Plains Grains Ltd. Partnership v. Board of County Commissioners
2010 MT 155, 357 Mont. 61, 238 P.3d 332 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Rezoning a small parcel of land for a use that is significantly different from the prevailing surrounding uses, for the benefit of a single landowner, and to the detriment of neighboring landowners or the public, constitutes impermissible spot zoning.
Facts:
- Duane and Mary E. Urquhart and Scott and Linda Urquhart (Urquharts) owned a 668-acre parcel of land in Cascade County, which was zoned Agricultural (A-2).
- The land surrounding the parcel was also used for agricultural purposes.
- On October 30, 2007, the Urquharts, in conjunction with Southern Montana Electric (SME), submitted an application to rezone the parcel to Heavy Industrial (I-2).
- The stated purpose of the rezone was to allow SME to construct and operate a power plant, known as the Highwood Generating Station (HGS).
- Prior to the County's approval of the rezone, the Urquharts had agreed to sell the property to SME.
- The Cascade County Planning Department's staff report noted that the construction and operation of the HGS would be "out of character with the existing agricultural land uses in the vicinity."
- Following the County Commission's approval of the rezone on March 11, 2008, the Urquharts sold the property to SME on August 25, 2008.
- SME initially proposed a coal-fired power plant but later changed its proposal to a natural gas-fired plant.
Procedural Posture:
- Plains Grains filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, requesting the court to set aside the County's rezone approval.
- SME and the Urquharts intervened in the case to defend the rezone.
- The District Court rejected the defendants' argument that the case was moot due to the sale of the property.
- The District Court denied Plains Grains' motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the County and SME, upholding the rezone.
- Plains Grains petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control, which ordered the District Court to issue a final, appealable judgment.
- The District Court issued a final order and judgment granting summary judgment to the County on all claims.
- Plains Grains (appellant) appealed the District Court's final judgment to the Montana Supreme Court; the County (appellee) cross-appealed on the mootness issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the rezoning of 668 acres of land from Agricultural to Heavy Industrial constitute impermissible spot zoning?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Morris
Yes, the rezoning of 668 acres of land from Agricultural to Heavy Industrial constituted impermissible spot zoning. The court applied the three-part test from Little v. Board of County Comm’rs and found all three conditions for spot zoning were met. First, the requested heavy industrial use for a power plant differs significantly from the prevailing agricultural uses in the surrounding area. The court rejected the argument that the potential availability of a special use permit made the uses compatible. Second, the rezone benefits a very small number of landowners—effectively only SME. Third, the rezone constitutes special legislation designed to benefit a single landowner (SME) at the expense of surrounding farmers and ranchers, who would be negatively impacted by the industrial development. Therefore, the rezone created an impermissible island of heavy industrial use within a large agricultural area.
Dissenting - Justice Rice
The court should not decide this issue because the appeal is moot. The dissent argues the case is moot for two primary reasons. First, Plains Grains failed to seek a stay or injunction of the district court's judgment, allowing SME to proceed with development and expend millions of dollars, which makes it impossible to restore the parties to their original positions. Second, Cascade County adopted a new county-wide zoning ordinance in 2009, which superseded the regulations under which the 2008 rezone was challenged. Citing Country Highlands, the dissent contends this subsequent legislative action renders the challenge to the prior zoning map moot, and any new challenge must be brought under the new ordinance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the application of the Little test for impermissible spot zoning, establishing that the mere theoretical possibility of obtaining a special use permit for a use does not prevent that use from being considered "significantly different" from prevailing uses. The case creates a key distinction in mootness jurisprudence by holding that a sale of property to a co-applicant for a rezone does not moot a challenge in the same way a sale to a bona fide third-party purchaser might. This holding contrasts sharply with cases like Povsha, creating tension in the doctrine and highlighting the importance of seeking a stay pending appeal, a point heavily emphasized by the dissent.
