No. 13019
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
STATE O M N A A e x r e 1 CHRISTIAN, SPRING,
F OTN
SIELBACH & ASSOCIATES, a Montana c o r p o r a t i o n ,
and JAMES B. SPRING, i n d i v i d u a l l y ,
P l a i n t i f f s and P e t i t i o n e r s ,
BONNIE MILLER, Powell County C l e r k and
R e c o r d e r ; and NEWMAN RAYMOND, SANDY REIERSON
and HERMAN N. SMETS, Powell County Commissioners,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable R o b e r t Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For P l a i n t i f f s :
Poore, McKenzie, Roth, Robischon & Robinson,
B u t t e , Montana
Urban L. Roth a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
D a n i e l Wing a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
F o r Respondents:
James H. Goetz a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
James Masar a p p e a r e d , Deer Lodge, Montana
Submitted: November 6, 1975
Decided: Ff-.j. 2 ,j,g
Filed :
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
Appellant James B. Spring of t h e f i r m C h r i s t i a n , Spring,
S i e l b a c h & A s s o c i a t e s , f i l e d an a c t i o n on June 27, 1974, a g a i n s t
t h e Clerk and Recorder and Commissioners o f Powell County, seeking
t o compel by w r i t of mandamus t h e acceptance and r e c o r d a t i o n o f a
1I
c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". Hearing was had i n l a t e J u l y 1974 and
judgment f o r respondents was e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Powell
County i n October 1974.
Several days b e f o r e t h i s a c t i o n a r o s e , t h e Powell County
Board of County Commissioners met a t s p e c i a l s e s s i o n t o pass a
1t
r e s o l u t i o n termed a Temporary I n t e r i m Zoning Regulation"
pursuant t o s e c t i o n 16-4711, R.C.M. 1947, which provides:
11I n t e r i m zoning map o r r e g u l a t i o n . I f a county i s
conducting, o r i n good f a i t h i n t e n d s t o conduct s t u d i e s
w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time, o r has h e l d o r i s h o l d i n g a
h e a r i n g f o r t h e purpose of c o n s i d e r i n g a master p l a n
o r zoning r e g u l a t i o n s o r an amendment, e x t e n s i o n , o r
a d d i t i o n t o e i t h e r pursuant t o t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e board
of county commissioners i n o r d e r t o promote t h e p u b l i c
h e a l t h , s a f e t y , morals, and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e may adopt
a s an emergency measure a temporary i n t e r i m zoning
map o r temporary i n t e r i m zoning r e g u l a t i o n , t h e purpose
of which s h a l l be t c c l a s s i f y and r e g u l a t e u s e s and
r e l a t e d m a t t e r s a s c o n s t i t u t e s t h e emergency. Such
i n t e r i m r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o one (1) y e a r
from t h e d a t e i t becomes e f f e c t i v e . The board of county
commissioners may extend such i n t e r i m r e s o l u t i o n f o r
one (1) y e a r n b u t n o t more than one (1) such e x t e n s i o n
may b e made.
The r e g u l a t i o n s t a t e d t h a t a master plan was o r would be under
c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time t o cover a l l p r i v a t e land
i n t h e North Powell S o i l Conservation D i s t r i c t i n t h e Big Black-
f o o t d r a i n a g e a r e a o f Powell County.
P r i o r t o t h e passage of t h a t r e g u l a t i o n , Spring c o n t a c t e d
Bonnie J. M i l l e r , t h e Powell County c l e r k and r e c o r d e r , t o i n q u i r e
whether a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey r e g a r d i n g t h i s a r e a would be
accepted f o r r e c o r d a t i o n . Spring was advised t h e c e r t i f i c a t e would
be recorded i f it p r o p e r l y complied w i t h Montana law. Spring then
d i r e c t e d h i s employees t o survey t h e land i n q u e s t i o n and on June
2 7 , 1974, presented t h e r e s u l t i n g c e r t i f i c a t e of survey f o r r e -
c o r d a t i o n , along w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y r e c o r d i n g f e e . By t h a t d a t e ,
the i t e r i m r e g u l a t i o n had been passed and t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r
sought a d v i c e a s t o i t s e f f e c t . She was informed by l e t t e r of
t h e Powell Cdunty a t t o r n e y t h a t :
*
"* >k t h e i n t e n t of t h e r e s o l u t i o n was t o prevent
f u r t h e r s u b d i v i s i o n i n t h e n o r t h Powell S o i l Conser-
vation area *** f o r an i n t e r i m p e r i o d w h i l e f u r t h e r
s t u d i e s could be made. While t h e f i l i n g of a C e r t i f i -
c a t e of Survey does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y imply an i n t e n t
t o subdivide, i t i s m opinion t h a t no o t h e r purpose
y
i s served by such f i l i n g and i n o r d e r t o implement and
execute t h e purpose and i n t e n t o f t h e r e s o l u t i o n i t i s
m recommendation t h a t you n o t a c c e p t any C e r t i f i c a t e s
y
of Survey which may be tendered t o you f o r r e c o r d i n g
o r f i l i n g u n t i l t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e 90 day moratorium
which may be extended. I'
Guided by t h i s o p i n i o n , t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r r e j e c t e d b o t h t h e
.. "
., ,-
c e r t i f i c a t e and t h e r e c o r d i n g f e e when s p r i n g tendered them f o r
filing.
The p a r t i e s do n o t d i s p u t e t h a t t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of survey
complied i n a l l t e c h n i c a l r e s p e c t s w i t h t h e requirements of Montana
law, o r t h a t t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 16-4705, R.C.M. 1947,
were n o t followed by t h e board of county commissioners i n a d o p t i n g
the regulation. I t i s f u r t h e r admitted t h e document involved h e r e
I1
is a c e r t i f i c a t e of surveyw w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 11-3861,
R.C.M. 1947, and n o t a "subdivision p l a t " a s d e f i n e d by t h a t
statute. For t h e purposes of t h i s a p p e a l we a c c e p t t h e county
a t t o r n e y ' s a d v i c e t h a t t h i s c e r t i f i c a t e of survey has no o t h e r
purpose.
Spring c h a l l e n g e s t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e temporary i n t e r i m
zoning r e s o l u t i o n f o r a v a r i e t y o f r e a s o n s . But f o r purposes of
t h i s a p p e a l , we need only d i s c u s s t h e undisputed f a i l u r e of t h e
county board of commissioners t o comply w i t h t h e n o t i c e and h e a r i n g
requirements s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 16-4705, R.C.M. 1947. I n Bryant
Development Association v. Dagel, Mon t . , 531 P.2d 1320,1324,
32 St.Rep. 213, t h i s Court recognized t h e d i r e c t a p p l i c a b i l i t y
of s e c t i o n 16-4705 t o county a c t i o n a u t h o r i z e d by s e c t i o n 16-4711:
"1n viewing Chapter 47, T i r l e 16, R.C.M. 1947, a s a
whole, i t i s c l e a r t h a t s e c t i o n 16-4711, providing
f o r t h e enactment of emergency zoning r e g u l a t i o n s ,
i s governed by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 16-4705,
providing f o r n o t i c e and h e a r i n g I i n t h e adoption o r
amendment of zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . " '
Respondents r e c o g n i z e t h a t Bryant i s d i s p o s i t i v e and
c o n t r o l l i n g of t h i s i s s u e , b u t urge t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n and
r e v e r s a l of t h e Bryant r u l e . I n support respondents c i t e d s e v e r a l
c a s e s from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . These c a s e s hold, i n t h e i n t e r e s t
o f p r e s e r v i n g t h e s t a t u s quo under circumstances s u f f i c i e n t l y u r g e n t
t o warrant an emergency r e s o l u t i o n , t h a t t h e due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e -
ments need n o t be followed u n t i l a permanent ordinance i s under
consideration. Metro R e a l t y v. County of E l Dorado, 222 C.A.2d
508, 35 Ca1,Rptr. 480; McCurley v. C i t y of E l Reno, 138 Okla. 92,
280 P. 467.
W recognize t h e underlying p o l i c y which engendered t h e
e
-
r u l e a s announced by such c a s e s a s Metro R e a l t y and McCurley.
But t h e law of Montana has been c l e a r l y and r e c e n t l y s e t f o r t h i n
Bryant. W b e l i e v e i t t o be t h e b e t t e r r u l e , and t h e r u l e
e
supported by t h e m a j o r i t y of a u t h o r i t i e s . C i t y of Miami Beach v.
S t a t e , F l a , 108 S.2d 614, c e r t . d e n . , 1 1 S.2d 437; Lancaster
1
Development, Ltd. v. V i l l a g e of River F o r e s t , 84 Ill.App.2d 395,
228 N.E.2d 526, 30 ALR3d 1190; Krajenke Buick S a l e s v. Kopkowski,
322 Mich. 250, 33 N.W.2d 781; S t a t e ex r e l . Kramer v. Schwartz, 336
Mo. 932, 82 S.W.2d 63.
I n Montana, t h e s a l u t a r y s t a t u t o r y scheme comprised of t h e
Montana Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act, s e c t i o n s 11-3859 e t s e q . ,
R.C.M. 1947, and such p r o v i s i o n s a s s e c t i o n 16-4711, R.C.M. 1947,
must be tempered by t h e fundamental r i g h t t o n o t i c e and t h e opportun-
i t y t o be heard. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d when i t denied a p p e l l a n t ' s
p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus. This p a r t i c u l a r temporary i n t e r i m
zoning r e g u l a t i o n i s n u l l and void f o r t h e f a i l u r e t o observe t h e
proper procedures upon i t s enactment.
The cause is remanded t o t h e district c o u r t w i t h
directions t o g r a n t a t t o r n e y fees.
ustice
/
/
\
/
W e Concur: I
' /