Opinion ID: 889217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Impacts to Agriculture

Text: ¶ 38 The Commission determined that dispersed residential development in Gallatin County, as would be the case with the proposed subdivision, was contrary to the Belgrade Area Plan. This plan was adopted by the Belgrade City-County Planning Board in 1999. It listed among its objectives the promotion of open space, the protection and preservation of agriculture, and the avoidance of leap frog developments. Additionally, a representative of an adjoining landowner, Montana Perennial Farms, testified that the subdivision would adversely affect its gardening business. Based on this information, the Commission concluded that the proposed subdivision would have an adverse impact on agriculture because there was not an adequate buffer between it and the surrounding farm lands. ¶ 39 We noted earlier in this Opinion that when we review an action under the arbitrary and capricious standard a reversal of the appealed ruling is not permitted merely because the record contains inconsistent evidence or evidence which might support a different result. Rather, the decision being challenged must appear to be random, unreasonable, or seemingly unmotivated, based on the existing record. Hansen, ¶ 21 (internal quotations, citations, and emphasis omitted). ¶ 40 Here we agree with the District Court that the Commission's decision to deny MM & I's subdivision application was not random, unreasonable, or unmotivated because the Commission considered the testimony and evidence before it; applied the facts to the relevant and appropriate review criteria from the subdivision regulations and statutes; commented on the information presented; and explained its reasons for the denial at the public hearing and in its written order. ¶ 41 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not err in concluding that the Commission's decision was not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful.