## Facts

- Yellowstone County created Zoning District No. 17 in 1994 and adopted regulations governing single-family dwellings, including a requirement of “on-site construction with new materials” to be completed within one year.
- In 1999, Francis and Anita Yurczyk bought approximately 80 acres within District 17.
- In 2000, the Yurczyks placed a modular home on their property; it was built off-site and delivered in sections for assembly on the property.
- After a complaint, the Yellowstone County Planning Department informed the Yurczyks the modular home violated the on-site construction requirement and must be removed.
- The District 17 Board of Adjustment upheld the Planning Department’s interpretation that modular homes were prohibited under the on-site construction provision.
- The Yurczyks sued, challenging (1) whether District 17 and its regulations were adopted in compliance with Montana zoning statutes and (2) whether the on-site construction rule was unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied to exclude modular homes; they also sought damages.
- The district court found substantial statutory compliance in forming and regulating District 17, held the on-site construction requirement unconstitutional under substantive due process, and awarded damages including stitch-crew costs and delay-related losses.
- The County appealed and the Yurczyks cross-appealed; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Yellowstone County substantially complied with Mont. Code Ann. §§ 76-2-104 and 76-2-107 in creating Zoning District No. 17 and adopting its regulations.
2. Whether enforcing the “on-site construction” regulation to exclude modular homes violated substantive due process and equal protection, or was void for vagueness.
3. Whether the district court erred in awarding damages for stitch-crew costs and for losses attributable to delay in the Yurczyks’ ability to sell the property.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full.
- The County substantially complied with the statutory procedures for creating the zoning district and adopting regulations.
- The on-site construction requirement, as enforced to exclude modular homes, violated substantive due process because it lacked a real and substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- The damages award for stitch-crew costs and delay-related losses was supported by the record and was not reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- County zoning actions are not invalidated for technical procedural imperfections where the governmental body substantially complies with statutory requirements and fulfills the statutes’ notice-and-hearing purposes.
- A zoning restriction affecting property rights must bear a real and substantial relation to legitimate public health, safety, morals, or general welfare; otherwise, enforcement violates substantive due process.
- When officials cannot identify concrete health, safety, or welfare interests served by a restriction (as applied), the restriction may be unconstitutional.
- Compensatory damages may be awarded for reasonably attributable costs and economic losses proximately caused by enforcement of an invalid land-use regulation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the procedural validity of Yellowstone County’s creation of Zoning District No. 17 but held that excluding modular homes through an on-site construction requirement violated substantive due process because the County failed to show a real and substantial connection to legitimate public purposes; the related damages award was affirmed.


Yurczyk v. Yellowstone Cnty., 319 Mont. 169, 83 P.3d 266 (2004)