Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/1996

Home

Pagel2 -- May 1996 Z.B. Spot Zoning-- Neighbor Opposes Rezoning That Allows Condo Development B~land v. City of Great Falls, 9]0 E2d 890 (Montana) ]996 The Sisters of Providence owned a 12.9-acre, four-square-block area in the city of Great Falls, Mont. The property was in a single-family residential zone, but whs never used that way. For many years, the Sisters operated an orphan- age there. Surrounding properties included a park, a warehouse, a water tower, a chu~4ch, and a two-family house. In~1983, the orphanage buildings were demolished and the Sisters put the property up for sale. The demolition left only unfilled basements and a base- ball diamond. After awhile, the baseball diamond was removed too. For seven years, !the property lay dormant and the Sisters did not get any serious offers for it. ~Animal excrement, broken glass, weeds, dead vegetation, and abandoned boiler~ occupied the land. Beason offered to buy the property, planning to build a condominium devel- opmeni. The pi'oject would have single-family attached units surrounded by single- ~family detached units to blend in with the neighborhood's single-family housesi The property's maximum density level would increase by 29 percent if develol~ed as condominiums (as opposed to s!ngle-family homes). Be~son asked the City-County Planning Board to rezone the property to a resident, iai district that allowed condominiums. The board held a hearing at which sbveral neighbors objected to Benson's request; one neighbor supported it. The board recommended that the City Commission conditionally approve the chan~ge. The Lommission held a hearing on a proposed ordinance that would condi- tionally ~llow the rezoning. At the hearing, three people opposed the ordinance and 10 siupported it. The commission adopted the ordinance. Bola~d asked a court to declare the rezoning illegal spot zoning. She said the city Singled out the property for a significantly different use from the sur- roundin~ area, ari'd that use would benefit only one person. She wanted the court to ~estore the property's zoning to single-family residential.' The ajty asked the court for judgment ~vithout a trial. It claimed the condo- minium development would be similar to surrounding single-family residences, and the 4onditions it placed on the rezoning ensured compatibility with the neighborhood. According to the city, "townhouses" were allowed in single- family re};idential zones as conditional uses, and condominiums were not that different from townhouses. The court granted the city's request. Bola~{d appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly granted the city judgment without a trial. The rezoning Ordinance was not illegal spot zoning. Benson's proposed use was not significan!ly different from other uses in the area, the rezoning did not benefit only Bensgn, and the city's decision to rezone was reasonably related to the community's general welfare. Benso/~ proposed a residential development not significantly different from the area's !prevailing use. The conditions the city imposed -- including the