Montana Supreme Court: Public Participation Requires Notice—Even in “Exempt” Subdivision Decisions
When land is divided in Montana, the process isn’t just paperwork—it can reshape roads, water use, wildfire risk, and neighborhood character. In Sapphire Coalition v. Ravalli County, the Montana Supreme Court reinforced a basic civic principle: the public’s right to participate is meaningless if the public never learns a decision is being made. The Court reversed a district court dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings.
The dispute arose from Ravalli County’s approval of a family transfer subdivision exemption that allowed an 80-acre tract to be divided into eight 10-acre parcels. The application was submitted January 13, 2020, and approved nine working days later—without any public notice beforehand. The Sapphire Coalition later alleged the approval violated local regulations, state law, and the constitutional rights to know and participate.
The legal question the Supreme Court decided was narrow but important: Do Ravalli County’s subdivision regulations require public notice before the Planning Department approves a subdivision exemption? The district court had concluded “no,” reasoning the regulations did not require published notice.
The Supreme Court disagreed based on the plain language of the County Regulations. The regulations expressly state that “the applicant and the public shall be permitted to comment” on exemption proposals. From there, the Court drew a common-sense conclusion grounded in Montana public participation doctrine: the opportunity to comment is “meaningless unless the public receives notice” of a pending application—because the “essential elements of public participation are ‘notice and an opportunity to be heard.’”
Ravalli County argued that notice wasn’t necessary because records were available to the public upon request, and nothing “prevented” residents from asking for documents or submitting comments. The Court rejected that logic, explaining that notice is what “effectuates” the opportunity to comment—people can’t request what they don’t know exists. The Court also noted the practical problem: an approval in nine working days makes meaningful input even harder without affirmative notice.
The remedy also underscores the participatory theme. Because the parties did not dispute there was no public notice, the Court directed that the exemption application be remanded for reevaluation after notice that provides an adequate opportunity to comment. The Court did not dictate exactly what form notice must take, but emphasized it must be adequate “based on the circumstances.” And because the Court resolved the case on the County Regulations, it did not reach the separate arguments under the Montana Public Participation Act.
For the public, the takeaway is simple: participation isn’t a box to check after the fact. When a local rule promises a chance to comment, agencies must provide notice that makes that promise real. For counties and planning departments statewide, the decision is a reminder that “exempt” does not mean “invisible”—and that the right to participate depends on procedures that let residents know when decisions are being made, not just where records can be found later.
MSWD attorneys Rob Farris-Olsen and Kim Wilson represented the Sapphire Coalition.