Whitefish City Council: Different opinions on spot zoning aired
Two schools of legal thought about spot zoning collided at Monday’s Whitefish City Council hearing for 2nd Street Residences, a housing project planned on one of the city’s remaining areas of open space within city limits.
Developers Sean Averill and Will MacDonald of Community Infill Partners brought in land-use law attorney Bill VanCanagan of Missoula to explain to the council why he believes the 2nd Street Residences project does not present spot zoning.
But professional urban planner Kate McMahon, who lives near the proposed subdivision, challenged VanCanagan’s assessment during her presentation to the council.
At the heart of the spot zoning debate is a six-acre parcel within the proposed development that’s currently zoned WR-1, or one-family residential. The developers have asked to change the zoning on those six acres to WR-2, or two-family residential, but by doing so the property would be bordered by WR-1 property.
VanCanagan pointed to a Montana Supreme Court decision in which the high court identified three factors that determine whether illegal spot zoning exists. One of those criteria is whether the proposed use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area. That particular case involved building a shopping center in the middle of a residential neighborhood — a use the court did find significantly different from the prevailing use.
He cited several other court cases in which the state Supreme Court has continued to rely on those earlier findings and has found specific spot zoning to be legal.
“In this case, this development is infill development,” VanCanagan said about 2nd Street Residences. “It’s in full compliance with the growth policy.”
McMahon noted a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which she was involved, the Village of Arlington Heights vs. the Metropolitan Housing Commission. She worked for the Village of Arlington Heights as a community development planner at that time.
“The facts of the case are very similar to the proposal in front of you,” she said. “There was a request to rezone land in a single-family neighborhood to allow for townhomes in order to provide affordable housing. Even with a demonstrated need for affordable housing, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the single-family zoning and did so primarily because the future land-use map in the comprehensive plan indicated this land was designated for single-family development.
“As stated by the Supreme Court, ‘There is no reason to doubt that there has been reliance by some neighboring property owners on the maintenance of single-family zoning in the vicinity,’” she said.
McMahon said Second Street neighbors purchased their homes to raise families in an area with a peaceful, pastoral setting with the understanding it’s predominantly a single-family area. She maintained rezoning the WR-1 tract to WR-2 zoning would “allow a density that is far and above what anyone envisioned for this neighborhood.”
Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.