No. 14709
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
DAVID G. ALLEN and ELEANOR M. ALLEN,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
FLATHEAD COUNTY, a body corporate; and
THE FLATHEAD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Astle and Astle, Kalispell, Montana
~illiam Astle argued, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondents:
Ted 0 Lympus, County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
.
Jonathan B. Smith, Deputy County Attorney, argued,
Kalispell, Montana
Submitted: September 24, 1979
Decided: OCT 1.: 4979
Filed: gcT - .-
-- 1 49~-
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
t h e Court.
T h i s i s a motion f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a g a i n s t
r e s p o n d e n t s , F l a t h e a d County and i t s Board of County Com-
m i s s i o n e r s , t o have t h e Lower V a l l e y Zoning D i s t r i c t and i t s
zoning r e g u l a t i o n s d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d b e c a u s e of an a l l e g e d
noncompliance w i t h zoning e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n under s e c t i o n
76-2-201, MCA.
The p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d a n a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s and
s t i p u l a t i o n of e v i d e n c e . A c o u n t y p l a n n i n g board w a s c r e -
a t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f p l a n n i n g and zoning i n F l a t h e a d
County i n 1972. The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a o f t h e c o u n t y
p l a n n i n g board was d e t e r m i n e d by r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e commis-
s i o n e r s and i n c l u d e d a l l of F l a t h e a d County, e x c e p t t h e
c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s o f t h e C i t y of Columbia F a l l s . Within t h e
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a , t h e commissioners c r e a t e d t h e Lower
V a l l e y Zoning D i s t r i c t and a d o p t e d s e v e r a l zoning r e g u l a -
t i o n s based upon a p l a n o f t h a t d i s t r i c t i n 1974. A t the
t i m e o f t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e Lower V a l l e y Zoning D i s t r i c t
b o u n d a r i e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e commissioners had n o t
a d o p t e d a comprehensive development p l a n o r m a s t e r p l a n f o r
t h e e n t i r e F l a t h e a d County j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a .
A p p e l l a n t s a r e owners o f l a n d s i t u a t e d i n t h e Lower
V a l l e y Zoning D i s t r i c t . A p p e l l a n t s made a r e q u e s t t o t h e
F l a t h e a d County commissioners t o be e l i m i n a t e d from t h e
zoning r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e d i s t r i c t . T h e i r r e q u e s t , however,
was d e n i e d . A p p e l l a n t s t h e r e a f t e r f i l e d a motion f o r de-
c l a r a t o r y judgment i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o have t h e Lower
V a l l e y Zoning D i s t r i c t and i t s zoning r e g u l a t i o n s d e c l a r e d
invalid. A p p e l l a n t s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e r e was a f a i l u r e t o
comply w i t h p r o c e d u r e s o u t l i n e d i n zoning e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a -
t i o n under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. Harry Woll was g r a n t e d
p e r m i s s i o n t o i n t e r v e n e on b e h a l f of t h e F l a t h e a d Lower
V a l l e y Committee. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found f o r r e s p o n d e n t s ,
and a p p e l l a n t s a p p e a l e d .
The s o l e i s s u e t o be d e c i d e d i n t h i s a p p e a l i s whether
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e Lower V a l l e y
Zoning D i s t r i c t and i t s zoning r e g u l a t i o n s were a d o p t e d i n
s u f f i c i e n t compliance w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 76-2-
201, MCA, and w e r e t h e r e f o r e v a l i d .
S e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA, p r o v i d e s :
"For t h e p u r p o s e of promoting t h e h e a l t h , s a f e t y ,
m o r a l s , and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e of t h e p e o p l e i n c i t i e s
and towns and c o u n t i e s whose g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s have
a d o p t e d a comprehensive development p l a n f o r j u r -
i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a s p u r s u a n t t o c h a p t e r 1, t h e b o a r d s
of c o u n t y commissioners i n s u c h c o u n t i e s are au-
t h o r i z e d t o a d o p t zoning r e g u l a t i o n s f o r a l l o r
p a r t s of s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a s i n a c c o r d a n c e
with t h e provisions of t h i s p a r t . "
A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e above s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t a
comprehensive development p l a n o r master p l a n be a d o p t e d
b e f o r e c o u n t i e s a r e a u t h o r i z e d t o a d o p t zoning r e g u l a t i o n s .
A p p e l l a n t s m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e Lower V a l l e y D i s t r i c t Zoning
P l a n , upon which t h e zoning r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h a t d i s t r i c t a r e
b a s e d , i s n o t a comprehensive development p l a n a s contem-
p l a t e d by t h e s t a t u t e . I t i s argued t h a t t h e plan i s n o t
s u f f i c i e n t b e c a u s e i t i s based o n l y upon a p a r t i c u l a r l o -
cality. T h e r e f o r e , a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d , t h e zoning r e g u l a -
tions a r e invalid.
Respondents m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e Lower V a l l e y D i s t r i c t
Zoning P l a n i s s u f f i c i e n t a s a comprehensive development
p l a n under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. Respondents c o n t e n d t h a t
a m a s t e r p l a n o r comprehensive development p l a n , a c c o r d i n g
-
t o t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n , i s the plan i n i t s e n t i r e t y o r
- -s p a r t s and t h a t t h e Lower V a l l e y D i s t r i c t Zoning
of i t
Plan, as a mini or local comprehensive development plan, is
sufficient as part of a greater comprehensive development
plan under section 76-2-201, MCA.
We find that the adoption of a comprehensive develop-
ment plan is a necessary prerequisite under section 76-2-
201, MCA, for the adoption of county zoning regulations and
that the Lower Valley District Zoning Plan fails to qualify
as a "comprehensive development plan" as required by the
statute.
That the adoption of a comprehensive development plan
is a prerequisite to adopting zoning regulations is self-
evident from the clear and unambiguous language of section
76-2-201, MCA. Where the words of a statute are plain,
unambiguous, direct and certain, it speaks for itself and
there is nothing for the courts to construe. Jones v. Judge
(1978), Mont. , 577 P.2d 846, 848, 35 St.Rep. 460,
462.
That the Lower Valley Zoning District Plan is insuffi-
cient as a "comprehensive development plan," as contemplated
by the statute, is equally clear. The plan, by the admis-
sion of its own text, states that "as a comprehensive develop
ment plan it will not suffice; thus, it is necessary to
recognize that this plan will be subordinate to a complete
comprehensive plan." Further, the plan cannot be brought
within the statutory definition of a master plan or compre-
hensive development plan as respondents contend. Section
e r
76-l-b-l, MCA, defines a "master plan" as "a comprehensive
development plan or any of its parts such as a plan of land
use and zoning, of thoroughfares, of sanitation, of recre-
ation, and of other related matters. " The Lower Valley
Zoning District Plan is not part of a comprehensive develop-
ment p l a n i n t h e same s e n s e a s a p l a n of zoning would b e t o
a comprehensive development p l a n o r a s a " c h a p t e r " would be
t o a "book."
A p p e l l a n t s a l s o c o n t e n d t h a t t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e Lower
V a l l e y D i s t r i c t Zoning P l a n w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e adop-
t i o n of zoning r e g u l a t i o n s under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA, for
another reason. They a r g u e t h a t t h e p l a n must, b u t d i d n o t ,
include an e n t i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area. Appellants maintain
t h a t , s i n c e t h e commissioners d e s i g n a t e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l
a r e a of t h e c o u n t y p l a n n i n g board a s a l l o f F l a t h e a d County
e x c e p t t h e C i t y o f Columbia F a l l s , a comprehensive develop-
ment p l a n under t h e s t a t u t e must i n c l u d e t h e e n t i r e F l a t h e a d
County j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a . The Lower V a l l e y Zoning D i s -
t r i c t P l a n , however, i n c l u d e d o n l y p a r t o f t h a t a r e a .
Respondents a r g u e t h a t t h e Lower V a l l e y D i s t r i c t Zoning
P l a n was s u f f i c i e n t under s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. Respon-
d e n t s contend t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e provided f o r f l e x i b i l i t y
i n p l a n n i n g and zoning and t h a t p a r t s o f a c o u n t y may be
p l a n n e d and o t h e r p a r t s l e f t unplanned. Respondents a r g u e
t h a t t h e a d o p t i o n o f a county-wide m a s t e r p l a n i s n o t a
n e c e s s a r y p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r a d o p t i n g v a l i d zoning r e g u l a t i o n s
under t h e s t a t u t e .
Resolving t h e s e contentions r e q u i r e s i n t e r p r e t i n g
s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. I n Mont. Depart. of Rev. v. Am.
S m e l t i n g and R e f i n i n g ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mont. , 567 P.2d 901,
905-06, 3 4 S t - R e p . 597, 602, we s t a t e d :
"The f u n c t i o n o f t h e Supreme C o u r t when c o n s t r u -
i n g a s t a t u t e i s s i m p l y t o a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e
what i s i n s u b s t a n c e s t a t e d t h e r e i n , and n o t t o
i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d o r o m i t what h a s
been i n s e r t e d . [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . 1 The funda-
mental r u l e of s t a t u t o r y construction i s t h a t
t h e i n t e n t of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e c o n t r o l s . [Cita-
t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] Where t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s -
l a t u r e can be d e t e r m i n e d from t h e p l a i n meaning
of t h e words u s e d , t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r
and a p p l y any o t h e r means o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . "
H e r e , s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA, s t a t e s t h a t a county i s
a u t h o r i z e d t o a d o p t zoning r e g u l a t i o n s when " g o v e r n i n g
b o d i e s [of c i t i e s , towns and c o u n t i e s ] have a d o p t e d a com-
p r e h e n s i v e development p l a n f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l areas
. . ." (Emphasis added.) Respondents c o n t e n d t h a t t h e
Lower V a l l e y Zoning D i s t r i c t P l a n i s s u f f i c i e n t a l t h o u g h i t
t a k e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o n l y p a r t of t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l
area. The s t a t u t e d o e s n o t s t a t e , however, t h a t a c o u n t y i s
a u t h o r i z e d t o a d o p t zoning r e g u l a t i o n s when g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s
have a d o p t e d a comprehensive development p l a n f o r p a r t s -
of
jurisdictional areas.
W h o l d t h a t t h e c l e a r and unambiguous language of
e
s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA, r e q u i r e s t h a t a c o u n t y a d o p t a compre-
h e n s i v e development p l a n f o r a n e n t i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a r e a .
Only a f t e r t h e a d o p t i o n o f such a p l a n may a c o u n t y a d o p t
zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . To i n t e r p r e t t h e s t a t u t e o t h e r w i s e
would go beyond t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e words and would
r e d u c e t h e t e r m s of t h e s t a t u t e t o nonsense. I t would
a l l o w , f o r example, a comprehensive development p l a n t o be
c a l l e d "comprehensive" when i t took i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o n l y
p a r t of something--namely, a jurisdictional area. Further,
i t would r u n c o n t r a r y t o t h e p r i n c i p l e s of l o n g - r a n g e p l a n -
n i n g and zoning.
W e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n determining
t h a t t h e Lower V a l l e y D i s t r i c t Zoning P l a n and i t s zoning
r e g u l a t i o n s were a d o p t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t compliance w i t h
s e c t i o n 76-2-201, MCA. The zoning r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e Lower
V a l l e y Zoning D i s t r i c t a r e t h e r e f o r e i n v a l i d .
I n view of t h e p o t e n t i a l l y s e r i o u s consequences t h a t
o u r d e c i s i o n m i g h t have f o r t h e c i t i z e n s and p r o p e r t y owners
of F l a t h e a d County, w e recommend t h a t t h e F l a t h e a d County
c o m m i s s i o n e r s t a k e n o t i c e o f s e c t i o n 76-2-206, MCA, the
p r o v i s i o n f o r i n t e r i m z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n i n emergency c i r -
cumstances. T h a t s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s a method by which F l a t -
head County may b e g i n d e v e l o p i n g a master p l a n t h a t w i l l
comply w i t h t h e t e r m s o f t h e s t a t u t e w i t h o u t s u f f e r i n g a n y
serious detriment. S e c t i o n 76-2-206, MCA, p r o v i d e s :
" I n t e r i m z o n i n g map o r r e g u l a t i o n . (1) I f a
c o u n t y i s c o n d u c t i n g 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 reasonable t i m e o r
h a s h e l d o r i s holding a h e a r i n g f o r t h e pur-
p o s e o f c o n s i d e r i n g a master p l a n o r z o n i n g
r e g u l a t i o n s o r a n amendment, e x t e n s i o n , o r ad-
d i t i o n t o e i t h e r pursuant t o t h i s p a r t , the
b o a r d o f c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s i n o r d e r t o pro-
mote t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , m o r a l s , and
g e n e r a l w e l f a r e may a d o p t a s a n emergency m e a -
s u r e a t e m p o r a r y i n t e r i m zoning r e g u l a t i o n , t h e
p u r p o s e o f which s h a l l be t o c l a s s i f y and r e g u -
l a n t 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.
" ( 2 ) Such i n t e r i m r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l b e l i m i t e d
t o 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 b o a r d o f c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s may e x t e n d
such i n t e r i m r e s o l u t i o n f o r 1 year, b u t n o t
more t h a n o n e s u c h e x t e n s i o n may b e made."
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d .
W e concur:
u
a&$&&@
Chief ~ C s t i c e
c Justices