MONTANANS FOR PROP RIGHTS v BOARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 96-407 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1997 MONTANANS FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS, INC., a non-profit corporation; HENRY BROERS; CHARLES TUSTIN; DARRELL OLSON; DAVID LIETZ; BARB LIETZ; JIM DOWLING; RAYMOND "RAY" SERRA, SR.; CAROL DUVAL; RUSS CROWDER; RON RABIDUE, Plaintiffs and Appellants, __ . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Respondent. District Court of the In and for the County The Honorable Katherine Eleventh Judicial of Flathead, R. Curtis, Judge District, presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Gerald J. Montana For Neeley, Attorney at Law, Billings, Respondent: Jonathan Flathead B. Smith and Dennis J. Hester, Deputy County Attorneys, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Clerk .j 31, 1996 Decided: Filed: October January 28, 1997 Justice Karla M. Gray Pursuant Internal 1995 to delivered Operating cited Section as precedent document with result to Paragraph Rules, Clerk State Opinion I, the and shall the the of Reporter 3 cc), Supreme Court. Supreme decision shall by its Court Publishing the Montana following be published the of filing not and be as a public and by a report Company Court West of its Publishing Company. Montanans Henry Broers, Lietz, Jim For Crowder, on by Montana partial its the Raymond Rabidue by the orders Board granting of resolve corporation, David MPRI) District Lietz, Barb Carol Sr., Judicial Duval, Russ appeal from the Court, Flathead motions for summary judgment Commissioners of Flathead County, and denying MPRI's cross-motion for We affirm. on appeal issue, Serra, the County issue that "Ray" Olson, (collectively, judgment. Commissioners' a nonprofit Darrell granting (Commissioners), the Inc., Eleventh summary The to Ron Rights, Tustin, Dowling, entered County, filed Charles and judgment Property is whether motions we address the for the a. Did the District Court planning board documents which the public need not be on file Clerk and Recorder's office? District summary following Court judgment. erred In order subissues: err in concluding that are readily available to at the Flathead County b. Did the District Court err freeholder protests were properly 5 76-2-205(6), MCA? in concluding counted pursuant that to Did the District Court err in concluding that 5 2-6109, MCA, prohibited the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder from providing MPRI with a list of freeholder names and addresses? C. 2 in d. Did the District Court err in concluding that the Commissioners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on MPRI's claim that the Hungry Horse News and the Bigfork Eagle are not newspapers of general circulation? Did the District e. zoning regulations Chapter 2, Part 2, Court err were validly MCA? in concluding adopted under that Title the 76, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1973, Planning the Board issues in proposed Commissioners (Planning Flathead the general In would Plan The comprehensive public plan adopt the intention to to thereafter, the revised use that to units and issues. gave notice regarding County copies that it a revised Comprehensive of The Planning that revised at the review the Flathead Board public Commissioners held the passed comprehensive the Commissioners the resolution the revised as the Flathead it (FCMP). 3 a resolution plan; adopted subsequently referred planning plan. the that which recommended 1987, be published Commissioners and, adopt Plan, Board (FRDO) comprehensive 5, Board land specified Office use Planning comments for land the Flathead available County Comprehensive public so-called Flathead regarding later, Planning and subsequently revised On February notice were Development hearing the notice them resolving to receive the years the neighborhood for 1986, plan, Update. Regional of advise County into guidance a hearing comprehensive Five County September hold to Flathead Flathead provided Board) County. first divided established had been they passed. of caused The comprehensive plan County Plan Master The FCMP encourages communities "neighborhood" plans special or desire issues, future. Based Area on communities Citizen those band of land in Glacier National plan a plan (Canyon to regulations. Board for resolution the Canyon nine public which System Region were to in the Canyon a committee, the Canyon to guide Area the is planning a long, west Plan) (Middle receive for narrow and south review and of the and its Area Canyon communities land and the Canyon Commissioners Plan to then based held Canyon the zoning Canyon to discuss the referred to as Canyon Area public meetings, (CALURS) . Following the 4 in to Region public land the use Planning passed a FCMP. meetings the and a the fifteen subsequently drafted on the regions Canyon Plan Plan and District), Upper consultant the communities use (Lower on a regulations three the consultant their Region the developing use land District), presented the in for the Canyon comments CCIZG then assist regulations Thereafter, adding CCIZG growth of generally