 7 5 PER CURIAM: This i s t h e culmination of a s e r i e s of r e l a t e d cases. The f a c t s a r e d e t a i l e d i n Wheeler v. Armstrong, 159 Mont. 392, 498 P.2d 300. W e promulgated a unanimous opinion on November 19, 1974; subsequently granted a rehearing, and reheard t h e e n t i r e matter on March 6 , 1975. This opinion replaces t h a t issued on November 19, 1974 a s reported i n 31 St.Rep. 907. E s s e n t i a l l y what has occurred i s t h i s : Appellants James and Edith Wheeler ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Wheelers) own approximately e i g h t a c r e s of land west of t h e Bozeman c i t y l i m i t s . A s e a r l y a s 1966 some r e s i d e n t s of t h e t h e area attempted t o have/area zoned, but a s of t h e spring of 1970 when t h e Wheelers began constructing a mobile home park on t h e i r property, t h e r e were no zoning r e s t r i c t i o n s . After some l e g a l prodding by these same r e s i d e n t s , t h e respondent zoning board (Zoning Board of Planning and Zoning D i s t r i c t No. One, G a l l a t i n County, Montana, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e zoning board) on June 1 2 , 1970, adopted an ordinance making t h e exis- tence of a mobile home park i n t h i s a r e a a conditional use. When t h i s ordinance was adopted t h e Wheelers already had t h r e e mobile home u n i t s on t h e property and had obtained permission from t h e county f o r i n s t a l l a t i c n of s e p t i c tanks f o r t h r e e more. During t h e summer of 1970, t h e Wheelers continued t o move mobile homes onto t h e i r property even though no a p p l i c a t i o n was made f o r a conditional use permit as required by t h e ordinance. O n March 18, 1971, t h e zoning board obtained an injunction a g a i n s t t h e Wheelers prohibiting them from f u r t h e r v i o l a t i n g t h e zoning ordinance and ordering them t o remove a l l but s i x of t h e mobile home u n i t s . (A nonconforming use f o r these s i x u n i t s had been e s t a b l i s h e d . ) The Wheelers refused t o comply with t h i s order and ultimately were c i t e d f o r contempt. O n J u l y 1, 1971, t h e Wheelers p e t i t i o n e d t h e zoning board f o r a variance with r e s p e c t t o t h e balance of t h e property. Since t h e i r p e t i t i o n s e t f o r t h s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same matters which had been l i t i g a t e d a t p r i o r hearings, t h e zoning board denied it. Appeal was taken t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , but was d i s - missed on t h e theory of res judicata. The d i s m i s s a l , i n t u r n , was appealed t o t h i s Court and r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n of Wheeler v. Armstrong, 159 Mont. 392, 498 P.2d 300. W e held t h e r e t h a t t h e Wheelers were a t l e a s t e n t i t l e d t o a hearing on t h e i r p e t i - t i o n because a nonconforming use and variance were n o t t h e same and t h e r e f o r e t h e p r i o r l i t i g a t i o n was n o t r e s judicata. The hearing ( t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s appeal) was held on January 3, 1973. A t t h i s hearing t h e i n t e r v e n o r s Dean Travis, e t a l . , were made p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . Wheelers produced sev- e r a l neighbors who t e s t i f i e d they had no o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e exten- s i o n of t h e mobile home park. Intervenors presented an o f f s e t t - i n g number of witnesses who t e s t i f i e d t o t h e contrary. The zoning board c a l l e d Richard Mayfield, city-county planning d i r e c t o r i n Bozeman, who t e s t i f i e d about t h e land use plan f o r t h e a r e a . Among o t h e r t h i n g s , Mayfield s a i d s t u d i e s revealed severe l i m i - t a t i o n s i n t h e a r e a with r e s p e c t t o building foundations, s e p t i c waste d i s p o s a l and hydrology. From t h e judgment entered f o r r e - spondent board and intervenors denying t h e variance, t h e Wheelers appealed. The i s s u e is whether t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t were f a i r l y supported by t h e evidence. Applications f o r variances t o zoning ordinances a r e governed by t h e d e c i s i o n s i n Freeman v. Board of Adjustment, 97 Mont. 342, 34 P.2d 534, and Lambros v. Missoula, 153 Mont. 2 0 , 26, 452 P.2d 393. Lambros s e t s o u t t h r e e c r i t e r i a a p e t i t i o n f o r variance must meet: 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 t h e zoning ordinance must r e s u l t i n unnecessary hardship, owing t o conditions unique t o t h e property; and 3 ) The s p i r i t of t h e ordinance must be observed, and s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e done. Applying t h e s e c r i t e r i a t o the evidence before it, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found a g a i n s t t h e Wheelers i n each instance. In reviewing t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, we note t h e r u l e s t a t e d i n Freeman,that it i s only necessary t o a s c e r t a i n whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l and competent evidence t o s u s t a i n t h e a c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The Wheelers contend t h a t our decision i n Wheeler pre- cluded t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h i s proceeding from taking j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h e other r e l a t e d cases between t h e same p a r t i e s . How- ever, t h e record shows t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t took j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of these o t h e r cases only t o the e x t e n t t h e i r f a c t s were relevant t o t h e i n s t a n t case. The c o u r t s t a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y these cases were not res judicata a s t o t h e new i s s u e s . This r u l i n g was t h e r e f o r e proper and not inconsistent with our holding i n Wheeler. A t t h e hearing counsel f o r Wheelers i n v i t e d Judge Shanstrom t o view t h e a r e a . Judge Shanstrom indicated he would do so and found a s f a c t s t h a t : "The Wheelers planned t h e i r forty-seven u n i t t r a i l e r c o u r t with knowledge t h a t t h e a r e a r e s i d e n t s had previously submitted a zoning p e t i t i o n t o t h e County Commissioners. "The Wheelers expended monies on t h e p r o j e c t with knowledge t h a t t h e l o c a l D i s t r i c t Court had taken j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e matter. "The Wheelers expended money and continued t o move t r a i l e r s onto t h e property a f t e r t h e Zoning Com- mission had f i l e d an ordinance describing t h e Court a s a 'conditional u s e 1 , only a f t e r p e t i t i o n . "The Wheelers expended money, and moved a d d i t i o n a l t r a i l e r s onto t h e i r land a f t e r Judge Stewart found they had a r i g h t t o only s i x t r a i l e r s . "The Wheelers refused t o remove t h e excessive number of t r a i l e r s u n t i l they had been fined and found i n contempt of Court. "Any i n j u r y suffered by Wheelers has been caused by t h e i r own negligence and d e l i k r a t e v i o l a t i o n of Court orders, noted above. "The surrounding property i n t h e a r e a i n question i s r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l homes. N o t r a i l e r c o u r t s a r e located i n t h e immediate v i c i n i t y of the Wheeler property. "The h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n o f f i c e r s have expressed concern over t h e immediate i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e e n t i r e t r a i l e r court. I' Judge Shanstrom then concluded: "The hardship suffered by Wheelers i s a r e s u l t of t h e i r own negligence and d e l i b e r a t e v i o l a t i o n s of t h i s Court's Orders and not t h e r e s u l t of t h e unique condition of t h e i r property. "The character of t h e neighborhood would be m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d and changed by t h e granting of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r variance. "The neighborhood has experienced s a n i t a t i o n problems i n t h e p a s t and t h e imposition of t h e t r a i l e r c o u r t proposed, i s not j u s t i f i e d . "The granting of a variance t o t h e Wheelers is con- t r a r y t o t h e public i n t e r e s t . " Clearly, under t h e t h r e e c r i t e r i a heretofore s e t f o r t h , t h e s e findings and conclusions a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e variance was not proper. Wheelers d i d show t h a t they could comply with h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n regulations, but d i d not show where t h e public i n t e r e s t would be served by a variance. Also, from t h e findings hereto- f o r e s e t f o r t h , it i s seen t h a t any hardship w a s l a r g e l y s e l f - imposed, i n t h e sense t h a t Wheelers were going t o go ahead i n s p i t e of anything. W e have reviewed t h e e n t i r e record and f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o uphold t h e findings of t h e d i s t r i c t court. We affirm the judgment. Honorable Alfred B. Coate, District Judge, sat in place of Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison.