April 2004

Planning

Copyright by American Planning Association

Modular Home Ban Violates Due Process Rights

By James Lawlor

A zoning regulation permitting only "stick-built" houses violates a landowner's substantive due process rights, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled.

When the Board of Commissioners of Yellowstone County (pop. 130,000) adopted zoning regulations for Zoning District 17 in 1994, they allowed only "on-site construction with new materials." The county planning department issued a clarification four years later explicitly forbidding modular and manufactured homes.

So in May 2000, when Francis and Anita Yurczyk moved a modular house to one of two lots they own in District 17, the planning department ordered it removed. The District 17 board of adjustment affirmed the ruling.

The Yurczyks sued the county to invalidate the on-site construction regulation. When the trial court agreed that the regulation violated the Yurczyks' due process and equal protection rights, and was void for vagueness, the county appealed.

The county argued on appeal that the regulation had a bearing on the welfare of the community by helping to preserve property values, and so did not violate the Yurczyks' due process rights. But the Yurczyks contended that the ordinance did not protect property values and interfered with their constitutional right to use and enjoy their property.

A zoning ordinance is a constitutional exercise of police power if it has a substantial bearing on public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, the supreme court observed. The county argued that the court need not consider whether the regulation actually preserved property values, but whether the commissioners, at the time they passed the ordinance, could reasonably have believed that the regulation would protect property values. But the Yurczyks correctly pointed out, the court noted, that cases the county cited to support its position involved state and federal legislation, not local zoning ordinances.

No health issues here

The regulation at issue in this case did not have a substantial bearing on the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, the court said. The county's witnesses could not identify any health issues and only minimal safety concerns that the provision addressed.

While a resident's ability to control his environment and preserve property values may be legitimate governmental concerns in some zoning situations, nothing in the record demonstrated that those concerns actually drove enactment of the regulations, the court declared. In fact, the record indicated the Yurczyks' house would have no effect on property values in the neighborhood. Because the regulation was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, the Yurczyks' due process rights were violated, the court said.

The court also ruled that the regulation was unconstitutionally vague. County officials themselves could not agree on what "on-site construction" meant under the regulations, the court observed, so it was hard to see how the general public could know its meaning.

The court implicitly refused to grant legislative action by county commissioners the deference usually granted to enactments by Congress and state legislatures. The court appears to have adopted the position that it is not enough for the members of a local legislative body to reasonably believe a regulation they enact will correct a perceived evil; it must actually do so to be valid.

The ruling in Yurczyk v. Yellowstone County came in January.