proposed Lower District). meetings located use drafted Area--the (Upper for face some residents formed consultant and land they together, Canyon develop Park. neighborhood Middle to problems, plan The Canyon County County unique (CCIZG), communities. hired Canyon County Group Flathead CCIZG the experience recommendation, Zoning for Flathead to more adequately Flathead Initiated neighborhood they that in process and, if in proposed regulations Plan. zoning Land They for held regulations, Use CCIZG Regulatory presented the CALURS to that the the Commissioners The agenda meeting regarding as meeting FRDO. that the CALURS, its CALURS further At the at October recommending its meeting next the would hold comments the a Commissioners CALURS and published. were for Clerk office. also (freeholders) of thirty Both of could days from at protests November 24, and opponents of the Clerk the in order 5 discuss October a to the the to that the hearing, to the adopt proposed office the of the real Districts protest CALURS requested contact the to be CALURS Flathead Commissioners' CALURS for (the they public resolution and Lower 1994 motion receive intention owning to 1994. CALURS. Following of the 12, FRDO, and the persons Middle Upper, of copies the that written beginning proponents freeholders (Clerk), the file passage that to the proposed passed 1994, of items, at to be published CALURS. inspection stated within Area stated and Recorder It Canyon of public the 15, the for The agenda on the Board adopt a resolution notice The notice available County passed caused Planning 1994, 1994. inspection a motion two notices of to comments scheduled November adoption 25, public and passed the on August public 14, CALURS and a notice pertaining for meeting, caused hearing regarding on Commissioners The Commissioners September proposed documents received meeting, that the available Board and recommendation Board's published of were review CALURS. of was September its Planning copies The Planning CALURS at the for the a discussion this stated such Board adopt for included notice Planning them property of the a period period). a list regarding the CALURS. The Clerk refused of freeholders, but did allow the opponents office. One of Ranch (GWR), a time-share GWR's board behalf of share units. of the he could not After protest the in CALURS. forty to but more the forty Area protested the Upper and Middle Districts MPRI filed on September adoption regulations and of asserted and was not also pled the that entitled affirmative to of the 6 of less the than Districts, Lower District, Based the CALURS for on the Area. and declaratory the FCMP and lacked the standing injunctive limitations. adoption of CALURS. the answering defenses the percent Middle the invalidate In MPRI and in injunctive thereunder. was reported districts, Upper Canyon to, owner forty the adopted to of GWR time- CALURS and that than by adoption seeking on Clerk protested the the amendments adopted Commissioners lawsuit 1994, Less Commissioners for the the freeholders of purportedly GWR owners. counted the a complaint 30, of, of of each time-share period, in percent percentages, all were freeholders those they of her Wilderness owners protest Canyon Area Canyon the hundred Commissioners. than at The chairman protest, him that protest protests of six individually entire When the percent of the the association. a timely on behalf close results freeholders of protest freeholder a list CALURS was Glacier informed to with list of the the group of approximately entitled either review filed The Clerk a freeholder provide condominium directors each of to or of relief Commissioners' certain zoning complaint, to bring declaratory lathes the and the the relief; statute The Commissioners lathes precluded genuine MPRI from issue judgment of District the Commissioners the of March of Court on amended they were entitled to nine District the and file in MPRI's judgment judgment. motion Thereafter, an amended complaint and answer. Court heard motions. the in contained summary summary MPRI to judgment issues counts On August Commissioners' original denied oral on 1995, the 16, motion complaint MPRI's argument not for summary amended cross-motion by the for partial for summary complaint. MPRI judgment. On August opposed 30, on the judgment remaining the memoranda, 1995, no the and, Commissioners issues in oral issues District judgment the After motion. that parties summary and partial the 1995, complaint summary no Commissioners' granted judgment actions, existed their summary parties' District filed that their the permitted contending of for Court judgment certain law on the a cross-motion the summary fact MPRI opposed and filed for challenging material as a matter complaint. In moved of Court the moved amended argument, fact remained granted thereafter, a stipulation the and by supplementary Commissioners' entered judgment the in motion their for favor. MPRI appeals. Additional resolution of facts the are issues provided before below as necessary for our us. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary fact exist judgment and the is proper when no genuine moving party is entitled to issues judgment of material as a matter of Rule law. 56(c), We review judgment summary of M.R.Civ.P. de applying the court. Jarrett M.R.Civ.P., criteria Inc. 1996), (Mont. omitted). to absence judgment In motion issues the moving of material motion. District Court entitled to district court's correct. in 1263, of of fact at the the as of we (Mont. of genuine summary whether the Commissioners of law. determine 1996), of second therefore, to issues Commissioners' Commissioners' a matter law genuine the first 487. absence that (citation and entitlement on to Park, establishing judgment concluding Brooks burden that determine, conclusions 672 contend the judgment Valley that 922 P.2d stipulated We must Estate not regarding erred & 53 St.Rep. parties summary Jarrett, 56(c), v. requires its grant Rule 671, of material summary fact judgment met court's same 53 St.Rep. review law. does precluded and the a issues of MPRI 487, party of genuine case, fact material 485, such as a matter this by that 922 P.2d whether the first used Ordinarily, determine both nova, a district were We review whether 927 P.2d they 1024, a are 1026, 1264. DISCUSSION The erred In overall issue in granting the resolving separately that on appeal is Commissioners' issue, whether motions we address each the for subissue District summary raised Court judgment. by MPRI below. a. Did the District Court planning board documents which the public need not be on file 8 err in concluding that are readily available to at the Clerk's office? MPRI argues that, published notice of the regarding it were not on took action not valid. The Commissioners contend require that documents Commissioners thereunder 2131, the to are MCA, does not Clerk's the office at the outset, issue, each the counsel that while those the to does general office the zoning hearing regulations the specified that MPRI's they were before the adopted that 5 7-5 be kept readily two-sentence quoting at available the Rule facts 23(a) of this not suffice to without We caution case. constitute minimal M.R.App.P., in on this language may (4), authorities "argument" statutory a presentation operations by statute out in support requirement of establish Section book. available Clerk's of this only All a party's the legal correctness of governments public case, to that the minute 7, Chapter book, are in that free of book, which 9 books, is is of county clear, all books at the under the argument of book county charge, MPRI's a record MCA, government four It 21, a franchise these MCA. four Part boards book, inspection, these 5, county a road kept 7-5-2131, of local conducting records Section of MCA, requires a minute for office. for 7-5-2129, and a warrant Title Montana. maintain be and conduct requirements the commissioners relate Clerk's such with business. facts public the contentions. governed must 1994, and the to citation The sets 14, proposal at moreover, application it file merely or contentions, September we note analysis regarding CALURS FRDO. sentence compliance the on them, and, public At because could decisions and orders special made by the meetings. whether then, orders" the to Planning Commissioners in county 2129(l), not MCA. require and open for Nor public a decisions are to the of separately were not or properly MCA. failure to of Thus, with require the the not for board the of "orders by § 7-s-2131, at the Commissioners of that in and § 7-5- MCA, does Clerk's office the Commissioners relating to the minute of decisions" § 7-5-2129(l), by law. advise contemplated that and matters, part notices and reflected comply as to the are decisions 2129 (1) , MCA, and maintained 5-2131, and there. decisions orders not published to such required decisions determine, consultant with be kept MCA, "orders its planning decisions we conclude all pursuant use Commissioners 7-5-2129, commissioners public their prospective not and "decisions organized are CALURS proposal of and work They inspection copy or notices § Board only. the the CCIZG land As a result, does maintain by a board and by that are and other capacity made notice related Planning commissioners decisions" the regular We must Board, on zoning an advisory at MCA. drafted CCIZG and the review. commissioners Commissioners. was the county 7-5-2129(l), CALURS or CALURS presented of Section made by the The board the and prospective book. board MCA; they are MPRI advances no argument Commissioners relating in the minute book in the Clerk's we conclude that § 7-s-2131, MPRI MCA. 10 of has the required pursuant not county which that to Such indications decisions office their are actual CALURS by § 7-Sto 5 7- established a MPRI require for also that public theory contends the the at District we will not court. & Tisher 156, 143, (1993) I 257 decline to and the Clerk's on appeal v. 859 P.2d Capital 849 P.2d 386, address this that the board need be on file District documents Court which at the did MPRI contends Clerk's method hundred protest as only that freeholders the the of are readily Clerk's of District entitled the trial (1993), 260 Travelers Co. Therefore, we v. one that issues presented, M.R.App.P., contentions