No. 14365
I N THE S P
U- CCUIiT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
1978
STATE ex rel., FLQFENCE-CARLTON SCHOOL
D I m C T No. 15-6,
Petitioner and Appellant,
-vs-
a?
BQARD OF OUNIY ~ S S I O N E R S R A m 1
cDUNIY AND RAVALT;I cOUKTY PLANNIIG BOARD,
Respondents,
and
EDGAR L. PRICE, e t a l . ,
Intervemrs and Respondents.
Appeal fran: D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Milodragovich, Dale and Dye, Missoula, Montana
Harold Dye argued, Missoula, Wntana
For Respondent:
Douglas G. Harkin, Oounty Attorney, argued, Hamilton, Fbntana
Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Mntana
Dennis L i d . argued, Missoula, Wntana
For Amicus Curiae:
Eon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Mntana
Mike Mfarter argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, bllontana
~ e c i d e d : DEC 5 - 1978
Filed : DEC 5 - 1978
Mr. ~usticeGene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
his i s a n a p p e a l from a n o r d e r of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l
~ i s t r i c C o u r t v a c a t i n g a n a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n
t
and mandate d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e Board of County Commis-
s i o n e r s of R a v a l l i County and t h e R a v a l l i County P l a n n i n g
Board. The w r i t d i r e c t e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t Boards t o make
w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s of f a c t c o n c e r n i n g whether c e r t a i n proposed
s u b d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n R a v a l l i County w e r e i n t h e p u b l i c
i n t e r e s t w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 4 ) , R.C.M.
1947. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p e r m i t t e d t h e owners ( d e v e l o p e r s )
of t h e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s t o i n t e r v e n e . On t h e i r motion
it v a c a t e d t h e w r i t and r u l e d t h a t s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) d o e s
n o t a p p l y t o t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s a t i s s u e and t h a t r e s p o n d e n t
Board of County Commissioners need n o t make f i n d i n g s t h a t
t h e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .
I n J u n e , 1977, Wilbur H e n s l e r o b t a i n e d a s u r v e y of a
p o r t i o n of h i s r a n c h i n R a v a l l i County, d i v i d i n g t h e l a n d
i n t o 7 1 p a r c e l s o f j u s t o v e r 20 acres e a c h . Hidden V a l l e y
Ranches, a p a r t n e r s h i p o f Missoula businessmen, t h e n pur-
c h a s e d a number of t h e s e p a r c e l s and s u b s e q u e n t l y r e s o l d
them t o i n d i v i d u a l b u y e r s . A t the t i m e o f t h e s a l e by
Hidden V a l l e y Ranches, t h e s e t r a c t s w e r e s u b j e c t t o r e s t r i c -
t i v e c o v e n a n t s which p r e v e n t e d them from b e i n g s u b d i v i d e d
i n t o p a r c e l s smaller than f i v e a c r e s each. The i n d i v i d u a l
owners t h e n s u b m i t t e d p l a t s f o r t h e a p p r o v a l of 26 s e p a r a t e
s u b d i v i s i o n s e a c h c o n s i s t i n g of less t h a n f i v e l o t s .
The o r i g i n a l d i v i s i o n of t h e H e n s l e r Ranch i n t o t r a c t s
e x c e e d i n g 20 a c r e s was exempt from r e v i e w under t h e s u b d i v i -
s i o n and P l a t t i n g A c t , s e c t i o n s 11-3859 t h r o u g h 3876, R.C.M.
1947. S e c t i o n 11-3861(12) d e f i n i n g " s u b d i v i s i o n " e x c l u d e s
t r a c t s c o n t a i n i n g 20 o r more a c r e s . The A c t f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s
t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t s which c o n t a i n f i v e o r fewer p a r c e l s
t o be s o l d may be e l i g i b l e f o r "summary" r e v i e w under sec-
t i o n s 11-3866(6) and 11-3863(5) r a t h e r t h a n t h e more compre-
h e n s i v e r e v i e w p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r e d of s u b d i v i s i o n s which
c o n t a i n more t h a n f i v e l o t s .
A l l t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n a g r e e t h a t t h e proposed
s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e "minor" s u b d i v i s i o n s - - t h a t i s , t h a t they
c o n t a i n f i v e o r fewer l o t s . Appellant School D i s t r i c t ,
however, c o n t e n d s t h e y d o n o t q u a l i f y f o r summary r e v i e w
under s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) . F u r t h e r , i f they should q u a l i f y
f o r such review, a p p e l l a n t contends t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e d
r e s p o n d e n t Board o f County Commissioners t o make w r i t t e n
f i n d i n g s t o determine i f t h e subdivisions a r e i n t h e public
interest. Respondents a r g u e t h a t t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s q u a l i f y
f o r summary r e v i e w and t h a t such r e v i e w d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e
c o u n t y commissioners t o make w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s t o e v a l u a t e
whether t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s a r e i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .
The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r r e v i e w are:
1. Must a "minor" s u b d i v i s i o n which q u a l i f i e s f o r
r e v i e w under s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947, m e e t t h e
" p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 4 ) , R.C.M.
1947?
2. Does a "minor" s u b d i v i s i o n , whose o n l y a c c e s s t o
l o t s c o n s i s t s of p r i v a t e e a s e m e n t s , q u a l i f y f o r summary
r e v i e w under s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) , R.C.M. 1947?
The S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g A c t , f i r s t e n a c t e d i n 1973
(Ch. 500, L a w s of Montana ( 1 9 7 3 ) ) , i s a t e c h n i c a l s t a t u t e
which a t t e m p t s t o p r o v i d e t h e p r o p e r amount of p u b l i c con-
t r o l o v e r s u b d i v i s i o n development n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e c e r -
t a i n p u b l i c p r o t e c t i o n purposes. In its short lifetime, the
Act h a s been amended s e v e r a l t i m e s , i n c l u d i n g amendments t o
i t s purpose s e c t i o n ( s e c t i o n 11-3860) and t o i t s p r o v i s i o n s
f o r review ( s e c t i o n 11-3866).
There a r e two procedures f o r review of proposed sub-
d i v i s i o n s by l o c a l governing b o d i e s . S u b d i v i s i o n s which a r e
n o t e l i g i b l e f o r summary review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6)
must be reviewed a c c o r d i n g t o t h e procedures o u t l i n e d i n
section 11-3866(1)-(5). Only t h o s e s u b d i v i s i o n s w i t h f i v e
o r fewer l o t s , which have "proper a c c e s s " t o a l l l o t s and i n
which no l a n d i s t o be d e d i c a t e d f o r p a r k s o r playgrounds
may q u a l i f y f o r summary review under s u b s e c t i o n ( 6 ) . In
s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 ) , t h e governing body i s d i r e c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e
whether a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n i s " i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " .
I f i t f i n d s t h a t i t i s n o t , t h e governing body i s bound t o
disapprove t h e proposal. S e c t i o n 11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947.
The s u b s e c t i o n a l s o l i s t s e i g h t s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a which t h e
governing body must weigh i n a r r i v i n g a t i t s d e c i s i o n of
whether t h e s u b d i v i s i o n i s i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t :
t h e b a s i s of t h e need f o r t h e s u b d i v i s i o n ;
expressed p u b l i c o p i n i o n ;
e f f e c t s on a g r i c u l t u r e ;
e f f e c t s on l o c a l s e r v i c e s ;
e f f e c t s on t a x a t i o n ;
e f f e c t s on t h e n a t u r a l environment;
e f f e c t s on w i l d l i f e and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t , and
e f f e c t s on t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h and s a f e t y . "
A p p e l l a n t School D i s t r i c t a r g u e s t h a t a l l s u b d i v i s i o n s
must be demonstrably i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t under t h e c r i -
t e r i a l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) b e f o r e a governing body
may g i v e i t s a p p r o v a l , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s
which q u a l i f y f o r summary review under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6).
Of p a r t i c u l a r importance t o t h e i s s u e r a i s e d by t h i s
a p p e a l a r e t h e amendments t o t h e purpose s e c t i o n . A s origi-
n a l l y e n a c t e d , t h e purpose s e c t i o n made no mention of w r i t -
t e n f i n d i n g s of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . A 1975 amendment t o t h a t
s e c t i o n added t h a t o n e o f t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e A c t was " t o
r e q u i r e t h a t a p p r o v a l of any s u b d i v i s i o n b e c o n t i n g e n t upon
a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g b o d y w .
Ch. 498, S e c t i o n 1, Laws of Montana (1975) . I n t h e same
c h a p t e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a l s o e n a c t e d a n amendment t o s e c t i o n
11-3866. T h a t amendment added a new 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 g o v e r n i n g body must weigh t h e e i g h t s p e c i -
f i e d c r i t e r i a l i s t e d above t o a r r i v e a t a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of
whether a proposed s u b d i v i s i o n i s i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .
I f it f i n d s t h a t it i s n o t i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , t h e
g o v e r n i n g body must d i s a p p r o v e t h e s u b d i v i s i o n . Ch. 498,
S e c t i o n 3, Laws of Montana (1975) c o d i f i e d a t s e c t i o n 1 -
1
3866 ( 4 ) , R.C.M. 1947.
The 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e f u r t h e r amended t h e p u r p o s e sec-
t i o n (11-3860), s e c t i o n 11-3862, and s e c t i o n 11-3866. The
p u r p o s e s e c t i o n w a s amended by q u a l i f y i n g t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t
c l a u s e w i t h t h e words "whenever n e c e s s a r y " , a d d i n g " a p p r o p r i a t e "
b e f o r e " a p p r o v a l " and d e l e t i n g "any" from i n f r o n t of " s u b d i v i -
sion". I t now r e a d s " t o r e q u i r e whenever n e c e s s a r y , the
a p p r o p r i a t e a p p r o v a l o f s u b d i v i s i o n s b e c o n t i n g e n t upon a
w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g body".
Ch. 552, S e c t i o n 1, Laws of Montana ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
I n t h e same c h a p t e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a l s o c r e a t e d a
s p e c i f i c modification of t h e written public i n t e r e s t finding
requirement f o r c e r t a i n subdivisions w i t h i n previously
a d o p t e d c o u n t y master p l a n s . The amendment added s u b s e c t i o n
( 8 ) t o s e c t i o n 11-3862, t o p r o v i d e t h a t a s u b d i v i s i o n which
i s w i t h i n a c o u n t y ' s m a s t e r development p l a n i s "deemed t o
be i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and exempt from t h e r e q u i r e m e n t of
a n environmental assessment." Ch. 552, S e c t i o n 2, Laws of
Montana (1977) ( c o d i f i e d a t s e c t i o n 11-3862 ( 8 ) , R.C.M.
1947).
In a separate chapter the 1977 session laws provide for
an amendment adding subsection (6) to section 11-3866. Ch.
555, Sec. 1, Laws of Montana (1977). That subsection out-
lines specific review procedures for subdivisions with less
than five parcels which have proper access to all lots and
which do not contain land to be dedicated for public recrea-
tion. It does not say specifically whether such proposed
"minor" subdivisions are subject to the public interest
requirement which was added in 1975. This particular ques-
tion is still new to this Court, as the recent decision of
Young v. Stillwater County Commissioners (1978), Mont .
, 582 P.2d 353, 355, 35 St.Rep. 1099, 1102, specifically
declined to rule on the issue.
It is notable that the purpose section has twice been
amended since the original passage of the Act. The first
amendment, in 1975, added the public interest requirement to
"any subdivision". The 1977 amendment, as noted above,
qualified that language by adding "whenever necessary" and
"appropriate" while deleting "any". The purpose of the 1977
amendments apparently is to make the purpose section consis-
tent with the amendment to section 11-3862 which was con-
tained in the same bill. As discussed above, the amendment
to section 11-3862 added subsection (8) modifying the re-
quirement of a written public interest finding by deeming
certain proposed subdivisions to be in the public interest,
~hus,in those instances where a subdivision is within a
county's master plan, the written public interest finding
mandated in section 11-3866(4) is not necessary because the
subdivision is presumed to be in the public interest.
