Williams v. Board of County Commissioners, 2013 MT 243

Background

Missoula County commissioners proposed the North Lolo Rural Special Zoning District to replace interim zoning that had prohibited sand/gravel mining; public notice and hearings were held and the planning board recommended approval.
§ 76-2-205(6), MCA, permits a written protest to block adoption of county zoning where either 40% of property owners protest or owners representing 50% of titled agricultural/forest land protest; a successful protest bars adoption or further proposals for one year.
Five landowners representing over 50% of agricultural/forest acreage filed such a protest, which would have blocked the zoning; Reed Williams sued the County seeking a declaration that § 76-2-205(6) was unconstitutional and injunctive relief.
The County agreed the provision was unconstitutional and the Attorney General declined to defend it; the district court granted a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment declaring the 50% agricultural/forest-land protest provision unconstitutional and severable from § 76-2-205.
Landowners intervened and moved to dismiss for failure to join necessary parties under the UDJA; the district court denied that motion and Landowners appealed, arguing (inter alia) mandatory joinder, unconstitutional delegation, equal protection/suffrage violations, and non-severability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether dismissal was required for failure to join necessary parties under the UDJA	Landowners: they were necessary parties whose interests would be affected; failure to name them requires dismissal.	Williams/County: Landowners were permitted to intervene and their rights were not prejudiced; dismissal is not required.	Court: Landowners were necessary parties but intervention cured the defect; denial of dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.
2. Whether § 76-2-205(6) (50% agricultural/forest protest) is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power	Williams: provision vests private landowners with unchecked legislative power (no standards or legislative bypass).	Landowners/ dissent: provision protects property rights and is a condition precedent/consent mechanism, not unlawful delegation.	Court: statute lacks standards and a legislative bypass; it unlawfully delegates legislative power and is unconstitutional.
3. Whether the protest provision violates equal protection and suffrage rights	Williams: provision gives unequal voting power to some property owners (fundamental voting right implicated).	Landowners: protest is property-protective, not a vote denying others’ suffrage.	Court: declined to decide separately after resolving delegation issue (relied on delegation ruling).
4. Whether the invalid protest provision is severable from § 76-2-205	Landowners: striking the provision requires invalidating the whole statute (alleged removal of severability language shows intent).	Williams/County: historical severability language existed; the 50% protest was added later and is severable without defeating legislative intent.	Court: provision is severable; remainder of § 76-2-205 stands and County’s zoning adoption is upheld.

Key Cases Cited

Liberty Cove, Inc. v. Missoula County, 220 P.3d 617 (Mont. 2009) (prior decision upholding interim zoning at same site)
Shannon v. City of Forsyth, 666 P.2d 750 (Mont. 1983) (invalidating neighbor-consent requirement as unlawful delegation absent standards or review)
Bacus v. Lake County, 354 P.2d 1056 (Mont. 1960) (delegation of lawmaking power to administrative body must include guiding standards)
Freeman v. Board of Adjustment, 34 P.2d 534 (Mont. 1934) (zoning upheld as valid police-power regulation)
Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1912) (ordinance conferring control to property holders without standards struck as unlawful delegation)
Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1917) (distinguishing constitutionally permissible property-owner consent from unlawful delegation)
Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1928) (invalidating neighbor-consent scheme lacking standards and review)
Cary v. City of Rapid City, 559 N.W.2d 891 (S.D. 1997) (striking a protest provision as an unconstitutional delegation for lacking standards and bypass)
John Alexander Ethen Trust Agreement v. River Res. Outfitters, LLC, 256 P.3d 913 (Mont. 2011) (UDJA necessary-party analysis depends on facts and interests affected)
Finke v. State ex rel. McGrath, 65 P.3d 576 (Mont. 2003) (severability analysis and presumption to avoid unconstitutional interpretation)