Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~, <br />( )) <br />'.. -, <br /> <br />10, <br /> <br />\0) <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />October 25, 20091 Volume 3 I No, 20 <br /> <br />Jurisdiction-County zoning regulations <br />Ilreservedll (for the fllture) specific standards <br />for land uses in the district <br /> <br />Business argues "reserved" means general standards do not <br />apply and therefore county lacks jurisdiction <br /> <br />Citation: Powell County v. Country Village, LLC, 2009 MT 294, <br />2009 WL 2783434 (Mont. 2009) <br /> <br />MONTANA (09/02/09)-Happy Endings Casino purchased <br />Country Village. Country Village Was a casino, convenience store, <br />gas station, and restaurant in the business district of the city. Happy <br />Endings remodeled the interior of the casino and expanded it by add- <br />ing six gambling machines. However, Happy Endings also sought to <br />eliminate the convenience store use, the county planning department <br />(the "Planning Department") directed Happy Endings to submit an <br />application for a conditional use permit ("CUP"). Happy Endings did <br />so. Its cOP application sought approval for four logo signs, including <br />an LCD display sign, and 50 lighted palm trees. <br />After reviewing the CUP application, the Planning Department <br />recommended that the county planning board (the "Board") approve <br />the gambling casino and three logo signs. However, it recommend- <br />ed that the Board deny the 50 lighted palm trees and LCD sign. The <br />Board adopted those recommendations. <br />Happy Endings did not appeal the Board's decision. This was be- <br />cause it "felt that the Planning Department and [Board] did not have. <br />jurisdiction over the geographical area in which [Happy Endings] <br />was located." <br />Despite the Board's decision prohibiting lighted palm trees at the <br />casino, Happy Endings erected 25 lighted palm trees at the casino. <br />Subsequently, the county filed a petition for a restrajning order. It <br />sought a court order: requiring Happy Endings to remove the exist- <br />ing palm trees; and prohibiting Happy Endings from erecting ad&- <br />tional palm trees. . <br />The district court issued the restraining order. Among other things, <br />the district court determined that the Board did have jurisdiction to <br />require a CUP, which was required based on the change in use from <br />primarily a convenience store to a gambling casinQ. <br />Happy Endings appealed. Among other things, it argued that the <br />Board did not have jurisdiction to require Happy Endings to ap- <br />ply for a CUP. Happy Endings based its arguments on the follow- <br />ing relevant facts: Happy Endings was located in a planning area <br />"donut" encircling the city, but outside of city limits. At one time, <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />21 <br />