Court Opinion

ID: 9510091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:52:17.545506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:56.734191
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRIEWEILER,
dissents as follows:
I agree with the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Regnier.
In response to the concurring opinion of Justices Leaphart and Nelson, I wish to point out that while I agree with the public policy-arguments made therein, I can find no statutory basis for imposing those requirements on Jefferson County. Section 76-1-604, MCA, authorizes the governing body to “revise” its master plan. That statute does not limit the nature nor extent of revision as the majority would require. The majority has simply substituted its judgment for that of the legislature.
For these reasons, while I share the majority’s concern about the negative impact of piecemeal revision, I can find no statutory basis for doing anything about it.
Furthermore, my conclusion about what appears to be very plain language in § 76-1-604, MCA, has nothing to do with whether the proponent of revision to the master plan is “wearing a black or white hat.”
While the concurring opinion makes a lot of sense from a land use planning point of view it simply finds no basis in the statutory law pertaining to master plans.
For these reasons I dissent from the majority opinion.