of and the no erred statute, case, public the the in of treatise, 11 the with with record or the as six the this GWR procedure the the adoption Canyon an appellate appellant of upholding statutorily-mandated that therefor, that to owners that Districts requires pages that the counting resulting reasons and to in but than and Middle statutes authorities, protest, protested, (41, 23(a) concluding in concluding counted pursuant GWR condominium less Upper in available MPRI maintains protest. so err Court to the "the to & Trust that office. the freeholders contain cites the counting results CALURS for Rule to 209). not Did the District Court err b. freeholder protests were properly 5 76-2-205(6), MCA? percentage this contention. planning skewed raise well-settled Duensing 203, MCA, be on file not presented (citing 376, did is Mgt. 992 (5) (c), notice It not 984, and related and it issues Norwest (d) office. however, Mont. We hold not the Court, address Mont. 55 76-2-205(l) CALURS proposal inspection in that other of Area. argument respect to the citations to the relied legal on." MPRI authority whatsoever in support of we decline to address its contentions on this issue. it. Did the District c. 109, MCA, prohibited a list of freeholder Court err in concluding the Clerk from providing names and addresses? MPRI the Clerk, contends that arbitrarily names refused MCA, expressly to prohibits anyone the Section Commissioners provide it the Clerk agent, a list of 5 2-6-109, a mailing MCA, protest the freeholder that providing MCA, generally 2-6-109(l), their maintain from 5 76-2-205(5), that 5 2-6MPRI with and with The Commissioners and addresses. during Therefore, list to period. provides that: an agency may not distribute or sell for use as (a) a mailing list any list of persons without first securing the permission of those on the list; and a list of persons prepared by the agency may (b) not be used as a mailing list except by the agency or another agency without first securing the permission of those on the list. Section this Z-6-109(2), case Clerk that the as an officer It also addresses § 2-6-109 list MCA, defines of (11, contends, however, discussed The record, GWR manager during that the when the however, the the Clerk list is of all nature list sold freeholders of undisputed MCA, apply in to the names its freeholder and which, or used on the intended pursuant to as a mailing list. use of MPRI the list was requested. the reflects summary of a "list" be distributed, permission is County. that by the and it § 2-6-109(l), Flathead MCA, cannot the of undisputed maintained without was not is provisions "agency" judgment 12 following proceedings: testimony by the Had asked her on Q: YOU earlier conversation whether or not you could landowners for purposes of any protest? the have telephone a list of I asked her specifically, I says, 1'11 A: Yes, I did. trade you. If you want my list, I'll trade you for the list that you have of the upper canyon. It interests me to notify these people that they can protest. Tl ais testimony the list to the time the that he indicates in list was requested. the out to upper but property." This the adoption list the that of to permission mailing and list in MPRI also a list of provisions whose contends that have protested the the regulations, . in 5 76-2-205(6), on the the .'I of to (b), MCA. county The statute the 13 any their intent was to protesting we conclude providing the statutorilythe list as a Section it the with protest 76-2-205(6), within the assessment roll district sets list for to provide district . or adoption commissioners merely a MCA. violated freeholders of use refusal last-completed establishment board the addresses it record, from intended on the forms securing Clerk's and 40% of "if appear the names contained names resolution that out send against Clerk § 2-6-109(l) could clear this the MPRI of of without that the at testified used action send basis MPRI violation freeholder MCA, provides to MCA, prohibited have County that list On the freeholders required of also he of rights freeholder not use protest that every would them mailing (a), so establishes CALURS. § Z-6-109(1) list a intended their list [he] notify testimony as of and its The GWR manager landowner, area to regarding freeholder every canyon purpose other use freeholders form the MPRI discussed "notify" requested "protest that may not out the of the adopt the percentage of protests required resolution not to prevent establishing relate in assessment way obtain to a roll; prevent or nor impair § 76-Z-205(5) provide the does prohibited the freeholders, from particular, MPRI cites the provide the most recent the in the Clerk's under refusal § 76-2-205, extent the its to did not MCA 5 2-6-109, of list MCA, Area Canyon constitutional following list protests names and addresses providing the or rights. sections of In Constitution: Montana to that to violated to does ability the written a It on filing contained that, adopting opponent's refusal freeholder contends statute or Clerk's from regulations. freeholders from of Clerk the the provisions MPRI Finally, of We conclude a list protest zoning a proponent list MCA. MPRI with violate to or freeholders (d), Commissioners a district any inability the Article II of § 4, which provides that "[nlo person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws"; § 6, granting Montana citizens the right to petition for redress or to peaceably protest governmental action; s 8, granting the public the right to expect governmental agencies to afford a reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of such agencies; and the public with the right to examine 5 9, providing documents. MPRI within the presents the customary sections rationale reliance of or on provisions. statute, no analysis the Montana under constitutionality contentions framework. Constitution which statute--violated I' [Wlhen the its constitutional authority the of the the considering is the presumed 14 in It this merely without cites the any Clerk's constitutional constitutionality and anyone to providing statute--or referenced regard of attacking a the validity of a invalidity." has Associated Mont. 231, bare citations burden statute 235, 862 to required heavy Students P.2.d the to a 380, 382 Montana prove v. burden City of proving Missoula (citations do not MCA, § 2-6-109, is the (1993), omitted). Constitution that of 261 MPRI's meet the heavy constitutionally infirm. We hold the District MCA, prohibited freeholder names 5 2-6-109, list that of Court the did Clerk not err from in concluding providing MPRI that with a and addresses. d. Did the District Court err in concluding that the Commissioners were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on MPRI's claim that the Hungry Horse News and the Bigfork Eagle are not newspapers of general circulation? MPRI argues to Flathead County published those of no two in the zoning are notices factual Eagle not dispute regarding regulations are and the of the to amendments because Horse general contend regarding proposed invalid Hungry "newspapers The Commissioners law. they News, were and that circulation" the business as a contrary. operations There of these newspapers. Section hearings of certain Bigfork newspapers matter is that on proposed intention to a week for within the county. "newspaper of term zoning adopt once statutory MCA, requires 76-2-205, two general regulations such weeks While zoning in the notices regulations legislature this occasions. 15 regarding and passage a newspaper circulation," on several that of must of did Court resolutions be general not published circulation define has public the term addressed the v. In state P.2d 648, set we newspaper is Board of out one of County the Com'rs criteria general (1938), for 106 Mont. 76 whether determining 251, a circulation. "First, that a newspaper of general circulation is not determined by the number of its subscribers, but by the diversity of its subscribers. Second, that, even though a newspaper is of particular interest to a particular if it contains news of a general class of persons, yet, character and interest to the community, although the it qualifies as a news may be limited in amount, newspaper of 'general circulation.'" [Citations omitted.1 Board of (Iowa 1930), the Countv 229 N.W. Bridger under Times the Board existence general distributed qualified of published once published since character Copies of the Columbia outlets in It once Falls also each is week at It case its contains to Bigfork Eagle are Somers, Whitefish, at its v. had four in pages and of it was (1939), Normile that plant the in 109 news the and and delivered are in to the Hungry in Columbia has is been of the Hungry available a area. subscribers Kila, also Eagle advertising communities Columbia 16 Bigfork Bigfork Lakeside, Copies Bigfork. undisputed had been own plant; that plant interest Kalispell, its that circulation it it Ditson 210. and and in Shelley this week Whitefish, Kalispell, county. in 1976. because v. we held general years; printed 206, Burak year, of criteria twenty-five the each (quoting The following Com'rs for undisputed 652 as a newspaper County 94 P.2d at 228). and advertising 124, is general 227, throughout 117, It 76 P.2d and published news Mont. Com'rs, in Horse, at Falls and Bigfork. Horse News is retail Falls and published has been published in advertising in the Flathead of a general area. in Horse, Kila, Olney, Polebridge, Falls, Coram, retail Hungry contains to Horse News are Columbia Falls, Lakeside, West Glacier outlets in delivered to Coram, Essex, Martin City, Marion, Kalispell, and communities and Whitefish. Lake McDonald, Horse, news the McDonald, Lake at It and interest Hungry the Somers, available 1946. Bigfork, of Kalispell, Hungry since character Copies subscribers also County Copies Bigfork, are Columbia Polebridge, West Glacier and Whitefish. The Bigfork in numerous available of communities at general Eagle and the County. Thus, "general 76 both printed in distributed contain at own of its like the and twenty not definitions principles relating the that the of general of "newspapers of general thereto from underlying other statutes 17 jurisdictions. in those news years and of Countv Times in News are published in--and or more, 94 P.2d Bigfork newspapers are Flathead Horse See Shellev, contention in Board Hungry for carry Bridger the been and subscribers" In have county advances of forth news and advertising. support communities Eagle throughout--the that set plants, Hungry Horse News are establish the Moreover, Bigfork their They "diversity criteria 652. County outlets. to the subscribers Flathead retail interest meet news" the general In they P.2d Shellev, County and interest Com'rs, throughout many Flathead character Hungry Horse News have Eagle at 210. and circulation, jurisdictions the MPRI circulation" It and and does not are or even identical, any explanation those cases or are § 76-Z-205, except hold than that MPRI's the our assert were that newspapers how or or correct holdings in Board address not this did not err to Hungry MCA. after 1987 post-1987 percent are Part that Flathead invalid zoning of prerequisite under of appointment of 101, comprehensive regulations could Commissioners not maintain Flathead County and that the since FCMP is a matter of Bigfork We the law on Eagle zoning defined have that 2 of are did in been Part all 18 to MPRI, sixty consent to the district zoning or the pursuant the to FCMP is therefore, adopted § 76-Znot enacted in a zoning thereunder. regulations as defined 2, enacted 1 because not 1987 have been validly "comprehensive" Part 2 and, zoning Chapter According that properly 76, can be regulations commission contends the 76, properly Title under and that Title zoning zoning invalid MPRI as that approach. a planning a five-member plan concluding as Part affected Alternatively, MCA. on the date." that County are freeholders creation 1 or either regulations the and of in concluding adopted under agree either MPRI contends Com'rs circulation. Commissioners under to cases out News and the e. Did the District Court err zoning regulations were validly Chapter 2, Part 2, MCA? accomplished pursuant in judgment Horse offer in County "woefully it holdings Court's are entitled does why the of they general MPRI and the Nor conclusions Court the of MCA. that District claim § 76-2-205, regarding MPRI does to Commissioners not rationale Indeed, issue, to more appropriate MCA, Shelley. similar, The adopted under § 76-l-601, Part by 2, MCA. We address validly first whether adopted A board for all of or 76, the county commissioners jurisdictional 2, Part 2, MCA, safety, chapter morals, plan master plans information charts, and descriptive recommendations and (4) long-range development the area; (5) and mobile subcategories home sites. that transportation, and parks The FCMP is agriculture, land parks, recreation implementation It includes for in public of addressing transportation, the FCMP for and discusses 19 of plan, including utilities, people, unit community of and seventeen facilities affected most trailer into public the in and conservation. the space, area; charts, private education, and projects plats, and plats, the development a master out reports of down 1 a master maps, works 2--maps, addressed and open in (3) public the and recreation, use, Chapter sets (2) area; broken document pursuant 6 of development Category highways, a lengthy area; in adopted areas included the for then may be streets use, County. programs material--is descriptive the for recommendations people have Part with promoting the bodies may be about plans of of MCA. of material accordance MCA, specifically that studies regarding and 76-2-201, regulations purpose welfare and § 76-l-601, surveys and the in were MCA. jurisdictional Section (1) services, for . .'I of 2, zoning governing 1 . plan: land "[flor whose development Part area and general and counties categories courts 2, regulations may adopt its a comprehensive discusses zoning Chapter of and towns five 76, parts health, to Title post-1987 Chapter Title cities under the areas the economy, and plans, of Flathead subjects which, under § 76-l-601, may MCA, We conclude development plan. development plan, regulations may be validly as defined The Commissioners the Planning post-1987 requested zoning pursuant the under Commissioners to § 76-Z-205, under alternative properly MCA; Part 2. contention under Title that District Court's District Court conclusions did not err all zoning the in granting 2. own and evidence into at they evidence were adopted therefore, were we need not of law. 20 into entered address regulations 2, Part MPRI has established Affirmed. of its regulations 76, Chapter summary judgment. to Part of which specifically that zoning zoning have been initiated We conclude, 2. As a result, that that all state a comprehensive pursuant were entered Resolutions comprehensive MCA, and that actions argument, 2. post-1987 Part adopted Part We have concluded for evidence a FCMP is thereunder zoning oral in § 76-l-601, specifically Commissioners' enacted the Seven zoning petitions summary judgment the in adopted the first by included that presented Board's under Part 2. be Therefore, that validly MPRI's were not 1, MCA. no error we hold the Commissioners' in the that the motions We Concur:
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.
