No. 13033
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STA?'li OF MONTANA
1975
STERLING RYGG and INGA RYGG e t a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
U L I S P E L L BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF
KALISPELL , MONTANA,
Defendant and Respondent,
and
WILLIAM E. ASTLE and DAVID L. ASTLE,
Intervenors.
A p p e a l from; N s t r i c t Court o f t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R o b e r t C. Sykes, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel- o f Record :
For Appellants :
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn and P h i l l i p s ,
Ka l i s p e l l , Montana
I. James Heckathorn a r g u e d and George B. Best
a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana
For Respondents :
Rockwood, Murray and Donahue, K a l i s p e l l , ~ o n t a i a
Norbert F. Donahue a r g u e d , K a l - i s p e l l , Montana
X s t l e and A s t l e , K a l i s p e l l , Montana
W i l l i a m E. A s t l e a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana
Submitted: December 11, 1975
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 o f t h e Court.
This i s an a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f s from a judgment of
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , F l a t h e a d County, a f f i r m i n g a v a r i a n c e o r d e r
g r a n t e d by t h e K a l i s p e l l Board of Adjustment f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n
o f a law o f f i c e i n a zoned r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a .
P l a i n t i f f s , a p p e l l a n t s h e r e , a r e r e s i d e n t s o f Block
105, K a l i s p e l l , Montana. Block 105 . i s zonedrag a No. -1 Resi-
dential District. The i n t e r v e n o r s a r e William E. and David L.
A s t l e , b r o t h e r s , who a r e lawyers. They purchased a r e s i d e n c e
i n t h e zoned r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a and r e q u e s t e d a v a r i a n c e f o r t h e
o p e r a t i o n of a p r o f e s s i o n a l o f f i c e f o r t h e p r a c t i c e of law i n
t h e r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g l o c a t e d a t 705 Main S t r e e t .
The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e v a r i a n c e was n o t i c e d f o r
hearing. P l a i n t i f f s , e i g h t i n number, were p r e s e n t a t t h e
h e a r i n g , r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , and testimony f o r and a g a i n s t t h e
v a r i a n c e was heard. The v a r i a n c e was g r a n t e d w i t h r e s t r i c t i o n s
t h a t t h e r e would be no e x t e r i o r s t r u c t u r a l changes made t o t h e
b u i l d i n g and t h a t t h e u s e was l i m i t e d t o two a t t o r n e y s and two
secretaries. I t allowed s i x maintained o f f - s t r e e t parking spaces
and a s i g n e r e c t e d a s s t a t e d i n a l e t t e r from t h e Board of Ad-
j u s tment ,
P l a i n t i f f s were opponents o r o b j e c t o r s a t t h e h e a r i n g
and t h e y sought a w r i t of review i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The
d i s t r i c t c o u r t reviewed t h e evidence b e f o r e t h e Board o f Adjust-
ment and a f f i r m e d t h e r u l i n g of t h e Board. It i s from t h i s
a f f i r m a n c e t h a t t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s Court i s made.
The f a c t s show t h a t t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y f r o n t s on
U.S. Highway No. 93, a primary north-south highway r o u t e through
Kalispell. It i s s i t u a t e d on t h e c o r n e r of U.S. Highway No. 93
and Seventh S t r e e t E a s t ; and a t t h e time o f t h e v a r i a n c e h e a r i n g
was t h e only e x i s t i n g s i n g l e family u s e o f t h e f o u r c o r n e r s of
the intersection. Also, i t i s t h e o n l y s i n g l e family u s e l o c a t e d
on t h e c o r n e r of an i n t e r s e c t i o n from t h e Flathead County c o u r t -
house through t h e c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t o f K a l i s p e l l .
The e x i s t i n g u s e s of t h e t h r e e c o r n e r s of t h e i n t e r s e c -
t i o n a r e a multi-family apartment house; a c l i n i c o f f i c e b u i l d i n g
which i n c l u d e s a mental h e a l t h c l i n i c w i t h o u t - p a t i e n t s e r v i c e
and a Carpenters D i s t r i c t Council O f f i c e ; and a p a r o c h i a l grade
school. The s o u t h e a s t c o r n e r of Block 105 has an e x i s t i n g law
office. Across t h e s t r e e t from t h a t i s a d e n t i s t ' s o f f i c e .
Behind t h e law o f f i c e , f r o n t i n g on 1st Avenue E a s t , i s an i n s u r -
ance o f f i c e .
The o b j e c t o r s were eleven owners of f i v e s e p a r a t e l o t s
i n Block 105. Seven out of t e n p r o p e r t y owners f r o n t i n g on Main
S t r e e t , i n c l u d i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t s , d i d n o t oppose t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .
The Board d i d n o t have formal r u l e s f o r i t s guidance b u t
d i d have a p o l i c y t o c o n s i d e r neighboring commercial p r o p e r t i e s
a s n o t opposed u n l e s s t h e c o n t r a r y i s expressed. Also t h e p o l i c y
was t o weigh t h e views of t h e neighboring p r o p e r t y owners i n
r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e e n t i r e community.
The s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y was viewed by t h e Board. The Board
s t a t e d , and i t i s obvious from t h e foregoing d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e
uses, t h a t t h i s area i s i n a t r a n s i t i o n stage. By p l a c i n g t h e
r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e v a r i a n c e g r a n t e d , t h e Board made an a t t e m p t
t o keep t h e appearance and u s e l i m i t e d t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e degree.
T h i s appeal i s made on t h e b a s i c p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e
Board has undertaken t o rezone Block 105 by t h e expedient o f
g r a n t i n g c o n t i n u a l and s u c c e s s i v e u s e v a r i a n c e s and t h i s method of
rezoning i s improper. I n p l a i n t i f f s ' view of t h e evidence, t h i s was
shown. However, whether t h e " e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r " of t h e neighbor-
hood w i l l b e changed does n o t appear. I n f a c t t h e c o n t r a r y appears.
I n response t o a q u e s t i o n concerning a p o l i c y o f t h e
Mayor and t h e Council on v a r i a n c e s , t h e chairman of t h e Board
of Adjustment t e s t i f i e d :
"A. Well, i t ' s s t i l l t h e same a l l of t h e c o u n c i l
t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e planning board a r e working on
rezoning, n o t j u s t t h i s a r e a b u t t h e e n t i r e c i t y
and t h e p a s t t h i n k i n g has been t h a t i f t h i s a r e a
were rezoned, n o t j u s t t h i s a r e a b u t Main S t r e e t
and Idaho S t r e e t , t h e two U.S. Highways,if t h e y were
rezoned, any b u s i n e s s could go i n and t h e r e could b e
no stopping i t . For i n s t a n c e , t h e r e q u e s t was made
f o r t h e ~ a c ~ o n a l d Drive-In t o go r i g h t e x a c t l y on
's
t h e p r o p e r t y t h a t we a r e t a l k i n g about r i g h t now and
i t was discouraged b u t t h e r e was no formal a c t i o n
taken. I t j u s t d i d n ' t r e c e i v e encouragement. The
Mayor and t h e Council have c o n s t a n t l y p r e f e r r e d t o
have t h i s a r e a i n d i s c u s s i o n remain a s r e s i d e n c e and
l e t v a r i a n c e s be g r a n t e d which would e n a b l e more
p l e a s a n t and a s a t i s f a c t o r y t r a n s i t i o n . I t
I n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e e n t i r e testimony, i t was c l e a r t h a t o n l y
v a r i a n c e s which would b e compatible w i t h t h e remaining r e s i d e n t i a l
use were considered.
W f i n d t h e i s s u e h e r e i s whether a u s e v a r i a n c e g r a n t e d
e
a f t e r s t a t u t o r y procedures have been followed can b e s e t a s i d e
without a showing of an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n ?
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e has any such c l e a r showing been
made t o j u s t i f y ' r e v e r s a l of t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Board o f Adjust-
ment o r t h e a f f i r m a t i o n t h e r e o f by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ?
Three c a s e s i n Montana e s t a b l i s h t h e c r i t e r i a and
authority f o r variances. Freeman v. Board of Adjustment, .97
Mont. 342, 34 P.2d 534; Lambros v. iss sou la, 153 Mont. 20, 452 P.
2d 398; andwheeler v. Armstrong, Mon t . , 533 P.2d 964,
32 St.Rep. 314, a l l r e c o g n i z e t h e ~ o a r d ' spower t o g r a n t u s e
v a r i a n c e o f t h i s type.
The c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e foregoing c a s e s a r e :
1) The v a r i a n c e must n o t b e 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 ordinance must
r e s u l t i n unnecessary h a r d s h i p , owing t o c o n d i t i o n s unique t o t h e
property.
3) The s p i r i t of t h e ordinance must be observed, and
s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e done.
F i r s t , a s p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d , we a r e n o t h e r e concerned
w i t h a change i n t h e e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r of t h e neighborhood.
W r e c o g n i z e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t a combination of numerous
e
u s e v a r i a n c e s over t h e y e a r s has e s s e n t i a l l y changed t h e c h a r a c t e r
of t h e neighborhood, b u t t h i s long p e r i o d change does n o t a f f e c t
t h i s p a r t i c u l a r application f o r a variance.
P l a i n t i f f s c i t e S t a t e ex r e l . R u s s e l l Center e t a l . v.
C i t y o f Missoula, Mont . , 533 P.2d 1087, 32 St.Rep.
292, a s being analogous because t h e r e a change from r e s i d e n t i a l u s e
t o commercial parking u s e was considered a f a c t o r , b u t t h e r e t h i s
Court s a i d t h a t t o s e c u r e such a change r e q u i r e d compliance w i t h
s t a t u t o r y methods of r e z o n i n g , r e f e r r i n g t o s e c t i o n s 11-2704 and
11-2705, R.C.M. 1947. While t h i s Court d i d n o t r e f e r t o s e c t i o n
11-2707, R.C.M. 1947, t h e Board o f Adjustment f u n c t i o n , i t n o t
being n e c e s s a r y , n e i t h e r d i d i t r e j e c t i t . -
R u s s e l l Center con-
cerned t h e q u e s t i o n of whether a b u i l d i n g permit could a u t h o r i z e
a u s e v a r i a n c e w i t h o u t some compliance w i t h t h e g e n e r a l zoning
s t a t u t e s and ordinances. Whether t h e Board of Adjustment has a
g e n e r a l d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o g r a n t u s e v a r i a n c e i s c o n t r o l l e d
by Freeman, Wheeler, and Lambos.
There i s simply no showing t h a t t h e f i r s t t e s t concerning
p u b l i c i n t e r e s t was met by p l a i n t i f f s .
As tb t h e hardship t e s t , b a s i c a l l y p l a i n t i f f s argue
t h e A s t l e s have c r e a t e d t h e i r own h a r d s h i p and had knowledge
of t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s when t h e y bought t h e p r o p e r t y . Thus they
a r g u e A s t l e s have n o t met t h e showing necessary.
I n Freeman t h i s Court i n t h e y e a r 1934 e s t a b l i s h e d broad
p r i n c i p l e s which a l l of t h e subsequent c a s e s have r e l i e d upon. In
Freeman a permit f o r a combined g r o c e r y s t o r e and r e s i d e n c e was
sought i n a r e s i d e n t i a l zone i n Great F a l l s . The Board o f Adjustment
g r a n t e d t h e permit i n an o r d e r which found t h a t t h e v a r i a t i o n of
t h e terms of t h e zoning ordinance would n o t b e c o n t r a r y t o t h e
p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ; t h a t owing t o s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s , a l i t e r a l en-
forcement of t h e p r o v i s i o n s would r e s u l t i n unnecessary h a r d s h i p ;
and t h e v a r i a t i o n of t h e ordinance should be allowed s o t h a t t h e
s p i r i t of t h e ordinance should be observed and s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e
done.
The Court a t t h a t time d i d n o t d i s c u s s w i t h s p e c i f i c i t y
f a c t o r s going t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f unnecessary h a r d s h i p b u t d i d
d i s c u s s whether o r n o t a zoning ordinance would be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
a t a l l because of t h e i n v a s i o n o r u n j u s t l i m i t a t i o n s upon t h e
f u l l u s e and enjoyment of p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g i t s v a l u e and i t s
use. Having determined t h a t p r o p e r t y cannot be placed i n a
s t r a i t j a c k e t and t h a t what i s r e a s o n a b l e a s t o a r e s t r i c t i o n today
might n o t b e r e a s o n a b l e tomorrow, t h e Court reviewed t h e evidence
and found s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o move t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e
Board and a f f i r m e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s review.
I n Freeman t h e opponents argued t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y owner's
only r e a s o n f o r b u i l d i n g t h e new s t o r e was because t h e s t o r e he
had occupied i n t h e same b l o c k , b u t i n a n o t h e r zone, was n o t a s
d e s i r a b l e a s a new b u i l d i n g would be. However, t h e Court found
t h e h a r d s h i p s u f f i c i e n t l y shown. Freeman i s r e a l l y n o t much d i f -
f e r e n t than t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , except t h a t h e r e t h e Board of Adjust-
ment went f u r t h e r t o p r o t e c t t h e o t h e r owners by a p p l y i n g t h e
additional restrictions. I n Freeman, t h e Court h e l d i n e f f e c t t h a t
t h e v a r i a n c e f o r h a r d s h i p i s n o t a l i m i t e d power f o r minor v a r i a n c e s
b u t of a g e n e r a l n a t u r e and d i s c r e t i o n a r y w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e l a t i -
tude.
W f i n d t h e n , a f t e r reviewing t h e r e c o r d , t h a t t h e r e was
e
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o move t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e Board under t h e
c r i t e r i a p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d and t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s have n o t
shown an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n .
W affirm.
e
Justice J
/
,(34&2L
We Concur: