Title: STATE EX REL GUTKOWSKI v LANGHOR
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12119
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 1972

N o . 12119 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1972 - - --- STATE OF MONTANA, ex re 1 . , JOSEPH GUTKOSKI , Relator and Respondent, DON M e LANGUOR, JR., e t . al., Defendant~~and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Honorable W . W . Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Berg, ~'Connell, Angel and Andriolo, Bozeman, Montana. Ben E . Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana. Holter and Heath, Bozeman, Montana. For Respondent: McKinley Anderson argued, Bozeman, Montana. Submitted: May 16, 1972 Mr. Chief Justice Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by the city commissioners of Bozeman, Montana, and other Bozeman city officials from a judgment granting a writ of prohibition on behalf of relator Joseph Gutkoski, a landowner in the city of Bozeman, arresting a zone change of certain property and awarding relator counsel fees. The land involved is the east half of lots 8B and 8C of the Homesites Addition to the city of Bozeman. The two parcels of land are owned by Wayne Edsall. Gutkoski owns lot 8A in the same addition, which borders the Edsall property on the south. Edsall first purchased lot 8C and built his family home on the west half. He used the remaining 150 feet for his construction business. In 1967, Edsall purchased the east 150 feet of lot 8B from Richard Munger to expand his construction business. This was the ownership of the land at the time it was annexed by the city. At that time the property was zoned as residential. Adjacent to this land on the east and north is a large trailer court which is zoned as motor business. The events leading to the issuance of the writ of prohi- bition began in November 1970, when Edsall requested the Bozeman City-County Planning Board to rezone the east half of lots 8B and 8C to motor business from residential classification, The board denied his request and the city commission followed the recommenda- tion of the planning board. In early 1971, Edsall again approached the city commission with the same request. At this time the matter was referred to the City Board of Adjustment. This board held a hearing at which time the landowners in the area of the proposed zone change were allowed to present their protests. The Bcard of Adjustment recommended to the city commission that the land be rezoned to the "MB" (motor business) classification. Upon the advice of the c i t y attorney, the c i t y commission passed a resolution of its i n t e n t t o follow the Board of Adjustment's recommendation and gave notice of a public hearing on the question of rezoning, The c i t y commission a f t e r the hearing adopted the zone change rezoning the e a s t half of l o t s 8B and 8 C t o a motor business zone. Suit t o prohibit the enforcement of the change by Gutkoski was commenced on May 5, 1971, and the d i s t r i c t court issued an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of prohibition on May 13, 1971. After a hearing, the d i s t r i c t court declared t h a t the action of the I' c i t y commission was spot zoning" and gave judgment i n favor of Gutkoski, granting a w r i t of prohibition. There a r e two issues presented by t h i s appeal. W e s h a l l deal f i r s t with the question of whether the rezoning by the c i t y I I commission was i n f a c t spot zoning" a s found by the d i s t r i c t court. There a r e many definitions f o r the term "spot zoning", but the most general i s a s defined i n Thomas v. Town of Bedford, 1 1 N.Y.2d 428, 230 N.Y.S.2d 684,688: "* * 9; spot zoning * 7k * i s the 'process of singling out a small parcel of land f o r a use c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the surrounding area, f o r the benefit of the owner of such property and t o the d e t r i - ment of other owners. ' I ' In a review of the f a c t s we do not find the Bozeman c i t y commission was g u i l t y of "spot zoning". The two l o t s a f t e r re- zoning were not t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the rest of the area. To the north and e a s t of these two pieces of land was a large t r a i l e r been court, which had/in existence f o r some time prior t o rezoning action by the c i t y commission. It i s apparent t h a t the commission was doing nothing more than extending a preexisting zone c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t o include a larger area, which we conclude i s not "spot zoning'.'. The case L a w i n t h i s area of the l a w supports t h i s con- clusion. The Supreme Court of Kansas i n a s u i t where a c i t y re- zoned r e s i d e n t i a l property t o a use other than r e s i d e n t i a l upheld t h a t c i t y ' s action a s not being "spot zoning", where the f a c t s showed t h a t the property on three side of the rezoned property was devoted t o uses other than r e s i d e n t i a l . Arkenberg v. City of Topeka, 197 Kan. 731, 421 P.2d 213. The Supreme Court of Washington i n McNaughton v. Boeing, 68 Wash.2d 659, 414 P.2d 778, 780, reached the same conclusion declaring: I I W e find it d i f f i c u l t t o envision the rezoning from residence t o business of a undeveloped t r a c t of 23 acres contiguous t o a business zone a s con- s t i t u t i n g 'spot zoning'. It merely extended an existing business zone. I I Based on t h i s reasoning, we find t h a t the rezoning of the two t r a c t s of land by the c i t y commission of Bozeman was an ex- terlsion of the motor business zone and not "spot zoning". The remaining issue raised by appellants i s whether or not i t w a s proper f o r the d i s t r i c t court t o issue a w r i t of prohibi- t i o n i n t h i s cause. In view of our ruling t h a t the d i s t r i c t court was i n e r r o r i n holding the rezoning t o be "spot zoning", which w i l l require a reversal of the judgment, there would appear t o be no necessity t o discuss the propriety of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s procedure. The judgment t o vacate and annul i s revers the sa and the d i s t r i c t coulrt i s directed I qnd &-smiss the actiod. We Concur: