Title: MARTZ v BUTTE-SILVER BOW GOVERNMEN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-237
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 26, 1982

No. 81-237 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA HARRY G. and LILLIAN MARTZ, husband and wife, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, BUTTE-SILVER BOW GOVERNMENT, STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, In and for the County of Silver Bow Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Robert M. McCarthy argued, County Attorney, Butte, For Respondents: Cannon, Parish and Sheehy, Helena, Montana Ross W. Cannon argued and Edmund F. Sheehy argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: October 27, 1981 Decided: January 26, 1982 Filed: JAN 2 6 2522 Montana M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . Defendant appeals from summary judgment i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Butte-Silver B o w i n which Butte-Silver B o w Ordinance No. 53 was found t o be (1) i n v a l i d because it was enacted i n v i o l a t i o n of Montana laws governing zoning, and ( 2 ) unconsti- t u t i o n a l l y exclusive because it r e s t r i c t e d mobile homes and mobile home parks t o an impermissibly s m a l l percentage of t h e a r e a zoned. W e vacate t h e summary judgment and remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. The following i s s u e s a r e presented t o t h i s Court f o r review: (1) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n concluding t h a t Ordinance No. 53 w a s n o t enacted i n accordance with Montana law governing planning and zoning? ( 2 ) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n holding Ordinance No. 53 u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because of i t s exclusionary e f f e c t on mobile homes and mobile home parks? ( 3 ) Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err when it granted p l a i n t i f f s ' amended motion f o r summary judgment? O n March 1 4 , 1972, t h e Butte-Silver Bow City-County Planning Board adopted a comprehensive master plan f o r t h e City of Butte and p o r t i o n s of S i l v e r B o w County. The master p l a n covered t h e e n t i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a of t h a t Planning Board and was accepted by both t h e c i t y government and t h e county government within a few months. I n May of 1977, t h e City of Butte and t h e County of S i l v e r B o w consolidated i n t o a s i n g l e p o l i t i c a l e n t i t y known a s "Butte-Silver Bow," t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a of which was a l l of S i l v e r Bow County except Walkerville. In August of 1978, the government of Butte-Silver Bow approved and enacted Ordinance No. 53, which had been recommended to them in January of 1978 by the old City-County Planning Board, acting as the Zoning Commission. Ordinance No. 53 covered the entire jurisdictional area of the old City- County Planning Board, but no more. At the time it was enacted, the new government of Butte-Silver Bow had no planning board and no comprehensive plan for its total jurisdictional area. Ordinance No. 53 zones an area of 44,134.3 acres comprising the City of Butte and land within four-and-one-half miles of the Butte city limits prior to consolidation. Ordinance No. 53 permits mobile homes on private lots in areas zoned R-4 and R-4s but permits mobile home parks only in areas zoned R-4. The minimum lot size in areas zoned R-4s is one acre. 95% of the total area zoned is zoned residential, but only 2.2% is zoned R-4 and 4.5% zoned R-4s. The percentage of vacant land in the R-4 and R-4s areas amounts, respectively, to .9% and 4.2% of the total area zoned. The parties agree that there is a shortage of adequate on-site conventional housing in the Butte-Silver Bow area, and that, by 1990, some 2,250 new homes will be needed (4,440 considering displacement and replacement of existing housing). On April 4, 1979, plaintiffs Martz requested permission of the Butte-Silver Bow office of Building and Code Enforcement to place a mobile home upon their land on Eagle Street in Butte, in an area zoned R-2. Their request was denied, but the Martzes commenced installing a mobile home anyway. On April 16, 1979, Butte-Silver Bow served plaintiff Great Western Trailer Sales with a compliance order to stop installing t h e Martz mobile home. The next day, a Building and Code Enforcement o f f i c e r informed t h e Martzes t h a t they would have t o remove t h e i r mobile home from t h e Eagle S t r e e t l o t . P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r complaint on A p r i l 23, 1979, and obtained a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order, which, by s t i p u l a t i o n , became an i n j u n c t i o n pendente lite. O n March 31, 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted p l a i n t i f f s ' amended motion f o r summary judgment, holding t h a t : (1) There were no genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t ; ( 2 ) Ordinance No. 53 was i n v a l i d because it w a s n o t enacted i n accordance with Montana law governing planning and zoning; and ( 3 ) Ordinance No. 53 was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because of i t s exclusionary e f f e c t upon mobile homes and mobile home parks. Defendants appeal. Execution of t h e order permanently enjoining enforcement of Ordinance No. 53 has been stayed pending appeal. I. I n deciding t h a t Ordinance No. 53 was not enacted i n accordance with Montana l a w , t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e l i e d upon s e c t i o n s 76-1-601 and 76-2-304, MCA, which s t a t e , r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "The planning board s h a l l prepare and propose a master plan f o r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. . ." and "Such [municipal zoning] r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l be made i n accordance with a comprehensive plan . . ." The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t t h e s e s t a t u t e s r e q u i r e a master plan embracing t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a of t h e planning board f o r the new, consolidated e n t i t y (Butte-Silver Bow) before t h e governing body of t h a t e n t i t y may enact zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o r e l i e d upon t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Allen v . Flathead County (1979), Mont. , 601 P.2d 399, 36 St.Rep. 1839, wherein w e held c e r t a i n zoning r e g u l a t i o n s i n Flathead County t o be i n v a l i d . A planning board f o r t h e whole of Flathead County w a s c r e a t e d i n 1972. Several years later, t h e Flathead County Commissioners c r e a t e d a s e p a r a t e , smaller zoning d i s t r i c t within Flathead County and adopted r e g u l a t i o n s pursuant t o a 1974 zoning plan f o r t h a t smaller d i s t r i c t . W e held a s follows: ". . . [Tlhe c l e a r and unambiguous language of s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA, r e q u i r e s t h a t a county adopt a comprehensive development plan f o r an e n t i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. Only a f t e r t h e adoption of such a plan may a county adopt zoning regulations." Allen v. Flathead County, Mont. , 601 P.2d a t 402, 36 St.Rep. a t 1842. The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t Allen, l i k e t h e above s t a t u t e s , required a comprehensive master plan f o r a l l of Butte-Silver Bow before v a l i d zoning r e g u l a t i o n s could be enacted. Section 76-2-201, MCA, r e q u i r e s "a - comprehensive development -- plan f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a s pursuant - t o chapter 1" before county commissioners a r e authorized t o enact - zoning regulations. Chapter 1 ( P a r t 5 - J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Area) i s q u i t e c l e a r t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a s contemplated a r e those of t h e planning boards, n o t t h e governing e n t i t i e s . I n Allen, supra, Mont. a t , 601 P.2d a t 400, 36 St.Rep. a t 1840, t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a -- of t h e planning board was a l l of Flathead County (except Columbia F a l l s ) . The MCA s e c t i o n s on planning and zoning ( T i t l e 76, Chapter 2 ) i n d i c a t e t h e need f o r a master plan f o r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a , b u t do n o t specify whether t h e area referred to is that of the planning board or that of the governing body. In light of section 76-2-201, MCA, above, we find that the jurisdictional area referred to in these sections is that of the planning board. In most cases, as in Allen, supra, the jurisdictional area of the planning board will be identical to that of the governing body. In fact, that is now the case in Butte- Silver Bow, where, in December of 1978, some months after the effective date of Ordinance No. 53, the Council of Commissioners created a Butte-Silver Bow Planning Board. But at the time Ordinance No. 53 was enacted, the Butte- Silver Bow Planning Board did not exist. The Council of Commissioners, in enacting Ordinance No. 53, relied upon a properly-enacted comprehensive plan for the entire jurisdictional area of the planning board which developed that plan. Under the circumstances, that is sufficient. Plaintiffs do not argue that the comprehensive plan adopted by the city-county authorities in 1972, prior to consolidation, was improperly enacted. They do question whether the extension of jurisdictional area pursuant to section 76-1-505, MCA, to four-and-one-half miles beyond the Butte city limits conflicts with section 76-2-310(2), MCA, limiting extension of municipal zoning to three miles beyond the city limits of larger cities such as Butte. We need only point out that section 76-1-505. MCA, explicitly addresses the extension of boundaries of city-county planning board jurisdictional area and is controlling in this case. We are aware that this interpretation of Montana's zoning statutes could encourage newly-consolidated governing bodies to delay creating their own planning boards in order to quickly enact zoning regulations in accordance with pre- existing properly adopted master plans for smaller areas w i t h i n t h e consolidated area. That is, nevertheless, p r e f e r a b l e t o mandating a period of i n a c t i v i t y from t h e t i m e of consolida- t i o n t o t h e t i m e t h e new government can c r e a t e a planning board and t h a t board can develop a comprehensive plan f o r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a of t h e consolidated government. I t i s t r u e , a s t h i s Court noted i n Allen, supra, t h a t , when a master plan i s i n t h e works, a county government may adopt interim zoning a s an emergency measure, which zoning cannot continue e f f e c t i v e f o r more than two years. Section 76-2-206, MCA. But, i n t h i s case, t h e new government had n e i t h e r planning board nor comprehensive plan; nor was t h e development of a comprehensive plan contemplated u n t i l w e l l a f t e r t h e information r e l a t i n g t o population d e n s i t i e s and land use became a v a i l a b l e through t h e 1980 United S t a t e s Census. W e cannot say t h a t t h e circumstances h e r e supported i n t e r i m zoning. W e f i n d t h a t Butte-Silver B o w Ordinance No. 53 w a s enacted i n accordance with Montana law. 11. The second i s s u e r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t s i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n concluding t h a t Ordinance No. 53 had an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y exclusionary e f f e c t upon mobile homes and mobile home parks. The ~ i s t r i c t Court r e l i e d upon defendants' answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , which s t a t e d t h a t (1) only .9% of t h e t o t a l a r e a zoned was vacant land zoned R-4 (mobile homes and mobile home parks permitted) and only 4.2% was zoned R - 4 s (mobile homes permitted -- one a c r e minimum l o t s i z e ) ; and ( 2 ) by 1990, 2,550 new dwelling u n i t s would be required (4,440, considering replacement) t o s a t i s f y t h e shortage of s a t i s f a c t o r y o n - s i t e conventional housing. The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t a municipality must i n s u r e t h a t a f a i r share of housing i s within t h e reach of persons of low and moderate incomes; where a zoning ordinance l i m i t s mobile home parks t o less than 1% of t h e land zoned, t h e zoning i s tantamount t o an exclusionary ban on mobile home parks and i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ; and pointed o u t t h a t a zoning ordinance which permits mobile homes on l o t s having a l a r g e minimum s i z e may be exclusionary. With regard t o t h i s zoning ordinance, t h e D i s t r i c t Court f u r t h e r concluded i n p a r t : "The minimum l o t s i z e i n an R-4s zone, a s shown i n Finding of Fact No. V I , i s exclusionary s i n c e mobile homes a r e permitted on smaller l o t s only i n R-4 zones which comprise 2.2% of t h e t o t a l land a r e a zoned as set o u t i n Finding of Fact No. X. [9% of vacant R-4 zoned land.] "The p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t of allowing mobile homes i n R-4s zones where t h e minimum l o t s i z e i s one a c r e i s t o exclude low and moderate income f a m i l i e s d e s i r i n g t o l i v e i n mobile homes from l o c a t i n g them i n t h e Butte-Silver B o w a r e a . I t i s e s p e c i a l l y s o s i n c e mobile homes provide t h e only a v a i l a b l e , decent and s u i t a b l e form of low c o s t housing. O & Forest Mobile Home -- Park, - Inc. v. C i t y of Oak F o r e s t , 27 Ill. App. 3d 303, 326 N . E . 