Hansen v. Granite County

• Decision Date: 11 May 2010
• Docket Number: No. DA 09-0572.,DA 09-0572.
• Citation: 356 Mont. 269,232 P.3d 409,2010 MT 107
• Parties: Toby HANSEN and Keli Hansen, Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.GRANITE COUNTY, and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

356 Mont. 269

232 P.3d 409

2010 MT 107

Toby HANSEN and Keli Hansen, Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.GRANITE COUNTY, and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.

No. DA 09-0572.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs March 24, 2010.

Decided May 11, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

For Appellants: Cory R. Gangle, Milodragovich, Dale, Steinbrenner & Nygren, P.C., Missoula, Montana.

For Appellees: Susan B. Swimley, Attorney at Law, Bozeman, Montana.

Justice JAMES C. NELSON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 The Granite County Commissioners (the Commissioners) denied an application for preliminary plat approval of a proposed subdivision filed by Toby and Keli Hansen (the Hansens). The Hansens appealed the decision to the District Court for the Third Judicial District, Granite County. The District Court affirmed the Commissioners' decision and awarded Granite County damages in the amount of $30,197. The Hansens appealed and Granite County cross-appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

¶ 2 The Hansens raise the following issues on appeal:

¶ 3 1. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Commissioners' denial of the proposed subdivision application was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.

¶ 4 2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in awarding damages to Granite County.

¶ 5 Granite County raises the following issue by way of cross-appeal:

¶ 6 3. Whether the District Court's denial of every cost in Granite County's Memorandum of Costs, except $10 for a witness fee, was an abuse of discretion.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 7 The Hansens own property in Granite County between Drummond and Missoula that is bordered by a frontage road known as the Beavertail Road. This road is a narrow, two-lane highway that runs parallel to Interstate 90. To the west of the Hansens' property is a parcel of land referred to as the Weston Ranch. Because Beavertail Road cuts through portions of the ranch's agricultural operations, ranch representatives must move cattle and equipment across the road from time to time.

¶ 8 In January 2006, the Hansens submitted a preliminary subdivision proposal to Granite County encompassing the Hansens' property. The Hansens referred to the subdivision as the Ryan Creek Major Subdivision. This proposed subdivision would create 202 residential lots. It would have its own fire and police protection, mail service, ambulance service and service mall, and it would include land dedicated for parks and schools as well as 40 commercial lots.

¶ 9 On February 2, 2006, the Hansens attended a mandatory pre-application conference with the Commissioners. The purpose of this conference was to discuss the application process and to identify potential problems with the proposed subdivision. The Commissioners did not identify any problems with the subdivision at this conference.

¶ 10 The Hansens submitted a formal subdivision application to Granite County on March 18, 2006. Along with the application, the Hansens paid Granite County $12,850 as a non-refundable fee to offset the cost for reviewing their application. In April 2006, the Hansens held two informal community meetings in which members of the public were invited to come and learn about the subdivision and to discuss the proposal with the Hansens. One meeting was held in Drummond, Montana, and the other meeting was held in Phillipsburg, Montana. According to the Hansens, no one at these community meetings expressed any concerns as to how the proposed subdivision might affect local services or local agricultural operations.

¶ 11 The proposed subdivision was the largest subdivision Granite County had ever seen. Since the Commissioners did not have the expertise to review the Hansens' subdivision application, they hired outside consultants. Susan Swimley was retained to act as attorney for the specific purpose of assisting the Commissioners in reviewing and processing the subdivision application. In addition, Matt Smith was hired as an engineering expert and Jamie Morris was hired as a land-use planning consultant.

¶ 12 After reviewing the subdivision application, Morris wrote a letter to the Hansens dated June 7, 2006, stating that their subdivision application was “insufficient.” She requested that the Hansens provide additional information by June 28, 2006. The Hansens gathered the requested information and sent it to Morris for review. The Commissioners deemed the Hansens' application complete on July 7, 2006, and a public hearing before the Granite County Planning Board (the Board) was scheduled for August 31, 2006.

¶ 13 In preparation for the hearing, Granite County's planning staff was required to prepare a report for the Hansens, the Board, and the public. In this report, the planning staff demanded additional information from the Hansens and indicated that if the Hansens did not submit the additional information as requested, they would recommend that their subdivision application be denied. The Hansens did not receive a copy of this report until a few days before the scheduled hearing. Consequently, they agreed to postpone the hearing until they could submit the additional information. According to the Hansens, none of the additional information requested concerned impacts to agriculture, traffic or educational services.

¶ 14 On November 29, 2006, the Board held a public hearing on the proposed subdivision. A representative of the Weston Ranch made a lengthy presentation in which he raised concerns about increased traffic from the proposed subdivision impeding the ranch's ability to move cattle and equipment across the Beavertail Road. The Weston Ranch representative provided the Board and the Hansens with a thick packet of information detailing their concerns. The Hansens now complain that they did not have an opportunity to review the information and to respond because once the public hearing was deemed closed, the Board made it clear that no additional information could be presented.

¶ 15 The Board issued its findings and recommendations wherein it pointed out the significant adverse impacts to the Weston Ranch agricultural operations because of the high volume of traffic from the proposed subdivision that would have to travel the portion of the Beavertail Road that passed through the ranch. The Board also determined that this high volume of traffic on the Beavertail Road would create a significant adverse impact to the public health and safety and that the subdivision application did not identify any specific improvements that would be made to the Beavertail Road to mitigate those adverse impacts.

¶ 16 The Commissioners conducted a public meeting on December 12, 2006, at which time the Board recommended denial of the subdivision application because of its alleged impacts to the road system and to the Weston Ranch. The Hansens claim that when they attempted to address these issues, they were told they could not speak unless spoken to.

¶ 17 In January 2007, the Commissioners determined that the subdivision would cause significant adverse impacts to the public health and safety and to existing agricultural operations due to the increase in the amount of traffic on the Beavertail Road. They also determined that the subdivision would cause serious adverse impacts to the local school district. Consequently, the Commissioners unanimously decided to deny the Hansens' application for preliminary plat approval for the Ryan Creek Major Subdivision. The Commissioners did not issue their written findings denying the subdivision application until May 15, 2007. The Hansens timely appealed that decision pursuant to § 76-3-625, MCA.

¶ 18 A four-day bench trial before the Third Judicial District Court was held in October 2008. Nine months later, the court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order wherein it affirmed the decision of the Commissioners. In addition, the District Court determined that the Hansens were not entitled to damages resulting from the decision to deny their subdivision application because they failed to offer credible proof or documentation supporting their $350,000 damage claim or their claim for application fees of $ 15,166.77. The court did award Granite County damages in the amount of $30,197 for unpaid application fees. It also awarded Granite County costs in the amount of $10 for witness fees. The Hansens appeal and Granite County cross appeals.

Issue 1.

¶ 19 Whether the District Court erred in concluding that the Commissioners' denial of the proposed subdivision application was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.

¶ 20 “A preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision is subject to the review of the governing body to determine whether the plat conforms to the master growth plan adopted for the area and the plat's effects on the public health, safety, and welfare.” Madison River R.V. Ltd. v. Town of Ennis, 2000 MT 15, ¶ 39, 298 Mont. 91, 994 P.2d 1098 (citing §§ 76-3-604 and-605, MCA).

A person who has filed with the governing body an application for a subdivision under this chapter may bring an action in district court to sue the governing body to recover actual damages caused by a final action, decision, or order of the governing body or a regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter that is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 76-3-625(1), MCA (emphasis added).

¶ 21 This Court reviews a district court's ruling made pursuant to § 76-3-625, MCA, the same way we review decisions from administrative agencies: “ ‘[T]he standard of review to be applied by the trial court and this Court is whether the record establishes that the agency [i.e., governing body] acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully.’ ” Kiely Const., L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge, 2002 MT 241, ¶ 69, 312 Mont. 52, 57 P.3d 836 (quoting Madison River, ¶ 30). Moreover,

[w]hen a district court or this Court reviews an action under the

...