Plaintiffs originally brought suit opposing defendant City Council’s decision to allow development of 37 homes in a rural, scarcely populated section of the Rattlesnake Valley. The trial court entered a judgment reversing the City Council’s decision to allow the development. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the trial court’s decision and agreed that the defendants acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in reaching its zoning decisions.
Through a public planning process The Rattlesnake Valley plan was drafted in 1988. As a growth policy, The Rattlesnake Valley plan provided the city, county, and citizens a guideline on restrictions for developing the Rattlesnake Valley. Although the growth policy is not a regulatory document, the governing body must still use it as a guideline in the adoption of zoning ordinances, resolutions, and other development issues. The zoning for Rattlesnake Valley expired in 1992 and the land became unzoned from that date forward.
In 2006 co-defendant Muth-Hillberry proposed to develop a 41-lot subdivision in Rattlesnake Valley. Although the growth policy strictly prohibited such a development, the City Council granted the zoning request for a 37-lot subdivision. The following year plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit, where they were granted summary judgment and the City Council’s decision was set aside.
On appeal the defendant’s argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing, that Muth-Hillberry had an agreement that superseded the city’s growth policy, and that the city’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful. The Supreme Court of Montana quickly dismissed the contention that the plaintiffs did not have standing, citing that the plaintiffs were directly affected by the City Council’s decision. Although Muth-Hillberry had an agreement with the city to develop the Rattlesnake Valley long before the growth policy existed, Section 76-1-605(1)(c) of the Laws of Montana states that the city is statutorily required “to be guided by and give consideration to the general policy and pattern of development set out in the growth policy.” Therefore Muth-Hillberry’s agreement did not supersede the applicable growth policy.
Finally, the defendant’s disputed the trial court’s conclusion that the city’s decision on the development was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. According to Silva v. City of Columbia Falls, 258 Mont. 329, 335, 852 P.2d 671, 675 (1993), “a governing body’s decision or action is arbitrary and capricious is it came about seemingly at random or by chance, or as an impulsive and unreasonable act of will.” The governing body’s decision fell under this category if it was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors. The Supreme Court of Montana agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that since Section 76-1-605 of the Laws of Montana clearly states that the city is statutorily required to be guided by the growth policy, the City Council should at least substantially comply with the growth policy. The court conceded that strict compliance with the growth policy was unrealistic due to constantly changing circumstances. However, since the City Council went completely against the growth policy when making their decision, their actions were arbitrary and capricious.
Hefferman v Missoula City Council 2011 MT 91 (MT 5/3/2011)
The opinion can be accessed here
