Case Title: STATE EX REL SCHOOL DIST NO 15-1

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-12-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14365 I N THE S U P - CCUIiT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1978 STATE ex rel., FLQFENCE-CARLTON SCHOOL D I m C T No. 15-6, Petitioner and Appellant, -vs- BQARD OF O U N I Y ~ S S I O N E R S a ? R A m 1 cDUNIY AND RAVALT;I cOUKTY PLANNIIG BOARD, Respondents, and EDGAR L. PRICE, et al., Intervemrs and Respondents. Appeal fran: D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Milodragovich, Dale a n d Dye, Missoula, Montana Harold Dye argued, Missoula, Wntana For Respondent: Douglas G. Harkin, Oounty Attorney, argued, Hamilton, Fbntana Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Mntana Dennis L i d . argued, Missoula, Wntana For Amicus Curiae: Eon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana Mike Mfarter argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, bllontana ~ecided: DEC 5- 1978 Filed : DEC 5- 1978 M r . ~ u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. his i s an appeal from an order of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l ~ i s t r i c t Court vacating an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of prohibition and mandate d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e Board of County Commis- s i o n e r s of Ravalli County and t h e Ravalli County Planning Board. The w r i t d i r e c t e d t h e respondent Boards t o make w r i t t e n findings of f a c t concerning whether c e r t a i n proposed subdivisions within Ravalli County w e r e i n t h e public i n t e r e s t within t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947. The D i s t r i c t Court permitted t h e owners (developers) of t h e proposed subdivisions t o intervene. On t h e i r motion it vacated t h e w r i t and ruled t h a t s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) does not apply t o t h e subdivisions a t i s s u e and t h a t respondent Board of County Commissioners need not make findings t h a t t h e proposed subdivisions a r e i n t h e public i n t e r e s t . I n June, 1977, Wilbur Hensler obtained a survey of a portion of h i s ranch i n Ravalli County, dividing t h e land i n t o 71 p a r c e l s of j u s t over 20 acres each. Hidden Valley Ranches, a partnership of Missoula businessmen, then pur- chased a number of t h e s e parcels and subsequently r e s o l d them t o individual buyers. A t t h e t i m e of t h e sale by Hidden Valley Ranches, these tracts w e r e s u b j e c t t o restric- t i v e covenants which prevented them from being subdivided i n t o p a r c e l s smaller than f i v e acres each. The individual owners then submitted p l a t s f o r t h e approval of 26 separate subdivisions each consisting of less than f i v e l o t s . The o r i g i n a l d i v i s i o n of t h e Hensler Ranch i n t o tracts exceeding 20 acres was exempt from review under t h e subdivi- s i o n and P l a t t i n g Act, s e c t i o n s 11-3859 through 3876, R.C.M. 1947. Section 11-3861(12) defining "subdivision" excludes t r a c t s containing 20 o r more acres. The Act f u r t h e r provides t h a t subdivision p l a t s which contain f i v e o r fewer p a r c e l s t o be sold may be e l i g i b l e f o r "summary" review under sec- t i o n s 11-3866(6) and 11-3863(5) r a t h e r than t h e more compre- hensive review procedures required of subdivisions which contain more than f i v e l o t s . A l l t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n agree t h a t t h e proposed subdivisions a r e "minor" subdivisions--that is, t h a t they contain f i v e o r fewer l o t s . Appellant School D i s t r i c t , however, contends they do n o t q u a l i f y f o r summary review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6). Further, i f they should q u a l i f y f o r such review, a p p e l l a n t contends t h e s t a t u t e required respondent Board of County Commissioners t o make w r i t t e n findings t o determine i f t h e subdivisions a r e i n t h e public i n t e r e s t . Respondents argue t h a t t h e subdivisions q u a l i f y f o r summary review and t h a t such review does not r e q u i r e t h e county commissioners t o make w r i t t e n findings t o evaluate whether t h e subdivisions are i n t h e public i n t e r e s t . The i s s u e s presented t o t h i s Court f o r review are: 1. Must a "minor" subdivision which q u a l i f i e s f o r review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6), R.C.M. 1947, m e e t t h e "public i n t e r e s t " requirements of s e c t i o n 11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947? 2. Does a "minor" subdivision, whose only access t o l o t s c o n s i s t s of p r i v a t e easements, q u a l i f y f o r summary review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6), R.C.M. 1947? The Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act, f i r s t enacted i n 1973 (Ch. 500, Laws of Montana (1973)), i s a technical s t a t u t e which attempts t o provide t h e proper amount of public con- t r o l over subdivision development necessary t o ensure cer- t a i n public protection purposes. I n i t s s h o r t l i f e t i m e , t h e Act has been amended s e v e r a l t i m e s , including amendments t o its purpose section (section 11-3860) and t o its provisions f o r review (section 11-3866). There a r e two procedures f o r review of proposed sub- divisions by l o c a l governing bodies. Subdivisions which a r e not e l i g i b l e f o r summary review under section 11-3866(6) must be reviewed according t o the procedures outlined i n section 11-3866(1)-(5). Only those subdivisions with f i v e o r fewer l o t s , which have "proper access" t o a l l l o t s and i n which no land is t o be dedicated f o r parks o r playgrounds may qualify f o r summary review under subsection ( 6 ) . In subsection ( 4 ) , the governing body is directed t o determine whether a proposed subdivision is " i n the public i n t e r e s t " . I f it finds t h a t it is not, the governing body is bound t o disapprove the proposal. Section 11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947. The subsection a l s o lists eight s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a which the governing body must weigh i n a r r i v i n g a t its decision of whether the subdivision i s i n the public i n t e r e s t : t h e basis of t h e need f o r the subdivision; expressed public opinion; e f f e c t s on agriculture; e f f e c t s on l o c a l services; e f f e c t s on taxation; e f f e c t s on the natural environment; e f f e c t s on w i l d l i f e and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t , and e f f e c t s on the public health and safety." Appellant School D i s t r i c t argues t h a t a l l subdivisions must be demonstrably i n the public i n t e r e s t under the c r i - t e r i a l i s t e d i n section 11-3866(4) before a governing body may give its approval, including those proposed subdivisions which qualify f o r summary review under section 11-3866(6). O f p a r t i c u l a r importance t o the i s s u e raised by t h i s appeal a r e the amendments t o the purpose section. A s o r i g i - nally enacted, the purpose section made no mention of w r i t - ten findings of public i n t e r e s t . A 1975 amendment t o t h a t s e c t i o n added t h a t one of t h e purposes of t h e A c t was " t o r e q u i r e t h a t approval of any subdivision be contingent upon a w r i t t e n finding of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e governing bodyw. Ch. 498, Section 1, Laws of Montana (1975) . I n t h e same chapter t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a l s o enacted an amendment t o s e c t i o n 11-3866. That amendment added a new subsection ( 4 ) which provides t h a t t h e governing body must weigh t h e e i g h t speci- f i e d c r i t e r i a l i s t e d above t o a r r i v e a t a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of whether a proposed subdivision is i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . I f it f i n d s t h a t it is n o t i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , t h e governing body must disapprove t h e subdivision. Ch. 498, Section 3, Laws of Montana (1975) c o d i f i e d a t s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3866 ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947. The 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e f u r t h e r amended t h e purpose sec- t i o n (11-3860), s e c t i o n 11-3862, and s e c t i o n 11-3866. The purpose s e c t i o n w a s amended by q u a l i f y i n g t h e public i n t e r e s t c l a u s e with t h e words "whenever necessary", adding "appropriate" before "approval" and d e l e t i n g "any" from i n f r o n t of "subdivi- sion". It now reads " t o r e q u i r e whenever necessary, t h e a p p r o p r i a t e approval of subdivisions be contingent upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e governing body". Ch. 552, Section 1, Laws of Montana (1977). I n t h e same chapter t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a l s o c r e a t e d a s p e c i f i c modification of t h e w r i t t e n p u b l i c i n t e r e s t f i n d i n g requirement f o r c e r t a i n subdivisions w i t h i n previously adopted county master plans. The amendment added subsection (8) t o s e c t i o n 11-3862, t o provide t h a t a subdivision which i s w i t h i n a county's master development plan is "deemed t o be i n t h e public i n t e r e s t and exempt from t h e requirement of a n environmental assessment." Ch. 552, Section 2, Laws of Montana (1977) ( c o d i f i e d a t s e c t i o n 11-3862 ( 8 ) , R.C.M. 1947). In a separate chapter the 1977 session laws provide for an amendment adding subsection (6) to section 11-3866. Ch. 555, Sec. 1, Laws of Montana (1977). That subsection out- lines specific review procedures for subdivisions with less than five parcels which have proper access to all lots and which do not contain land to be dedicated for public recrea- tion. It does not say specifically whether such proposed "minor" subdivisions are subject to the public interest requirement which was added in 1975. This particular ques- tion is still new to this Court, as the recent decision of Young v. Stillwater County Commissioners (1978), Mont . , 582 P.2d 353, 355, 35 St.Rep. 1099, 1102, specifically declined to rule on the issue. It is notable that the purpose section has twice been amended since the original passage of the Act. The first amendment, in 1975, added the public interest requirement to "any subdivision". The 1977 amendment, as noted above, qualified that language by adding "whenever necessary" and "appropriate" while deleting "any". The purpose of the 1977 amendments apparently is to make the purpose section consis- tent with the amendment to section 11-3862 which was con- tained in the same bill. As discussed above, the amendment to section 11-3862 added subsection (8) modifying the re- quirement of a written public interest finding by deeming certain proposed subdivisions to be in the public interest, ~ h u s , in those instances where a subdivision is within a county's master plan, the written public interest finding mandated in section 11-3866(4) is not necessary because the subdivision is presumed to be in the public interest. However, the provision for review of minor subdivisions in section 11-3866(6) makes no parallel presumption. he provision i n s e c t i o n 11-3862(8) does n o t exempt c e r t a i n subdivisions from t h e public i n t e r e s t c r i t e r i a - - i t merely presumes t h a t subdivisions which come within its scope a r e already i n t h e public i n t e r e s t . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n urged by respondent commissioners and developers is t h a t because t h e w r i t t e n public i n t e r e s t finding is not mentioned i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(6), t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must have intended t o c r e a t e an exception f o r minor subdivisions requiring no public i n t e r e s t determination a t a l l , presumed o r w r i t t e n . I n view of t h e purpose s e c t i o n of t h e Act, requiring w r i t t e n findings of public i n t e r e s t "whenever necessary" and t h e f a c t t h a t s e c t i o n 11-3862(8) does n o t except subdivisions within master plans from t h e public i n t e r e s t requirement b u t r a t h e r deems them t o be i n t h e public i n t e r e s t , t h e argument t h a t an exception i s created by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s s i l e n c e on t h e public i n t e r e s t requirement i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(6) is d i f f i c u l t t o accept. This is p a r t i c u l a r l y s o upon considera- t i o n of t h e general p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y construction applicable t o a s t a t u t e such a s t h e Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act. The purpose s e c t i o n declared t h a t t h e A c t is intended t o provide f o r t h e public health, s a f e t y , and general welfare: " I t is t h e purpose of t h i s a c t t o promote the public health, s a f e t y , and general welfare by regulating t h e subdivision of land; t o prevent overcrowding of land; t o lessen congestion i n t h e streets and highways; t o provide f o r ade- quate l i g h t , a i r , water supply, sewage d i s - posal, parks and r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s , ingress and egress, and o t h e r public requirements; t o re- q u i r e development i n harmony with t h e n a t u r a l environment; t o r e q u i r e t h a t whenever neces- s a r y , t h e appropriate approval of subdivi- s i o n s be contingent upon a w r i t t e n finding of public i n t e r e s t by t h e governing body . . ." Section 11-3860, R.C.M. 1947. Legislation enacted f o r t h e promotion of public h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and general welfare, i s e n t i t l e d t o " l i b e r a l construc- t i o n with a view towards t h e accomplishment of i t s highly beneficent o b j e c t i v e s " . 3 Sutherland, S t a t u t o r y Construc- t i o n , 571.01 ( 4 t h Ed., 1974). A s one c o u r t has s t a t e d : "No r u l e of s t a t u t o r y construction is more r e a d i l y applied by t h e c o u r t s than t h a t pub- l i c s t a t u t e s d e a l i n g with t h e welfare of t h e whole people a r e t o have a l i b e r a l construc- t i o n . " Hall v. Union Light, Heat & Power (E.D. Ky. 1944), 53 F.Supp. 817, 818-19. See a l s o Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission (D.C. App. 1977), 378 A.2d 1085, 1089; Ranquist v. S t a c k l e r (1977), 13 I11.Dec. 171, 370 N.E.2d 1198, 1203; N e w York S t a t e Board of Pharmacy v. C e r t a i n Adulterated and Misbranded Drugs (1977), 393 N.Y.S.2d 447, Accordingly, "exemptions, provisos, and exceptions a r e g e n e r a l l y given a narrow i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " 3 Sutherland, S t a t u t o r y Construction, supra, a t 571.01, n. 3. I n t h e Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act t h e general r u l e is t h a t a subdivision must be found t o be i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t before a governing body may approve it. This requirement i s intended t o f u l f i l l t h e A c t ' s o b j e c t i v e of ensuring t h a t t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y and general welfare are protected. That o b j e c t i v e must be t h e primary guide t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a - t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e . Thus, where no s p e c i f i c exception t o t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t requirement i s mentioned i n s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3866(6), t h e b e t t e r conclusion is t h a t no such exception i s intended. This conclusion i s b u t t r e s s e d by t h e 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e ' s a d d i t i o n of t h e word "appropriate" t o t h e purpose s e c t i o n : " t o r e q u i r e t h a t whenever necessary, t h e appropriate approval of subdivisions be contingent upon a w r i t t e n finding of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e governing body". (Emphasis added.) The amendment adding "whenever necessary", as discussed above, most n a t u r a l l y a p p l i e s t o t h e amendment t o s e c t i o n 11-3862, providing t h a t c e r t a i n subdivisions are deemed t o be i n t h e public i n t e r e s t , because both amendments were p a r t of t h e s a m e b i l l . The word "appropriate" modifying "approv- a l " suggests t h a t a s i d e from those i n s t a n c e s i n which a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i s n o t required, t h e Act s t i l l provides f o r more than one form of approval. The Act does provide f o r two types of approval procedures, indepen- d e n t of t h e review of subdivisions which are deemed t o be i n t h e public i n t e r e s t . These a r e f u l l o r "formal" approval procedures r e q u i r i n g a public hearing and environmental assessment and t h e "summary" approval procedures o u t l i n e d i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(6). The most n a t u r a l meaning of t h e c l a u s e i n t h e purpose s e c t i o n i s t h a t t h e "appropriate" form of approval, whether t h a t be formal approval o r summary approval, is "contingent upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e governing body." W e hold t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t f i n d i n g mandated by s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) a p p l i e s t o "minor" subdivi- s i o n s which q u a l i f y f o r review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6). I n i t s second i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t School ~ i s t r i c t contends t h a t t h e subdivisions do n o t q u a l i f y f o r summary review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6) because t h e only access t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l l o t s is by p r i v a t e easement. This, it argues, does n o t m e e t t h e s t a t u t o r y requirement of "proper access t o a l l l o t s " . This matter would be of concern i n t h i s appeal b u t t h e record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e question has been rendered moot. The exceptions t o s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) which a r e c r e a t e d by s e c t i o n 11-3866(6)(c) are t h e d e l e t i o n of t h e public hearing and environmental assessment requirement. I n t h i s case, however, public hearings were held on January 24 and Febru- ary 2, 1978, before the Ravalli County Plat Committee and the Ravalli County Planning Board respectively. The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences has also prepared a full environmental assessment of the proposed subdivisions. In view of these actions and this Court's holding on the public interest finding issue, it is clear a ruling on whether the proposed subdivisions qualify for summary approval under section 11-3866 would be of no avail. All the actions required for approval of major subdivisions, except for the public interest finding, have already been taken. Accordingly, we decline to rule on appellant's second issue. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the Board of County Commissioners of Ravalli County is hereby directed to make written findings in accordance with section 11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947, to determine whether these proposed subdivisions are in the public int We Concur: Z&xSbc,& Chief Justice 0 . a ~ Honorable Gordon R . Bennett, District Judge, sitting in place of Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea