Alden v. Board of Zoning Commissioners

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 Commis- s 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 Codes 3f Montana, 1947, a s amended, does n ~ supersede t 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 * * ** "4. 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- 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 pre- sented. 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. Exhibits c ~ n s i s t i n gof two maps and a copy of t h e r e s o l u t i o n 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 . This 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 . 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.