Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 2011 MT 91

Missoula City Council approved Sonata Park subdivision (37 lots) and related zoning in Dec 2007; plan located in Rattlesnake Valley.
Neighbors challenged decisions via petition for judicial review; district court found City’s actions arbitrary and set aside zoning and subdivision.
Muth-Hillberry, LLC intervened; City and developer appealed; summary judgment motions followed with disputed record and affidavits.
Growth policy and Rattlesnake Valley Comprehensive Plan governed land-use guidance; plan emphasizes densities and compatibility with neighborhood patterns.
Key legal question centered on whether the City substantially complied with the growth policy and land-use designations when approving Sonata Park.
Court addressed standing of Neighbors and associational standing of North Duncan Drive Neighborhood Association, as well as Sunlight Agreement implications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Neighbors have standing to appeal?	Neighbors contend statutory/constitutional standing via § 76-3-625 and injury to property values.	City argues lack of aggrieved, concrete injury and improper standing requirements.	Neighbors have standing (statutory and constitutional) and Association has associational standing.
Did the District Court err in striking affidavits used for summary judgment?	Affidavits relevant to City/Developer practices and Sunlight Agreement should be considered under Rule 56.	Some affidavits contained irrelevant or extrinsic matters; striking was proper for those portions.	Error in striking certain affidavits acknowledged; some striking was proper but issue largely harmless.
Does Sunlight Agreement supersede the growth policy?	Sunlight Agreement provides density rights that may override growth policy in Sonata Park.	Growth policy remains governing guidance; Sunlight Agreement cannot override statutory zoning duties.	Sunlight Agreement does not supersede the growth policy; district court correctly denied summary judgment on this issue.
Was the City’s Sonata Park decision arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful?	Decision ignored density recommendations and other plan goals; failed substantial compliance.	City exercised discretionary judgment; growth policy not strictly binding; other factors allowed deviation.	City’s decision was unlawful and arbitrary for failure to substantially comply with the Rattlesnake Valley plan.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing elements)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (prudential standing limitations; associational standing context)
Little v. Bd. of County Commrs., 193 Mont. 334, 631 P.2d 1282 (1981) (substantial compliance standard for growth policies)
Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson County, 283 Mont. 486, 943 P.2d 85 (1997) (growth policy importance; planning framework)
North 93 Neighbors, Inc. v. Bd. of County Commrs., 2006 MT 132, 332 Mont. 327, 137 P.3d 557 (2006) (substantial compliance clarified; growth policy guidance)
Citizen Advocates for a Livable Missoula, Inc. v. City Council, 2006 MT 47, 331 Mont. 269, 130 P.3d 1259 (2006) (growth policy continued central role; statutory framework)
Sourdough Protective Assn., Inc. v. Bd. of County Commrs., 253 Mont. 325, 833 P.2d 207 (1992) (standing and review context for subdivision appeals)
City of Kalispell v. Flathead County, 260 Mont. 258, 859 P.2d 458 (1993) (growth policy as planning framework; review standards)
Druffel v. Bd. of Adjustment, 2007 MT 220, 339 Mont. 57, 168 P.3d 640 (2007) (standing and justiciability principles)