Hartshorne v. Whitefish

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to Whitefish Ordinance 18-23, which authorized certain commercial uses on a parcel in the Riverside neighborhood through a conditional use permit. The Court affirmed the ruling that the ordinance did not constitute impermissible spot zoning because it substantially complied with the neighborhood plan. It reversed the ruling that the ordinance violated Montana's statutory zoning uniformity requirement.

Holdings

1. Ordinance 18-23 did not constitute impermissible spot zoning because, although the authorized commercial uses differed from the prevailing residential use and applied to a geographically small parcel, the ordinance substantially complied with the Neighborhood Plan and therefore was not in the nature of special legislation.
2. Ordinance 18-23 did not violate § 76-2-302(2), MCA, because the statute requires uniform regulations within each geographic district shown on the City's zoning map, and Ordinance 18-23 created Area 2(c) as its own geographic zoning district with regulations applied uniformly within that district.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ordinance 18-23 constituted impermissible spot zoning under Montana's three-part Little framework.
2. Whether Ordinance 18-23 violated the uniformity requirement of § 76-2-302(2), MCA, by permitting conditional uses on Area 2(c) that were not permitted in the WR-4 use classification elsewhere in the City.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded