Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 11 <br />Case Note: The court also "[could] not resist concluding" that, <br />however worthy the objectives, the conditions imposed by the <br />Board attempted "to achieve a result which properly should be <br />the subject of eminent domain." <br />Standing —City Residents Appeal Subdivision <br />Plat Approval <br />City argues residents lack standing because their alleged <br />injuries are too general <br />Citation: Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 2011 MT 91, 2011 <br />WL 1652154 (Mont. 2011) <br />MONTANA (05/3/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />city residents had standing (i.e., the legal right) to challenge a city's <br />decision to approve zoning a preliminary plat for a subdivision. <br />The Background/Facts: In December 2007, the Missoula City <br />Council (the "City") approved zoning and preliminary plat for <br />a 37-lot subdivision known as Sonata Park in an area of the city <br />known as Rattlesnake Valley. Several city residents (the "Resi- <br />dents") opposed the subdivision. The Residents included an adja- <br />cent landowner, neighbors who lived within 600 feet of the pro- <br />posed subdivision, and a neighborhood association. The Residents <br />appealed to court the City's decisions. Among other things, they al- <br />leged that the City: had violated subdivision and zoning laws; and <br />that the City's approval of Sonata Park was arbitrary, capricious, <br />and unlawful because the subdivision was not in substantial com- <br />pliance with the Rattlesnake Valley neighborhood growth plan (the <br />"Rattlesnake Plan"). <br />The City asked the court to dismiss the Residents' action. It ar- <br />gued that the Residents did not have standing (i.e., the legal right <br />to bring the action). Specifically, the City argued that none of the <br />Residents had alleged or shown: "material injury to their property <br />or its value, a specific personal and legal interest, and a special and <br />injurious effect flowing froth subdivision approval." <br />The district court disagreed. It reasoned.that the adverse impacts <br />cited by the Residents (such as increased traffic, noise, and pollu- <br />tion, and disruption of wildlife in the area) could materially injure <br />the Residents' properties or the value of the Residents' properties. <br />Eventually, finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, <br />and deciding the matter on the law alone, the court issued summary <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />