Case Title: DOVER RANCH v COUNTY OF YELLOWSTON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 79-35 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1980 DOVER RANCH, ROBERT J. SCHOCK, E D W A R D WALDHAUSER, PAUL M. W C L D , and BAR DIAMOND RANCH, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, T H E C O U N T Y O F YELLOWSTONE, Defendant, and GENERAL-KIMBLE, Intervenor-Defendant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, I n and For t h e County of Yellowstone, Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana David Hoefer argued, Deputy County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Moulton, Bellingham, Longo and Mather, B i l l i n g s , Montana Gerald B. Murphy argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: McNamer, Thompson & Cashmore, B i l l i n g s , Montana Charles R. Cashmore argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: March 27, 1980 F i l e d : APh 1 . f j Decided: Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by Yellowstone County and General- Kimble, a partnership, from a judgment of t h e District Court s e t t i n g a s i d e as n u l l and void an amended r e s o l u t i o n of t h e Board of Yellowstone County Commissioners which granted t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of General-Kimble f o r a zoning change on a c e r t a i n p a r c e l of land from a g r i c u l t u r a l and r e s t r i c t e d r e s i d e n t i a l t o r e s i d e n t i a l mobile home. O n November 18, 1976, General-Kimble f i l e d Application No. 1 2 0 f o r a change of zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n from agricul- t u r a l and r e s t r i c t e d r e s i d e n t i a l t o r e s i d e n t i a l mobile home on a c e r t a i n p a r c e l of land i n B i l l i n g s Heights. General- Kimble desired t o build a mobile home park on the t r a c t , which w a s unused, undeveloped a g r i c u l t u r a l property c l a s s i - f i e d as a g r i c u l t u r a l under t h e Yellow~,tone County Compre- hensive Zoning Plan and surrounded by primarily vacant land with widely s c a t t e r e d residences. The a p p l i c a t i o n was considered by t h e s t a f f of t h e city-county planning board, which made t h e following recom- mendation t o t h e zoning commission: ". . . found t h a t t h i s request would provide, when developed, mobile home spaces t h a t a r e needed i n t h e community a s shown by low vacan- c i e s i n e x i s t i n g parks. Alexander Road meets t h e requirement t h a t a mobile home park of t h i s s i z e should have access t o an a r t e r i a l l y desig- nated street. Lake Elmo w i l l a t t r a c t residen- t i a l use, therefore it w a s found t h a t a mobile home park o r subdivision, a f t e r f u l l review by t h e Food and Consumer Safety Bureau, t h e Yellow- stone City-County Health Department and other reviewing agencies, would be compatible i n t h e area. " After notice of a public hearing was published and s e n t t o a f f e c t e d landowners, a j o i n t zoning commission and county commission meeting w a s held on January 19, 1977, t o consider t h e zoning change application. A t t h e hearing, a member of the city-county planning board staff read the legal adver- tising and presented slides of the area, and a member of the zoning commission read the criteria set forth in section 76- 2-203, MCA. General-Kimble and its consulting engineer gave evidence in favor of the zoning change, while two nearby ranchers and another area resident, as well as the chairman of a local school district, spoke out against the change. A written protest was also received. Two of the opponents are plaintiffs-respondents in the present suit. The zoning commission voted 3-1 to grant the zoning change and provided its recommendation to the county cammis- sioners, giving the following reasons for granting the petition: "1. Upon initial review, this request would ap- pear not to be designed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, more thorough re- search reveals the following points that indicate it is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan: "a. Item 5 (page 62) under "Mobile Homes" in the Comprehensive Plan calls for the following: "'The plan envisioned the continuation of exist- ing mobile home parks, with the expansion of those with suitable area. The major projections for new facilities were in the Lockwood area, where land parcels were of sufficient size, ac- cess was good and where public facilities were imminent . . .' It seems that these considera- tions would fit the condition presented by this request, though it is located in the Billings Heights area. '"b. This request would not be 'leap-frog' develop- ment. It is a natural extension of existing and proposed development surrounding the Lake Elmo area. "2. The required access to an arterial street is met by the adjacent Alexander Road. "3. Low vacancy rates in existing mobile home parks indicate a need for more developed sites in the community." On February 1, 1977, the Yellowstone County commissioners unanimously passed a resolution granting General-Kimble's zoning change a p p l i c a t i o n . The r e s o l u t i o n r e c i t e d t h a t it was being adopted pursuant t o the comprehensive plan follow- i n g a p u b l i c hearing on January 19, 1977 ( t h e j o i n t zoning commission-county commission hearing) and a f t e r receiving and considering t h e recommendations of t h e zoning commis- sion. On February 17, 1977, t h e county commissioners passed an amended r e s o l u t i o n which r e c i t e d verbatim t h e reasons given by t h e zoning commission f o r granting t h e zoning change. The plaintiffs-respondents d i d n o t r e q u e s t a rehearing under A r t i c l e V I I , Section 5 ( b ) of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning Plan. They appealed t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n with t h a t c o u r t on March 3 , 1977. Motions f o r summary judgment by both p a r t i e s w e r e denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on A p r i l 21, 1978, and t h e ratter w a s submitted on a s t i p u l a t e d record, a f t e r argument by counsel, on June 7, 1979. On June 15, 1979, t h e c o u r t entered its f i n d i n g s and conclusions t h a t : (1) t h e procedures followed by t h e county i n granting General-Kimble's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a zoning change d i d n o t conform with t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, and t h e requirements of A r t i c l e V I I of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning Plan; ( 2 ) t h e evidence d i d n o t support granting t h e zoning change under s e c t i o n 76-2-203, MCA; and, ( 3 ) t h e zoning change c o n s t i t u t e d i l l e g a l "spot zoning" and w a s c o n t r a r y t o t h e comprehensive zoning plan. General-Kimble and Yellowstone County appeal from t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court entered a g a i n s t them on June 25, 1979, and raise t h e following i s s u e s f o r review by t h i s Court: 1. Whether t h e procedures followed i n granting t h e zoning change adequately conformed t o t h e requirements set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, and A r t i c l e V I I of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning Plan. 2. Whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n t h e record t o support granting t h e zoning change under s e c t i o n 76-2- 203, MCA, o r whether it was an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . 3. Whether t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e zoning change c o n s t i - t u t e d i l l e g a l " s p o t zoning" contrary t o t h e comprehensive zoning plan. Appellants argue t h a t t h e county complied with t h e procedural requirements of s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, and A r t i - c l e V I I of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning Plan. Subsection ( 4 ) of s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, which provides t h a t " [ t l h e board of county commissioners m a y pass a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o c r e a t e a zoning d i s t r i c t and t o adopt zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t " is d i s c r e t i o n a r y , and t h e county d i d n o t need t o pass a res3:.ution of i n t e n t i o n i f t h e word "may" i s given i t s ordinary meaning. County of Chou- t e a u v. C i t y of F o r t Benton (1979), Mont. , 592 P.2d 504, 36 St.Rep. 582. Appellants contend t h e r e was no showing t h a t t h e county abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , and, i n any case, t h e r e w a s s u b s t a n t i a l compliance with t h e procedural requirements mandated by t h e s t a t u t e , s i n c e respondents' r i g h t s t o a f u l l and f a i r hearing have n o t been prejudiced by any i r r e g u l a r i t y i n procedure t h a t may have occurred. Appellants argue f u r t h e r t h a t n o t i c e s of t h e p u b l i c hearing w e r e mailed t o respondents w e l l before t h e hearing, and s i n c e respondents w e r e p r e s e n t a t t h e hearing and t h e i r p r o t e s t s heard, they should be held t o have waived any t e c h n i c a l f a i l u r e of t h e county t o comply with s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e requirements. They f u r t h e r claim t h a t A r t i c l e V I I of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning Plan imposes no a d d i t i o n a l requirements and does n o t compel separate hearings by the zoning commission and county commissioners. Finally, appellants argue t h a t subsection ( 4 ) of section 76-2-205, MCA, a p p l i e s only t o an a p p l i c a t i o n t o c r e a t e a zoning d i s t r i c t and does n o t apply t o an amendment of zoning regulations such a s occurred i n the present case. A t t h e o u t s e t it i s necessary t o examine and i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e , section 76-2-205, MCA: "Procedure f o r adoption of regulations and bound- aries. The board of county commissioners s h a l l observe the following procedures i n t h e e s t a b l i s h - ment o r revision of boundaries f o r zoning dis- tricts and i n t h e adoption o r amendment of zoning regulations: "(1) Notice of a public hearing on t h e proposed zoning d i s t r i c t boundaries and of regulations f o r t h e zoning d i s t r i c t s h a l l be published once a week f o r 2 weeks i n a newspaper of general c i r - c u l a t i o n within t h e county. The n o t i c e s h a l l s t a t e : " ( a ) t h e boundaries of the proposed d i s t r i c t ; " ( b ) t h e general character of t h e proposed zoning regulations; " ( c ) t h e t i m e and place of the public hearing; " ( d ) t h a t t h e proposed zoning regulations a r e on f i l e f o r public inspection a t t h e o f f i c e of t h e county c l e r k and recorder. " ( 2 ) A t t h e public hearing, t h e board of county commissioners s h a l l give the public an oppor- t u n i t y t o be heard regarding t h e proposed zoning d i s t r i c t and regulations. ( 3 ) After t h e public hearing, t h e board of county commissioners s h a l l review t h e proposals of the planning board and s h a l l make such revi- sions o r amendments as it may deem proper. " ( 4 ) The board - of county commissioners may pass -- :oning a resblution of i n t e n t i o n - t o c r e a t e - a - 2 - d i s t r i c t and t o adopt zoning regulations f o r t h e -- d i s t r i c t . " ( 5 ) The board of county commissioners s h a l l publish n o t i c e of passage of t h e r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n once a week f o r 2 weeks i n a newspaper of general c i r c u l a t i o n within t h e county. The n o t i c e s h a l l s t a t e : " ( a ) t h e boundaries of t h e proposed d i s t r i c t ; " (b) t h e general c h a r a c t e r of t h e proposed zon- i n g r e g u l a t i o n s ; " ( c ) t h a t t h e proposed zoning r e g u l a t i o n s are on f i l e f o r p u b l i c inspection a t t h e o f f i c e of t h e county c l e r k and recorder; " ( d ) t h a t f o r 30 days a f t e r f i r s t p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s n o t i c e , t h e board of county commissioners w i l l receive w r i t t e n p r o t e s t s t o t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e zoning d i s t r i c t o r t o t h e zoning r e g u l a t i o n s from persons owning real property w i t h i n t h e d i s t r i c t whose names appear on t h e l a s t completed assessment r o l l of t h e county. " (6) Within 30 days a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e p r o t e s t period, t h e board of county commissioners may i n its d i s c r e t i o n adopt t h e r e s o l u t i o n cre- a t i n g t h e zoning d i s t r i c t and/or e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t ; b u t i f 40% of t h e freeholders within such d i s t r i c t whose names appear on t h e last completed assessment r o l l s h a l l have p r o t e s t e d t h e establishment of t h e d i s t r i c t o r adoption of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e board of county commissioners s h a l l n o t adopt t h e r e s o l u t i o n and no f u r t h e r zoning r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l be proposed f o r t h e d i s t r i c t f o r a period of 1 year." (Emphasis added.) Section 76-2-205, MCA, sets o u t a six-step procedure which i s t o be followed by t h e board of county commissioners i n e s t a b l i s h i n g o r r e v i s i n g zoning d i s t r i c t s and i n adopting o r r e v i s i n g zoning regulations. I t i s undisputed t h a t Step No. 4 (and thus, Step Nos. 5 and 6) was n o t followed by t h e Board of Yellowstone County Commissioners i n t h e p r e s e n t case. Subsection ( 4 ) of 76-2-205, MCA, provides t h a t " t h e board of county commissioners may pass a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o creates zoning d i s t r i c t and t o adopt zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t . " Although t h e Yellowstone County commissioners followed t h e procedures s e t f o r t h i n t h e f i r s t t h r e e subsections of s e c t i o n 76-2-205 by pub- l i s h i n g n o t i c e of a p u b l i c hearing, conducting a hearing a t which t h e p u b l i c was given an opportunity t o be heard, and reviewing t h e proposals of t h e planning board, they d i d n o t pass a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n pursuant t o subsection ( 4 ) nor follow t h e procedures subsequent t h e r e t o . Appellants contend t h a t subsection ( 4 ) , which provides t h a t t h e commissioners m a y pass a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n , i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y . They argue t h e county d i d n o t need t o pass a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n i f t h e word "may" is given i t s ordinary meaning, c i t i n g County of Chouteau v. C i t y of F o r t Benton (1979), Mont. , 592 P.2d 504, 507, 36 St.Rep. 582, f o r t h e r u l e of construction t h a t , " t h e word 'may', unless it has acquired a s p e c i a l meaning i n l a w , is t o be given i t s ordinary meaning." 592 P.2d a t 507. They contend t h a t t h e county d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n . W e disagree. When s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, i s read as a whole, it i s obvious t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n t e n d t o g r a n t t h e county commissioners d i s c r e t i o n t o ignore t h e s t a t u t o r y procedures. I t i s c l e a r from t h e c o n t e x t of t h e e n t i r e s t a t u t e t h a t a t Step No. 4 of t h e proceedings, t h e commissioners "may deny" t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r they "may pass" a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n i f they intend t o g r a n t t h e a p p l i - c a t i o n . They cannot g r a n t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a t t h a t t i m e . They must proceed a s o u t l i n e d i n subsections (5) and ( 6 ) . To hold otherwise would l e a d t o t h e i l l o g i c a l r e s u l t of allowing t h e county commissioners t o determine whether o r n o t they w i l l publish n o t i c e of t h e passage of a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n and r e c e i v e w r i t t e n p r o t e s t s during t h a t thirty-day comment period envisioned i n subsection (51, which provides t h a t they " s h a l l " publish such notice. I t i s a well-established r u l e of s t a t u t o r y construction t h a t a s t a t u t e be read as a whole and construed s o a s t o avoid absurd r e s u l t s . Montana Power Co. v. C r e m e r (1979), - Mont. , 596 P,2d 483, 36 St.Rep. 1158; S t a t e ex r e l . Jones v. ~ i l e s (1975), 168 Mont. 130, 541 P.2d 355; B i l l i n g s ~ r o p e r t i e s , Inc. v. Yellowstone County (1964), 1 4 4 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182. The only absolute d i s c r e t i o n vested by t h e s t a t u t e i n t h e county commissioners i s t o review t h e p e t i t i o n a f t e r hearing and t o decide whether they should pass a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o s t a r t t h e proceedings necessary t o e s t a b l i s h t h e zoning d i s t r 5 . c t o r e s t a b l i s h r e g u l a t i o n s f o r a d i s t r i c t . There i s no r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s t o demonstrate t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended otherwise i n view of t h e s t a t u t e ' s purpose of providing procedures f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g zoning d i s t r i c t s and zoning r e g u l a t i o n s which guarantee t o t h e f r e e h o l d e r s n o t i c e of t h e proposed a c t i o n and an opportunity t o p r o t e s t . The goal of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e purpose of t h e s t a t u t e . B u r r i t t v. City of Butte (1973), 161 Mont. 530, 508 P.2d 563. A s t a t u t e w i l l n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d t o d e f e a t i t s o b j e c t o r purpose, and t h e o b j e c t s sought t o be achieved by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a r e of prime con- s i d e r a t i o n i n i n t e r p r e t i n g it. Doull v. Wohlschlager (1963), 1 4 1 Mont. 354, 377 P.2d 758. Appellants have c i t e d County of Chouteau v. C i t y of F o r t Benton, supra, f o r t h e proposition t h a t unless it has acquired a s p e c i a l meaning i n l a w , t h e word "may" i s t o be given i t s ordinary meaning. "May" i s used here i n its ordinary meaning. The s t a t u t e simply s t a t e s t h a t a f t e r t h e p u b l i c hearing and determinations by t h e commissioners, they "may" pass a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o create a zoning d i s t r i c t and t o adopt zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t . "May," of course, does n o t have a mandatory connotation i n i t s usual meaning, so t h e commission could do t h e opposite and n o t c r e a t e a d i s t r i c t i f t h e i r study i n d i c a t e d t h i s course of a c t i o n . "Where t h e s t a t e zoning enabling a c t p r e s c r i b e s c e r t a i n procedural s t e p s , t h a t procedure i s u s u a l l y regarded a s mandatory, and hence a sub- s t a n t i a l f a i l u r e t o comply with such require- ments w i l l render a zoning ordinance i n v a l i d . " 82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning, §4?. - . - See a l s o 1 Anderson, American Law of zoning, 84.03 (2nd Ed. -- Since t h e Yellowstone County commissioners f a i l e d t o comply with t h e procedures i n s e c t i o n 76-2-205(4), (5) and (61, MCA, t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly i n v a l i d a t e d t h e com- mission's granting of General-Kimble's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a zoning change. Appellants' argument t h a t subsection ( 4 ) of s e c t i o n 76- 2-205, MCA, a p p l i e s only t o an a p p l i c a t i o n t o create a zoning d i s t r i c t and does n o t apply t o an amendment of zoning r e g u l a t i o n s , such a s occurred i n t h e p r e s e n t case, i s with- o u t m e r i t . The introductory language of s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, makes it c l e a r t h a t : "The board of county commis- s i o n e r s s h a l l observe t h e following procedures i n t h e estab- lishment o r r e v i s i o n of boundaries f o r zoning d i s t r i c t s - and i n t h e adoption o r amendment of zoning regulations . . ." -- - - I n l i g h t of t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e f i r s t i s s u e , it i s unnecessary t o consider a p p e l l a n t s ' remaining s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of e r r o r a s they now a r e m m t . W e r e p e a t f o r f u r t h e r c l a r i - f i c a t i o n t h a t s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, i n i t s e n t i r e t y (sub- s e c t i o n s 1 through 6) i s t h e only s t a t u t e a v a i l a b l e f o r use by t h e various county commissioners of t h i s s t a t e f o r t h e c r e a t i o n of zoning d i s t r i c t s and/or e s t a b l i s h i n g zoning regulations f o r the d i s t r i c t s . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: /" ' ~ r ~ & h + J u s t i c e s . . Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, District Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell