Court Opinion

ID: 9403674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:11:12.488752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:08.585705
License: Public Domain

06/20/2023

                                       DA 22-0438
                                                                                  Case Number: DA 22-0438

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                       2023 MT 119

HAMILTON SOUTHSIDE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION,

           Petitioner and Appellant,

    v.

ZONING BOARD of ADJUSTMENT
of the CITY of HAMILTON,

           Respondent and Appellee,

    and

ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP of HELENA,
a religious corporation sole,

           Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM:       District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District,
                   In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DV-21-299
                   Honorable Jennifer B. Lint, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

            For Appellant:

                   Roy H. Andes, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana

            For Appellee Roman Catholic Bishop of Helena:

                   Michael D. Montgomery, Montgomery Law Offices, Hamilton, Montana

                   William P. Driscoll, Franz & Driscoll, PLLP, Helena, Montana

            For Appellee Zoning Board of Adjustment:

                   Karen S. Mahar, Hamilton City Attorney, Hamilton, Montana
                                 Submitted on Briefs: March 22, 2023

                                           Decided: June 20, 2023

Filed:
                V,„ 6A•-if
         __________________________________________
                           Clerk

                             2
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1    Hamilton Southside Historic Preservation Association (HSHPA) appeals from the

June 14, 2022 Opinion and Order Re: Writ of Certiorari issued by the Twenty-First Judicial

District Court, Ravalli County, denying HSHPA’s Verified Petition for Writ of Certiorari,

filed in that court on August 9, 2021. The petition challenged four decisions of the

Hamilton Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA): (1) granting conditional use permit (CUP)

#2019-06 to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Helena (Bishop) to construct and use a new

church structure after demolition of the current St. Francis Catholic Church, (2) granting

the Bishop Variance #2019-05, that allows a rear-yard setback variance, (3) granting the

Bishop Variance #2019-02, that allows a steeple height variance, and (4) affirming the

ZBA’s approval of a decision of the Zoning Administrator of a joint use parking agreement

(JUPA) for the new structure.

¶2    We restate the issues on appeal:

      1. Whether the District Court erred in determining the ZBA did not abuse its
      discretion when it issued CUP #2019-06 approving demolition of the current
      structure and construction of a new church facility.

      2. Whether the District Court erred in determining the ZBA did not abuse its
      discretion when it issued CUP #2019-06, Variance #2019-05, approving a
      rear-yard setback variance.

      3. Whether the District Court erred in determining the ZBA did not abuse its
      discretion when it issued CUP #2019-06, Variance #2019-02, approving a steeple
      height variance.

      4. Whether the District Court erred in determining the ZBA did not abuse its
      discretion when it upheld the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the JUPA.

¶3    We affirm the District Court.

                                            3
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶4     In October 2018, the Bishop applied to the City of Hamilton (City) through the ZBA

for a CUP and variances. The Bishop sought to demolish the current church structure,1

built in 1897, and build a larger, ADA accessible church building in its place. In November

2018, the City’s then Zoning Administrator issued a report that recommended the ZBA

approve the CUP. A public hearing regarding the CUP request was held November 26,

2018, at which public comment was received. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ZBA

approved the Bishop’s CUP and all requested variances and issued a record of decision on

December 26, 2018.

¶5     Thereafter, various neighbors of the Church and City residents brought suit against

the ZBA in Roddy, et al. v. ZBA, Ravalli County Cause No. DV 19-30, appealing the ZBA’s

approval of the Bishop’s CUP and variances. In turn, the City agreed to vacate all the

zoning permits issued by the ZBA in relation to the Bishop’s CUP and remand the matter

to the ZBA for reconsideration and, in the interim, to enjoin demolition of the current

structure or construction of the new church.

¶6     On July 23, 2019, the Bishop submitted a new CUP application that is the subject

of the present appeal. In this application, designated CUP #2019-06, the Bishop sought a

1
  The Bishop owns the entire block upon which the current structure is located. The property
consists of a three-building complex that includes St. Francis Catholic Church, the Parish Center,
a school building generally known as the “MAPS building,” and a parking lot that serves the
complex. The Parish Center was built in 2008 pursuant to approval of a CUP. That CUP required
the Bishop provide 65 off-street parking spaces and to demolish the MAPS building. The Bishop
has yet to provide the additional 65 parking spaces and has not demolished the MAPS building but
instead converted it to a commercially rented school facility. Although none of these zoning
violations has been enforced or penalized, they are not at issue in this appeal.

