No. 12516
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1975
JAMES WHEELER and EDITH WHEELER,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
-vs -
RALPH ARMSTRONG, GEORGE GILLETTE e t a l . ,
Respondents and D e f e n d a n t s ,
-vs -
DEAN H. TRAVIS e t a l . ,
Intervenors .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable J a c k Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellants :
B e n n e t t and B e n n e t t , Bozeman, Montana
Lyman B e n n e t t 1 1 a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
1
F o r Respondents :
Olson and G a i , Bozeman, Montana
Thomas A. Olson a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
For Intervenors:
Brown and G i l b e r t , Bozeman, Montana
Gene I. Brown a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: March 6 , 1975
Decided: AFR - 3 19%
Filed: -3 41975
PER CURIAM:
T h i s i s t h e c u l m i n a t i o n o f a s e r i e s of r e l a t e d c a s e s .
The f a c t s a r e d e t a i l e d i n Wheeler v . Armstrong, 159 Mont. 392, 498
P.2d 300. W promulgated a unanimous o p i n i o n on November 1 9 ,
e
1974; s u b s e q u e n t l y g r a n t e d a r e h e a r i n g , and r e h e a r d t h e e n t i r e
m a t t e r on March 6 , 1975. T h i s o p i n i o n r e p l a c e s t h a t i s s u e d on
November 1 9 , 1974 a s r e p o r t e d i n 3 1 St.Rep. 907.
E s s e n t i a l l y what h a s o c c u r r e d i s t h i s :
A p p e l l a n t s James and E d i t h Wheeler ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d
t o a s t h e Wheelers) own a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t a c r e s of l a n d w e s t
of t h e Bozeman c i t y l i m i t s . A s e a r l y a s 1966 some r e s i d e n t s of
the
t h e a r e a a t t e m p t e d t o h a v e / a r e a zoned, b u t a s of t h e s p r i n g o f
1970 when t h e Wheelers began c o n s t r u c t i n g a m o b i l e home p a r k on
t h e i r p r o p e r t y , t h e r e were no zoning r e s t r i c t i o n s . A f t e r some
l e g a l p r o d d i n g by t h e s e same r e s i d e n t s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t zoning
board (Zoning Board of P l a n n i n g and Zoning D i s t r i c t No. One,
G a l l a t i n County, Montana, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e zoning
b o a r d ) on J u n e 1 2 , 1970, a d o p t e d a n o r d i n a n c e making t h e e x i s -
t e n c e of a mobile home p a r k i n t h i s a r e a a c o n d i t i o n a l u s e . When
t h i s o r d i n a n c e was a d o p t e d t h e Wheelers a l r e a d y had t h r e e m o b i l e
home u n i t s on t h e p r o p e r t y and had o b t a i n e d p e r m i s s i o n from t h e
c o u n t y f o r i n s t a l l a t i c n of s e p t i c t a n k s f o r t h r e e more.
During t h e summer of 1970, t h e Wheelers c o n t i n u e d t o move
m o b i l e homes o n t o t h e i r p r o p e r t y even though no a p p l i c a t i o n was
made f o r a c o n d i t i o n a l u s e p e r m i t as r e q u i r e d by t h e o r d i n a n c e .
On March 1 8 , 1971, t h e zoning board o b t a i n e d a n i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t
t h e Wheelers p r o h i b i t i n g them from f u r t h e r v i o l a t i n g t h e zoning
o r d i n a n c e and o r d e r i n g them t o remove a l l b u t s i x of t h e m o b i l e
home u n i t s . (A nonconforming u s e f o r t h e s e s i x u n i t s had been
established.) The Wheelers r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h t h i s o r d e r
and u l t i m a t e l y were c i t e d f o r contempt.
On J u l y 1, 1971, t h e Wheelers p e t i t i o n e d t h e zoning
board f o r a v a r i a n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e p r o p e r t y .
S i n c e t h e i r p e t i t i o n s e t f o r t h s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same matters
which had been l i t i g a t e d a t p r i o r h e a r i n g s , t h e zoning board
denied it. Appeal was t a k e n t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , b u t was d i s -
missed on t h e t h e o r y of res j u d i c a t a . The d i s m i s s a l , i n t u r n ,
was a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t and r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n of Wheeler
v . Armstrong, 159 Mont. 392, 498 P.2d 300. W e held t h e r e t h a t
t h e Wheelers were a t l e a s t e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g on t h e i r p e t i -
t i o n b e c a u s e a nonconforming u s e and v a r i a n c e were n o t t h e same
and t h e r e f o r e t h e p r i o r l i t i g a t i o n was n o t r e s j u d i c a t a .
The h e a r i n g ( t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s a p p e a l ) was h e l d on
J a n u a r y 3 , 1973. A t t h i s h e a r i n g t h e i n t e r v e n o r s Dean T r a v i s ,
e t al., were made p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . Wheelers produced s e v -
e r a l n e i g h b o r s who t e s t i f i e d t h e y had no o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e e x t e n -
s i o n of t h e mobile home p a r k . Intervenors presented an o f f s e t t -
i n g number of w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d t o t h e c o n t r a r y . The zoning
board c a l l e d Richard M a y f i e l d , c i t y - c o u n t y p l a n n i n g d i r e c t o r i n
Bozeman, who t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h e l a n d u s e p l a n f o r t h e a r e a .
Among o t h e r t h i n g s , Mayfield s a i d s t u d i e s r e v e a l e d s e v e r e l i m i -
t a t i o n s i n t h e area with respect t o building foundations, s e p t i c
w a s t e d i s p o s a l and hydrology. From t h e judgment e n t e r e d f o r r e -
s p o n d e n t board and i n t e r v e n o r s denying t h e v a r i a n c e , t h e Wheelers
appealed.
