ALDEN v BOARD OF ZONING COMMISSION

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 12749 I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O M N A A H OR F H F OTN 1974 ROBERT R. ALDEN, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , BOARD O ZONING COMMISSIONERS, e t a l . F , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : John L. Hamner argued, B u t t e , Montana For Respondent : Lawrence G. S t i m a t z , County Attorney, B u t t e , Montana Submitted : November 12, 1974 Filed : I z 4374 > , M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l by a p r o p e r t y owner from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S i l v e r Bow County, d i s m i s s i n g t h e p r o p e r t y owner's a p p e a l from a r u l i n g of t h e Board of County Commissioners i n a zoning m a t t e r . This i s an unusual and unprecedented s i t u a t i o n where t h e respondent-defendant Board does n o t appear by b r i e f o r argument, even thnugh t h i s Court i s s u e d an x d e r t o show cause a s t ? why such appearance was n o t made. Under such s i t u a t i o n t h i s Court s h a l l t a k e t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s v e r s h n s and p o s i t i o n s a s b e i n g c o r r e c t i f t h e y a r e i n f a c t supported by t h e r e c o r d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r appealed from r e a d s : " p l a i n t i f f has f i l e d i n t h e above e n t i t l e d a c t i ~ n an a n p e a l frqm a r u l i n g of t h e 3oard of Cqunty Commiss i o n e r s and i t s c ~ m m i s s i o ni n accordance w i t h T i t l e 1 6 , Chapter 41, Revised Codes of Pfontana, 1947, a s amended. Said a p p e a l came r e g u l a r l y on f o r h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . P l a i n t i f f was p r e s e n t and r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , John L e s l i e Hamner and t h e d e f e n d a n t s were r e p r e s e n t e d by d e s i g n a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s and were r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e County A t t o r n e y of S i l v e r B3w County, Montana, Lawrence S t i m a t z . Witnesses were sworn and t e s t i f i e d . Upon t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e testimony t h e m a t t e r , upon t h e f u r n i s h i n g of b r i e f s by t h e r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s , was submitted t o t h e c o u r t f ~ dre c i s i m and was thereupon t a k e n under a d v i s e ment by t h e c o u r t . " ~ r o mt h e r e c o r d , t h e testimony and t h e b r i e f s , t h e Court f i n d s a s f o l l o w s : "1. That Chapter 4 1 of T i t l e 16 of t h e Revised Codes of ?lantana, 1947, a s amended, was d e c l a r e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l by t h e Supreme Court qf Montana i n Missoula County v. Missoula C i t y , 139 I~iontanaa t page 256. "2. That Chapter 47 of s a i d T i t l e 1 6 3f t h e Revised t Codes 3f Montana, 1947, a s amended, does n ~ supersede o r supplement Chapter 4 1 of s a i d T i t l e 16 of t h e Revised Codes of Xontana, 1947 a s amended. " 3 . That p l a i n t i f f among o t h e r t h i n g s , i n h i s a p p e a l , has a l l e g e d t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l zoning r e g u l a t i o n s were amended * * *, b u t t h a t such amendments and changes f o l l o w u n r e a s o n a b l e , a r b i t r a r y and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y b o u n d a r i e s * * ** That p l a i n t i f f h a s t h e d u t y t o prove by a prepon"4. derance of t h e evidence t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of h i s c l a i m . I l a i n t i f f has f a i l e d t o c a r r y such burden. " 5 . That by p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o prove t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of h i s c l a i m a s a f o r e s a i d , p l a i n t i f f ' s a p p e a l must b e dismissed. 7 he c o u r t concludes a s f o l l o w s : hat p l a i n t i f f ' s a p p e a l i s ordered d i s m i s s e d . " ~ e t judgment be e n t e r e d i n accordance w i t h t h e f o r e g o i n g . " ~ a t e dDecember 26, 1973. "s/ James D. Freebourn Judge. II The o n l y i s s u e a c t u a l l y r u l e d 9n was t h a t Chapter 47 d i d n o t amend Chapter 4 1 of t h e 1947 Revised Codes of Montana; and t h a t Alden f a i l e d i n h i s burden of proof. S i n c e t h e m a t t e r i s n o t c o n t e s t e d h e r e , we doubt t h e wisdom of an i n d e p t h t r e a t m e n t of t h e v a l i d i t y of a l l t h e i s s u e s presented. Appellant l i s t s n i n e i s s u e s under t h r e e g e n e r a l headings: (1) Appellant c l a i m s t h e zoning p l a n i s g e n e r a l l y i n v a l i d ; (2) That even i f v a l i d , t h e r e was a r b i t r a r y and i l l e g a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a s t o a p p e l l a n t ' s p r o p e r t y ; and ( 3 ) That t h e f a c t s proven d i d n o t f a i l t o c a r r y t h e burden of proof. A t t r i a l only two w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d , A l d e n , t h e p r o p e r t y owner, and one DeGeorge, Chairman o f t h e Board of County Commissioners. of two maps and a copy of t h e r e s o l u t i o n Exhibits c ~ n s i s t i n g e s t a b l i s h i n g a planning and zoning d i s t r i c t f 3 r t h e F l o r a l Park a r e a were i n t r o d u c e d . The two maps show A l d e n ' s p r ~ p e r t ya s a v a c a n t l o t and a l o t c o n t a i n i n g a m u l t i p l e purpose b u i l d i n g , surrounded by commercial p r o p e r t i e s except f o r one r e s i d e n c e , and i n somewhat 9f a t r a n s i t i o n a r e a between commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l . The Board chairman t e s t i f i e d , i n e f f e c t , t h a t be t h a t a s i t may, t h e g r a n d f a t h e r c l a u s e c o v e r i n g any u s e e x i s t i n g would a d e q u a t e l y p r o t e c t Alden. More w i l l be s a i d l a t e r about t h e " g r a n d f a t h e r clause". Alden moved f o r a new t r i a l and f g r amendment of t h e o r d e r t o show a r u l i n g 9n t h e s p e c i f i c i s s u e s a t t a c k i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e resolution i t s e l f . T h i s was denied. A r e a d i n g of t h e r e s o l u t i o n shows t h a t i t i s n o t i n conformity w i t h s e c t i o n s 16-4102 through s e c t i o n 16-4107, R.C.14. 1947, i n many p a r t i c u l a r s , c o n t r a r y t~ t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e r e t o f o r e quoted. Appellant a r g u e s t h e r e s o l u t i o n c o n t a i n s a number of i n v a l i d and i l l e g a l p r w i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t t h e e n t i r e r e s o l u t i m and make i t i n v a l i d a s t o h i s p r ~ p e r t i e s . W need nor r u l e h e r e on t h i s . e Here t h e f a c t s gleaned from t h e e x h i b i t s and t h e testimony of t h e two w i t n e s s e s demonstrate an i l l e g a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a s t o a p p e l l a n t ' s propertics. The t r i a l c o u r t merely r u l e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o c a r r y t h e burden of proof. These f a c t s show unreasonable discrimination a s t o a p p e l l a n t ' s property: (1) The zoning b3ard modified i t s o r i g i n a l p l a n by c r e a t i n g a commercial d i s t r i c t due s o u t h of and c-mtiguous t o a p p e l l a n t ' s l a n d , p r i o r t o adopti,?n of t h e p l a n , and f o r no a p p a r e n t r e a s o n i t f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e a p p e l l a n t ' s p r o p e r t y i n a commercial d e s i g n a t i o n . (2) There i s b u t one r e s i d e n c e surrounded by commercial p r o p e r t i e s d t h i n t h e a r e a d e s i g n a t e d R - 1 R e s i d e n t i a l between t h e above d e s c r i b e d commercial d i s t r i c t and t h e boundary of t h e zoning d i s t r i c t due n o r t h : and t h i s i n c l u d e s a p p e l l a n t ' s p r 3 p e r t y having a commercial u s e . (3) The " e x i s t i n g u s e p r o v i s i o n " of t h e F l ? r a l Park p l a n goes beyond t h e e x p r e s s i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h e s e s e c t i o n s of t h e Revised Codes o f Montana, 1947: *** "16-4102. p r o v i d i n g t h a t e x i s t i n g nonconforming u s e s may be c o n t i n u e d , a l t h o u g h n o t i n conformity w i t h such zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . 11 "16-4709. C o n t i n u a t t o n of e x i s t i n g u s e s . Any l a w f u l u s e which i s made of land o r b u i l d i n g s a t t h e time any zqning r e s o l u t i o n i s adopted by t h e board of county commissioners may be c o n t i n u e d , a l t h o u g h such u s e docs n o t conform t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of such r e s o l u t i o n . I I S e c t i o n 13-19 of t h e F l o r a l Park p l a n c r e a t e s a s i t u a t i o n where p r o p e r t y i n e x i s t e n c e c o n f l i c t i n g a s t o h e i g h t , a r e a , y a r d s , c o u r t s , ~ f l o o ra r e a and set-baclc r e s t r i c t i o n - s t a k e n from t h e s i p r o t e c t i o n of t h e above c i t e d two cqde s e c t i o n s . Thus, t h e g r a n d f a t h e r c l a u s e would n o t p r o t e c t a p p e l l a n t , s i n c e one of h i s p r o p e r t i e s i s a v a c a n t l o t and t h e o t h e r commercial b u t d e f i n e d by t h e r e s o l u t i o n so a s n o t t o be p r o t e c t e d . amounts t o an unreasonable and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y a c t i o n . This The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d . The c a u s e i s r e t u r n e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r e n t r y of an o r d e r e i t h e r e x c l u d t n g Alden's p r o p e r t y from t h e zoning p r o v i s i o n s o r x d e r i n g t h e C~mmissiont o z'xie i t p r o p e r l y a s commercial. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s , w i t h o u t c l e a r i n g i t up, t h a t t h e c i t y i s going t o o r h a s annexed p a r t of t h e a r e a and we a r e unable t o determine frgm t h i s r e c o r d t h e t r u e s i t u a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t s h a l l have h i s c o s t s . W Concur: e Chief J u s t i c e n Justices.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.