Title: ALLEN v FLATHEAD COUNTY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14709
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 18, 1979

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: g c T -- - 1 .- 4 9 ~ - M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a motion f o r declaratory judgment against respondents, Flathead County and i t s Board of County Com- missioners, t o have t h e Lower Valley Zoning D i s t r i c t and i t s zoning regulations declared i n v a l i d because of an alleged noncompliance with zoning enabling l e g i s l a t i o n under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. The p a r t i e s submitted an agreed statement of f a c t s and s t i p u l a t i o n of evidence. A county planning board w a s cre- a t e d f o r t h e purposes of planning and zoning i n Flathead County i n 1972. The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a of t h e county planning board was determined by r e s o l u t i o n of the commis- sioners and included a l l of Flathead County, except t h e corporate l i m i t s of the City of Columbia F a l l s . Within t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a , t h e commissioners created the Lower Valley Zoning D i s t r i c t and adopted several zoning regula- t i o n s based upon a plan of t h a t d i s t r i c t i n 1974. A t t h e t i m e of t h e adoption of t h e Lower Valley Zoning D i s t r i c t boundaries and regulations, the commissioners had not adopted a comprehensive development plan o r master plan f o r t h e e n t i r e Flathead County j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. Appellants a r e owners of land s i t u a t e d i n t h e Lower Valley Zoning D i s t r i c t . Appellants made a request t o t h e Flathead County commissioners t o be eliminated from t h e zoning regulations of t h e d i s t r i c t . Their request, however, was denied. Appellants t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d a motion f o r de- c l a r a t o r y judgment i n D i s t r i c t Court t o have t h e Lower Valley Zoning D i s t r i c t and i t s zoning regulations declared i n v a l i d . Appellants claimed t h a t t h e r e was a f a i l u r e t o comply with procedures outlined i n zoning enabling l e g i s l a - t i o n under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. Harry Woll was granted permission t o intervene on behalf of t h e Flathead Lower Valley Committee. The D i s t r i c t Court found f o r respondents, and a p p e l l a n t s appealed. The s o l e i s s u e t o be decided i n t h i s appeal i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n holding t h a t t h e Lower Valley Zoning D i s t r i c t and i t s zoning r e g u l a t i o n s were adopted i n s u f f i c i e n t compliance with t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 76-2- 201, MCA, and w e r e t h e r e f o r e v a l i d . Section 76-2-201, MCA, provides: "For t h e purpose of promoting t h e h e a l t h , s a f e t y , morals, and general welfare of t h e people i n c i t i e s and towns and counties whose governing bodies have adopted a comprehensive development p l a n f o r jur- i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a s pursuant t o chapter 1, t h e boards of county commissioners i n such counties are au- thorized t o adopt zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r a l l o r p a r t s of such j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a s i n accordance with t h e provisions of t h i s p a r t . " Appellants argue t h a t t h e above s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t a comprehensive development plan o r master plan be adopted before counties are authorized t o adopt zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . Appellants maintain t h a t t h e Lower Valley D i s t r i c t Zoning Plan, upon which t h e zoning r e g u l a t i o n s of t h a t d i s t r i c t a r e based, i s n o t a comprehensive development plan a s contem- p l a t e d by t h e s t a t u t e . It i s argued t h a t t h e plan i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t because it i s based only upon a p a r t i c u l a r lo- c a l i t y . Therefore, a p p e l l a n t s contend, t h e zoning regula- t i o n s a r e invalid. Respondents maintain t h a t t h e Lower Valley D i s t r i c t Zoning Plan i s s u f f i c i e n t as a comprehensive development plan under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. Respondents contend t h a t a master plan o r comprehensive development plan, according t o t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n , i s t h e plan i n i t s e n t i r e t y o r - of i t s p a r t s and t h a t t h e 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 develop- ment 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 self- evident 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 insuffi- cient as a "comprehensive development plan," as contemplated by the statute, is equally clear. The plan, by the admis- sion 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 compre- hensive development plan as respondents contend. Section e r 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 recre- ation, and of other related matters. " The Lower Valley Zoning District Plan is not part of a comprehensive develop- ment plan i n t h e same sense a s a plan of zoning would be t o a comprehensive development plan or a s a "chapter" would be t o a "book." Appellants a l s o contend t h a t t h e adoption of t h e Lower Valley D i s t r i c t Zoning Plan w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e adop- t i o n of zoning r e g u l a t i o n s under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA, f o r another reason. They argue t h a t t h e plan must, b u t d i d n o t , include an e n t i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. Appellants maintain t h a t , s i n c e t h e commissioners designated t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a of t h e county planning board a s a l l of Flathead County except t h e C i t y of Columbia F a l l s , a comprehensive develop- ment plan under t h e s t a t u t e must include t h e e n t i r e Flathead County j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. The Lower Valley Zoning D i s - t r i c t Plan, however, included only p a r t of t h a t a r e a . Respondents argue t h a t t h e Lower Valley D i s t r i c t Zoning Plan was s u f f i c i e n t under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. Respon- d e n t s contend t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e provided f o r f l e x i b i l i t y i n planning and zoning and t h a t p a r t s of a county may be planned and o t h e r p a r t s l e f t unplanned. Respondents argue t h a t t h e adoption of a county-wide master plan is n o t a necessary p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r adopting v a l i d zoning r e g u l a t i o n s under t h e s t a t u t e . Resolving t h e s e contentions r e q u i r e s i n t e r p r e t i n g s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. I n Mont. Depart. of Rev. v. Am. Smelting and Refining (1977), Mont. , 567 P.2d 901, 905-06, 34 St-Rep. 597, 602, we s t a t e d : "The function of t h e Supreme Court when constru- ing a s t a t u t e i s simply t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what is i n substance s t a t e d t h e r e i n , and n o t t o i n s e r t what has been omitted o r omit what has been i n s e r t e d . [ C i t a t i o n s omitted. 1 The funda- mental r u l e of s t a t u t o r y construction i s t h a t t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c o n t r o l s . [Cita- t i o n s omitted. ] Where t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s - l a t u r e can be determined from t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words used, t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and apply any o t h e r means of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " H e r e , s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA, s t a t e s t h a t a county i s authorized t o adopt zoning regulations when "governing bodies [of cities, towns and counties] have adopted a com- prehensive development plan f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l areas . . ." (Emphasis added.) Respondents contend t h a t t h e Lower Valley Zoning D i s t r i c t Plan i s s u f f i c i e n t although it takes i n t o consideration only p a r t of t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. The s t a t u t e does n o t s t a t e , however, t h a t a county is authorized t o adopt zoning regulations when governing bodies have adopted a comprehensive development plan f o r p a r t s of - j u r i s d i c t i o n a l areas. W e hold t h a t t h e c l e a r and unambiguous language of s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA, requires t h a t a county adopt a compre- hensive development plan f o r an e n t i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. Only a f t e r t h e adoption of such a plan may a county adopt zoning regulations. To i n t e r p r e t t h e s t a t u t e otherwise would go beyond t h e p l a i n meaning of the words and would reduce t h e t e r m s of t h e s t a t u t e t o nonsense. It would allow, f o r example, a comprehensive development plan t o be c a l l e d "comprehensive" when it took i n t o consideration only p a r t of something--namely, a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. Further, it would run contrary t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s of long-range plan- ning and zoning. W e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court erred i n determining t h a t t h e Lower Valley District Zoning Plan and its zoning regulations were adopted i n s u f f i c i e n t compliance with s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. The zoning regulations of t h e Lower Valley Zoning D i s t r i c t a r e therefore i n v a l i d . I n view of t h e p o t e n t i a l l y s e r i o u s consequences t h a t our decision might have f o r the c i t i z e n s and property owners of Flathead County, w e recommend t h a t t h e Flathead County commissioners t a k e n o t i c e of s e c t i o n 76-2-206, MCA, t h e provision f o r i n t e r i m zoning r e g u l a t i o n i n emergency cir- cumstances. That s t a t u t e provides a method by which F l a t - head County may begin developing a master p l a n t h a t w i l l comply with t h e t e r m s of t h e s t a t u t e without s u f f e r i n g any s e r i o u s detriment. Section 76-2-206, MCA, provides: " I n t e r i m zoning map o r regulation. (1) I f a county i s c o n d u c t i n g o r i n good f a i t h i n t e n d s t o conduct s t u d i e s within a reasonable t i m e o r has held o r i s holding a hearing f o r t h e pur- pose of considering a master plan o r zoning r e g u l a t i o n s o r an amendment, extension, o r ad- d i t i o n t o e i t h e r pursuant t o t h i s p a r t , t h e board of county commissioners i n o r d e r t o pro- mote t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , morals, and g e n e r a l welfare may adopt a s an emergency m e a - s u r e a temporary i n t e r i m zoning r e g u l a t i o n , t h e purpose of which s h a l l be t o c l a s s i f y and regu- l a n t uses and r e l a t e d m a t t e r s a s c o n s t i t u t e s t h e emergency. " ( 2 ) Such i n t e r i m r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o 1 year from t h e d a t e it becomes e f f e c t i v e . The board of county commissioners may extend such i n t e r i m r e s o l u t i o n f o r 1 year, b u t n o t more than one such extension may be made." The judgment of t h e District Court is reversed. W e concur: u a&$&&@ Chief ~ C s t i c e J u s t i c e s c