Cutone v. Anaconda Deer Lodge
610 P.2d 691, 187 Mont. 515 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of police power if it is rationally related to a permissible state objective, such as public safety, and a variance from that ordinance may be denied if the hardship is self-inflicted or if granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest.
Facts:
- In July 1973, the City of Anaconda adopted a zoning ordinance based on a comprehensive plan.
- Carmine Cutone owned the Ace Bar until December 1977, when he sold the building to the Anaconda Urban Renewal Agency.
- In February 1978, Cutone purchased two buildings at 803-805 East Park Street, intending to relocate his bar.
- The property Cutone purchased was located in a district zoned 'RM' for 'Multiple-Family Residential'.
- The area surrounding the property already contained several other commercial establishments.
- Prior to Cutone's purchase, the buildings he bought had been used for storage and as a taxidermy shop.
Procedural Posture:
- Carmine Cutone applied to the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Board of Adjustment for a zoning variance.
- The Board of Adjustment held a public hearing and denied the request.
- Cutone filed a complaint in the Deer Lodge County District Court (a trial court) seeking to overturn the Board's decision.
- The District Court ordered the Board to review its denial and issue formal findings.
- The Board reaffirmed its denial, finding the proposed use would not be in the community's best interest.
- The District Court held a full hearing and subsequently affirmed the Board of Adjustment's decision.
- Cutone (appellant) appealed the District Court's order to the Supreme Court of Montana, with Anaconda-Deer Lodge County (respondent) as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county board of adjustment abuse its discretion or violate a property owner's constitutional rights by denying a zoning variance for a commercial use in a residential zone when the hardship was self-inflicted and the board determines the proposed use is contrary to the public interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Haswell
No. The county board did not abuse its discretion or violate the property owner's rights. A zoning ordinance must be upheld if its classification is 'fairly debatable' and rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, and a variance is properly denied where the applicant fails to show unnecessary hardship and that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. The ordinance here was properly adopted to serve the public interest by promoting safety and reducing traffic congestion on a major fire lane. The board's denial of the variance was justified because Cutone failed to meet the three required conditions: the variance would be contrary to the public interest (creating fire hazards and traffic problems), the hardship was not 'unnecessary' but was self-inflicted by purchasing the property without confirming its zoning, and the spirit of the ordinance to limit commercial growth in the area would be violated. Furthermore, the ordinance does not violate equal protection because it bears a rational relationship to the permissible state objective of promoting public safety, and there was no evidence of discriminatory application.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Sheehy
Yes. The board did abuse its discretion because applying the ordinance to deny the variance in this case is unconstitutional. The property is in a historically and predominantly commercial area, and the 'most appropriate use' of this specific property is commercial, not residential. The board's stated reasons for denial—fire hazard and traffic—are rendered absurd by the ordinance's list of permitted uses, such as coliseums, stadiums, hospitals, and fraternal lodges, any of which could create equal or greater concerns. A fraternal lodge could open a bar on the premises without issue, demonstrating that the denial of Cutone's variance is an arbitrary and unconstitutional application of the ordinance.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle of judicial deference to legislative zoning decisions and the high bar for obtaining a variance. It establishes that a zoning ordinance's validity is judged by its overall rationality and relationship to community welfare, not by its ability to secure the 'highest and best use' for every individual parcel. The decision also solidifies the doctrine that self-inflicted hardship, such as purchasing property with actual or constructive knowledge of zoning restrictions, is not the 'unnecessary hardship' required to justify a variance. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for subsequent purchasers to challenge existing zoning regulations or obtain variances from them.
