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: March 2 7 , 1980
Decided:
Filed: APh 1 fj
.
Clerk
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 Compre-
h 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 recom-
mendation 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 vacan-
c 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 Yellow-
s 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 adver-
tising and presented slides of the area, and a member of the
zoning commission read the criteria set forth in section 76-
2-203, 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. A
written protest was also received. 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 cammis-
sioners, giving the following reasons for granting the
petition:
"1. Upon initial review, this request would ap-
pear not to be designed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan. However, more thorough re-
search 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 exist-
ing 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, ac-
cess was good and where public facilities were
imminent . . .' It seems that these considera-
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' develop-
ment. 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 commis-
sion. 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 76-2-
203, 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, and A r t i -
c l e V I I o f t h e County Comprehensive Zoning P l a n . Subsection
( 4 ) o f s e c t i o n 76-2-205, MCA, 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 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. County of Chou-
t e a u v. C i t y of F o r t Benton ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 592
P.2d 504, 36 St.Rep. 582. 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 bound-
a 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 oppor-
t 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 zon-
ing 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
o r r e v i s i n g zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . I t i s undisputed t h a t Step
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 in
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-
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 . Montana Power Co. v . C r e m e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) , -
Mont. , 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 . B u r r i t t v. C i t y of B u t t e
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 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 con-
s i d e r a t i o n i n i n t e r p r e t i n g it. D o u l l v. Wohlschlager (1963),
1 4 1 Mont. 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. "May" i s used h e r e i n i t s
o r d i n a r y meaning. 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 sub-
s 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), ( 5 ) and
(61, MCA, 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' 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-
2-205, MCA, 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 estab-
l 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
- -e a d o p t i o n - amendment - zoning regulations
i n th or of . . ."
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 clari-
e
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