Opinion ID: 884702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review of Planning Board and Board of Adjustment decisions

Text: ¶ 20 Sutey Oil next argues the District Court erred in affirming the Board of Adjustment's decision denying its application for a special use permit because there existed no evidence that the proposed expansion would materially or adversely impact any of the statutory zoning regulation criteria set forth in § 76-2-304, MCA, and recognized by this Court in Lowe, 165 Mont. at 41, 525 P.2d at 552-53. ¶ 21 Sutey Oil argues it was incumbent upon the Planning Board, in making its decision regarding Sutey Oil's application for a special use permit, to consider and comply with the following statutory provisions: 76-2-304. Purposes of zoning. (1) Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and designed to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. (2) Such regulation shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such municipality. ¶ 22 Relying on our decision in Lowe, Sutey Oil argues the Planning Board was compelled to consider and comply with the criteria set forth in § 76-2-304, MCA, in making its decision regarding Sutey Oil's application for a special use permit. In Lowe, we concluded the district court had abused its discretion in upholding a decision by the Missoula City Council to adopt a rezoning ordinance. Lowe, 165 Mont. at 41, 525 P.2d at 553. In so concluding, we considered the twelve criteria set forth in § 76-2-304, MCA, and held the factual information upon which the Missoula City Council had relied in adopting the rezoning ordinance at issue was so lacking, that its action, as well as that of the district court, constituted an abuse of discretion. Lowe, 165 Mont. at 41, 525 P.2d at 553. ¶ 23 In the present case, Sutey Oil argues the Planning Board's decision to deny Sutey Oil's application for a special use permit on the grounds that the proposed use would be incompatible to neighboring land which is designated single family residential land use, does not take into account the statutory criteria set forth in § 76-2-304, MCA. Sutey Oil asserts [t]here has been absolutely no evidence that the operation of on-premises gambling of the type that was to be used in this convenience store would materially or adversely impact any of those mandatory criteria outlined in § 76-2-304, MCA. In light of the foregoing, Sutey Oil suggests, the Planning Board abused its discretion in denying Sutey Oil's application for a special use permit and the District Court erred in affirming the Board's decision. ¶ 24 Upon remand, the Planning Board explained that it was denying Sutey Oil's application because the proposed expansion would be incompatible to neighboring land which is designated single family residential land use. Moreover, the Planning Board noted that [t]he Public Hearing, held on April 20, 1995, clearly indicated that the adjoining neighborhood did believe that the beer/wine license would have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood designated for single family residential. ¶ 25 As discussed above, we review the District Court's order upholding the Board of Adjustment's decision for an abuse of discretion. Lambros, 153 Mont. at 26, 452 P.2d at 401. In its order affirming the Board of Adjustment's decision, the District Court rejected Sutey Oil's argument that it was necessary for the Planning Board to specifically evaluate each of the twelve criteria set forth in § 76-2-304, MCA, before making a decision with respect to Sutey Oil's application. Instead, the court noted that the Planning Board had acted in accordance with the terms of its authority pursuant to the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Development Permit System, which provides in pertinent part that: The purpose of the special use permit procedure is to implement the plan by requiring intensive public review of any development that may have a significant impact on the landscape setting, neighboring land uses, or public facilities and services, and requiring that such developments comply with performance standards designed to assure their compatibility with the landscape setting, neighboring land uses, and the capacity of public facilities and services. ¶ 26 By its terms, the County's Development Permit System required that the Planning Board ensure that proposed developments comply with performance standards designed to assure their compatibility with . . . neighboring land uses. In denying Sutey Oil's application on the grounds of incompatibility with neighboring land use, the Planning Board was thus acting within its authority pursuant to the express terms of the County's Development Permit System. ¶ 27 In its order upholding the Board of Adjustment's decision, the District Court improperly identified its scope of review as that traditionally available upon a writ of certiorari, and thus primarily discussed the question of whether the Planning Board had acted legally and within its jurisdiction in denying Sutey Oil's application for a special use permit. Although the court set forth the incorrect standard of review, it nevertheless concluded that the Planning Board had sufficient information upon which to base its denial of Petitioner's Special Use Permit. That the court so concluded indicates it additionally reviewed the Planning Board's decision for an abuse of discretion. ¶ 28 Although the District Court did not discuss the basis for its determination that the Planning Board had sufficient information upon which to base its decision, review of the record indicates the court did not abuse its discretion in so concluding. More specifically, the minutes from the Planning Board's April 20, 1995, public meeting chronicle testimony from a number of citizens concerned about the impact of the proposed expansion. For example, citizens voiced concerns regarding property values, increased traffic, parking problems, and raising their children in the vicinity of an establishment licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the District Court did not err in holding the Planning Board had sufficient evidence before it upon which it could base its decision denying Sutey Oil's application for a special use permit. Accordingly, we hold the District Court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the Board of Adjustment's decision.