Opinion ID: 877492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the spot zoning issue

Text: By any definition, this case involves spot zoning of the worst kind. The commissioners were about to zone as commercial a 59-acre tract of land solely to accommodate the Developers, who wanted to build a regional shopping center. The land is surrounded on three sides by City of Kalispell boundaries, and this entire area is, by the trial court's findings, 99 percent residential. Further, the comprehensive plan in effect for this area recommends that the land involved be used for residential purposes. Zoning as was about to take place here is the very opposite of planned zoning. In a memorandum accompanying its findings and conclusions, the trial court aptly characterized the effect of the county commissioners' policy: This case arose because of the policy of the County Commissioners of Flathead County not zoning a tract of land until the owners of that tract petitioned the Commissioners to do so. (Resolution 291) ... The type of zoning here has been condemned as piece-meal zoning and should be struck down ... the action of the County Commissioners (or should we say inaction) is the most flagrant invitation to spot zoning that one could come across. Without regard to any effort put into the comprehensive plan, the commissioners simply refused to consider any zoning except upon application. Due to the failure of the County and the Developers to address this issue, we can only assume that they concede this to constitute spot zoning, but that somehow it should be overlooked. There is no single, comprehensive definition of spot zoning applicable to all fact situations. Generally, however, three factors enter into determining whether spot zoning exists in any given instance. First, in spot zoning, the requested use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area. Second, the area in which the requested use is to apply is rather small. This test, however, is concerned more with the number of separate landowners benefited by the requested change than it is with the actual size of the area benefited. Third, the requested change is more in the nature of special legislation. In other words, it is designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or the general public. See, Williams, 1 American Land Planning Law, at 563; Hagman, Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law (1971), at 169; Rhyne, The Law of Local Government Operations (1980), at 760-761. In explaining the third test, Hagman gives this qualification: The list is not meant to suggest that the three tests are mutually exclusive. If spot zoning is invalid, usually all three elements are present or, said another way, the three statements may merely be nuances of one another. Hagman at 169. This qualification must be heeded because any definition of spot zoning must be flexible enough to cover the constantly changing circumstances under which the test may be applied. For example, in Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown (1951), 302 N.Y. 115, 96 N.E.2d 731, the New York Court of Appeals, in holding that the practices involved constituted spot zoning, stated that spot zoning is the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners. But in Thomas v. Town of Bedford (1961), 15 A.D.2d 573, 222 N.Y.S.2d 1021, aff'd. (1962), 11 N.Y.2d 428, 230 N.Y.S.2d 684, 184 N.E.2d 285, the argument was that the practices involved did not constitute spot zoning because the tract of land involved was not smallit was 123 acres. The court then held that the reference in Rodgers to a small parcel of land was inappropriate. Rather, it is really a question of preferential treatment for one or two persons as against the general public, regardless of the size of the tract involved. Undoubtedly, the county commissioners were engaged in spot zoning here. First, the requested use of Cameron Tract for the commercial development of a regional shopping center is significantly different from the prevailing residential use in the surrounding area. The land is surrounded on three sides by the City boundaries, and this entire area is, by the trial court's findings, almost 99 percent residential. Further, the master plan in effect for this area recommends that the land be used for residential purposes. Zoning such as was about to take place here is the very opposite of planned zoning. Under the third test for spot zoning, Hagman, supra, states that the inquiry should involve whether the requested use is in accord with a comprehensive plan. (Emphasis added.) Although the cases cannot be harmonized completely because of the differences in statutes, zoning has been held invalid as spot zoning when it is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan. See, for example, Hines v. Pinchback-Halloran Volkswagen, Inc.. (Ky. 1974), 513 S.W.2d 492; Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs. (1973), 264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23; Jablon v. Town Planning & Zoning Comm'n. (1969), 157 Conn. 434, 254 A.2d 914. We cannot ignore this test when our zoning statutes place great weight on the comprehensive plan as a guide in zoning. For example, section 76-2-203, supra, specifically states that zoning shall be conducted in accordance with a comprehensive development plan. Applied here, a commercial regional shopping center can hardly be said to fit into a medium-density residential area recommended by the master plan. The second test concerns the size of the area for the requested use. Although most often the size of the area is rather small, that is not always the case, as demonstrated by Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, supra. An important inquiry under this test is how many separate landowners will benefit from the zone classification. See, Spot Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan (Spring 1959), 10 Syracuse L.Rev. 303, at 306. Also, as we have already noted, size may not be the vital factor if the real issue is a question of preferential treatment for one or a few persons as against the general public. Thomas v. Town of Bedford, supra. Here, the area is not small (59 acres), but it does involve the owners of Cameron Tract receiving preferential treatment so that they can build a shopping center in an area designated for residential use in the master plan. The objective of the requested zone classification was clearly to give a special advantage to the Developers. By promulgating Resolution 291, the county commissioners announced to the general public that they were in the business of granting special zoning classifications to owners if at least 50 percent of them in an area asked for a particular classification. The Developers, who owned all of Cameron Tract, seized on this resolution, to secure special privileges for themselves, but it was to the detriment of the plaintiffs who did not want a regional shopping area in the midst of their residential area. Based on these factors, we hold that the county commissioners were engaged in a pernicious system of spot zoning devoid of any redeeming qualities.