Fact Summary:
T&C proposed to build six mini-stores each serving a different purpose (a pharmacy, a bakery, etc.) each under 5,000 square feet in size in order to meet the B-1 zoning requirements of the land which limits the size of buildings to 5,000 square feet. Although the plan complied with the letter of the zoning regulations, and the office of the planning director planned on recommending approval, the city commission voted unanimously to reclaim T&C’s application. Two months later the city commission voted 4-1 to deny the application, deciding that although each individual unit complied with the building size requirements, the overall aggregate impact of the proposal did not harmonize with the intent of the B-1 zone.
T&C commenced this action, claiming a violation of its constitutional right to due process and making an equal protection claim. The District Court granted summary judgement for the City, concluding that because the Zoning Ordinance granted the city commission broad authority and significant discretion in rendering its decision, T&C did not have a protected property interest in having its application granted. T&C appealed, arguing the District Court relied on disputed facts to determine the Zoning Ordinance granted the city commission broad discretion and that the city commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reclaiming and denying its application.
Issue 1: Did the Bozeman city commission violate T&C’s constitutional rights to substantive due process and equal protection of the law when it denied T&C’s application for approval of a site plan?
1.1 – Substantive Due Process Claim
“Substantive due process primarily examines underlying substantive rights and remedies to determine whether restrictions are unreasonable or arbitrary when balanced against the purpose of a government body in enacting a statute, ordinance or regulation.” Town & Country, ¶ 17 (citing State v. Webb, 2005 MT 5, ¶ 21; State v. Egdorf, 2003 MT 264, ¶ 19). “[T]he test of whether the government denied a party constitutional substantive due process concerns an examination of whether the government, by enacting a piece of legislation, acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious fashion.” Town & Country, ¶ 17. ”A constitutional due process analysis is applicable under the facts of this case because T&C does not allege Bozeman’s Zoning Ordinance is unconstitutional.” Town & Country, ¶ 18.
1.2 – Equal Protection Claim
“To prevail on an equal protection challenge, the injured party must demonstrate that the law at isue discriminates by impermissibly classifying individuals or entities and treating them differently on the basis of that classification.” Town & Country, ¶ 19. “T&C’s complaint challenges the city commission’s decision, rather than the Zoning Ordinance, and does not present a constitutional denial of equal protection claim.” Town & Country, ¶ 20.
Issue 2: Was the Bozeman city commission’s decision to deny T&C’s application an abuse of discretion?
“We cannot conclude that the information relied on by the city commission to make its decision lacked foundation or that its decision was unreasonable. The city commission addressed relevant criteria – vehicle and pedestrian traffic, parking wetlands, setbacks, and conformity with the neighborhood. The city commission complied with its Zoning ordinance and gave reasons for its denial of T&C’s site plan. The city commission did not abuse its discretion.” Town & Country, ¶ 31.
Further, it was not an abuse of discretion for the city commission to reclaim T&C’s application because the Zoning Ordinance provides that it may make the final decision on an application–either on apeal from the planning director or after its own consideration. Town & Country, ¶ 32.