The i s s u e i s whether t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t were f a i r l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e .
A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r v a r i a n c e s t o zoning o r d i n a n c e s a r e
governed by t h e d e c i s i o n s i n Freeman v . Board of Adjustment, 97
Mont. 342, 34 P.2d 534, and Lambros v . M i s s o u l a , 153 Mont. 2 0 ,
26, 452 P.2d 393. Lambros s e t s o u t t h r e e c r i t e r i a a p e t i t i o n
f o r v a r i a n c e must meet:
1) The v a r i a n c e must n o t be c o n t r a r y t o p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ;
2) A l i t e r a l enforcement of t h e zoning o r d i n a n c e must
r e s u l t i n u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p , owing t o c o n d i t i o n s u n i q u e t o
t h e p r o p e r t y ; and
3) The s p i r i t o f t h e o r d i n a n c e must be o b s e r v e d , and
s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e done.
Applying t h e s e c r i t e r i a t o t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t , t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found a g a i n s t t h e Wheelers i n each
instance.
I n r e v i e w i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, we n o t e t h e r u l e
s t a t e d i n F r e e m a n , t h a t it i s o n l y n e c e s s a r y t o a s c e r t a i n whether
t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l and competent e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n t h e a c t i o n
of t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
The Wheelers c o n t e n d t h a t o u r d e c i s i o n i n Wheeler p r e -
c l u d e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g from t a k i n g j u d i c i a l
n o t i c e of t h e o t h e r r e l a t e d c a s e s between t h e same p a r t i e s . How-
e v e r , t h e r e c o r d shows t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o o k j u d i c i a l n o t i c e
o f t h e s e o t h e r c a s e s o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h e i r f a c t s were r e l e v a n t
t o t h e i n s t a n t case. The c o u r t s t a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e s e c a s e s
were n o t res j u d i c a t a a s t o t h e new i s s u e s . T h i s r u l i n g was
t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r and n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r h o l d i n g i n Wheeler.
A t t h e h e a r i n g c o u n s e l f o r Wheelers i n v i t e d Judge Shanstrom
t o view t h e a r e a . Judge Shanstrom i n d i c a t e d he would do s o and
found a s f a c t s t h a t :
"The Wheelers planned t h e i r f o r t y - s e v e n u n i t t r a i l e r
c o u r t w i t h knowledge t h a t t h e a r e a r e s i d e n t s had
p r e v i o u s l y s u b m i t t e d a zoning p e t i t i o n t o t h e County
Commissioners.
"The Wheelers expended monies on t h e p r o j e c t w i t h
knowledge t h a t t h e l o c a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t had t a k e n
jurisdiction i n the matter.
"The Wheelers expended money and c o n t i n u e d t o move
t r a i l e r s o n t o t h e p r o p e r t y a f t e r t h e Zoning Com-
m i s s i o n had f i l e d a n o r d i n a n c e d e s c r i b i n g t h e C o u r t
a s a 'conditional use1, only a f t e r p e t i t i o n .
"The Wheelers expended money, and moved a d d i t i o n a l
t r a i l e r s o n t o t h e i r l a n d a f t e r Judge S t e w a r t found
t h e y had a r i g h t t o o n l y s i x t r a i l e r s .
"The Wheelers r e f u s e d t o remove t h e e x c e s s i v e number
o f t r a i l e r s u n t i l t h e y had been f i n e d and found i n
contempt of C o u r t .
"Any i n j u r y s u f f e r e d by Wheelers h a s been c a u s e d by
t h e i r own n e g l i g e n c e and d e l i k r a t e v i o l a t i o n of
C o u r t o r d e r s , n o t e d above.
"The s u r r o u n d i n g p r o p e r t y i n t h e a r e a i n q u e s t i o n
i s r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l homes. N o t r a i l e r c o u r t s a r e
l o c a t e d i n t h e immediate v i c i n i t y of t h e Wheeler
property.
"The h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n o f f i c e r s have e x p r e s s e d
c o n c e r n o v e r t h e immediate i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e
t r a i l e r c o u r t . I'
Judge Shanstrom t h e n concluded:
"The h a r d s h i p s u f f e r e d by Wheelers i s a r e s u l t of
t h e i r own n e g l i g e n c e and d e l i b e r a t e v i o l a t i o n s of
t h i s C o u r t ' s O r d e r s and n o t t h e r e s u l t of t h e unique
c o n d i t i o n of t h e i r p r o p e r t y .
"The c h a r a c t e r of t h e neighborhood would be m a t e r i a l l y
a f f e c t e d and changed by t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n
f o r variance.
"The neighborhood h a s e x p e r i e n c e d s a n i t a t i o n problems
i n t h e p a s t and t h e i m p o s i t i o n of t h e t r a i l e r c o u r t
proposed, i s n o t j u s t i f i e d .
"The g r a n t i n g of a v a r i a n c e t o t h e Wheelers i s con-
t r a r y t o the public interest."
C l e a r l y , under t h e t h r e e c r i t e r i a h e r e t o f o r e s e t f o r t h ,
t h e s e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e
v a r i a n c e was n o t p r o p e r .
Wheelers d i d show t h a t t h e y c o u l d comply w i t h h e a l t h and
s a n i t a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s , b u t d i d n o t show where t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t
would be s e r v e d by a v a r i a n c e . A l s o , from t h e f i n d i n g s h e r e t o -
f o r e s e t f o r t h , it i s s e e n t h a t any h a r d s h i p w a s l a r g e l y s e l f -
imposed, i n t h e s e n s e t h a t Wheelers were g o i n g t o go ahead i n
s p i t e of a n y t h i n g .
W have reviewed t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d and f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l
e
c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o uphold 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 .
We affirm the judgment.
Honorable Alfred B. Coate, District Judge, sat in
place of Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison.