Opinion ID: 884277
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adoption of the LVP on a Stand-Alone Basis

Text: Ash Grove contends that, once Jefferson County adopted the Master Plan, all future planning and zoning, including the adoption of local vicinity plans, was required to be consistent with it. Ash Grove argues that the LVP is expressly inconsistent with the Master Plan. Jefferson County points out in response that, by its terms, the Master Plan authorizes and encourages local communities or vicinities to adopt local vicinity plans reflecting the unique character of the vicinity as a means of implementing the Master Plan and, therefore, that the LVP is entirely consistent with the Master Plan. The Master Plan specifically recognizes Ash Grove's presence, and encourages industry and mining, while requiring a balancing between retaining mining and industry and preserving the area's scenic beauty and healthful environment. For example, the economic goal of the Master Plan is to [s]ustain and strengthen the economic well-being of Jefferson County's citizens. One objective in fulfilling the Master Plan's economic goal is to [s]timulate the retention of existing and the development of new basic and value adding businesses and industries; especially... mining ... and manufacturing/processing. The Master Plan's physical goal is to [p]rotect and maintain Jefferson County's rural character and the community's historic relationship with natural resource development. The following objectives set forth in the Master Plan are designed to accomplish this goal and recognize the importance of both mining and environmental considerations: Invite continued mineral exploration, extraction and refinement.... Preserve the County's scenic beauty.... .... Assure clean air, clean water, a healthful environment and good community appearance. In addition, the Jefferson County Master Plan expressly recognizes the preeminent role assigned to it by the controlling statutes. It contains an Implementation Program for the purpose of systematically implementing its goals and objectives. One of the implementation strategies is the preparation of planning and implementation programs, called local vicinity plans, for the distinct areas within Jefferson County. To that end, the Master Plan states: By developing vicinity or community plans that are consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan, but which reflect the unique character of the vicinities and their citizens, the County's diversity of places and people can be maintained and strengthened. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, the LVP at issue recognizes that the authority for the adoption of local vicinity plans derives solely from the foregoing language of the Master Plan by stating that [t]hese Local Vicinity Plans must be consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. It goes on, however, to describe the area it coversincluding the Ash Grove propertyas rural residential, home to active farms and ranches, residential subdivisions, neighborhood retail and commercial business operations, offices and professional uses, child care and day care facilities, school and other governmental uses and facilities. In doing so, the LVP not only ignores both Ash Grove's physical presence and the Master Plan's classification of the area around Ash Grove's cement plant and quarries as mining and industrial, but purports to change the classification to a designation totally at odds with that contained in the Master Plan. Thus, the LVP is clearly inconsistent with the Master Plan and violates the mandate of that Plan which authorizes local vicinity plans only to the extent they are consistent with the Master Plan and designed to implement it. Likewise, the LVP also violates the spirit and language of § 76-1-605, MCA, which requires the County Commissioners to be guided by and give consideration to the general policy and pattern of development set forth in the Master Plan in future land use planning such as zoning. Indeed, [i]f the master plan is important enough to be a condition precedent to permanent zoning, it is also important enough to be followed once it is in existence. Bridger, 890 P.2d at 1274 (citing Little, 631 P.2d at 1293). We conclude that the County Commissioners failed to substantially comply with the Master Plan in adopting the LVP and, therefore, the LVP was not properly adopted on a stand-alone basis.