## Facts

- Missoula adopted the Rattlesnake Valley Neighborhood Plan in 1988 as part of its growth policy, addressing density, environmental protection, and neighborhood compatibility in the Rattlesnake Valley.
- A 1989 “Sunlight/Sunshine Agreement” between the City and a prior landowner was later invoked by the developer as supporting higher residential density.
- Muth-Hillberry, LLC proposed the “Sonata Park” subdivision on a 34.08-acre parcel; the proposal was reduced from 41 to 37 lots after plan-consistency concerns.
- City planning staff concluded the proposed density substantially exceeded the neighborhood plan’s recommended density for the parcel (approximately 7–8 lots) and raised concerns about environmental and compatibility impacts.
- In December 2007, the Missoula City Council approved zoning changes and a preliminary plat allowing the 37-lot subdivision.
- Nearby landowners and a neighborhood association petitioned for judicial review, alleging the approvals were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful for failure to substantially comply with the growth policy.
- The district court held plaintiffs had standing, struck certain affidavits offered on summary judgment, and set aside the zoning and preliminary plat approvals.

## Issues

1. Whether nearby landowners and the neighborhood association had standing to challenge the City Council’s zoning and subdivision approvals.
2. Whether the district court reversibly erred by striking affidavits submitted by the City and developer in summary-judgment proceedings.
3. Whether the 1989 Sunlight/Sunshine Agreement superseded the City’s growth policy or created vested rights to a particular development density.
4. Whether approving the zoning and preliminary plat was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful because the City did not substantially comply with its growth policy, including the neighborhood plan.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court.
- The individual neighbors had standing based on particularized injuries tied to use and enjoyment of their properties; the neighborhood association had associational standing.
- Any error in striking the developer’s affidavit was harmless because it would not change the outcome on substantial-compliance review.
- The 1989 agreement did not supersede the growth policy and did not guarantee density; it could not bind the City’s land-use authority in a manner inconsistent with statutory planning requirements.
- The City’s approvals were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful because the City failed to substantially comply with the growth policy and the Rattlesnake Valley Neighborhood Plan.

## Legal Principles

- Montana local governments must substantially comply with adopted growth policies, including area or neighborhood plans, when making zoning and subdivision decisions.
- A land-use approval may be set aside as arbitrary and capricious when the decision significantly departs from applicable growth-policy guidance without a reasoned, record-based justification.
- Adjacent or nearby landowners establish standing by showing a specific, personal, and legal interest specially and injuriously affected by the challenged decision.
- A neighborhood association has associational standing when members have standing, the interests are germane to the association’s purpose, and the claims and relief do not require individual member participation.
- Municipal agreements cannot supersede later-adopted growth policies or confer vested density rights that displace the statutory land-use decision-making process.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judicial invalidation of Missoula’s zoning and preliminary plat approvals for the Sonata Park subdivision because the City materially disregarded its growth policy and neighborhood plan, rendering its action arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and it rejected reliance on a prior municipal agreement as a substitute for growth-policy compliance.


Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 255 P.3d 80 (Mont. 2011)