2 d 3 7 3 9 7 5 ) . ". . . [Tlhe amount of land made a v a i l a b l e f o r mobile home use under Ordinance No. 53, i s d e f a c t o exclusionary and u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because it has t h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t of banning addition- a l mobile homes from Butte-Silver Bow. Mobile homes and mobile home parks a r e l e g i t i m a t e land uses and may not be banned from a community. Colonial -- ~ a ; k f o r Mobile Homes, Inc. v. New - - - B r i t a i n Township, 4 0 8 A.2d 1160 (Pa. 1979)." Defendants concede t h a t it would be an improper exclusionary device t o p r o h i b i t mobile homes o r t o confine them only t o mobile home parks. Defendants argue t h a t t h e ordinance does provide extensive a r e a o u t s i d e of mobile home parks f o r mobile homes which -- do n o t meet t h e Uniform Building Codes (UBC) standards. O f p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e is t h e contention of defendants t h a t mobile homes which meet UBC standards a r e n o t excluded from R-1, R-2 o r R-3 zones. Defendants p o i n t - o u t t h a t under t h e ordinance, i f mobile homes meet UBC requirements, they can be located i n any r e s i d e n t i a l zone. Defendants f u r t h e r argue t h a t mobile homes which f a l l below UBC standards may pose a r e a l and s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t t o h e a l t h and welfare. From t h e d e f i n i t i o n s contained i n Ordinance No. 53, we a r e not a b l e t o determine i f a mobile home meeting UBC standards could be c l a s s e d a s a "modular dwelling" o r a "residence," a s contended by defendants. The record f a i l s t o show i f a mobile home can be made t o conform t o UBC standards, and thereby become acceptable a s a residence i n zones R-1, R-2 and R-3. The record does n o t show any comparison of t h e standards required under t h e UBC and t h e United S t a t e s Department of Housing and Urban Development ( H U D ) . 1 The defendants' answer t o an i n t e r r o g a t o r y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e r e is a d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e UBC and t h e HUD standards: " I n addressing t h e i s s u e r e l a t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e q u a l i t y of individual housing u n i t s i n Butte-Silver Bow, t h e Council of Commissioners adopted t h e Uniform Building Codes a s a minimum community standard f o r housing development. Mobile Homes, however, a r e constructed under an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s e t of codes which were developed by t h e United S t a t e s Department of Housing and Urban Development. The two codes take a d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t approach toward housing construction." If a mobile home meeting HUD standards can be made t o conform t o UBC standards without unreasonable expense, and i f such conformity renders a mobile home acceptable i n a l l r e s i d e n t i a l zones, t h e r e i s no b a s i s t o claim an exclusion. However, i f UBC standards a r e n o t a t t a i n a b l e by most mobile homes, a s suggested by counsel i n t h e course of o r a l arguments, then '~11 mobile homes manufactured a f t e r June 15, 1976, must conform t o HUD standards. (Defendants' Admission No. 9, dated J u l y 8, 1980.) mobile homes could be effectively banned from residential zones R-1, R-2 and R-3 under the zoning ordinance, raising the question of an unconstitutional exclusion. The record before us therefore discloses a critical issue of material fact. This Court has held that the question to be determined on a motion for summary judgment is whether there exists a genuine dispute of material facts, stating in Byrd v. Bennett (1981), Mont. P. 2d , 38 St.Rep. 1083, 1084, as follows: "In a summary judgment proceeding, the formal issues presented by the pleadings are not controlling. The question to be decided in a motion for summary judgment is whether there exists a genuine dispute over material facts. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the complete absence of material factual questions. The proof prof- fered by the movant is closely scrutinized. The party opposing the motion may block sum- mary judgment by offering proof that a dis- pute exists regarding facts material to the claim for relief." This Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate when the movant shows a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact and the defendants fail to present evidence of such an issue. Willson v. Taylor (1981), Mont. I P. 2d , 38 St.Rep. 1606, 1611. The presence of the above described issues of material fact which are critical to the determination of this case makes a summary judgment decision not appropriate. Without additional information in the record before it, the District Court is unable to determine if the UBC standards referred to in the zoning ordinance effectively exclude mobile homes from certain areas. We reverse the lower court and remand with instructions to enter a judgment finding that Butte-Silver Bow Ordinance No. 53 was properly enacted in accordance with Montana law; and with instructions to the District Court to conduct such f u r t h e r proceedings a s t h e D i s t r i c t Court f i n d s t o be necessary i n order t o determine t h e f a c t s regarding t h e standards of construction required f o r t h e construction of mobile homes under t h e UBC standards and t h e HUD standards, and t h e r e a f t e r again consider t h e claim of t h e p l a i n t i f f s . W e Concur: