Opinion ID: 877492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the role of the comprehensive plan (master plan) in the creation of zoning districts

Text: The question inevitably arises as to how closely the comprehensive plan must be followed. The trial court ruled that the county commissioners failed to follow the comprehensive plan (master plan) and that the zoning of Cameron Tract could not take place without first amending this plan. There remains the question of how closely the plan must be followed when creating zoning districts and promulgating zoning regulations. The County argues that the comprehensive plan (master plan) is advisory only, and that the governing body having the authority to zone under the plan, is free to give it whatever weight it wants. In support of its argument, the County has marshalled the statutes which set out the role of the planning boards both before and after adoption of the comprehensive plan (master plan). Because the planning boards serve in an advisory capacity to the local governing bodies, the County assumes that the comprehensive plan (master plan) has that same advisory status. This logic is not supported by the statutes. The City, on the other hand, argues that although the comprehensive plan need not be religiously followed in every detail, substantial compliance is required. The City suggests that to zone Cameron Tract for commercial use would first require an amendment to the comprehensive plan, approved by the governing bodies of the City and County. It appears that the plaintiffs argue that there must be at least substantial compliance with the comprehensive plan (master plan) also. The statutory scheme contemplates that once a master plan is adopted by a governing body, any later references in the statutes to the terms comprehensive plan or comprehensive development plan are synonymous to the term master plan. In Title 76, Ch. 1 (Planning Boards), a definitional statute, section 76-1-103(4), MCA, explains the terms: `Master plan' means 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. Applied here, the master plan adopted by the county commissioners, is within the meaning of section 76-1-103(4), a comprehensive development plan. The question then becomes one of how closely the governing body must follow the comprehensive development plan (master plan) when creating zoning districts and when promulgating zoning regulations. Section 76-1-605, MCA, particularly deals with how an adopted master plan shall be used in making zoning decisions:  After adoption of the master plan, the city council, the board of county commissioners, or other governing body within the territorial jurisdiction of the board shall be guided by and give consideration to the general policy and pattern of development set out in the master plan in the ... (4) adoption of zoning ordinances or resolutions.  (Emphasis added.) This statute unequivocally tells local governing bodies that once a master plan is adopted, it must be used for their guidance in zoning. Further the zoning statutes covering county zoning, Title 76, Ch. 2, sections 76-2-101 through 76-2-112, MCA, undeniably lead to the conclusion that the master plan is of paramount importance. In fact, the unmistakable message of these statutes is that if no comprehensive plan (master plan) has been adopted (section 76-2-201, MCA), and if no jurisdictional area has been created after the adoption of the master plan (section 76-2-202, MCA), the counties are without authority to zone except on an interim basis. The objective under these statutes is that there be the final adoption of a master plan, and then that the master plan be followed once it has been adopted. The planning and organization statutes (sections 76-1-101 through 76-2-112, MCA) set out a step-by-step basis by which a master plan is to be derived. The term comprehensive development plan contained in section 76-2-201, refers back to these organization and planning statutes. As we have already mentioned, without a master plan in effect and without a jurisdictional area carved out after the adoption of the master plan, the counties have no authority to institute permanent zoning classifications. Rather, their only authority to zone is on a temporary interim emergency basis as set out in section 76-2-206, MCA. Even the temporary emergency zoning statute seems designed to encourage the adoption of a master plan, for it sets out only two conditions under which emergency zoning can be adopted, and further states that temporary emergency zoning can be adopted for no more than a two-year period. Section 76-2-206(1) states that temporary emergency zoning may be used only when the governing body has not yet completed the planning stages of a comprehensive plan (Title 76, Ch. 1) or when the governing body has not yet implemented the zoning regulations after a zoning district has been established. Subjection (2) of this statute strictly limits to two years the time within which the temporary emergency zoning may remain in effect. Without regard to how closely the comprehensive plan (master plan) must be followed, these statutes leave no doubt that great reliance is placed on the comprehensive plan (master plan) as a guide in zoning. Because a master plan was in existence and the county commissioners had carved out a jurisdictional area, the county commissioners had the authority to permanently zone the area which includes Cameron Tract. Section 76-2-202, MCA, states in part that the board of county commissioners may by resolution establish zoning districts and zoning regulations for all or part of the jurisdictional area. But the commissioners did nothing after this point. Rather, they had adopted the policy (Resolution 291) of not zoning at all unless the property owners in the area involved asked for a particular zoning classification. That policy surfaced in this case when the commissioners were about to accommodate the wishes of the Developers by zoning Cameron Tract (59 acres) for commercial use, although the master plan recommended that the area be zoned for medium-density residential use. The county zoning statutes (sections 76-2-201 through 76-2-228, MCA) rely heavily on the master plan and on the role of the planning board in providing maximum input to the county commissioners on the question of planning and zoning. Before the county commissioners can create a zoning district or promulgate zoning regulations for the district, sections 76-2-204, MCA, requires the county commissioners to direct the planning board to recommend boundaries and appropriate regulations for the various zoning districts. This statute further requires the planning board to make written reports of their recommendations to the board of county commissioners... . Even though the statute also provides that the planning board's recommendations shall be advisory only, this is because the final zoning authority is given to the county commissioners rather than to the planning boards. The intent of these statutes is to require maximum input from the planning boards to the county commissioners before the commissioners reach a zoning decision. This is simply a recognition that the planning board is in continuing and closer touch with the comprehensive plan (master plan) than are the county commissioners. The master plan would have little meaning unless the planning board had a significant and continuing role in the processes which finally lead to a decision by the county commissioners. The significance of the planning board's role can be better understood in light of the statutory criteria that must be followed in all zoning decisions. Section 76-2-203, MCA, sets out the general objectives of county zoning, and the criteria that must be considered. Virtually the same language is contained in the city zoning statute, section 76-2-304, MCA, which we interpreted in Lowe v. City of Missoula (1974), 165 Mont. 38, 525 P.2d 551. The first phrase of section 76-2-203 sets the tone for all that comes after it. It states that  the zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive development plan ... (Emphasis added.) We assume here that the term zoning regulations is also meant to cover the term zoning districts. We cannot ignore the mandatory language (shall) of this statute. We again emphasize that the continuing role of the planning board in the zoning process is set out in the statute (section 76-2-205, MCA) providing that mandatory steps be taken in the creation of zoning districts and in the promulgation of zoning regulations. After public notice has been given and public hearing held pursuant to subsections (1) and (2), subsection (3) requires that after the public hearing, the board of county commissioners shall review the proposals of the planning board and shall make such revisions or amendments as it may deem proper. The commissioners must do this before they can take the next step provided in subsection (4), that of adopting a resolution of intent to create a zoning district or to promulgate zoning regulations. This statutory scheme requires the county commissioners to obtain maximum input from the planning board, even though the final decision is left to the governing bodythe county commissioners. The vital role given the planning boards by these statutes cannot be undercut by giving the governing body the freedom to ignore the product of these boardsthe master plan. We hold that the governmental unit, when zoning, must substantially adhere to the master plan.