DOVER RANCH v COUNTY OF YELLOWSTON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 79-35 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1980 DOVER RANCH, ROBERT J. SCHOCK, E W R WALDHAUSER, PAUL M. W L , D AD CD a n d BAR DIAMOND RANCH, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, THE COUNTY OF YELLOWSTONE, Defendant, and GENERAL-KIMBLE, Intervenor-Defendant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, I n a n d F o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t H. W i l s o n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: H a r o l d F. H a n s e r , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana David H o e f e r a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana Moulton, B e l l i n g h a m , Longo a n d M a t h e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana G e r a l d B. Murphy a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: McNamer, Thompson & Cashmore, B i l l i n g s , Montana C h a r l e s R . Cashmore a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: APh 1 fj . Clerk March 2 7 , 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by Yellowstone County and General- Kimble, a p a r t n e r s h i p , from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s e t t i n g a s i d e a s n u l l and v o i d a n amended r e s o l u t i o n of t h e Board of Yellowstone County Commissioners which g r a n t e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of General-Kimble f o r a zoning change on a c e r t a i n p a r c e l o f l a n d from a g r i c u l t u r a l and r e s t r i c t e d r e s i d e n t i a l t o r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l e home. On November 1 8 , 1976, General-Kimble f i l e d A p p l i c a t i o n No. 1 2 0 f o r a change o f zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n from a g r i c u l t u r a l and r e s t r i c t e d r e s i d e n t i a l t o r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l e home on a c e r t a i n p a r c e l of l a n d i n B i l l i n g s H e i g h t s . General- Kimble d e s i r e d t o b u i l d a mobile home p a r k on t h e t r a c t , which w a s unused, undeveloped a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o p e r t y c l a s s i f i e d as a g r i c u l t u r a l under t h e Y e l l o w ~ , t o n eCounty Compreh e n s i v e Zoning P l a n and s u r r o u n d e d by p r i m a r i l y v a c a n t l a n d with widely s c a t t e r e d residences. The a p p l i c a t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d by t h e s t a f f o f t h e c i t y - c o u n t y p l a n n i n g b o a r d , which made t h e f o l l o w i n g recommendation t o t h e zoning commission: ". . . found t h a t t h i s r e q u e s t would p r o v i d e , when d e v e l o p e d , m o b i l e home s p a c e s t h a t a r e needed i n t h e community a s shown by low vacanc i e s i n e x i s t i n g p a r k s . Alexander Road meets t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a mobile home p a r k of t h i s s i z e s h o u l d have a c c e s s t o a n a r t e r i a l l y d e s i g n a t e d s t r e e t . Lake Elmo w i l l a t t r a c t r e s i d e n t i a l u s e , t h e r e f o r e i t w a s found t h a t a m o b i l e home p a r k o r s u b d i v i s i o n , a f t e r f u l l r e v i e w by t h e Food and Consumer S a f e t y Bureau, t h e Yellows t o n e City-County H e a l t h Department and o t h e r r e v i e w i n g a g e n c i e s , would b e c o m p a t i b l e i n t h e area. " A f t e r n o t i c e o f a p u b l i c h e a r i n g was p u b l i s h e d and s e n t t o a f f e c t e d landowners, a j o i n t zoning commission and c o u n t y commission meeting w a s h e l d on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1977, t o c o n s i d e r t h e zoning change a p p l i c a t i o n . A t t h e h e a r i n g , a member of the city-county planning board staff read the legal advertising and presented slides of the area, and a member of the zoning commission read the criteria set forth in section 762-203, MCA. General-Kimble and its consulting engineer gave evidence in favor of the zoning change, while two nearby ranchers and another area resident, as well as the chairman of a local school district, spoke out against the change. written protest was also received. A Two of the opponents are plaintiffs-respondents in the present suit. The zoning commission voted 3-1 to grant the zoning change and provided its recommendation to the county cammissioners, giving the following reasons for granting the petition: "1. Upon initial review, this request would appear not to be designed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, more thorough research reveals the following points that indicate it is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan: "a. Item 5 (page 62) under "Mobile Homes" in the Comprehensive Plan calls for the following: "'The plan envisioned the continuation of existing mobile home parks, with the expansion of those with suitable area. The major projections for new facilities were in the Lockwood area, where land parcels were of sufficient size, access was good and where public facilities were .' It seems that these consideraimminent . tions would fit the condition presented by this request, though it is located in the Billings Heights area. . '"b. This request would not be 'leap-frog' development. It is a natural extension of existing and proposed development surrounding the Lake Elmo area. "2. The required access to an arterial street is met by the adjacent Alexander Road. "3. Low vacancy rates in existing mobile home parks indicate a need for more developed sites in the community." On February 1, 1977, the Yellowstone County commissioners unanimously passed a resolution granting General-Kimble's zoning change a p p l i c a t i o n . The r e s o l u t i o n r e c i t e d t h a t i t was b e i n g a d o p t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e comprehensive p l a n f o l l o w i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1977 ( t h e j o i n t zoning commission-county commission h e a r i n g ) and a f t e r r e c e i v i n g and c o n s i d e r i n g t h e recommendations of t h e zoning commission. On F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1977, t h e c o u n t y commissioners p a s s e d a n amended r e s o l u t i o n which r e c i t e d v e r b a t i m t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n by t h e zoning commission f o r g r a n t i n g t h e zoning change. The p l a i n t i f f s - r e s p o n d e n t s did not request a rehearing under A r t i c l e V I I , S e c t i o n 5 ( b ) of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning P l a n . They a p p e a l e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone County, by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n w i t h t h a t c o u r t on March 3 , 1977. Motions f o r summary judgment by b o t h p a r t i e s w e r e d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on A p r i l 2 1 , 1978, and t h e r a t t e r w a s s u b m i t t e d on a s t i p u l a t e d r e c o r d , a f t e r argument by c o u n s e l , on J u n e 7, 1979. On J u n e 1 5 , 1979, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s and conclusions that: (1) t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d by t h e c o u n t y i n g r a n t i n g General-Kimble's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a zoning change d i d n o t conform w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, and t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A r t i c l e V I I of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning P l a n ; ( 2 ) t h e evidence d i d n o t support g r a n t i n g t h e zoning change under s e c t i o n 76-2-203, MCA; a n d , ( 3 ) t h e zoning change c o n s t i t u t e d i l l e g a l " s p o t zoning" and w a s c o n t r a r y t o t h e comprehensive zoning p l a n . General-Kimble and Yellowstone County a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a g a i n s t them on J u n e 25, 1979, and r a i s e t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w by t h i s Court: 1. Whether t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e zoning change a d e q u a t e l y conformed t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, and A r t i c l e V I I of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning P l a n . 2. Whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t g r a n t i n g t h e zoning change under s e c t i o n 76-2203, MCA, o r whether i t was a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . 3. Whether t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e zoning change c o n s t i - t u t e d i l l e g a l " s p o t zoning" c o n t r a r y t o t h e comprehensive zoning p l a n . A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e c o u n t y complied w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, c l e V I I o f t h e County Comprehensive Zoning P l a n . ( 4 ) o f s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, and A r t i Subsection which p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t l h e board o f c o u n t y commissioners m a y p a s s a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o c r e a t e a zoning d i s t r i c t and t o a d o p t zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t " i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y , and t h e c o u n t y d i d n o t need t o p a s s a res3:.ution word "may" i s g i v e n i t s o r d i n a r y meaning. t e a u v. C i t y of F o r t Benton ( 1 9 7 9 ) , P.2d 504, 36 St.Rep. 582. of i n t e n t i o n i f t h e County of ChouMont. , 592 A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h e r e was no showing t h a t t h e c o u n t y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , and, i n any c a s e , t h e r e w a s s u b s t a n t i a l compliance w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s mandated by t h e s t a t u t e , s i n c e r e s p o n d e n t s ' r i g h t s t o a f u l l and f a i r h e a r i n g have n o t been p r e j u d i c e d by any i r r e g u l a r i t y i n p r o c e d u r e t h a t may have o c c u r r e d . A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e f u r t h e r t h a t n o t i c e s of t h e p u b l i c hearing w e r e mailed t o respondents w e l l before t h e hearing, and s i n c e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g and t h e i r p r o t e s t s h e a r d , t h e y s h o u l d be h e l d t o have waived any t e c h n i c a l f a i l u r e of t h e c o u n t y t o comply w i t h s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e requirements. They f u r t h e r c l a i m t h a t A r t i c l e V I I of t h e County Comprehensive Zoning P l a n imposes no a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s and d o e s n o t compel s e p a r a t e h e a r i n g s by t h e zoning commission and c o u n t y commissioners. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) of s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, applies only t o an application t o c r e a t e a zoning d i s t r i c t and d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a n amendment of zoning r e g u l a t i o n s such a s occurred i n t h e p r e s e n t case. A t t h e o u t s e t i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o examine and i n t e r p r e t t h e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA: " P r o c e d u r e f o r a d o p t i o n of r e g u l a t i o n s and bounda r i e s . The board o f c o u n t y commissioners s h a l l observe t h e following procedures i n t h e e s t a b l i s h ment o r r e v i s i o n of b o u n d a r i e s f o r zoning d i s t r i c t s and i n t h e a d o p t i o n o r amendment of zoning regulations: "(1)N o t i c e of a p u b l i c h e a r i n g on t h e proposed zoning d i s t r i c t b o u n d a r i e s and of r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e zoning d i s t r i c t s h a l l be p u b l i s h e d once a week f o r 2 weeks i n a newspaper o f g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n w i t h i n t h e c o u n t y . The n o t i c e s h a l l state: " ( a ) t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e proposed d i s t r i c t ; " ( b ) t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r of t h e proposed zoning regulations; " ( c ) t h e t i m e and p l a c e of t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g ; " ( d ) t h a t t h e proposed zoning r e g u l a t i o n s a r e on f i l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n a t t h e o f f i c e of t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r . " ( 2 ) A t t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g , t h e b o a r d of c o u n t y commissioners s h a l l g i v e t h e p u b l i c a n opport u n i t y t o be h e a r d r e g a r d i n g t h e proposed zoning d i s t r i c t and r e g u l a t i o n s . ( 3 ) A f t e r t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g , t h e board of c o u n t y commissioners s h a l l r e v i e w t h e p r o p o s a l s of t h e p l a n n i n g board and s h a l l make s u c h r e v i s i o n s o r amendments a s i t may deem p r o p e r . " ( 4 ) The b o a r d - c o u n t y commissioners may of -pass a r e s b l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n - c r e a t e - -:oning to a 2 d i s t r i c t - - a d o p t zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e and t o district. " ( 5 ) The board o f c o u n t y commissioners s h a l l p u b l i s h n o t i c e of p a s s a g e of t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f i n t e n t i o n once a week f o r 2 weeks i n a newspaper of g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n w i t h i n t h e c o u n t y . The notice shall state: " ( a ) t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e proposed d i s t r i c t ; " ( b ) t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r of t h e proposed zoning regulations; " ( c ) t h a t t h e proposed zoning r e g u l a t i o n s are on f i l e f o r p u b l i c i n s p e c t i o n a t t h e o f f i c e of t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ; " ( d ) t h a t f o r 30 d a y s a f t e r f i r s t p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s n o t i c e , t h e board of c o u n t y commissioners w i l l r e c e i v e w r i t t e n p r o t e s t s t o t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e zoning d i s t r i c t o r t o t h e zoning r e g u l a t i o n s from p e r s o n s owning r e a l p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e d i s t r i c t whose names a p p e a r on t h e l a s t completed assessment r o l l of t h e county. " ( 6 ) W i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e p r o t e s t p e r i o d , t h e board o f c o u n t y commissioners may i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n a d o p t t h e r e s o l u t i o n c r e a t i n g t h e zoning d i s t r i c t and/or e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t ; b u t i f 40% of t h e f r e e h o l d e r s w i t h i n s u c h d i s t r i c t whose names a p p e a r on t h e l a s t completed a s s e s s m e n t r o l l s h a l l have p r o t e s t e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e d i s t r i c t o r a d o p t i o n of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e board of c o u n t y commissioners s h a l l n o t a d o p t t h e r e s o l u t i o n and no f u r t h e r zoning r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l b e proposed f o r t h e d i s t r i c t f o r a p e r i o d of 1 y e a r . " (Emphasis added.) S e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, sets o u t a s i x - s t e p p r o c e d u r e which i s t o be f o l l o w e d by t h e board of c o u n t y commissioners i n e s t a b l i s h i n g o r r e v i s i n g zoning d i s t r i c t s and i n a d o p t i n g I t i s undisputed t h a t Step o r r e v i s i n g zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . No. 4 (and t h u s , S t e p Nos. 5 and 6 ) was n o t f o l l o w e d by t h e Board o f Yellowstone County Commissioners i n t h e p r e s e n t case. S u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) of 76-2-205, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t " t h e b o a r d of c o u n t y commissioners may p a s s a r e s o l u t i o n o f i n t e n t i o n t o creates zoning d i s t r i c t and t o a d o p t zoning regulations for the d i s t r i c t . " Although t h e Yellowstone County commissioners f o l l o w e d t h e p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h t h e f i r s t t h r e e s u b s e c t i o n s of s e c t i o n 76-2-205 by pub- in l i s h i n g n o t i c e of a p u b l i c hearing, conducting a hearing a t which t h e p u b l i c was g i v e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d , and r e v i e w i n g t h e p r o p o s a l s of t h e p l a n n i n g b o a r d , t h e y d i d n o t p a s s a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) nor follow t h e procedures subsequent t h e r e t o . A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) , which p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e commissioners m a y p a s s a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n , i s discretionary. They a r g u e t h e c o u n t y d i d n o t need t o p a s s a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n i f t h e word "may" i s g i v e n i t s o r d i n a r y meaning, c i t i n g County of Chouteau v . C i t y o f F o r t Benton ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 592 P.2d 504, 507, 36 St.Rep. 582, f o r t h e r u l e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t , " t h e word 'may', u n l e s s i t h a s a c q u i r e d a s p e c i a l meaning i n l a w , i s t o be g i v e n i t s o r d i n a r y meaning." 592 P.2d a t 507. They contend t h a t t h e county d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n . W e disagree. When s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, i s r e a d as a whole, i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n t e n d t o g r a n t t h e c o u n t y commissioners d i s c r e t i o n t o i g n o r e t h e s t a t u t o r y procedures. I t i s c l e a r from t h e c o n t e x t of t h e e n t i r e s t a t u t e t h a t a t S t e p No. 4 o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , the commissioners "may deny" t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r t h e y "may p a s s " a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n i f t h e y i n t e n d t o g r a n t t h e a p p l i cation. They c a n n o t g r a n t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n a t t h a t t i m e . They must p r o c e e d a s o u t l i n e d i n s u b s e c t i o n s ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) . To h o l d o t h e r w i s e would l e a d t o t h e i l l o g i c a l r e s u l t of a l l o w i n g t h e c o u n t y commissioners t o d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t t h e y w i l l p u b l i s h n o t i c e of t h e p a s s a g e of a r e s o l u t i o n o f i n t e n t i o n and r e c e i v e w r i t t e n p r o t e s t s d u r i n g t h a t t h i r t y - d a y comment p e r i o d e n v i s i o n e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (51, which p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e y " s h a l l " p u b l i s h s u c h n o t i c e . It is a well-established r u l e of s t a t u t o r y construction t h a t a s t a t u t e b e r e a d a s a whole and c o n s t r u e d s o a s t o a v o i d absurd r e s u l t s . , Mont. Montana Power Co. v . C r e m e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 596 P,2d 483, 36 St.Rep. - 1158; S t a t e e x r e l . J o n e s v. ~ i l e s 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 130, 541 P.2d 355; B i l l i n g s ( ~ r o p e r t i e s , I n c . v. Yellowstone County ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182. The o n l y a b s o l u t e d i s c r e t i o n v e s t e d by t h e s t a t u t e i n t h e c o u n t y commissioners i s t o r e v i e w t h e p e t i t i o n a f t e r h e a r i n g and t o d e c i d e whether t h e y s h o u l d p a s s a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o s t a r t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e zoning d i s t r 5 . c t o r e s t a b l i s h r e g u l a t i o n s f o r a d i s t r i c t . T h e r e i s no r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d o t h e r w i s e i n view of t h e s t a t u t e ' s p u r p o s e of p r o v i d i n g p r o c e d u r e s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g zoning d i s t r i c t s and zoning r e g u l a t i o n s which g u a r a n t e e t o t h e f r e e h o l d e r s n o t i c e of t h e proposed a c t i o n and a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o t e s t . The g o a l o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e p u r p o s e of t h e s t a t u t e . ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. B u r r i t t v. C i t y of B u t t e 530, 508 P.2d 563. A s t a t u t e w i l l n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d t o d e f e a t i t s o b j e c t o r p u r p o s e , and t h e o b j e c t s s o u g h t t o be a c h i e v e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a r e of prime cons i d e r a t i o n i n i n t e r p r e t i n g it. 1 4 1 Mont. D o u l l v. Wohlschlager (1963), 354, 377 P.2d 758. A p p e l l a n t s have c i t e d County o f Chouteau v. C i t y o f F o r t Benton, s u p r a , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t u n l e s s i t h a s a c q u i r e d a s p e c i a l meaning i n l a w , t h e word "may" i s t o be g i v e n i t s o r d i n a r y meaning. o r d i n a r y meaning. "May" i s used h e r e i n i t s The s t a t u t e s i m p l y s t a t e s t h a t a f t e r t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g and d e t e r m i n a t i o n s by t h e commissioners, t h e y "may" p a s s a r e s o l u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n t o create a zoning d i s t r i c t and t o a d o p t zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t . "May," of c o u r s e , d o e s n o t have a mandatory c o n n o t a t i o n i n i t s u s u a l meaning, s o t h e commission c o u l d do t h e o p p o s i t e and n o t c r e a t e a d i s t r i c t i f t h e i r study indicated t h i s course of a c t i o n . "Where t h e s t a t e zoning e n a b l i n g a c t p r e s c r i b e s c e r t a i n procedural s t e p s , t h a t procedure i s u s u a l l y r e g a r d e d a s mandatory, and hence a subs t a n t i a l f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h s u c h r e q u i r e ments w i l l r e n d e r a zoning o r d i n a n c e i n v a l i d . " 82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning - .- l a n n i n g , § 4 ? . and P S e e a l s o 1 Anderson, American - - zoning, 84.03 Law of (2nd Ed. S i n c e t h e Yellowstone County commissioners f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e s i n s e c t i o n 76-2-205(4), (61, MCA, ( 5 ) and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y i n v a l i d a t e d t h e com- m i s s i o n ' s g r a n t i n g o f General-Kimble's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a zoning change. Appellants' 2-205, MCA, argument t h a t s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) of s e c t i o n 76- a p p l i e s o n l y t o a n a p p l i c a t i o n t o create a zoning d i s t r i c t and d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a n amendment o f zoning r e g u l a t i o n s , such a s o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , i s w i t h out m e r i t . The i n t r o d u c t o r y l a n g u a g e of s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, makes i t c l e a r t h a t : "The board of c o u n t y commis- s i o n e r s s h a l l observe t h e following procedures i n t h e establ i s h m e n t o r r e v i s i o n of b o u n d a r i e s f o r zoning d i s t r i c t s and i n th or of - -e a d o p t i o n - amendment - zoning regulations . . ." I n l i g h t o f t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e f i r s t i s s u e , it i s unnecessary t o consider a p p e l l a n t s ' remaining s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f e r r o r a s t h e y now a r e m m t . W repeat for further clarie f i c a t i o n t h a t s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, i n i t s e n t i r e t y (sub- s e c t i o n s 1 through 6) i s t h e only s t a t u t e a v a i l a b l e f o r use by t h e v a r i o u s c o u n t y commissioners of t h i s s t a t e f o r t h e c r e a t i o n of zoning d i s t r i c t s and/or e s t a b l i s h i n g zoning regulations for the d i s t r i c t s . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . .. W e concur: /" ~ r ' ~ & h Justices Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell +

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.