### No. 14709 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DAVID G. 

### ALLEN and ELEANOR M. ALLEN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants,

FLATHEAD COUNTY, a body corporate; and THE FLATHEAD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Astle and Astle, Kalispell,Montana ~illiam Astle argued,Kalispell, Montana For Respondents: Ted 0. 

### Lympus, County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana Jonathan B. 

### Smith, Deputy County Attorney, argued,

Kalispell,Montana

Submitted: September 24, 1979 Decided: 

## OCT

## 1.: 4979 Filed: 

# gcT -- 

### - 

# 1.- 

### 49~-Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is a motion for declaratoryjudgment against respondents, Flathead County and itsBoard of County Commissioners, tohave the Lower Valley Zoning Districtand its zoning regulations declared invalid because of an alleged noncompliance with zoning enabling legislation under section 76-2-201, MCA. The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts and stipulation of evidence. A county planning board 

### was created for the purposes of planning and zoning inFlathead County in 1972. The jurisdictional area of the county planning board was determined by resolution of the commissioners and included allof Flathead County, except the corporate limitsof the City of Columbia Falls. Within the jurisdictional area, the commissioners created the Lower Valley Zoning District and adopted several zoning regulations based upon a plan of that district in 1974. Atthe timeof the adoption of the Lower Valley Zoning District boundaries and regulations, the commissioners had not adopted a comprehensive development plan ormaster plan for the entireFlathead County jurisdictional area. Appellants areowners of land situated inthe Lower Valley Zoning District. Appellants made a request tothe Flathead County commissioners tobe eliminated from the zoning regulations of the district. Their request, however,

was denied. Appellants thereafter filed a motion for declaratoryjudgment inDistrictCourt tohave the Lower Valley Zoning Districtand its zoning regulations declared invalid. Appellants claimed that there was a failure to comply with procedures outlined in zoning enabling legisla-tion under section 76-2-201, MCA. Harry Woll was granted permission tointervene on behalf of the Flathead Lower Valley Committee. The District Court found for respondents, and appellants appealed. The sole issue tobe decided inthis appeal iswhether the DistrictCourt erred inholding that the Lower Valley Zoning District and its zoning regulations were adopted in sufficientcompliance with the requirements of section 76-2- 201, MCA, and 

### were therefore valid. Section 76-2-201, MCA, provides: "For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the people incities and towns and counties whose governing bodies have adopted a comprehensive development plan for jurisdictional areas pursuant to chapter 1, the boards of county commissioners in such counties are authorized toadopt zoning regulations for allor parts of such jurisdictional areas in accordance with theprovisions of thispart.

### " Appellants argue that the above statuterequires that a comprehensive development plan or

### master plan be adopted before counties 

### are authorized to adopt zoning regulations. Appellants maintain that the Lower Valley District Zoning Plan, upon which the zoning regulations of that district are based, 

### isnot a comprehensive development plan as contemplated by the statute. It is argued that the plan isnot sufficient because it 

### isbased only upon a particular locality. Therefore, appellants contend, the zoning regulations are invalid. Respondents maintain that the Lower Valley District Zoning Plan 

### is sufficient as a comprehensive development plan under section 76-2-201, MCA. Respondents contend that

a master plan or comprehensive development plan, according to the statutory definition, is the plan inits entiretyor 

### - of itsparts and that the Lower Valley District Zoning 

### --

### Plan, as a mini or local comprehensive developmentplan, is sufficient as part of a greater comprehensive development plan under section 76-2-201, MCA. We find that the adoption of a comprehensive development plan is a necessary prerequisite under section 76-2- 201,MCA, for the adoption of county zoning regulations and that the Lower Valley District Zoning Plan fails to qualify

as a "comprehensive developmentplan" as required by the statute. That the adoption of a comprehensive development plan is a prerequisite to adopting zoning regulations is selfevident from the clear and unambiguous language of section 76-2-201,MCA. Where the words of a statute are plain, unambiguous, direct and certain, it speaks for itself and there is nothing for the courts to construe. Jones v. Judge (1978)

## , Mont. 

### , 577 P.2d 846, 848, 35 

### St.Rep. 460, 462. That the LowerValley Zoning District Plan is insufficient as a "comprehensive development plan," as contemplated by the statute, is equally clear. The plan, by the admission of its own text, states that "as a comprehensive develop ment plan itwill not suffice; thus, it is necessary to recognize that this plan will be subordinate to a complete comprehensiveplan." Further, the plan cannot be brought within the statutory definition of a master plan or comprehensive developmentplan as respondents contend. Section

er 

### 76-l-b-l, MCA, defines a "master plan" as "a comprehensive development plan or any of itsparts such as a plan of land

use and zoning,of thoroughfares,of sanitation,of recreation, and of other related matters.

### " The Lower Valley Zoning District Plan is not part of a comprehensive develop-ment plan inthe same sense asa plan of zoning would be to

a comprehensive development plan 

### or asa "chapter" would be toa "book." Appellants also contend that the adoption of the Lower Valley District Zoning Plan was insufficient for the adoption of zoning regulations under section 76-2-201, MCA, for another reason. They argue that the plan must, but did not, include an entirejurisdictional area. Appellants maintain that, since the commissioners designated the jurisdictional

area of the county planning board asallof Flathead County except the City of Columbia Falls, a comprehensive development plan under the statutemust include the entire Flathead County jurisdictional area. The Lower Valley Zoning Dis

### trict Plan, however, included only part of that area. Respondents argue that the Lower Valley DistrictZoning Plan was sufficient under section 76-2-201, MCA. Respondents contend that the legislatureprovided for flexibility inplanning and zoning and thatparts of a county may be planned and other parts leftunplanned. Respondents argue that the adoption of a county-wide master plan 

### is not a necessary prerequisite for adopting valid zoning regulations under the statute. Resolving these contentions requires interpreting section 76-2-201, MCA. InMont. Depart. of Rev. v. Am. Smelting and Refining (1977), Mont. 

## , 567 P.2d 901, 905-06, 34 St-Rep. 597, 602, we stated: "The function of the Supreme Court when construing a statute is simply toascertain and declare what is in substance stated therein, and not to insertwhat has been omitted or omit what has been inserted. [Citationsomitted.

### 1 The fundamental rule of statutoryconstruction is that the intent of the legislature controls. [Citations omitted.] Where the intent of the legislature can be determined from the plain meaning of the words used, the courts may not go further and apply any other means of interpretation."Here, section 76-2-201, MCA, statesthat a county is authorized toadopt zoning regulations when "governing bodies [of cities, towns and counties] have adopted a comprehensive development plan for jurisdictional areas



# .. ." (Emphasis added.) Respondents contend that the Lower Valley Zoning DistrictPlan is sufficient although it takes into consideration only part of the jurisdictional

area. The statutedoes not state, however, that a county is authorized toadopt zoning regulations when governing bodies have adopted a comprehensive development plan for parts of - jurisdictional areas. We hold that the clear and unambiguous language of section 76-2-201, MCA, requires thata county adopt a comprehensive development plan for an entirejurisdictional area. Only after the adoption of such a plan may 

### a county adopt zoning regulations. To interpret the statuteotherwise would go beyond theplain meaning of the words and would reduce the termsof the statute tononsense. It would allow, for example, a comprehensive development plan tobe called "comprehensive" when it took into consideration only part of something--namely, a jurisdictional area. Further, it would run contrary tothe principles of long-range planning and zoning. Wehold that the DistrictCourt erred indetermining that the Lower Valley District Zoning Plan and its zoning regulations were adopted in sufficient compliance with section 76-2-201, MCA. The zoning regulations of the Lower Valley Zoning District are therefore invalid. In view of the potentially serious consequences that

our decisionmight have for the citizens and property owners of Flathead County, 

### werecommend that the Flathead Countycommissioners take notice of section 76-2-206, MCA, the provision forinterim zoning regulation inemergency circumstances. That statuteprovides a method by which Flathead County may begin developing a 

### master plan thatwill comply with the termsof the statutewithout suffering any serious detriment. Section 76-2-206, MCA, provides: "Interimzoning map orregulation. (1)If a county isconductingor ingood faithintends toconduct studieswithin a reasonable timeor has held orisholding a hearing for thepurpose of considering a 

### master plan or zoning regulations oran amendment, extension, oraddition toeither pursuant tothispart, the board of county commissioners inorder topromote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare may adopt asan emergency measure a temporary interim zoning regulation, the purpose of which shallbe toclassify and regulantuses and relatedmatters asconstitutes the emergency. "(2)Such interim resolution shallbe limited to 1year from the date itbecomes effective. The board of county commissioners may extend such interim resolution for 1year, but not more than one such extension may be made." The judgment of the District Court isreversed.

Weconcur: 

# u a&$&&@ Chief 

### ~Cstice

Justices 

# c