No. 12769
I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A
F H F OTN
STATE O MONTANA, ex r e 1 RUSSELL CENTER,
F
a Limited P a r t n e r s h i p Comprised of John
W. Martin C o n s t r u c t i o n e t a l . ,
R e l a t o r and A p p e l l a n t ,
CITY O MISSOULA , MONTANA, a Municipal Corporation,
F
C i t y Council of t h e C i t y of Missoula e t a l . ,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Edward Dussault, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
Boone, Karlberg & Haddon, Missoula , Montana
Sam E. Haddon argued and Thomas H . Boone appeared,
Missoula, Montana
For Respondents :
Worden, Thane, Haines & Williams, Missoula, Montana
Jeremy G. Thane argued, Missoula, Montana
Fred C . Root and V i c t o r F. V a l g e n t i , Missoula, Montana
Submitted: November 2 2 , 1974
Filed :
Q2.2 3 1 4975
Clerk
Honorable Gordon B e n n e t t , s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T.
H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court:
R e l a t o r s a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
Missoula County, denying and d i s m i s s i n g t h e i r p e t i t i o n f o r v a r i o u s
w r i t s of mandate and p r o h i b i t i o n and from t h a t c o u r t ' s o r d e r s
denying motions t o amend and supplement f i n d i n g s of f a c t and cnnclu-
s i o n s of law and f o r a new t r i a l . The cause was t r i e d t o t h e c o u r t
without a jury.
R e l a t o r s , a p p e l l a n t s h e r e , a r e t h e owners of a 38.79 a c r e
t r a c t i n Missoula, 32.78 a c r e s of which were zoned "C-1 Commercial",
t h e remaining s i x a c r e s were zoned "planned Unit Development (P. U.
D.)-Residential." O October 1 5 , 1973, t h e Missoula c i t y c o u n c i l
n
adopted a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o rezone t h e "C-1 Commercial"
a r e a t o "R-2" ( r e s i d e n t i a l ) , and r e f e r r e d t h e m a t t e r t o i t s
zoning commission.
O o r about October 24, 1973, a p p e l l a n t s a p p l i e d t o t h e c i r y
n
f o r a b u i l d i n g permit and an o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g permit f o r a
shopping c e n t e r t o be c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e i r p r o p e r t y . The a r e a
zoned P.U.D. was t o be used f o r o f f - s t r e e t parking. On F r i d a y ,
November 2 , 1973, t h e c i t y b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r i s s u e d a b u i l d i n g
permit t o a p p e l l a n t s , w i t h o u t an o f f - s t r e e t parking p e r m i t . The
f o l l o w i n g Monday, November 5 , 1973, t h e c i t y c o u n c i l , meeting i n
r e g u l a r s e s s i o n , revoked by r e s o l u t i o n t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t . By
l e t t e r d a t e d November 6 , 1973, an a s s i s t a n t b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r
a d v i s e d a p p e l l a n t s t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g permit had been revoked by
o r d e r of t h e c i t y c o u n c i l .
A p p e l l a n t s f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n November 9 , 1973, seeking, i n t e r
a l i a , w r i t s of mandate d i r e c t i n g respondent c i t y of Pfissoula t o
i s s u e a new permit t o r e p l a c e t h e revoked b u i l d i n g permit and a
parking permit a s a p p l i e d f o r ; a s w e l l a s w r i t s of p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t
i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e i s s u a n c e of such p e r m i t s .
N such r e l i e f could be rendered by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , n o r
o
can i t be by t h i s Court.
A w r i t of mandate i s a u t h o r i z e d s o l e l y f o r t h e purpose of
r e q u i r i n g p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s t o perform a c l e a r l e g a l duty. Section
93-9102, R.C.M. 1947. Courts may e n j o i n by w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n only
such a c t s by p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s a s a r e c l e a r l y unlawful. S e c t i o n
93-9201, R.C.M. 1947.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t concluded t h e b u i l d i n g permit i s s u e d by
t h e c i t y b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r was v o i d f o r t h r e e r e a s o n s :
1. I t was i s s u e d w i t h o u t r e a s o n a b l e compliance w i t h Chapter
32 of t h e Missoula C i t y Code d e a l i n g w i t h p a r k i n g r e q u i r e d a s a
c o n d i t i o n f o r i s s u a n c e of a b u i l d i n g permit under a n o t h e r s e c t i o n
of t h e Code.
2. Use of t h e a r e a zoned P.U.D.-Residential for off-street
p a r k i n g , a s proposed i n t h e plan p r e s e n t e d i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r
t h e p e r m i t , would v i o l a t e a c i t y zoning o r d i n a n c e .
3. A u t h o r i t y g r a n t e d i n t h e permit t o u s e t h e P.U.D. area
f o r o f f - s t r e e t parking c o n s t i t u t e d a r e z o n i n g of t h e a r e a w i t h o u t
meeting t h e requirements f o r r e z o n i n g s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 11-2705,
R.C.M. 1947.
W a g r e e w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on a l l t h r e e r e a s o n s .
e
Reason 1: S e c t i o n 5-1, Chapter 5 , of t h e Missoula C i t y Code
provides i n p a r t :
"The c i t y b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r s h a l l i s s u e t h e b u i l d i n g
permit only a f t e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g , t h e
survey and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n comply w i t h t h e terms of t h i s
c h a p t e r and Chapter 32."
Chapter 32, S e c t i o n 32-14.1 of t h e c i t y code, provides i n
part :
"SECTION I V : PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Two (2) c o p i e s of t h e
p l a n s of t h e proposed parking a r e a s h a l l be s u b m i t t e d t o
t h e C i t y B u i l d i n g ~ n s p e c t o r ' s o f f i c e a t t h e time of t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r b u i l d i n g permit f o r which t h e p a r k i n g
a r e a i s r e q u i r e d . Said p l a n s s h a l l b e drawn t 9 a s c a l e
of n o t l e s s t h a n one (1) i n c h , e q u a l t c ~f i f t y (50) f e e t ,
showing l o c a t i o n s of a l l p e r t i n e n t b u i l d i n g s , driveways,
s t r e e t s , parking arrangements, c i r c u l a t i o n p a t t e r n s ,
t r a f f i c s i g n s and markings, l i g h t i n g , l a n d s c a p i n g , pedes-
t r i a n walks, c u r b i n g , d r a i n a g e and o t h e r p e r t i n e n t f e a t u r e s . "
On November 1, 1973, one day b e f o r e t h e b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r
approved t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t , t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r informed him by
w r i t t e n memorandum t h a t t h e p l a n s f o r t h e p a r k i n g a r e a
s u b m i t t e d w i t h t h e b u i l d i n g permit a p p l i c a t i o n were d e f i c i e n t i n
r e s p e c t t o t h e s e f e a t u r e s r e q u i r e d t o be s e t f o r t h by S e c t i o n 32-14.1:
(1) s c a l e of drawing, (2) d r a i n a g e , (3) l a n d s c a p i n g , (4) l i g h t i n g ,
and (5) parking arrangements.
The e x i s t e n c e of t h e s e d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a s
submitted and a s i t s t o o d on t h a t day i s e s s e n t i a l l y u n c o n t r a d i c t e d
i n t h e e v i d e n c e , and t h e r e i s no evidence t h e y had been c o r r e c t e d
by t h e n e x t day when t h e b u i l d i n g permit was approved.
Reason 2. The b u i l d i n g permit a u t h o r i z e d an unlawful land
u s e i n v i o l a t i o n of a zoning ordinance. The s i x a c r e P.U.D.-
R e s i d e n t i a l a r e a a u t h o r i z e d by t h e permit t o be used f o r p a r k i n g
had been d u l y zoned by t h e c i c y c o u n c i l under C i t y Ordinance No.
1512, d a t e d August 1 4 , 1972, pursuant t o C i t y Ordinance No. 1306
which a u t h o r i z e d such r e z o n i n g . Ordinance No. 1512 was i n f u l l
f o r c e and e f f e c t on t h e day t h e b u i l d i n g permit was approved. The
1972 p e t i t i o n f o r r e z o n i n g , r e q u i r e d by Ordinance No. 1306, i n c l u d e d
a p l a n f o r r e s i d e n t i a l development i n t h e a r e a . Ordinance No. 1306
r e q u i r e s t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n f o l l o w t h e p l a n a s submitted and approved.
S e c t i o n 5-3 of t h e Elissoula C i t y Code a d o p t s t h e "Uniform
B u i l d i n g Code1', of which Sec. 302(a) p r o v i d e s :
"The a p p l i c a t i o n , p l a n s , and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f i l e d by
an a p p l i c a n t f o r a permit s h a l l be checked by t h e
B u i l d i n g O f f i c i a l . Such p l a n s may be reviewed by o t h e r
departments of t h e c i t y t o check compliance w i t h t h e
laws and o r d i n a n c e s under t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n . I f the
B u i l d i n g O f f i c i a l i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e work d e s c r i b e d
i n an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r permit and t h e p l a n s f i l e d t h e r e -
w i t h conform t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h i s Code and o t h e r
p e r t i n e n t laws and o r d i n a n c e s , and t h a t t h e f e e s p e c i f i e d
i n S e c t i o n 303(A) h a s been p a i d , he s h a l l i s s u e a permit
therefor t o the applicant. II
C l e a r l y t h e p l a n submitted by a p p e l l a n t s , p r o v i d i n g f o r p a r k i n g
f o r a commercial development i n an a r e a t h e n zoned f o r r e s i d e n t i a l
development, d i d n o t conform t o t h e c i t y zoning o r d i n a n c e s . Under
t h e above c i t e d s e c t i o n of t h e b u i l d i n g code, t h e b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r
was n o t a u t h o r i z e d t o approve t h e plan. I f t h e s i x - a c r e t r a c t were
t o be excluded.from t h e p l a n a s p r o v i d i n g f o r a u s e i n v i o l a t i o n
of t h e o r d i n a n c e s , t h e n t h e whole p l a n would f a i l b e c a u s e , a s t h e
evidence showed, w i t h o u t t h i s a r e a f o r p a r k i n g t h e p r o j e c t would n o t
meet t h e parking space requirements f o r a shopping c e n t e r a s s e t
f o r t h i n t h e c i t y codes. S e c t i o n 32-14.1.
Reason 3. The permit was void because i t had t h e e f f e c t of
rezoning t h e s i x a c r e P.U.D.-Residential t r a c t without complying with
s e c t i o n 11-2705, R.C.M. 1947. There can be no q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t t h e
permit a u t h o r i z e d a d i s t i n c t change i n u s e of t h e t r a c t from
r e s i d e n t i a l development, a s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e ordinance noted above,
t o commercial parking. To e f f e c t such a change, t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
s e c t i o n 11-2705, R.C.M. 1947, t o g e t h e r w i t h s e c t i o n 11-2704, should
have been implemented. This would have r e q u i r e d n o t i c e of t h e proposed
change, a h e a r i n g , and, i n c a s e of p r o t e s t , a f a v o r a b l e v o t e of
t h r e e - f o u r t h s of t h e c i t y c o u n c i l . These requirements were n o t
met i n any way, p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e permit.
A b u i l d i n g permit i s s u e d i n v i o l a t i o n of a municipal ordinance
o r o t h e r s t a t u t e i s void ab i n i t i o and c r e a t e s no l e g a l r i g h t s .
Weiner v. C i t y of Los Angeles, 68 Cal.Rptr. 733, 441 P.2d 293;
Ramaker v. C i t i e s S e r v i c e s O i l Co., 27Wisc,2d 143, 133 N.W.2d 789;
Simeone Stone Corp. v. O l i v a , 350 Mass. 31, 213 N.E.2d 230;
Bingham v. C i t y of F l i n t , 14 Mich.App.377, 165 N.W.2d 628; Plum
v. C i t y of Healdsburg, 237 C.A.2d 308, 46 Cal.Rptr. 827.
Appellants argue t h a t t h e uniform b u i l d i n g code having been
adopted by t h e c i t y of Missoula, S e c t i o n 302(e) t h e r e o f makes
r e v o c a t i o n of a b u i l d i n g permit t h e e x c l u s i v e domain of t h e b u i l d i n g
i n s p e c t o r who i s s u e d i t . That s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s :
" ( e ) Suspension o r Revocation. The Building O f f i c i a l
may, i n w r i t i n g , suspend o r revoke a permit i s s u e d under
p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s Code whenever t h e permit i s i s s u e d i n
e r r o r o r on t h e b a s i s of i n c o r r e c t information s u p p l i e d ,
o r i n v i o l a t i o n of any ordinance o r r e g u l a t i o n o r any of
t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s Code. I I
S e c t i o n 302 i s permissive and s e t s f o r t h t h e b a s i s f o r
r e v o c a t i o n and t h e means of n o t i c e t h e r e o f . It does n o t e x p l i c i t l y ,
nor i m p l i e d l y , l e a v e s o l e d i s c r e t i o n w i t h he Building ~ f f i c i a l "
a s t o whether t h e permit w i l l be revoked. I f t h e Missoula c i t y
c o u n c i l e v e r made a s p e c i f i c o r e x c l u s i v e d e l e g a t i o n of i t s power
t o revoke b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s , no evidence t o t h a t e f f e c t was o f f e r e d
the d i s t r i c t court. For l a c k of any such e v i d e n c e , we would con-
c l u d e t h e c i t y c o u n c i l has r e s e r v e d t o i t s e l f t h e power g r a n t e d i n
s e c t i o n 11-904, R.C.M. 1947:
"The c i t y o r town c o u n c i l has power: To f i x t h e
amount, terms and manner of i s s u i n g and revoking
l i c e n s e s ; b u t t h e c o u n c i l may r e f u s e t o i s s u e
l i c e n s e s when i t may deem i t b e s t f o r t h e p u b l i c
i n t e r e s t s . Il
Here, t h e a s s i s t a n t b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r , a c t i n g f o r t h e b u i l d i n g
i n s p e c t o r , who presumably i s t h e "Building O f f i c i a l " r e f e r r e d t o i n
S e c t i o n 302(e) of t h e Uniform B u i l d i n g Code, seems e s s e n t i a l l y t o
have f u l f i l l e d h i s r o l e under t h a t s e c t i o n . He gave n o t i c e of t h e
r e v o c a t i o n of t h e b u i l d i n g permit. He c i t e d t h e c i t y c o u n c i l ' s
r e s o l u t i o n a s h i s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e r e v o c a t i o n , b u t he c o u l d j u s t
a s w e l l have given a s h i s r e a s o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e permit was i s s u e d
i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e o r d i n a n c e s r e f e r r e d t o above. The permit b e i n g
void a b i n i t i o , t h e form of t h e n o t i f i c a t i o n , t h e r e a s o n s given i n
t h e n o t i c e o r even t h e procedure followed i n r e v o c a t i o n a r e n o t
critical. The c r i t i c a l f a c t i s t h a t a v a l i d permit was never
issued. The "revocation" by t h e c i t y c o u n c i l and t h e n o t i c e t h e r e o f
by t h e a s s i s t a n t b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r a r e more m a t t e r s of form t h a n
s u b s t a n c e and c o n s t i t u t e mere r e c o g n i t i o n o r a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t t h e
permit was and i s i n v a l i d f o r a l l purposes. In substance, t h e
c i t y c o u n c i l r e f u s e d t o i s s u e t h e permit and t h i s Court i s asked t o
o r d e r i t t o do s o . But, under t h e l a s t c l a u s e of s e c t i o n 11-904,
t h e C i t y i s empowered t o s o r e f u s e i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and, a g a i n ,
t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t t h e Missoula C i t y Council has d e l e g a t e d
t h a t power t o any person o r agency. There i s copious evidence i n
t h e t r a n s c r i p t s of t h e c o u n c i l ' s meetings t h a t i t deemed t h e r e f u s a l
t o be i n t h e public i n t e r e s t .
I n a d d i t i o n t o i t s f i n d i n g on t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t , t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t a l s o found t h e a p p e l l a n t s " f a i l e d t o provide t h e n e c e s s a r y
i n f o r m a t i o n i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r an o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g p e r m i t , a s
r e q u i r e d by o r d i n a n c e , and t h e r e f o r e may n o t compel t h e i s s u a n c e
of a permit by t h i s a c t i o n . " On t h e b a s i s of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence
b e f o r e t h i s Court we concur.
A s n o t e d , S e c t i o n 32-14.1 of t h e Missoula C i t y Code s e t s f o r t h
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r i s s u a n c e of a p a r k i n g permit. Under S e c t i o n V
of t h a t s e c t i o n , p a r k i n g p l a n s must b e reviewed by t h e b u i l d i n g
i n s p e c t o r and t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r t o i n s u r e conformity t o t h e r e -
quirements f o r o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g s e t f o r t h i n o t h e r p o r t i o n s of t h e
section. The c i t y e n g i n e e r i s charged w i t h reviewing and approving
II t h e proposed t r a f f i c c o n t r o l f o r t h e o f f - s t r e e t parking a r e a s and i t s
impact t o C i t y s t r e e t t r a f f i c p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e permit."
I n S e c t i o n V I , c e r t a i n minimum s t a n d a r d s f o r o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g
areas are s e t forth.