However, the provision for review of minor subdivisions
in section 11-3866(6) makes no parallel presumption. he
p r o v i s i o n i n s e c t i o n 11-3862(8) d o e s n o t exempt c e r t a i n
s u b d i v i s i o n s from t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t c r i t e r i a - - i t merely
presumes t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n s which come w i t h i n i t s s c o p e a r e
already i n the public interest. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n urged by
r e s p o n d e n t commissioners and d e v e l o p e r s i s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e
w r i t t e n p u b l i c i n t e r e s t f i n d i n g i s n o t mentioned i n s e c t i o n
1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must have i n t e n d e d t o c r e a t e a n
e x c e p t i o n f o r minor s u b d i v i s i o n s r e q u i r i n g no p u b l i c i n t e r e s t
d e t e r m i n a t i o n a t a l l , presumed o r w r i t t e n .
I n view of t h e p u r p o s e s e c t i o n of t h e A c t , r e q u i r i n g
w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t "whenever n e c e s s a r y " and
t h e f a c t t h a t s e c t i o n 11-3862(8) d o e s n o t e x c e p t s u b d i v i s i o n s
w i t h i n master p l a n s from t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e m e n t b u t
r a t h e r deems them t o b e i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , t h e argument
t h a t a n e x c e p t i o n i s c r e a t e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s s i l e n c e on
t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e m e n t i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(6) i s
d i f f i c u l t t o accept. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s o upon c o n s i d e r a -
t i o n of t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n
a p p l i c a b l e t o a s t a t u t e s u c h a s t h e S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g
Act. The p u r p o s e s e c t i o n d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e A c t i s i n t e n d e d
t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e :
" I t i s t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s a c t t o promote t h e
p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y , and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e by
r e g u l a t i n g t h e s u b d i v i s i o n of l a n d ; t o p r e v e n t
overcrowding of l a n d ; t o l e s s e n c o n g e s t i o n i n
t h e s t r e e t s and highways; t o p r o v i d e f o r ade-
q u a t e l i g h t , a i r , w a t e r s u p p l y , sewage d i s -
p o s a l , p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s , i n g r e s s and
e g r e s s , and o t h e r p u b l i c r e q u i r e m e n t s ; t o re-
q u i r e development i n harmony w i t h t h e n a t u r a l
environment; t o r e q u i r e t h a t whenever neces-
s a r y , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p r o v a l of s u b d i v i -
s i o n s be c o n t i n g e n t upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of
p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g body . . ."
S e c t i o n 11-3860, R.C.M. 1947.
L e g i s l a t i o n e n a c t e d f o r t h e promotion of p u b l i c h e a l t h ,
s a f e t y , and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e , i s e n t i t l e d t o " l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c -
t i o n w i t h a view towards t h e accomplishment of i t s h i g h l y
beneficent objectives". 3 S u t h e r l a n d , S t a t u t o r y Construc-
t i o n , 571.01 ( 4 t h Ed., 1974). A s one c o u r t h a s s t a t e d :
"No r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s more
r e a d i l y a p p l i e d by t h e c o u r t s t h a n t h a t pub-
l i c s t a t u t e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e w e l f a r e of t h e
whole p e o p l e a r e t o have a l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c -
tion." H a l l v . Union L i g h t , Heat & Power
(E.D. Ky. 1 9 4 4 ) , 53 F.Supp. 817, 818-19.
S e e a l s o Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. v. P u b l i c
S e r v i c e Commission (D.C. App. 1 9 7 7 ) , 378 A.2d 1085, 1089;
R a n q u i s t v . S t a c k l e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 3 I11.Dec. 1 7 1 , 370 N.E.2d
1198, 1203; New York S t a t e Board o f Pharmacy v . C e r t a i n
A d u l t e r a t e d and Misbranded Drugs ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 393 N.Y.S.2d 447,
A c c o r d i n g l y , " e x e m p t i o n s , p r o v i s o s , and e x c e p t i o n s a r e
g e n e r a l l y g i v e n a narrow i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " 3 Sutherland,
S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n , s u p r a , a t 571.01, n. 3. In the
S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g Act t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a
s u b d i v i s i o n must be found t o be i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t
b e f o r e a g o v e r n i n g body may approve i t . This requirement i s
i n t e n d e d t o f u l f i l l t h e A c t ' s o b j e c t i v e of e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e
p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e a r e p r o t e c t e d .
T h a t o b j e c t i v e must b e t h e primary g u i d e t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e . Thus, where no s p e c i f i c e x c e p t i o n t o
t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t r e q u i r e m e n t i s mentioned i n s e c t i o n 1 -
1
3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) , t h e b e t t e r c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t no s u c h e x c e p t i o n i s
intended.
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s b u t t r e s s e d by t h e 1977 l e g i s l a t u r e ' s
a d d i t i o n of t h e word " a p p r o p r i a t e " t o t h e p u r p o s e s e c t i o n :
" t o r e q u i r e t h a t whenever n e c e s s a r y , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a p p r o v a l
of s u b d i v i s i o n s be c o n t i n g e n t upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of
p u b l i c i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g body". (Emphasis a d d e d . )
The amendment a d d i n g "whenever n e c e s s a r y " , as d i s c u s s e d
above, most n a t u r a l l y a p p l i e s t o t h e amendment t o s e c t i o n
11-3862, p r o v i d i n g t h a t c e r t a i n s u b d i v i s i o n s are deemed t o
be i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , b e c a u s e b o t h amendments were p a r t
of t h e s a m e b i l l . The word " a p p r o p r i a t e " modifying "approv-
a l " s u g g e s t s t h a t a s i d e from t h o s e i n s t a n c e s i n which a
w r i t t e n f i n d i n g o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i s n o t r e q u i r e d , t h e Act
s t i l l p r o v i d e s f o r more t h a n one form of a p p r o v a l . The Act
d o e s p r o v i d e f o r two t y p e s of a p p r o v a l p r o c e d u r e s , indepen-
d e n t of t h e r e v i e w o f s u b d i v i s i o n s which a r e deemed t o be i n
the public interest. These a r e f u l l o r " f o r m a l " a p p r o v a l
p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g and e n v i r o n m e n t a l
assessment and t h e "summary" a p p r o v a l p r o c e d u r e s o u t l i n e d
i n s e c t i o n 11-3866(6). The most n a t u r a l meaning of t h e
c l a u s e i n t h e p u r p o s e s e c t i o n i s t h a t t h e " a p p r o p r i a t e " form
of a p p r o v a l , whether t h a t b e f o r m a l a p p r o v a l o r summary
a p p r o v a l , i s " c o n t i n g e n t upon a w r i t t e n f i n d i n g of p u b l i c
i n t e r e s t by t h e g o v e r n i n g body."
W e hold t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t f i n d i n g
mandated by s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) a p p l i e s t o "minor" s u b d i v i -
s i o n s which q u a l i f y f o r r e v i e w under s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) .
I n i t s second i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t School ~ i s t r i c c o n t e n d s
t
t h a t t h e s u b d i v i s i o n s d o n o t q u a l i f y f o r summary r e v i e w
under s e c t i o n 11-3866(6) b e c a u s e t h e o n l y a c c e s s t o t h e
i n d i v i d u a l l o t s i s by p r i v a t e easement. T h i s , it a r g u e s ,
d o e s n o t m e e t t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t of " p r o p e r a c c e s s t o
a l l lots".
T h i s m a t t e r would be of c o n c e r n i n t h i s a p p e a l b u t t h e
r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n h a s been r e n d e r e d moot.
The e x c e p t i o n s t o s e c t i o n 11-3866(4) which a r e c r e a t e d by
s e c t i o n 1 1 - 3 8 6 6 ( 6 ) ( c ) a r e t h e d e l e t i o n of t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g
and e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s s e s s m e n t r e q u i r e m e n t . I n t h i s case,
however, public hearings were held on January 24 and Febru-
ary 2, 1978, before the Ravalli County Plat Committee and
the Ravalli County Planning Board respectively. The Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences has also
prepared a full environmental assessment of the proposed
subdivisions. In view of these actions and this Court's
holding on the public interest finding issue, it is clear a
ruling on whether the proposed subdivisions qualify for
summary approval under section 11-3866 would be of no avail.
All the actions required for approval of major subdivisions,
except for the public interest finding, have already been
taken. Accordingly, we decline to rule on appellant's
second issue.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the
Board of County Commissioners of Ravalli County is hereby
directed to make written findings in accordance with section
11-3866(4), R.C.M. 1947, to determine whether these proposed
subdivisions are in the public int
We Concur:
Z&xSbc,&
Chief Justice
0 . a ~
Honorable Gordon R. Bennett,
District Judge, sitting in place
of Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea