Watts v. City of Helena, 11397
| Decision Date | 18 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 11397,11397 |
| Parties | Caroline S. WATTS, Kenneth L. Brewer and Eva T. Brewer, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF HELENA, a municipal corporation, and Fred A. Sielbach, Jr., City Engineer of the City of Helena, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
C. W. Leaphart, Jr., Helena, William Mufich (argued), Helena, for appellants.
Chadwick H. Smith (argued), Helena, for respondents.
This is an appeal by the defendants City of Helena and its City Engineer, hereafter referred to as the City, from an adverse judgment in a declaratory judgment action. The action was brought to declare that plaintiffs Watts and Brewers had the right to use as a trailer court lots 1-10 and 23-32 of Block 107 of the Cannon and Ming Additions to the City of Helena and further, to direct the City to issue building permits to the plaintiffs for the improvement of said lots.
Plaintiffs are the owners of interests in Block 107 and lots 5-11 and 17-32 of Block 106 of the Cannon and Ming Additions to the City of Helena. On this property is located a business known as the Beacon Cabin and Trailer Court. This business was established prior to August 2, 1948. On August 2, 1948 the City of Helena passed a zoning ordinance zoning the above property as a Class A Residential District. The Beacon Cabin and Trailer Court was a nonconforming use of the property which was allowed to continue under the ordinance. The section of the zoning ordinance which dealt with nonconforming uses reads as follows:
'The lawful use of a building or premises existing at the time of adoption of this Title may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions hereof, and such use may be extended throughout the building or the premises lawfully acquired previous to the passage of this Title * * *.' Emphasis supplied.
In about 1956 a predecessor in interest of plaintiffs commenced installation of a sewer line in the alley in Block 107 and was stopped by the city manager. The matter came before the city commission which apparently gave the owner the goahead and the sewer line was completed across Block 107. It was a dead end sewer so it could only serve Block 107.
In 1962 plaintiff Watts, who was then in possession, was notified by the City of Helena to discontinue using the western portion of Block 107 for parking trailers. An application for a variance was filed and it was denied by the City Board of Adjustment. This decision was not appealed.
In January of 1967 plaintiffs Brewers applied to the City of Helena for a construction permit to improve lots 1-10 and 23-32 of Block 107 for use as a trailer court and parking area. This application was refused and the plaintiffs brought this action.
The City contends that the plaintiffs can use lots 11-22 of Block 107 but not the remaining western portion of that Block. That portion was allegedly not used as a trailer court prior to the passing of the zoning ordinance and thus, it is asserted, should not be within the purview of the section on nonconforming uses. The District Court, sitting without a jury, found the lots had been used as a trailer court prior to the passing of the zoning ordinance and granted respondent the relief requested.
On this appeal the City challenges the finding that the lots had been used as a trailer court prior to the passing of the ordinance. We do not need to consider that aspect of the case. This case can be decided by an affirmative answer to the following question. Can the nonconforming use be expanded after the passage of the Helena zoning ordinance?
The City cites many cases where extension of the nonconforming use was not allowed. However, the zoning ordinances in all the cases cited specifically prohibited or limited expansion of the nonconforming use. 'As a general rule, the area of a nonconforming use may not be enlarged or extended, except as such enlargement or extension is permitted by the zoning ordinances.' 101...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rotter v. Coconino County
...therein. 6 See, e.g., Albert v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 89 A.D.2d 960, 454 N.Y.S.2d 108, 110 (1982); Watts v. City of Helena, 151 Mont. 138, 439 P.2d 767, 768 (1968); County Council, 443 A.2d at 119. Further, most jurisdictions hold that statutory provisions regarding nonconforming us......
-
Triangle Fraternity v. City of Norman, 96,363.
...Urban v. Planning Bd., 124 N.J. 651, 592 A.2d 240 (1991); Town of Coventry v. Glickman, 429 A.2d 440 (R.I.1981); Watts v. City of Helena, 151 Mont. 138, 439 P.2d 767 (1968); Jackson v. Pottstown Zoning Bd., 426 Pa. 534, 233 A.2d 252 ¶ 3 I hence concur in the court's pronouncement. 1. Becaus......
-
Keith v. Saco River Corridor Com'n
...nonconforming uses. Abbadessa v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 28, 54 A.2d 675, 678 (1947). See also Watts v. City of Helena, 151 Mont. 138, 439 P.2d 767, 769 (1968). The plaintiff-appellee's initial application to the Commission followed the directive of this Court in State ex rel. Br......
-
Allender v. City of Chicago Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 78-142
...of the Chicago ordinances. Township of Maplewood v. Tannenhaus (1960), 64 N.J.Super. 80, 87, 165 A.2d 300 and Watts v. City of Helena (1968), 151 Mont. 138, 142, 439 P.2d 767. The authority most relied upon by plaintiffs is Zweifel Mfg. Corp. v. City of Peoria (1957), 11 Ill.2d 489, 144 N.E......