                                                4
permit to rebuild St. Francis Catholic Church—after the current structure is demolished—

plus three variances asking to be excused from setback, height, and parking requirements

of the City’s zoning code. The Bishop’s proposed CUP sought to essentially double the

church’s physical footprint and nearly double its current seating capacity. The Bishop also

sought a variance from setback requirements, a variance to allow the steeple to exceed the

maximum church height, and a variance to allow on-street parking to count as off-street

parking to meet minimum parking requirements.

¶7    On November 29, 2019, the City’s Public Works Department submitted staff reports

to the ZBA for the proposed CUP and each requested variance. Each Staff Report included

findings of fact and each respectively recommended approval of the revised CUP and each

requested variance. Also on November 29, 2019, the ZBA mailed a Notice of Public

Hearing on CUP request #2019-06 to all property owners within 300 feet of the exterior

boundaries of the area to be occupied by the proposed use. Notice of the public hearing,

scheduled for December 16, 2019, was also published in the Ravalli Republic newspaper

on December 1, 2019, and December 8, 2019, as well as posted at the City Hall and City

of Hamilton Public Works Building.

¶8    Due to high attendance at the December 16, 2019 public meeting, it was adjourned

and scheduled to be reconvened on January 13, 2020. On that date, to accommodate public

comment, it was necessary to adjourn the meeting and reconvene it on January 30, 2020.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, continuation of the in-person hearing was not possible,

and continuation of the public hearing was held via Zoom on October 5, 2020, November 4,

                                            5
2020, November 9, 20202, December 2, 2020, January 21, 2021, March 8, 2021, and

June 14, 2021. The public meeting ultimately lasted 19.53 hours and was attended by at

least 296 members of the public. The ZBA’s record contains over 700 pages comprised of

the CUP application and variance requests; architectural and site plans and narratives;

notices; written public comment; multiple exhibits; Public Works staff reports with

attached exhibits; Title 17 of the Hamilton Montana Code of Ordinances (HMC);

neighbors’ exhibits; proposed and final JUPAs; the Traffic Impact Study and Parking

Review by the WGM Group (WGM), an engineering, planning, and design firm; site plans;

meeting minutes; historical information about the Church; prior CUPs and zoning

resolutions related to the Bishop; a petition opposing demolition of the current structure;

questions by neighbors’ attorney and Public Works’ response thereto; and the Records of

Decisions issued by the ZBA. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the ZBA approved

the Bishop’s project with an amended CUP, two variances, and the JUPA.4 On July 12,

2021, the ZBA Chair signed CUP #2019-06, approving the construction of the new church

and the JUPA; Variance #2019-05, approving the rear-yard setback variance; and Variance

#2019-02, approving the steeple height variance. In so doing, it adopted, with minor

2
 On November 9, 2020, the ZBA voted to approve the CUP and the setback and steeple height
variances but thereafter continued to hold the public hearing on the CUP through June 14, 2021.
3
  The parties assert varying lengths for the hearing over the hearing’s 18-month period. The City’s
Zoning Administrator, charged with maintaining the official records of the ZBA, attests the hearing
to have been 19.5 hours in length.
4
    Upon the approval of the JUPA, Variance #2019-06 related to parking was formally withdrawn.

                                                6
changes, the entirety of the proposed findings contained within the November 29, 2019

Staff Reports.

¶9     On March 18, 2021, the HSHPA was organized and on August 9, 2021, it filed its

Verified Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the District Court. Following review of the ZBA

record and briefing by the parties, the District Court affirmed the ZBA’s records of

decision, denied HSHPA’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and dissolved the injunction

precluding further work on the project. This appeal followed.

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶10    We review de novo appeals from a district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth, Inc. v. Flathead Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2008 MT 1,

¶ 31, 341 Mont. 1, 175 P.3d 282. “Section 76-2-227, MCA, authorizes the reviewing court

to hold a hearing and reverse, affirm, or modify a decision made by a board of adjustment.

A district court is thus bound to review a board of adjustment’s decision for an abuse of

discretion.” Flathead Citizens, ¶ 32 (citation omitted). “To determine whether an abuse

of discretion has occurred, we examine whether the information upon which the Board

based its decision is so lacking in fact and foundation that it is clearly unreasonable and

constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Flathead Citizens, ¶ 32 (citation and internal quotation

omitted). Courts give deference to the decisions of local boards. Town and Country Foods,

Inc. v. City of Bozeman, 2009 MT 72, ¶ 14, 349 Mont. 453, 203 P.3d 1283. “[A] court will

not substitute a judicial discretion for the discretion of [a] board or body acting within the

scope of [] its exclusive authority.” Freeman v. Bd. of Adjustment, 97 Mont. 342, 357, 34

P.2d 534, 539 (1934).
                                              7
                                      DISCUSSION

¶11    At the outset we note that, although HSHPA did not assert a specific due process

claim in its Issues on appeal, it asserts the hearing process was “functionally chaotic.” In

asserting the ZBA’s findings were not supported by competent and substantial evidence,

HSHPA argues that the hearing process should have been more akin to a contested hearing

before a judge—suggesting that due process requires subpoenaing witnesses, administering

oaths, and presenting and cross-examining both lay and expert witnesses. HSHPA further

implies that a zoning board conducting such hearing must have specialized training to

evaluate evidence on the bases of relevance, hearsay, speculation, and foundation. While

HSHPA indicates an understanding that we have never imposed formal rules of evidence

to zoning hearings, it appears to advocate for the requirement of such.

¶12    Although § 2-3-111(1), MCA, requires that the public be provided the opportunity

to be heard by a zoning board by “affording interested persons reasonable opportunity to

submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in written form, prior to making a final decision

that is of significant interest to the public[,]” it does not require their data, views, or

arguments be taken under oath. Article II, Section 8, of the Montana Constitution provides

that the public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford reasonable

opportunity for citizen participation, and § 2-3-101, MCA, requires the establishment of

guidelines to secure the right to be afforded reasonable opportunity to participate in the

operation of governmental agencies prior to the final decision of the agency. Neither

requires that such participation must take a form similar to a court hearing. As the Montana

Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to units of local government such as the ZBA,
                                             8
§ 2-4-102(2)(b), MCA, formal rules of evidence do not apply to administrative hearings

conducted by the ZBA. As accurately noted by the District Court:

       The Montana Supreme Court has stated that when a government agency
       “complied with its own rules, gave notice and provided an extended
       opportunity to submit information, permitting . . . interested persons to
       submit voluminous materials, offer oral opinions and statements, make
       objections and provide written arguments prior to the rendering of a final
       decision,” the agency’s “method of affording public participation, § 2-3-
       111(1), MCA, was fundamentally fair and provided a reasonable opportunity
       for citizen participation as required by Article II, Section 8 of the Montana
       Constitution.” Bitterroot River Protective Ass’n v. Bitterroot Conservation
       Dist., 2008 MT 377, ¶ 26, 346 Mont. 507, 198 P.3d 219.

Here, the ZBA complied with its own rules, gave notice, and provided extended

opportunity over an 18-month period for interested persons to submit voluminous

materials, offer oral opinions and statements, ask questions, make objections, and provide

written arguments prior to making its final decision. The ZBA’s hearing provided a

fundamentally fair process and reasonable opportunity for citizen participation. It is within

this framework that we consider the issues raised by HSHPA.

¶13    HSHPA asserts the District Court failed to discuss any statutes or standards therein

and, without analysis, concluded that the ZBA regularly pursued its authority, did not

exceed its jurisdiction, and did not abuse its discretion in issuing the CUP #2019-06 or in

approving the JUPA. HSHPA points out that the City’s zoning code imposes four main

requirements with regard to a conditional use structure: (1) it must be “in harmony with

the principal uses of the district” (HMC 17.04.040); (2) it must be “appropriate and in the

best interests of the public” (HMC 17.08.050(B)(1) and 17.124.020(B)(1)); (3) it must not

be detrimental to the “health, safety, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or

                                             9
working within the community” (HMC 17.124.030(A) and 17.124.040(B)(2)); and (4) it

must be consistent with the intent of Title 17 (HMC 17.124.040(B)(1)—designed in

accordance with the growth policy). HSHPA asserts the District Court failed to consider

evidence of the ZBA’s abuses of discretion, to cite any City zoning ordinance, and to

consider whether the ZBA’s findings were supported by competent and substantial

evidence or whether they followed the law.

¶14    Contrarily, the ZBA and Bishop contend the ZBA pursued its authority regularly;

did not exceed its jurisdiction; reviewed information from City staff, neighbors, the public,

and traffic engineering experts; deliberated appropriately; made decisions consistent with

City zoning codes; and did not abuse its discretion in issuing CUP #2019-06 or in

approving the JUPA.

¶15    The ZBA’s powers are set forth in § 76-2-323, MCA. It is bound to apply the City’s

zoning regulations. Section 76-2-307, MCA. It cannot disregard zoning provisions or

exceed the powers conferred by zoning codes and must act in accordance with the law.

Flathead Citizens, ¶ 37. It has the power “to hear and decide special exceptions” to the

terms of the zoning code.       Section 76-2-323(1)(b), MCA.        There is, however, no

requirement for the ZBA to “explain in detail why it has determined each criterion is or is

not met, and precisely what facts it found most convincing.” Lake Cty. First v. Polson City

Council, 2009 MT 322, ¶ 34, 352 Mont. 489, 218 P.3d 816. It is a general principle of

administrative law that the record developed by an agency serves to flesh out the pertinent

facts upon which a decision is based in order to facilitate judicial review. The record made

before a board of adjustment is essential to an enlightened determination of its action by a
                                             10
governing body or by a court on review. Flathead Citizens, ¶ 47 (citations and quotations

omitted).

¶16    The parties do not dispute the record before the ZBA, but rather dispute whether the

information upon which the ZBA based its decision was so lacking in fact and foundation

that it was clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and thus an abuse of discretion.

¶17    1. Whether the District Court erred in determining the ZBA did not abuse its
       discretion when it issued CUP #2019-06 approving demolition of the current
       structure and construction of a new church facility.

¶18    Although the District Court’s findings of fact could have been more thorough, from

our review of the record, we conclude the court did not err in determining the ZBA did not

abuse its discretion when it issued CUP #2019-06. In a review process similar to that

approved in North 93 Neighbors, Inc. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 2006 MT 132, 332 Mont.

327, 137 P.3d 557, the ZBA considered the application, the Zoning Administrator’s

recommendations, and staff input; published notice and received and considered public

comment; considered the traffic study and parking review of WGM; discussed the pros and

cons of the application; obtained an attestation from each board member that each

considered all of the information in its record; and approved the CUP upon vote of the

board. It adopted the findings set forth in the Staff Report with some changes. In sum, the

ZBA “followed the proper statutory and regulatory procedure” for reviewing a CUP and

“had sufficient evidence before it to make an informed decision.” Lake Cty. First, ¶ 34

(quoting North 93 Neighbors, ¶ 44).

¶19    The parties agree HMC 17.124 of the City’s zoning regulations govern the Bishop’s

application for a CUP. Specifically, HMC 17.124.040(B) provides in pertinent part:
                                             11
               A conditional use permit or conditional use structure permit may be
               granted when allowed in the district, provided:
               1. It is consistent with the intent of this Title 17; [and]
               2. The use or structure is not detrimental to the health, safety, comfort
               and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
               neighborhood or the general welfare of the city[.]

¶20    A “conditional use” or “conditional use structure” is one that is not permitted by

right, but one allowed upon findings by the ZBA that it is in harmony with the principal

uses of the zoning district. HMC 17.04.040.

¶21    The Staff Report that reviews and analyzes the Bishop’s CUP application provides

detailed findings of fact and staff analysis as to how those facts satisfied requirements of

pertinent City zoning codes,5 and includes six attached exhibits detailing public comment

received from neighbors, a vicinity map, HMC 17.124, and the Stipulation resultant from

the Bishop’s 2018 CUP application detailing ZBA’s requirement to address particular

zoning codes contained in HMC 17.124. The Staff Report recommends the ZBA approve

the CUP with conditions.6 Each member of the ZBA repeatedly averred s/he had received

5
  The Report specifically finds the proposed conditional use structure to meet the individual
Purpose and Intent criteria of HMC 17.04.030, analyzing each subsection requirement of
(A)(1)-(12) and (B)(1)-(8); to not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or community, or the general welfare of the
City analyzing compliance with HMC 17.124.030(A) and 17.124.040(B)(2); to be able to address
parking issues through an agreement for joint use of off-street parking facilities under HMC
17.100.110 or variance under HMC 17.124; and to be consistent with the intent of Title 17. Like
the District Court, we do not restate the numerous findings and analysis set forth in that eight-page
report.
6
  These conditions included: providing adequate off-street parking through either a joint use
agreement or variance; curb, gutter, and storm water facilities designed with ADA compliance to
accomplish the on-street angle parking proposed; obtaining proper approval or permits for
demolition and construction; obtaining construction plans for all site improvement; installing
construction site fencing and dust and sound mitigation; complying with safety regulations; and
                                               12
and relied upon this Staff Report, its attachments, public comment, and ZBA’s record in

determining whether to approve the CUP.

¶22    Public hearing on the CUP commenced December 16, 2019, and was conducted

January 13, 2020, January 30, 2020, October 5, 2020, November 4, 2020, and November 9,

2020. On November 9, 2020, the ZBA voted to approve and adopt the Staff Report findings

and approve CUP #2019-06 subject to the conditions noted in that Staff Report. HSHPA

asserts that it was inappropriate for the ZBA to approve and adopt those findings as they

were prepared nearly a year prior, before the ZBA commenced hearing on the CUP.

HSHPA asserts the ZBA failed to properly analyze and reconcile the objective of the City’s

Growth Policy in light of neighbors’ exhibits and public comment. Over the course of the

public hearing, the ZBA received public comment both for and against the proposed CUP

as well as written materials from various neighbors and the larger public. Each ZBA

member attested that in determining whether to and under what conditions to approve the

subject CUP, s/he considered all written materials and public comment made at hearing or

submitted. The Staff Report no doubt assisted ZBA members in contextualizing and

evaluating this evidence to determine if any of the concerns or issues raised through the

hearing process overcame the Staff Report’s findings and analysis. Upon completing the

serial hearing process on June 14, 2021, the additional concerns and issues raised did not

alter the ZBA’s approval of the subject CUP.         From our review of the record, the

agreeing in writing that repair of any improvement within the alley right-of-way shall be the
responsibility of the Bishop.

                                             13
information upon which the Board based its decision was not so lacking in fact and

foundation that it was clearly unreasonable. Thus, we conclude the ZBA did not abuse its

discretion in approving CUP #2019-06 subject to particular conditions.

¶23    2. Whether the District Court erred in determining the ZBA did not abuse its
          discretion when it issued CUP #2019-06, Variance #2019-05, approving a
          rear-yard setback variance.

¶24    Again, although the District Court’s findings of fact could have been more thorough,

from our review of the record, we conclude the District Court did not err in determining

the ZBA did not abuse its discretion when it approved CUP #2019-06, Variance #2019-05.

Variance #2019-05 requested a rear-yard setback variance of two feet, rather than the 20

feet required by HMC 17.24.050(C)(2). As part of its appropriate review process, the

City’s Public Works Department likewise reviewed and analyzed the requested variance.

Staff concluded:

        Zoning setbacks are established to provide adequate light and air; to secure
        safety from fire, panic and other dangers; and to maintain neighborhood
        aesthetics and character. Setbacks in building code are also in place to
        protect life, health, and safety. In this particular case, approving a variance
        for a two (2) foot rear yard setback will not be detrimental to any of these
        concerns.

Staff supported this conclusion with their reasoning:        the 20’ right-of-way running

north/south will be retained by the City and expanded by a grant of additional easement to

the west; no buildings were proposed on the west side of the City right-of-way; the

proposed setback variance allows the front yard setback of 20’ to be maintained, preserving

the existing character of the neighborhood; other zoning districts in the City allow zero-foot

rear setbacks; allowing a two-foot rear setback would not be detrimental to any adjoining

                                             14
properties and would be in accordance with similar uses in similar neighborhoods; a 20’

rear setback for a church building that is part of a single ownership Church Campus is not

necessary; and the proposed two-foot rear-yard setback would still provide adequate space

to maintain the utilities in the alley and provide adequate separation between buildings or

structures per the 2012 International Building Code. Staff further concluded that the

proposed variance with the condition of an additional easement met the provisions of HMC

17.04.030(A)(3), (5), (6), and (8) and 17.124.050(B), finding such will: secure safety from

fire and other danger on the premises; facilitate the adequate provision of transportation,

water, sewage, and other such public requirements; improve the quality of the physical

environment of the community by improving access to the church and parking area; and

provide for a larger church while still maintaining the consistent historical appearance of

the neighborhood, without detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the community

as the alley will remain available to provide safe vehicular and pedestrian access. Staff

also considered whether the requested variance was necessary to avoid hardship created by

strict application of City zoning codes. In this regard, staff concluded that a special

circumstance existed in that the Bishop owned the entire block, including the adjacent lot

to the west that would be impacted by the variance. Typically, these lots could be

aggregated to avoid the need for the variance while still permitting the proposed

construction, but in this instance, existing service lines in the alleyway precluded

aggregation. Strict application of zoning setback requirements deprived the Bishop of

rights commonly enjoyed by other landowners who have been permitted to aggregate lots

under single ownership as well as encroach into City rights-of-way with approved
                                            15
permitting. Finally, staff concluded the variance “will be in harmony with the general

purpose and intent of HMC Chapter 17.124 in that it will not detrimentally affect the health,

safety, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working within the community

under HMC 17.124.030(A),” and recommended that the ZBA adopt the findings presented

in the Staff Report and approve Variance #2019-05 as applied for with conditions.7

¶25    On November 9, 2020, the ZBA voted to approve and adopt the findings contained

in the Staff Report and approve Variance #2019-05 subject to the conditions noted in the

Staff Report. HSHPA again asserts that it was inappropriate for the ZBA to approve and

adopt the findings from proposals written long before most of the evidence was received,

but we remain unpersuaded by this argument. Upon receiving a formal variance request,

the City’s Public Works Department was required to review and analyze it—rather than

wait to analyze it after a zoning board hearing and the taking of public comment. In

accordance with this obligation, staff set forth findings of fact and analyzed the facts to

determine whether the City’s zoning codes were satisfied and approval of the variance was

warranted.

¶26    The Staff Report’s findings and analysis with regard to Variance #2019-05 no doubt

assisted ZBA members in contextualizing and evaluating the public comment and

7
  These conditions included: the Bishop obtaining approval of the CUP #2019-06 and complying
therewith; the Bishop granting the City a public access and utility easement aligning with the new
driveway running north/south through the property to provide unencumbered alley access in
addition to retaining the existing City right-of-way to protect the sewer main and other utilities
currently located there; obtaining proper approval or permits for demolition and construction;
obtaining construction plans for all site improvements; installing construction site fencing and dust
and sound mitigation; complying with safety regulations; and agreeing in writing that repair of any
improvement within the alley right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the Bishop.

                                                 16
additional written material submitted through the public hearing process to determine if

any of the concerns or issues raised through the hearing process overcame the staff’s

findings and analysis. Upon completing the hearing process on June 14, 2021, the

additional concerns or issues raised did not alter the ZBA’s approval of the variance. While

contrary information and recommendations were presented to and considered by the ZBA,

it was free to determine the information within the Staff Report was more credible and

reliable than any contrary evidence or analysis presented. From our review of the record,

the information upon which the ZBA based its decision was not so lacking in fact and

foundation that it was clearly unreasonable. Thus, the ZBA did not abuse its discretion in

approving Variance #2019-05, permitting the requested rear-yard setback subject to

particular conditions.

¶27    3. Whether the District Court erred in determining the ZBA did not abuse its
          discretion when it issued CUP #2019-06, Variance #2019-02, approving a
          steeple height variance.

¶28    Again, although the District Court’s findings of fact could have been more thorough,

from our review of the record, we conclude the District Court did not err in determining

the ZBA did not abuse its discretion when it approved CUP #2019-06, Variance #2019-02.

Variance #2019-02 requested a variance for the steeple height of nine feet, eight inches

with an additional five feet for an ornamental crucifix to sit atop the steeple, for a total

height of 14 feet, eight inches above the 45-foot maximum height allowance required by

HMC 17.24.060(C).

¶29    Upon receiving this variance request, the City’s Public Works Department

undertook normal review and analysis of the request and issued its Staff Report
                                            17
recommending adoption of the findings presented in the report and approval of the variance

with specific conditions.8 Staff reasoned that the request conformed with the intent of Title

17 because it conforms with the character of the district under HMC 17.04.030(A)(9);

conserves some of the value of the existing building under HMC 17.04.030(A)(11);

maintains the historical appearance for the surrounding neighborhood under HMC

17.04.030(B)(6); and is generally consistent with the intent of the single-family residential

district use along with some conditional uses such as churches under HMC 17.24. Staff

found the proposed use of the historic steeple preserves a particular architectural type of

historical context consistent with the City’s Growth Policy Land Use Section.                  The

proposed steeple would be five feet lower than the steeple on the current structure and

consistent with similar uses in similar neighborhoods as there are three other churches in

residential zoning districts in the City that have steeples exceeding the 45-foot height limit.

Considering this, denial of this variance would cause a hardship to the Bishop’s property

as it would be denied privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in similar zoning areas

and the variance will not detrimentally affect “the health, safety, comfort and general

welfare of persons residing or working within the community” under HMC 17.124.030(A).

¶30    Again, ZBA members attested to receiving and considering not only the staff

recommendation but other material submitted through the application and hearing process

8
  These conditions included: the Bishop obtaining approval of the CUP #2019-06 and complying
therewith; the Bishop maintaining minimum requirements for insurance and bonding for
construction; obtaining proper approval or permits for demolition and construction; obtaining
construction plans for all site improvement; installing construction site fencing and dust and sound
mitigation; and complying with safety regulations.

                                                18
and the public comment received when they voted to adopt the findings set forth in the

staff report and approve Variance #2019-02. Again, although the staff report regarding

Variance #2019-02 was prepared prior to receiving other information or public comment,

this does not negate the Staff Report’s findings, analysis, and recommendations. The Staff

Report assisted ZBA members in contextualizing and evaluating the public comment and

additional written material submitted through the public hearing process to determine if

any of the concerns or issues raised through the hearing process overcame the staff’s

findings and analysis. Again, from our review of the record, the information upon which

the ZBA based its decision was not so lacking in fact and foundation that it was clearly

unreasonable; thus, the ZBA did not abuse its discretion in approving Variance #2019-02

permitting a steeple height variance subject to specific conditions.

¶31    4. Whether the District Court erred in determining the ZBA did not abuse its
          discretion when it upheld the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the JUPA.

¶32    Despite the other issues raised by HSHPA, congestion issues—namely parking

issues—appear to be the driving force behind the parties’ dispute. With the increased

church size and capacity, neighbors are concerned there will be insufficient parking such

that individuals using the complex for worship, school, and special events will park in the

surrounding neighborhood in a fashion that will interfere with homeowners’ use of their

properties. In conjunction with the CUP #2019-06 application, the Bishop also submitted

Variance #2019-06 seeking an allowance of on-street parking to be counted as part of the

off-street parking requirements for the three-building complex. The City’s Public Works

Department reviewed this variance request and issued a Staff Report recommending denial

                                             19
of the variance. It recommended “further analysis of the need for parking to determine

whether an agreement for joint use of off-street parking facilities under HMC 17.100.110

would be sufficient to address parking needs for [the complex], making a variance [for]

parking unnecessary.” Staff advised that under HMC 17.100.070(N), (U), and (V), 200

off-street parking spaces would be required for the complex—97 for the church, 61 for the

Parish Center, and 42 for the MAPS building. The Church asserted it was able to provide

65 off-street and 68 on-street parking spaces for a total of 133 parking spaces. The variance

request sought to decrease the 200-parking space requirement by 67 spaces and to then

allow 68 of the 133 remaining spaces to be provided on-street with improvements. Staff

noted primary concern that the proposed 133 parking spaces may not provide an adequate

number of spaces at busy times, impeding access for emergency vehicles and convenient

and safe access to property in general. While improvements proposed to both the on- and

off-street parking would greatly improve the aesthetics and flow of traffic at the complex,

the reduced number of spaces proposed may not sufficiently alleviate hazards with access

to neighborhood traffic generating businesses and uses, provide adequate and safe parking

for the complex without impacting parking for residents in the district, and protect adjacent

residential uses from undesirable effects of increased traffic. Staff indicated joint use of

off-street parking facilities to be more appropriate than a variance reducing the required

spaces. In its analysis, staff noted that some variance from the strict application of

off-street parking requirements would be in the public interest in consideration of the actual

uses of the complex—many MAPS building students do not drive to the building and that

building does not operate on weekends when the church is busiest, and use of the Parish
                                             20
Center occurs mostly in conjunction with special church and community events. Each

building is not used on a consistent, daily basis; whereas consistent, daily use is assumed

when calculating required parking spaces under the City’s zoning code. Staff concluded

that strict application of the off-street parking requirements would unreasonably cause

hardship to the property given how the complex is typically used, but the variance as

proposed “could detrimentally affect the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of

persons residing or working within the community under HMC 17.124.030(A).”

¶33    Subsequently, the staff prepared an Addendum to its Staff Report regarding

Variance #2019-06. The Addendum provides that, following receipt of public comment

on December 16, 2019, January 13, 2020, and January 23, 2020, the Zoning Administrator

re-evaluated the off-street parking requirements and concluded the number of required

off-street parking spaces for all uses of the complex is 161, not 200 as originally calculated.

The Addendum sets forth the revised calculations, the factors affecting the revised

calculations, and the options for meeting the revised requirements—variance request, a

joint use off-street parking agreement, removal of the MAPS building, or obtainment of

additional details on parking utilization and traffic circulation patterns.

¶34    Subsequent to the staff recommendation to deny Variance #2019-06, with the

approval of the City’s Zoning Administrator, St. Francis of Assisi Parish and the Bishop

submitted a proposed agreement to provide for the collective use of off-street parking of

the complex—the JUPA. Pursuant to the JUPA, the Church, the Parish Center, and the

MAPS building agree to building usage to limit conflicts such that the maximum parking

spaces required would not be needed for all three buildings at the same time. Specifically,
                                              21
they would ensure that significant overlapping use—defined as when the Church and the

Parish Center are utilized for a short time by over 60% of each building’s calculated

parking capacity—shall be limited to less than one percent of the calendar year.

¶35    An additional Addendum to the Staff Report, issued January 8, 2021, again

recommended denying the requested Variance #2019-06 and also recommended denying

of the proposed JUPA. The Addendum asserted the JUPA did not provide sufficient off-

street parking for the use requiring the most parking because there were conflicts in the

principal operating hours of the Church and the Parish Center, and the JUPA set forth

inaccurate figures for the required number of parking spaces and provided insufficient

measures to mitigate potential detrimental impacts to the neighborhood in the long term.

In response to the Addendum, revisions were made to revise the Church’s seating plan for

less occupancy, increase the on-site parking spaces from 65 to 76, and modify the operating

hours of the Church, the Parish Center, and the MAPS building to avoid use conflict. The

proposed JUPA was revised accordingly and resubmitted to the City’s Zoning

Administrator for consideration pursuant to the requirements of HMC 17.100.070 and

17.100.110.9 On February 12, 2021, a new Addendum to the Staff Report recommended

approval of the proposed revised JUPA with condition.10                   The February 12, 2021

9
  HMC 17.100.110(A) allows for the “owner(s) of a group of uses or buildings [to] jointly provide
for the collective use of off-street parking and loading spaces, subject to the zoning administrator’s
approval of the plans therefore.” Furthermore, HMC 17.100.110(E) provides, “It shall be the
applicant’s responsibility to establish that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating
hours of the buildings or uses for which the joint use of the parking facility is proposed.”
10
   The recommended approval was conditioned upon providing a revised site plan showing
sufficient space for the City’s fire and jet trucks.

                                                  22
Addendum outlines the analysis and rationale of the Public Works Department’s

recommendation.11

¶36    In April 2021, the City retained WGM—a planning, engineering, and design firm

that had been working with the City since 2013 on design improvements to Ravalli Street

including the block adjacent to the Church—to conduct a parking review of the Bishop’s

design, and a traffic study relating to the proposed Church expansion. WGM’s parking

review assessed impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and considered whether the

proposed JUPA and parking layout provided for safety concerns. WGM’s traffic study

addressed whether the proposed use and parking layout created congestion above levels

which could reasonably be expected in a mixed-use residential neighborhood and which

may be considered unsafe or detrimental to the neighborhood. WGM issued its parking

review and traffic impact study on May 14, 2021. After reviewing WGM’s reports, the

City Public Works Department issued another Addendum to its Staff Report that reaffirmed

its prior approval of the proposed JUPA, again setting forth its detailed analysis and key

findings upon which it based its recommendations.12              Having considered all public

11
  The Church and Parish Center are complimentary uses which rarely receive peak usage at the
same time and their peak usage does not conflict with use of the MAPS building; there is no
regular, substantial conflict in principal operating hours of the complex; requiring parking based
on special events would result in oversupply inconsistent with the City’s Growth Policy;
improvements to the current parking lot and adjacent streets will improve safety and access above
current conditions; and the JUPA provides the 76 off-street parking spaces shall remain in place.
12
   Similar to the District Court, it is not necessary for us to repeat the extensive analysis and
rationale contained in the June 7, 2021 Addendum to Staff Report but to determine “whether the
information upon which the Board based its decision is so lacking in fact and foundation that it is
clearly unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion.” Flathead Citizens, ¶ 32 (citation
omitted).

                                                23
comment along with the parking and traffic reviews of WGM, the ZBA unanimously

affirmed the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the proposed JUPA and Variance # 2019-

06 was withdrawn.

¶37    Again, although the District Court’s findings of fact could have been more thorough,

from our review of the record, we conclude the District Court did not err in determining

the ZBA did not abuse its discretion regarding approval of the JUPA. The ZBA had

discretion to accept WGM’s parking review and traffic study and to accept and adopt the

analysis and rationale of Public Works staff and the Zoning Administrator as more credible

than other information it received related to the parking issues. The District Court correctly

concluded the ZBA did not abuse its discretion because its approval of the JUPA was based

on competent and substantial information in its record.

¶38    HSHPA also asserts the JUPA is so vague it may not be an agreement at all,

asserting its terms are insufficient to create a binding set of promises and it provides no

enforcement mechanism.       The City counters that the JUPA is a binding agreement

providing the essential elements of a contract—identifiable parties capable of contracting,

their consent, a lawful object, and consideration. We agree with the City. The JUPA

identifies the parties—St. Francis of Assisi Parish comprising the complex and the Bishop.

Its lawful object is to provide for the collective use of off-street parking in accordance with

HMC 17.100.110. The consideration between the parties is their joint interest in meeting

the requirements of the CUP to construct the new church by agreeing to share their

off-street parking—each giving up or reducing the use of their facilities at particular times

to jointly meet the City’s parking requirements—and requiring construction and
                                              24
maintenance of 76 off-street parking spaces in addition to requiring that the agreement

cannot be terminated without authorization of the Zoning Administrator. Although the

JUPA does not contain the breadth or specificity that HSHPA desires, it meets the

requirements of an enforceable contract.

                                    CONCLUSION

¶39    In sum, HSHPA seeks that we reweigh the evidentiary record to give greater

credence to the information and analysis advanced by those contesting approval of the

subject CUP, variances, and JUPA. We decline to do so. We recognize this matter is of

great interest to the City’s residents who feel strongly in their divergent views and,

regardless of the outcome, some will be highly disappointed. The information upon which

the ZBA based its decision was not so lacking in fact and foundation that it was clearly

unreasonable. The District Court did not err in upholding the decisions of the ZBA in this

case and is thus affirmed.

                                                /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ JIM RICE

                                           25