No. 13817 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1978 

PHIL YOUNG et al., 

Petitioners and Respondents, 

-vsSTILLWATER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., 

Respondents and Appellants. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellants: 

Anderson, Syrnmes, Brown, Gerbasq, Cebull & Jones, 

Billings, Montana 

Joseph Gerbase argued, Billings, Montana 

For Respondents: 

Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather, Billings, Montana 

Ward Swanser argued, Billings, Montana 

For Amicus Curiae: 

Milodragovich, Dale and Dye, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted: June 8, 1978 

Decided: Au ' - 
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the 

Court . 

Respondents desired to plat two tracts of land, located 

within Stillwater County, which are part of the larger parcel, 

owned and subdivided by respondents. There is no dispute 

that the plats in question are "minor plats" within the 

meaning of the subdivision laws of the State of Plontana, 

specifically section 11-3863(5), R.C.M. 1947. 

On March 8, 1976, respondents submitted the two plats 

to appellant Stillwater County Planning Board for approval. 

On March 15, 1976, the Board denied summary approval of the 

plats and set the matter for a public hearing. Notice of 

said hearing was given pursuant to section 11-3866(3), 

R.C.M. 1947 and the hearing held on April 6, 1976. On April 

19, 1976, the Planning Board disapproved the plats. Respondents 

appealed to appellant Stillwater County Commissioners, who, 

on May 17, 1976, affirmed the disapproval. 

Respondents then petitioned for a writ of certiorari to 

the District Court, Stillwater County. Then both parties 

moved for summary judgment. 

On February 28, 1977, the District Court, Honorable C. 

B. Sande presiding, granted summary judgment for respondents, 

reversing the decision of appellants and concluding as a matter 

of law: 

"That the County Commissioners and County 

Planning Board of Stillwater County attempted 

to apply the provisions relative to a major 

plat to a minor plat in violation of Montana 

law. 

"The minimum requirements of Montana law did 

not require or authorize a public hearing 

to be held on the plat to obtain input in 

accordance with requirements of a major 

under R.C.M. 11-3866. 
"That the minor plats complied with all the 

requirements of Montana law and were eligible 

for summary approval and should have been 

approved by the County Commissioners and 

the County Planning Board of Stillwater 

County. * * * " 

Appellants appeal the order of the District Court granting 

summary judgment as aforesaid. 

The District Court further ordered that the Stillwater 

County Clerk and Recorder file the plats of record. Pursuant 

to that order, the plats were filed. Thereafter, the land 

was sold. Appellants made no attempt to stay the order of 

the District Court, or to enjoin the filing of the plats or 

the sale of land pending appeal. 

Considering the applicable statutes in effect at the 

time of the decision of District Court, this Court must 

affirm the decision and hold there is no statutory authority 

for public hearings on "minor" plats absent local regulations 

to that effect. 

Section 11-3863 (5), R.C.M. 1947, makes clear that subdivision plats containing five or fewer parcels (a "minor" 

plat) where there is proper access, where no land in the 

subdivision will be dedicated to public use, and which have 

been approved by the Department of Health and Environmental 

Sciences where such approval is required, shall be subject 

to summary review and approval. The only statutory requirement for a public hearing in any review procedure for a 

subdivision plat is provided in section 11-3866, R.C.M. 1947. 

However that section excepts from its procedural review 

requirements any "plat eligible for summary approval." Section 

11-3866 (I), R.C.M. 1947. A public hearing may be had on a 

minor subdivision plat if such a hearing is required by local 
regulations as indicated by the proviso to subsection (5) 

of section 11-3863, R.C.M. 1947: "reasonable local regulations 

may contain additional requirements for summary approval." 

In the instant case the parcels in question were 

identified by the planning board as minor subdivision plats 

and eligible for summary review and approval. Therefore, 

unless the local regulations required a public hearing, no 

such public hearing was necessary under the statutory scheme 

set forth in section 11-3866. The planning board here admitted 

that it had no local regulations in effect at the time of the 

board action. 

Appellants have argued that regulations promulgated by 

the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to the legislative 

direction given in section 11-3863 (2), R.C.M. 1947, are 

regulations the county can enforce as subdivision regulations 

in lieu of its own. This argument rests on a directive contained in section 11-3863(8), R.C.M. 1947, stating that if 

a county by July 1, 1974 had not adopted regulations regarding 

subdivisions, the Department of Community Affairs was to 

formulate reasonable regulations that the county could then 

be required to enforce until its own were adopted. Appellant 

contends that the regulation set forth at M.A.C. 1975 822-2.4 

(B) (6) -S420 (1) (n) , requiring local regulations to provide for 

summary review and approval procedures and for waiver of 

preliminary plat, environmental assessment and public hearing 

requirements, is such a regulation and under its authority 

the county can require a public hearing. Such is not the 

case. The regulations contained in Title 22, M.A.C. relating 

to subdivision are those regulations required by section 

11-3863(2), to be prescribed to establish minimum requirements 

for subdivision regulations. They are not - the regulations 
required by section 11-3863(8), R.C.M. 1947 to be prescribed 

in the event the county did not meet the July 1, 1974 deadline. 

Apparently no such regulations were made for or adopted by 

Stillwater County. Therefore, in the absence of any local 

regulations requiring a public hearing, the appellants could 

only look to the statutory scheme for authority to hold a 

public hearing and none existed. The District Court was 

correct in its conclusion that no public hearing in this case 

was required or authorized to be held on the minor plats 

before summary approval. 

The question has been raised by amici curiae briefs 

whether the public interest finding requirements in section 

11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947, should be read into section 11-3866 

(6), R.C.M. 1947, which sets forth the rev,iew procedure for 

a minor plat, or whether the separate procedural requirements 

for major and minor plats mean separate standards for approval. 

Because section 11-3866(6), R.C.M. 1947, was not in effect 

on the dates pertinent to this appeal, we will not address 

that question at this time. 

Affirmed. 

We concur: 

Chief Justice 

Mr. Chief Justice Frank I. Haswell deems himself disqualified 

in this case.