Russell v. Flathead County

314 Mont. 26 (2003) · Supreme Court of Montana · January 23, 2003

Summary

William Russell appealed orders enjoining his use of property in Flathead County as inconsistent with county zoning regulations. The Montana Supreme Court held that Russell’s challenge to the creation of the zoning district was barred by the five-year statute of limitations, that his property was included within the district, and that his use substantially exceeded the prior nonconforming use. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and restrictions on the property’s use.

Court
Supreme Court of Montana
Writing for the Court
Justice Rice; Justice Cotter; Justice Leaphart; Justice Regnier; Justice Weiler
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
January 23, 2003
Procedural posture
Russell appealed from orders of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granting summary judgment to Flathead County on his challenge to the zoning district and, after a bench trial, enjoining his use of the property except as permitted by the applicable zoning regulations and preexisting-use limitations.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo under the same Rule 56 standard applied by the district court. The Court reviewed the district court's legal determinations for error and upheld the nonconforming-use determination when supported by substantial evidence.
Precedential value
Published Montana Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
William Russell v. Flathead County
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

zoningstatutory interpretationstandard of reviewappellate procedurereal estate

Practice areas

real estatezoningmunicipal lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Russell's challenge under § 76-2-202, MCA, to the creation and structure of the zoning district was barred by the statute of limitations.
  2. Whether Russell's property was included within the boundaries of the Highway 93 North Zoning District when the district was created.
  3. Whether Russell's use of the property was an impermissible expansion or change of a preexisting nonconforming use.

Holdings

  1. Russell's challenge was a challenge to the creation of the zoning district and was barred because it was filed more than five years after the district's creation.
  2. Russell's property was included within the Highway 93 North Zoning District; the word "excluding" in the resolution excluded the property from the AG-40 classification so it could be classified as SAG-1, not from the district itself.
  3. Russell's heavy-equipment repair, maintenance, and storage operation was not a permissible continuation of the preexisting nonconforming use because it substantially changed and expanded the property's use in both kind and extent.

Key quotations

Because his Complaint was filed more than five years after the creation of the District, his claim is time barred. (314 Mont. at 31)
The language contemplates continuation of the status quo. (314 Mont. at 36)
In imposing these conditions, the District Court was not legislating limitations on the property. Rather, the court was enforcing the ordinance’s requirement that nonconforming uses be continued in the same manner as “at the time of the adoption of the zoning.” (314 Mont. at 37)

Factual background

Flathead County created the Highway 93 North Zoning District in 1991, placing Russell's property within the district and classifying it as SAG-1, later revised to SAG-10. Before zoning, the property owner operated a dairy farm and used an onsite shop to repair farm equipment and build trailers and hitches, with only one to three pieces of equipment occasionally stored on the property and generally screened from public view. After purchasing the property, Russell operated a commercial heavy-equipment repair and storage business, employing a full-time worker and storing approximately twenty to thirty logging trucks, semitrucks, buses, bulldozers, and other equipment, with no continuing agricultural use.

Procedural history

Flathead County's zoning administrator determined that Russell's use of the property was nonconforming, and the Board of Adjustment upheld that determination. Russell appealed to the District Court and challenged the legality and boundaries of the zoning district and the County's treatment of his use. The District Court granted the County summary judgment on the statutory challenge, then ruled after a bench trial that Russell's use substantially differed from the preexisting use and entered an injunction. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…