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 declaratory judgment against 

respondents, Flathead County and its Board of County Commissioners, to have the Lower Valley Zoning District and 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 in Flathead 

County in 1972. The jurisdictional area of the county 

planning board was determined by resolution of the commissioners and included all of Flathead County, except the 

corporate limits of 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. At the 

time of the adoption of the Lower Valley Zoning District 

boundaries and regulations, the commissioners had not 

adopted a comprehensive development plan or master plan for 

the entire Flathead County jurisdictional area. 

Appellants are owners of land situated in the Lower 

Valley Zoning District. Appellants made a request to the 

Flathead County commissioners to be eliminated from the 

zoning regulations of the district. Their request, however, 

was denied. Appellants thereafter filed a motion for declaratory judgment in District Court to have the Lower 

Valley Zoning District and 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 to intervene on behalf of the Flathead Lower 

Valley Committee. The District Court found for respondents, 

and appellants appealed. 

The sole issue to be decided in this appeal is whether 

the District Court erred in holding that the Lower Valley 

Zoning District and its zoning regulations were adopted in 

sufficient compliance 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 in cities 

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 to adopt zoning regulations for all or 

parts of such jurisdictional areas in accordance 

with the provisions of this part. " 

Appellants argue that the above statute requires 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, is not a comprehensive development plan as contemplated by the statute. It is argued that the plan is not 

sufficient because it is based 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 in its entirety or - 

-- of its parts and that the Lower Valley District Zoning 
Plan, as a mini or local comprehensive development plan, 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 development plan" 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 Lower Valley 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 it will not suffice; thus, it is necessary to 

recognize that this plan will be subordinate to a complete 

comprehensive plan." Further, the plan cannot be brought 

within the statutory definition of a master plan or comprehensive development plan as respondents contend. Section er 

76-l-b-l, MCA, defines a "master plan" as "a comprehensive 

development plan or any of its parts 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 in the same sense as a plan of zoning would be to 

a comprehensive development plan or as a "chapter" would be 

to a "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 entire jurisdictional area. Appellants maintain 

that, since the commissioners designated the jurisdictional 

area of the county planning board as all of Flathead County 

except the City of Columbia Falls, a comprehensive development plan under the statute must include the entire Flathead 

County jurisdictional area. The Lower Valley Zoning District Plan, however, included only part of that area. 

Respondents argue that the Lower Valley District Zoning 

Plan was sufficient under section 76-2-201, MCA. Respondents contend that the legislature provided for flexibility 

in planning and zoning and that parts of a county may be 

planned and other parts left unplanned. 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. In Mont. 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 to ascertain and declare 

what is in substance stated therein, and not to 

insert what has been omitted or omit what has 

been inserted. [Citations omitted. 1 The fundamental rule of statutory construction 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, states that a county is 

authorized to adopt 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 District Plan is sufficient although it 

takes into consideration only part of the jurisdictional 

area. The statute does not state, however, that a county is 

authorized to adopt 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 that a county adopt a comprehensive development plan for an entire jurisdictional area. 

Only after the adoption of such a plan may a county adopt 

zoning regulations. To interpret the statute otherwise 

would go beyond the plain meaning of the words and would 

reduce the terms of the statute to nonsense. It would 

allow, for example, a comprehensive development plan to be 

called "comprehensive" when it took into consideration only 

part of something--namely, a jurisdictional area. Further, 

it would run contrary to the principles of long-range planning and zoning. 

We hold that the District Court erred in determining 

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 decision might have for the citizens and property owners 

of Flathead County, we recommend that the Flathead County 
commissioners take notice of section 76-2-206, MCA, the 

provision for interim zoning regulation in emergency circumstances. That statute provides a method by which Flathead County may begin developing a master plan that will 

comply with the terms of the statute without suffering any 

serious detriment. Section 76-2-206, MCA, provides: 

"Interim zoning map or regulation. (1) If a 

county is conductingor in good faith intends 

to conduct studies within a reasonable time or 

has held or is holding a hearing for the purpose of considering a master plan or zoning 

regulations or an amendment, extension, or addition to either pursuant to this part, the 

board of county commissioners in order to promote the public health, safety, morals, and 

general welfare may adopt as an emergency measure a temporary interim zoning regulation, the 

purpose of which shall be to classify and regulant uses and related matters as constitutes 

the emergency. 

"(2) Such interim resolution shall be limited 

to 1 year from the date it becomes effective. 

The board of county commissioners may extend 

such interim resolution for 1 year, but not 

more than one such extension may be made." 

The judgment of the District Court is reversed. 

We concur: u 

a&$&&@ Chief ~Cstice 

c Justices