Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,- <br />( <br /> <br />/ <br />f <br />\. <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />December 10,2006 - Page 7 <br /> <br />Thomas purchased a lot in a residentially zoned subdivision. Pringle plainly <br />set forth in the report that the sole'a1l:owablFu~e to which a lot in the subdivi- <br />sion could be put was "single-fainilf'feside~tial." <br />However, unless expressly told"iabuyer!ofllU1d"subject t()these zoning and <br />subdivision restrictions could reasob,bly reJ11ain.u~aware thatthe lot remained <br />encumbered with a latent penaltytJ:1at would becoinea reality at some point. <br />This was exactly what happened iIi>this case... . <br />Here, Pringle was liable for m~1ljlga ~srepresentation by omission. <br />see' also: Hatleberg v. Norwest Bank Wisconsin, 700 N. *2d 15 (2005). <br />see also: Mallo v. Department of Reve'nue,;645N.W;2d 853 (2002). <br /> <br />Subdivision - Local zoning act mllkes cet1r-inproperties exempt from <br />subdivision review ' <br />Condominium developer claims act appli~~ to it$property <br />Citation: Shults v. Liberty Cove Inc., Supreme Court of Montana, No. DA -06- <br />0076 (2006) <br />MONTANA (10/03/06) - Liberty Cove me. own.ed a parcel of property that <br />was created in 1983 when its predecessor recorded a certificate of survey in the <br />Missoula County Clerk and Recorder's Office. <br />In 1973, the county had enacted the Subdivision and Planning Act (Act), <br />which exempted certain properties from subdivision. review if the lots exceeded <br />a ~ertain size. In 1983, when Liberty Cov€1's parcelwas create,d,properties in <br />excess of 20 acres were exempt from, the subdivision approval requirement. <br />In 2002, Liberty Cove applied to}subdivide its property. The county denied <br />the application due to concerns regill'ding excessive traffic and possible ad- <br />verse effects on groundwater. After' the d~nial,LibertyCove discovered the <br />provision exempting the development from subdivision review. . <br />. Under a state statute, condorni1Uum proJects were exempt fromsubdivisiori <br />approval if the "condominium propdsal [was]in conformance with applicable <br />local zoning regulations where local zoning regulations' [were] in effect." Lib- <br />erty Cove then applied for, and received, a zoning compliance permit, which <br />allowed it to pro,ceed with the development of 82 condominium units, rather <br />than 70 units sought in the original application. <br />Shults, a neighboring landowner whop:~a4 been a vocal opponent of the <br />proposed development during the>public l;earingprocess, sued Liberty Cove <br />to block the construction from proceeding._ . <br />The trial court found in Shults~ favor, nQtingspecifically that Liberty Cove's <br />proposed development was subject to subdivision approval. <br />Liberty Cove appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br />Liberty Cove appealed the trialcourt's'deci~idn ontbe grounds that: Shults <br /> <br />'C. . _ ._ -c ,. - _-~~ <br />@ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quirilan™is a Th9rnsonWel!fbranp. Anyreproduction is prohibited. <br /> <br />147 <br /> <br />