Case Title: ALDEN v BOARD OF ZONING COMMISSION

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1974-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
No, 12749 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 74 R O B E R T R. ALDEN, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, BOARD O F ZONING COMMISSIONERS, e t a l . , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : John L. Hamner argued, Butte, Montana For Respondent : Lawrence G. Stimatz, County Attorney, Butte, Montana Submitted : November 12, 1974 Filed : I z 4374 > , M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal by a property owner from an order of the d i s t r i c t court, Silver B o w County, dismissing the property owner's appeal from a r u l i n g of the Board of County Commissioners i n a zoning matter. This i s an unusual and unprecedented s i t u a t i o n where t h e respondent-defendant Board does not appear by b r i e f or argument, even thnugh t h i s Court issued an x d e r t o show cause a s t? why such appearance was not made. Under such s i t u a t i o n t h i s Court s h a l l take t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s v e r s h n s and positions a s being correct i f they a r e i n f a c t supported by the record. The d i s t r i c t court order appealed from reads: " p l a i n t i f f has f i l e d i n the above e n t i t l e d a c t i ~ n an anpeal frqm a r u l i n g of the 3oard of Cqunty Commis- sioners and i t s c~mmission i n accordance with T i t l e 16, Chapter 41, Revised Codes of Pfontana, 1947, a s amended. Said appeal came regularly on f o r hearing before the court. P l a i n t i f f was present and represented by counsel, John Leslie Hamner and the defendants were represented by designated individuals and were represented by the County Attorney of Silver B3w County, Montana, Lawrence Stimatz. Witnesses were sworn and t e s t i f i e d . Upon the conclusion of the testimony the matter, upon t h e furnishing of b r i e f s by the respective p a r t i e s , was submitted t o the court f ~ r d e c i s i m and was thereupon taken under advise- ment by the court. " ~ r o m t h e record, the testimony and the b r i e f s , the Court finds a s follows: "1. That Chapter 41 of T i t l e 16 of the Revised Codes of ?lantana, 1947, a s amended, was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court qf Montana i n Missoula County v. Missoula City, 139 I~iontana a t page 256. "2. That Chapter 47 of said T i t l e 16 3f the Revised Codes 3f Montana, 1947, a s amended, does n ~ t supersede or supplement Chapter 41 of said T i t l e 16 of the Revised Codes of Xontana, 1947 a s amended. "3. That p l a i n t i f f among other things, i n h i s appeal, has alleged t h a t the o r i g i n a l zoning regulations were amended * * *, but t h a t such amendments and changes follow unreasonable, a r b i t r a r y and discriminatory boundaries * * ** "4. That p l a i n t i f f has the duty t o prove by a prepon- derance of the evidence the allegations of h i s claim. I l a i n t i f f has f a i l e d t o carry such burden. "5. That by p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o prove the allegations of h i s claim a s aforesaid, p l a i n t i f f ' s appeal must be dismissed. 7 he court concludes a s follows: hat p l a i n t i f f ' s appeal i s ordered dismissed. " ~ e t judgment be entered i n accordance with the foregoing. " ~ a t e d December 26, 1973. "s/ James D. Freebourn Judge. I I The only issue actually ruled 9n was t h a t Chapter 47 did not amend Chapter 41 of t h e 1947 Revised Codes of Montana; and t h a t Alden f a i l e d i n h i s burden of proof. Since t h e matter i s not contested here, we doubt the wisdom of an i n depth treatment of the v a l i d i t y of a l l the issues pre- sented. Appellant lists nine issues under three general headings: (1) Appellant claims the zoning plan i s generally invalid; (2) That even i f v a l i d , there was a r b i t r a r y and i l l e g a l dis- crimination a s t o appellant's property; and ( 3 ) That the f a c t s proven did not f a i l t o carry the burden of proof. A t t r i a l only two witnesses testified,Alden, the property owner, and one DeGeorge, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. Exhibits c ~ n s i s t i n g of two maps and a copy of the resolution establishing a planning and zoning d i s t r i c t f 3 r the Floral Park area were introduced. The two maps show Alden's p r ~ p e r t y a s a vacant l o t and a l o t containing a multiple purpose building, surrounded by commercial properties except f o r one residence, and i n somewhat 9f a t r a n s i - t i o n area between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l . The Board chairman t e s t i f i e d , i n e f f e c t , t h a t be t h a t a s i t may, the grandfather clause covering any use e x i s t i n g would adequately protect Alden. More w i l l be said l a t e r about the "grandfather clause". Alden moved f o r a new t r i a l and f g r amendment of the order t o show a r u l i n g 9n the specific issues attacking the v a l i d i t y of the resolution i t s e l f . This was denied. A reading of the resolution shows t h a t it i s not i n conformity with sections 16-4102 through section 16-4107, R.C.14. 1947, i n many p a r t i c u l a r s , contrary t~ the findings of the d i s t r i c t court hereto- f o r e quoted. Appellant argues the resolution contains a number of invalid and i l l e g a l p r w i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t the e n t i r e r e s o l u t i m and make it invalid a s t o h i s p r ~ p e r t i e s . W e need nor r u l e here on t h i s . Here the f a c t s gleaned from the exhibits and the testimony of the two witnesses demonstrate an i l l e g a l discrimination a s t o a p p e l l a n t ' s propertics. The t r i a l court merely ruled t h a t appellant f a i l e d t o carry the burden of proof. These f a c t s show unreasonable discrimination a s t o appellant's property: (1) The zoning b3ard modified i t s o r i g i n a l plan by creating a commercial d i s t r i c t due south of and c-mtiguous t o a p p e l l a n t ' s land, prior t o adopti,?n of the plan, and f o r no apparent reason it f a i l e d t o include appellant's property i n a commercial designation. ( 2 ) There i s but one residence surrounded by commercial propertiesdthin the area designated R-1 Residential between the above described commercial d i s t r i c t and t h e boundary of the zoning d i s t r i c t due north: and t h i s includes appellant's pr3perty having a commercial use. (3) The "existing use provision" of the F l ? r a l Park plan goes beyond the expression of the l e g i s l a t u r e i n these sections of the Revised Codes of Montana, 1947: "16-4102. * * * providing t h a t e x i s t i n g nonconforming uses may be continued, although not i n conformity with such zoning regulations. 11 "16-4709. Continuatton of e x i s t i n g uses. Any lawful use which i s made of land or buildings a t the time any zqning resolution i s adopted by the board of county commissioners may be continued, although such use docs not conform t o the provisions of such resolution. I I Section 13-19 of the Floral Park plan creates a s i t u a t i o n where property i n existence conflicting a s t o height, area, yards, c o u r t s , ~ f l o o r area and set-baclc r e s t r i c t i o n s i s taken from the - protection of the above c i t e d two cqde sections. Thus, the grandfather clause would not protect appellant, since one of h i s properties i s a vacant l o t and the other commercial but defined by the resolution so a s not t o be protected. This amounts t o an unreasonable and discriminatory action. The order of the d i s t r i c t court i s reversed. The cause i s returned t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r entry of an order e i t h e r excludtng Alden's property from the zoning provisions or x d e r i n g the C~mmission t o z'xie it properly a s commercial. The record indicates, without clearing i t up, t h a t t h e c i t y i s going t o o r has annexed part of the area and we a r e unable t o determine frgm t h i s record the t r u e situation. Appellant s h a l l have h i s costs. W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e n Justices.