Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/2011

Home

June 10, 2011 ' Volume 5 1 No. 11 Zoning Bulletin judgment in favor of the Residents. It found that the City's approv- al of the Sonata Park subdivision was a "significant deviation from the Rattlesnake Plan and therefore arbitrary and capricious." The City appealed. Among other things, the City, on appeal, ar- gued that the Residents did not have standing because their alleged injuries "could apply to any new residence" and "[were] ambiguous and too general to meet the standard set out in [Montana Statutory law—] S 76-3-625, MCA." DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of Montana held that the Residents all had standing to bring the action. The court explained that to have standing, the Residents had to "clearly allege a past, present, or threatened injury to a property or civil right—i.e., an invasion of a legally protected interest." The court noted that "there is no right to appeal a governing board's approval of a preliminary subdivision plat, except as provided by statute." The court acknowledged that Montana had such a statute that provided a right to such an appeal. 1 Section 76-3-625 provides that certain parties who are "aggrieved" by a decision of the governing body to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application and preliminary plat for a proposed subdivision or a final subdivision plat may appeal to the district court. Pursuant to the statute, those parties who may appeal include: "landowner[s] with a property boundary contiguous to the proposed subdivision"; or "private landowner[s] with property within the county or municipal- ity where the subdivision is proposed if th[e] landowner[s] can show a likelihood of material injury to the landowner's property or its value." Also pursuant to the statute, an "aggrieved" party is: "a person who can demonstrate a specific personal and legal interest, as distinguished from a general interest, who has been or is likely to be specifically and injuriously affected by the decision." Again, the City had argued that the Residents did not have standing here because they were not "aggrieved" since their alleged injuries "could apply to any new residence" and "[were] ambiguous and too general" to meet the standard set out in the statute. The Supreme Court of Montana disagreed. The court noted that the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act was enacted to "promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the subdivision of land." As such, the court found § 76- 3-625 was "entitled to liberal construction with a view towards the accomplishment of its highly beneficial objectives." The court found that the adjacent landowner had standing to challenge the City's deci- sions because: she shared a boundary with the subdivision; and was 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters