RYGG v KALISPELL BOARD OF ADJUSTME

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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. dential District. Block 105 . i s zonedrag a No. -1 Resi- 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 Adj 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 Adjustment 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. shown. I n p l a i n t i f f s ' view of t h e evidence, t h i s was 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 's 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 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 Adjustment 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. 2d 398; andwheeler v. Armstrong, 32 St.Rep. iss sou la, 153 Mont. 20, 452 P. Mon t . , 533 P.2d 964, 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. 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 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 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 s t a t u t e s and ordinances. compliance w i t h t h e g e n e r a l zoning 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 enforcement 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. t h e h a r d s h i p s u f f i c i e n t l y shown. However, t h e Court found 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 Adjustment 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:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.