A t t h e time of t r i a l i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a p p e l l a n t s had n o t
supplied the c i t y engineer or the building inspector with data
r e q u i r e d by Plissoula Ordinance 1543 t o b e s u p p l i e d f o r t h e i r con-
s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p a r k i n g p e r m i t . O November 1 2 , 1973, t h e c i t y
n
engineer s e t f o r t h t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the a p p l i c a t i o n i n a l e t t e r
t o a p p e l l a n t John W. Martin C o n s t r u c t i o n Co.. From t h e d a t a t h a t
was s u p p l i e d , t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r concluded t h e t r a f f i c c i r c u l a t i o n
was i n a d e q u a t e because: t h e kind of s u r f a c i n g proposed f o r t h e
p a r k i n g a r e a was n o t i n d i c a t e d ; d a t a on d r a i n a g e was i n s u f f i c i e n t ;
d a t a which was s u p p l i e d i n d i c a t e d t o t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r t h a t t h e
d r a i n a g e system p r o p o s a l d i d n o t meet o r d i n a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s ;
s c r e e n i n g of t h e p a r k i n g a r e a , r e q u i r e d by t h e o r d i n a n c e , was n o t
d e s c r i b e d ; and, no d e s c r i p t i o n of l i g h t i n g o r s i g n s was g i v e n , a s
r e q u i r e d by t h e ordinance.
I t i s t r u e t h a t a l l n e g o t i a t i o n s between a p p e l l a n t s and t h e
C i t y i n r e g a r d t o t h e p a r k i n g permit were suspended on and a f t e r
November 5 , 1973, because of t h e c i t y c o u n c i l ' s a c t i o n t h a t day
revoking t h e b u i l d i n g permit and o r d e r i n g t h a t no p a r k i n g permit
be i s s u e d . But, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d n o t supply t h e m i s s i n g
d a t a , much l e s s determine i t s adequacy f q r t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r o r t h e
building inspector. I t c o u l d n o t t h e r e f o r e d i r e c t t h e i s s u a n c e of
a parking p e r m i t , n o r f o r b i d t h e c i t y c o u n c i l t n deny i t s i s s u a n c e .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t S e c t i o n V of Ordinance S e c t i o n
32-14.1 of t h e ~ l i s s o u l aC i t y Code, e n a c t e d a s a p a r t of C i t y Ordinance
1543, i s v a l i d . Appellants disagree, maintaining i t unconstitutional
on i t s f a c e and a s a p p l i e d i n t h i s c a s e .
Section V provides:
"PLAN REVIEW: The proposed p l a n s w i l l be reviewed by
t h e B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r and C i t y Engineer t o i n s u r e
conformity t o r e q u i r e m e n t s c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s S e c t i o n .
The C i t y Engineer s h a l l review and approve t h e proposed
t r a f f i c c o n t r o l f o r t h e o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g a r e a s and
i t s impact t o C i t y s t r e e t t r a f f i c p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e of
t h e p e r m i t . 11
A p p e l l a n t s i n s i s t t h i s p r o v i s i o n v i o l a t e s t h e due p r o c e s s pro-
v i s i o n s of t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n
and S e c t i o n 1 7 , A r t . I1 of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ; S e c t i o n 29, A r t .
I1 of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , p r o h i b i t i n g t h e t a k i n g of p r i v a t e
p r o p e r t y f o r p u b l i c u s e w i t h o u t j u s t compensation; and S e c t i o n 3 1
of A r t . I1 of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , p r o h i b i t i n g e x p o s t f a c t o
laws and laws i m p a i r i n g t h e o b l i g a t i o n of c o n t r a c t s . Appellants
a r g u e t h i s i s s o because t h e c i t e d s e c t i o n p u r p o r t s by i t s language
t o g r a n t t~ t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r a u t h o r i t y t o withhold i s s u a n c e of a
p a r k i n g permit w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o any s t a n d a r d s e t f o r t h i n t h e
ordinance. T h i s , t h e y m a i n t a i n , i s an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e l e g a t i o n of
- --
, -
a u t h o r i t y @ f j t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r amounting t o a d e l e g a t i o n of l e g i s l a -
t i v e power.
W f i n d no such u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n f i r m i t y i n S e c t i o n V.
e In
i t s f i r s t s e n t e n c e copious g u i d e l i n e s a r e l a i d down f o r t h e b u i l d i n g
i n s p e c t o r and c i t y e n g i n e e r by r e f e r e n c e t o s p e c i f i c r e q u i r e m e n t s
s e t f o r t h i n t h e r e s t of t h e ordinance. I n i t s second s e n t e n c e
i t a s s i g n s t o t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r a f a c t f i n d i n g f u n c t i o n , i . e . he
must d i s c o v e r what impact t h e proposed p l a n w i l l have on s t r e e t
t r a f f i c and on t h a t b a s i s approve o r d i s a p p r o v e of t h e plan. This
c a l l s f o r an e x e r c i s e o f e x p e r t i s e and judgment t h a t would b e ex-
t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n an o r d i n a n c e o r s t a t u t e
and f o r which t h e c i t y c o u n c i l must r e l y on t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r .
I n S t a t e ex r e l . Bennett v. Stow, 144 Pfont. 599,619, 399 P.2d
t h i s Court s a i d :
Il
I t would appear t h a t an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r , b u r e a u ,
a g e n t o r employee of t h e C i t y may be i n v e s t e d w i t h t h e
power t o a s c e r t a i n and determine whether t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ,
f a c t s , o r c o n d i t i o n s comprehended i n and r e q u i r e d under t h e
p r o v i s i o n s of an o r d i n a n c e e x i s t , and whether t h e p r o v i s i o n s
of t h e ordinance s o f i x e d and d e c l a r e d have been complied
w i t h . I n our view, t h e f a c t t h a t such an ordinance does
impose t h e d u t y of a s c e r t a i n i n g f a c t s r e l a t i n g t o p u b l i c
h e a l t h , s a f e t y , w e l f a r e , and s o on, upon an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
o f f i c e r , b u r e a u , a g e n t o r employee of t h e C i t y cannot b e
s a i d t o c o n f e r l e g i s l a t i v e power upon such employees. I n
Montana, where members of c i t y c o u n c i l s a r e n o t f u l l - t i m e
o f f i c i a l s , t h e y must depend upon a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r s ,
b u r e a u s , a g e n t s and employees t o do t h e leg-work n e c e s s a r y
i n any t y p e of i n v e s t i g a t i o n and, f u r t h e r , we would assume
t h a t t h o s e t o whom i s d e l e g a t e d t h i s l a b o r would b e t h o s e
f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e b u s i n e s s , t h e f u n c t i o n s of t h e C i t y w i t h
r e s p e c t t h e r e t o , and t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e ordinance which
must be complied w i t h . "
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s should n o t be s o i n t e r p r e t e d a s t o
impose unreasonable r e q u i r e m e n t s upon m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r t h e s p e c i -
f i c a t i o n of i t s o f f i c i a l s ' d u t i e s w i t h r e g a r d functions t h a t a r e
necessarily discretionary. A ordinance t h a t attempted t o d e f i n e
n
i n d e t a i l what " t r a f f i c impact" i s would e i t h e r be so t e c h n i c a l a s
t o be unworkable o r would f a l l s h o r t of b e i n g s u f f i c i e n t l y compre-
hensive.
Nor do we f i n d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of S e c t i o n V by t h e c i t y
e n g i n e e r t o be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . In t h i s case the c i t y engineer
i n s i s t e d t h a t a t r a f f i c survey be made by a p p e l l a n t s t o a s s i s t
him i n determining t h e t r a f f i c impact. The proposed p r o j e c t
encompassed 410,000 s q u a r e f e e o f l e a s e a b l e a r e a , more a r e a t h a n
e x i s t e d i n a l l of "downtown" Missoula a t t h a t t i m e , w i t h t h r e e major
t e n a n t s and approximately 50 s p e c i a l t y shops and s t o r e s w i t h i n a c l i -
m a t i c a l l y c o n t r o l M and covered mall. Paved and l i g h t e d p a r k i n g f o r
i n e x c e s s of 2 , 8 0 0 c a r s was planned. The p r o j e c t was i n t h e v i c i n i t y
of a s c h o c l , a n o t h e r major shopping c e n t e r , and two major thorough-
fares. I t i s n o t unreasonable t h a t t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r f e l t t h e
n e c e s s i t y f o r some kind of survey t o determine t r a f f i c impact. On
t h e c o n t r a r y , i t would seem he would be r e m i s s i n n o t doing s o . To
f o r b i d t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r t o r e q u i r e a t r a f f i c survey under t h e c i r -
cumstances p r e s e n t h e r e would be t o f o r b i d him t o c a r r y o u t t h e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y given him under t h e o r d i n a n c e and t o f o r b i d t h e
C i t y t o c a r r y out t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i t has under Montana law t o
p r o t e c t t h e s a f e t y and w e l f a r e of i t s c i t i z e n s .
F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t s a s k t h i s Court t o a p p l y t h e d o c t r i n e of
e s t o p p e l a g a i n s t t h e C i t y of Missoula, and on such b a s i s o r d e r t h e
C i t y t o r e i s s u e t h e b u i l d i n g permit and i s s u e t h e parking permit.
Several f a c t s a r e pertinent: On August 31, 1973, t h e c i t y
b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r a d v i s e d M r . Boone, a t t o r n e y f o r a p p e l l a n t s , by
l e t t e r "As t o u s i n g t h e now zoned P D t o t h e n o r t h of t h i s p r o j e c t ,
U
f o r a parking l o t I wquld n o t be a b l e t o answer. " On September 2 6 ,
1973, t h e b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r f u r t h e r a d v i s e d Fir. Boone:
11A s you know, a p o r t i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d t o
t h e North of t h e p r o j e c t i s zoned P D U .While t h i s
zoning i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t proposed
by M r . William Curran of Curran C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., I n c .
I have been a d v i s e d by t h e C i t y Attorney t h a t t h i s
a r e a which i s zoned 'PUD' i s t o be used f o r parking
purposes i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e shopping c e n t e r . A
copy of t h e l e t t e r by Fred C . Root, C i t y A t t o r n e y f o r
t h e C i t y of Missoula i s a t t a c h e d f o r your i n f o r m a t i o n . 11
The c i t y a t t o r n e y ' s l e t t e r r e f e r r e d t o , d a t e d September 25, 1973,
states i n part:
11You have r e q u e s t e d m opinion a s t o whether you may
y
a u t h o r i z e t h e b u i l d i n g o f a s t r u c t u r e which q u a l i f i e s
under C - I o r C - I 1 zoning ordinances and which b u i l d i n g
would be a d j a c e n t t o an a r e a zoned P-U-D and a l l o w
t h e b u i l d e r s t o u s e a p o r t i o n o f t h e P-U-D zoned a r e a
f o r a parking l o t .
II
Your q u e s t i o n p r e d i s p o s e s t h a t b o t h a r e a s a r e i n a
s i n g l e ownership. Where t h i s s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s , you
may a u t h o r i z e such a s t r u c t u r e and permit t h e b u i l d e r
t o u s e an a r e a i n t h e P-U-D zone t o meet t h e p a r k i n g
requirements of t h e s t r u c t u r e . I I
On October 1 5 , 1973, M r . Boone appeared and p a r t i c i p a t e d on
b e h a l f of a p p e l l a n t s a t t h e c i t y c o u n c i l meeting which culminated
i n t h e passage of t h e r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o rezone t h e a r e a ,
which c a r r i e d 9 t o 1, w i t h one member a b s e n t and a n o t h e r n o t v o t i n g .
I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h e b u i l d i n g permit was i s s u e d November 2 ,
1973, (without t h e parking permit b e i n g approved) and t h e c i t y
c o u n c i l o r d e r e d i t revoked on November 5 , 1973.
To summarize, M r . Boone, a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y and presumably
t h e i r a g e n t , was a d v i s e d by t h e C i t y on August 31 t h a t i t was unknown
a s t o whether t h e P.U.D. a r e a could be used f o r parking. He was
a d v i s e d on September 25 t h a t i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y i f
b o t h t h e commercial a r e a and t h e P.U.D. a r e a were i n s i n g l e ownership
t h e b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r could permit t h e b u i l d e r t o u s e t h e P.U.D.
a r e a t o meet parking r e q u i r e m e n t s , n o t h i n g whatever was s a i d about
complying w i t h zoning o r d i n a n c e s and b u i l d i n g codes. On October 15
M r . Boone was made p e r s o n a l l y aware t h a t t h e c i t y c o u n c i l d i d n o t
approve of t h e commercial development and i n t e n d e d t o rezone t h e
area t o residential. A Saturday and a Sunday passed between t h e
time t h e b u i l d i n g permit was i s s u e d and t h e time i t was revoked.
There i s no evidence of any change i n a p p e l l a n t s ' p o s i t i o n over
t h a t weekend.
On t h e o t h e r hand, i t i s c l e a r t h e proposed p r o j e c t would
have an enormous impact on t h e c i t y of Missoula and a p a r t i c u l a r l y
a c u t e impact on t h e t r a f f i c , s a f e t y and commerce of t h e a r e a i n
which i t was t o be l o c a t e d . A r e a d i n g of t h e l e n g t h y t r a n s c r i p t s
of meetings o f t h e c i t y c o u n c i l makes i t p a t e n t t h a t a h e a l t h y
m a j o r i t y of i t s members were s t o u t l y opposed t o t h e p r o j e c t b e f o r e
and a f t e r t h e b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t o r i s s u e d t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t , on t h e
ground t h e surrounding a r e a was i n c a p a b l e of h a n d l i n g t h e develop-
ment. The e n t i r e r e c o r d makes i t c l e a r t h a t a p p e l l a n t s , d u r i n g
September and October 1973, were i n a r a c e t o b e a t impending
rezoning.
Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s should t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e
e s t o p p e l be a p p l i e d t o t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ? W think not.
e
P r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e b u i l d i n g p e r m i t , a p p e l l a n t s had
n o t h i n g t h a t would r i s e t o t h e d i g n i t y of an a s s u r a n c e from t h e
C i t y o r any of i t s a g e n t s t h a t a permit would be i s s u e d i n any
event o r t h a t t h e P.U.D. a r e a could be used f o r parking. U to this
p
p o i n t e x p e n d i t u r e s could n o t be s a i d t o have been made i n r e l i a n c e
on any a s s u r a n c e from t h e C i t y . I t was t h e o r d i n a r y c a s e of a
d e v e l o p e r spending i t s money i n t h e hope t h a t a p p r o v a l would f i n a l l y
be o b t a i n e d . To hold i n such a c a s e t h a t n e g o t i a t i o n s between
t h e d e v e l o p e r s and t h e C i t y a u t h o r i t i e s somehow commits t h e C i t y
t o t h e g r a n t i n g of a u t h o r i t y , would have t h e e f f e c t of d i s c o u r a g i n g
a l l such n e g o t i a t i o n s i n t h e f u t u r e , a h i g h l y u n d e s i r a b l e r e s u l t .
A s t h e r e i s no showing of change of p o s i t i o n on t h e p a r t of
a p p e l l a n t s between t h e time t h e permit was i s s u e d and t h e time
i t was revoked, e s t o p p e l c o u l d n o t be invoked f o r t h i s p e r i o d .
Even i f a p p e l l a n t s had i n f a c t r e l i e d upon r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s
of t h e C i t y t o i t s d e t r i m e n t , which we h o l d i s n o t t h e c a s e , t h e r e
would remain t h e m a t t e r of b a l a n c i n g t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e munici-
p a l i t y a g a i n s t t h a t of a p p e l l a n t s . I n S t a t e ex r e l . Barker v.
Town of S t e v e n s v i l l e , Mon t . , 523 P.2d 1388, 1391, 31
S t . Rep. 496, 500, i t was h e l d :
III n 2 1.llunlcipal Corporation Law, Antieau (1973
Ed.) 516A.06, a t e s t i s suggested f o r circum-
s t a n c e s i n which t h e d o c t r i n e should a p p l y :
"'1t i s suggested t h a t t h e r e should be
no g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t e s t o p p e l i s n o t t o be
a p p l i e d i n p o l i c e power s i t u a t i o n s . Rather
c o u r t s should be encouraged t o weigh i n e v e r y
c a s e t h e g r a v i t y of t h e i n j u s t i c e t o t h e c i t i z e n
i f the doctrine i s not applied against the injury
t o t h e common weal i f t h e d o c t r i n e i s a p p l i e d i n
t h a t c a s e . Where anv danger t o t h e p u b l i c i s
s l i g h t and a c i t i z e n h a s made a good f a i t h and
s u b s t a n t i a l change i n p o s i t i o n i n r e a s o n a b l e
r e l i a n c e upon t h e conduct o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s
of municipal o f f i c i a l s and a g e n t s , s e v e r a l
c o u r t s have e s t o p ed t h e l o c a l government from
exercising t h e i r power" i n a way i n -
consistent with t h e i r p r i o r representations o r
actions. I
"We a g r e e w i t h t h i s approach. I n c a s e s of
t h i s k i n d , t h e r e should be a b a l a n c i n g of t h e
municipal c o r p o r a t i o n ' s unwarranted assumption
of r i s k of l i a b i l i t y f o r a c t s o r s t a t e m e n t s of
i t s a g e n t s o r employees made i n e x c e s s of t h e i r
a u t h o r i t y a g a i n s t t h e harm done t o good f a i t h ,
i n n o c e n t and unknowledgeable t h i r d p a r t i e s who
a c t i n r e l i a n c e upon t h o s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . I t
f o l l o w s t h a t each c a s e w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y have t o
be judged upon i t s own unique f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n . I I
The f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n h e r e l e a v e s no doubt t h a t t h e e q u i t a b l e
balance i s i n f a v o r of t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y .
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
Hon. Gordon B e n n e t t , s i t t i n g f o r
Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n .
W e Concur: