Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Z.B. August 1995 -- Page 5 Develo',ment -- Landowners Say Commission Had No Authority to Approve Development Bridget Canyon Property Owners' Association Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission for the Bridger Canyon Zoning District, 890 P. 2d 1268 (Montana) 1995 In 1971, the Gallatin County (Mont.) Board of Commissioners created the BridgerCanyon Zoning District and the Bridger Canyon Zoning Commission. The board also adopted a general plan and a zoning ordinance for the county. In 1985,.the board adopted another plan entitled the "Bridger Bowl Base Area Plan," which was amended in 1989 and set forth a plan to develop the Base Area into a ski area. In 1989, 1990, and 1991, the zoning ordinance was amended so that single- family residences were authorized in the Base Area. The general plan, the Base Area plan, and the zoning ordinance were inconsistent with each other regard- ing the population density planned for the Base Area. In late 1992, a developer applied for permission to build a development in the Base Area. It proposed a 651-acre planned unit development, zoning changes~ and conditional use permits. The development would have 339 units for overnight accommodations and 151 units for detached recreational hous- ing. The zoning ordinance defined recreational housing as housing in the Base Area that had no "restriction on length of stay, and includes attached and detached single family units." Single-family dwellings were "detached building[s] designed for, or occupied exclusively by, one family." After public hearings, the area's Planning and. Zoning Commission condi- tionally approved the application. The Bridger Canyon Property Owners' Association appealed the commission's approval to court. The association said the commission exceeded its jurisdiction; even though the decision complied with the ordinance,, it con- flicted with the area's general plan. The commission claimed that the general plan was intended only to offer guidance in making zoning decisions. It also said that the general plan governed the whole district, but the Base Area Plan contained exceptions that applied to the Base Area only. The court denied one of the association's procedural requests and did not considerTthe association's appeal of the commission's decision. The associa- tion appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part. The lower court's procedural decision was affirmed, but it improperly failed to address the association's appeal. The commission did exceed its authority xvhen it approved the develop- ment. It Could not base its decision on planning documents that were inherently unreliabl.~e. Under state law, once the general plan was adopted, the commis- sion had to use it for guidance in zoning (including adoption of ordinances and regulatiops). The state statute intended for local governments to adopt a master t