Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin than .residential, zoning regulations could reasonably condition but not prohibit mining operations that mix concrete or batch asphalt. TFP argued the Board was prohibiting its mining operations because asphalt and concrete batching was necessary for it to make complete use of its gravel resources. The Board opposed both parties. The Board argued that it was within its authority to allow gravel extraction, a permitted conditional use, while prohibiting asphalt and concrete batch plants, a prohibited extractive industry. . The district court found for the Board. Both TFP and Citizens appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court found that the issuance of the CUP was not lawful. The Board failed to make certain factual findings which were required by the zoning regulations for decisions pertaining to CUPs. The basic principles of administrative and zoning law also required such findings for an adequate administrative record. The. Board failed to make any factual findings that the "gravel extraction" permitted by the regula- tions included TFP's proposed operations of extraction of gravel and on-site crushing, the court found. The court also found that the Board had failed to answer how the gravel extraction operation was "an in- dustrial use [which was] accessory to normal farm operations"-the only type of industrial use permitted under the Plan (which the court found controlled over the zoning regulations). The court also concluded that the Board abused its discretion by issuing the CUP without making findings required by the zoning regu- lations regarding adequate streets and the absence of environmental constraints. The. Board failed to make factual findings as to how the conditions attached to the CUP would address the impacts of TFP's operations on the substandard roads, the court said. The Board also failed to make any findings related to water quality, the court said. The court noted that while compliance with DEQ regulations might be sufficient to protect water quality in the District, the Board still had to provide some level of factual foundation for this position. Finally, the court addressed TFP's argument that the Board improp- erly prohibited asphalt and concrete batch operations. State statutory law (Mont. Code Ann. ~ 76-2-209) provided that in all zones other than residential, zoning regulations could reasonably condition but not prohibit mining operations that mix concrete or batch asphalt. TFP argued that because the District was not zoned strictly residential, the Board could only reasonably condition, but not prohibit, itsmin- ing operations. TFP argued that Condition No. 28 of the CUP, which prohibited concrete and asphalt batch plants, violated the state statute because the condition denied it the ability to make complete use of its gravel resources. 6 130 ")