MAHRT v CITY OF KALISPELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA G. ROBERT MAHRT and WESTERN MONTANA REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, Petitioner and Respondent. vs. CITY OF KALISPELL, Respondent a.nd Appellant. - ORDER AND OPINION The City of Kalispell appeals an order of the Flathead County District Court granting the Western Montana Regional Mental Health Center a conditional use permit to locate a group home for eight or fewer mentally disabled adults in an Kalispell area zoned residental. The Health Center applied to the Kalispell Board of Adjustment for a conditional use permit to convert a residence to a group home in a Residential-5 area, as defined by the Kalispell City Code. In applying, the Health Center satisfied the requirements of the Kalispell City Code. Health Center relied on sections 7 6 - 2 - 4 1 1 which defines facility and a group mandates home group as a a-nd 4 1 2 (1983), MCA community homes The to be residential considered residential use of property for zoning purposes. Despite the law, the Kalispell Board of Adjustment denied the conditional use permit. The Health Center challenged the decision of the Board in District Court where the Board's obvious error wa-s corrected. Now the City of Kalispell asks this Court to review the District Court's decision. Based on our decision in State ex rel. Thelen v. Missoula ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 545 P.2d 173, 168 Mont. 375, and the 1egi.slative mandate in Tit3.e 76, Ch. 2, Part 4 we decline to review the decision of the District Court. There is absolutely no question that in Montana a. group home for eight or fewer people is a residence and may be located in anv area in Montana zoned residential. XXI, Article 3 (3) of the Monta.na Constitution, Title 76, Ch. 2, Part 4 of Montana statutory law and case law as stated in Thelen v. Missoul.a, 168 Mont. 375, 543 P.2d clear this is the rule in Montana. 173, make it This Court will not require community residential facilities to repeatedly defend their well established right to locate in any residential area in Montana. dismissed as The Kalispell appeal is meritless and frivolous. Costs in the sum of $500 are assessed against the City and in favor of the petitioners under Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P., with costs of this appeal, and the usual costs in District Court. % ~ p & 4 Chief "Justice Justice Daniel. J. Shea special concurrence: I do not view the dismissal here as a summary dismissal. Rather, it is a short opinion d.isposing of the merits an6 decl-axing that a longer opinion will not be written. that I agree. The appeal is totally With
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.
