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.