Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Board of County Commissioners
2016 MT 325
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Two zoning actions: a Text Amendment creating B-2HG floating zone and a Map Amendment applying B-2HG to 63 acres along Highway 93 north of Kalispell.
- Growth Policy adopted in 2007 guided zoning; Map and Text amendments were considered for policy compliance.
- Planning Office prepared Text Report and Map Report analyzing Growth Policy alignment and §76-2-203 MCA factors.
- Public hearings were held (May 2011 and Feb 2012) with protests and adjustments to the Text Amendment; Map Amendment adopted February 14, 2012.
- District Court granted summary judgment voiding the Map Amendment for lack of substantial Growth Policy compliance; process and scope of relief for Text Amendment were uncertain; Citizens cross-appealed.
- This Court affirmed in part (invalidating Map Amendment) and reversed in part (upholding Text Amendment and reversing attorney-fees award).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Map Amendment complied with statutory Growth Policy requirements | Citizens contend the Map Amendment ignored Growth Policy goals. | Commission argues substantial compliance was shown and record supported decision. | Map Amendment invalid for lack of substantial Growth Policy compliance. |
| Whether Text Amendment violated statutory/public participation requirements | Citizens argue lack of comprehensive consideration and inadequate public input response. | Commission satisfied public hearing and participation duties; text amendment facially valid. | Text Amendment not invalid for public participation failed. |
| Whether District Court properly awarded attorney fees to Citizens | Citizens sought fees under mandamus and UDJA for success on challenges. | Zoning acts are legislative; mandamus not available; UDJA fees require equitable basis. | Attorney-fee award reversed; no entitlement under UDJA for this declaratory action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 360 Mont. 207, 255 P.3d 80 (2011 MT 91) (substantial compliance with growth policy required; record must address pertinent growth-policy elements)
- North 93 Neighbors v. Bd. of County Comm’rs Flathead County, 332 Mont. 327, 137 P.3d 557 (2006 MT 132) (growth-policy process and public participation reviewed; substantial compliance)
- Little v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 631 P.2d 1282 (Mont. 1981) (location-based spot zoning considerations; area affected)
- Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 96 N.E.2d 731 (N.Y. 1951) (floating zones; two-step zoning; map amendment then rezoning)
- Prince George’s Cnty. v. Zimmer Dev. Co., 120 A.3d 677 (Md. 2015) (floating zones; compatibility with surrounding areas; zoning flexibility)