Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

October 25, 20091 Volume 31 No. 20 Zoning Bulletin that "donut" was, by an agreement between the city arid county, ex- cluded from the county's planning jurisdiction. However, that agree- ment had terminated, and the county zoning regulations had been amended to create "District 5," encompassing the planning area "donut." Rdevant provisions of the county zoning reguI,!tions pro- vided as follows: Under ~ I-E, the Board had jurisdiction over "all of the unincorporated area[s] of [the county] ...." Under ~ III-B, before any person could "construct, place, move or significantly expand ap- proved uses identified in each Zoning District," they had to obtain a CUP from the Board. Chapter IV provided specific requirements for individual districts, and ~ VI-F-3 "reserved" specific standards for the District 5 "donut." Section VI-F-3 provided that "[i]n addition to the requirements ~of Chapter V, Chapter VII, and Chapter VITI," the standards for a CUP in tl).e District 5 "donut" were "Reserved." Happy Endings argued that "reserved" meant that general standards applicable to the county did not apply to District 5 because specific standards for District 5 were reserved to be addressed in the future. The ~ounty countered that "reserved" myant that the county's zoning regulation's general standards would be incorporated into the provisions applicable to District 5. Thus, the county maintained that under ~~ I-E and III-B, the Board had jurisdiction to require Happy Endings to apply for a CUP. DECISION: Reversed in part and remanded. The Supreme Court of Montana held that the Board had juris- diction to require Happy Endings to apply for a CUP. Reading the zoning regulations as a whole, it was "clear" to the court that the county intended to treat District 5 in the same manner as Districts No.1 through 4 in regard to CUP requirements. Chapter VI, which provided certain specific requirements for Districts No.1 through 5, did not specifically incorporate the requirements. of Chapters III and Nior any of the districts. The fact that specific standards for Dis- trict 5 we're "reserved" in the zoning regulations did "not nullify the applicability of general county-wide standards to District 5." Under the general standards (~ l~E), the Board had jurisdiction over all of the unincorporated areas of "the county. The "donut" where Happy Endings' casino was located was an unincorporated area of the coun- ty. Thus, under ~~ I-E and III-B the Board had jurisdiction over any changes in use by Happy Endings at the casino. See also: State v. Brendal, 2009 MT 236, 351 Mont. 395, 213 P.3d 448 (2009). Case. Note: In its decision, the court also noted that "an agen- cy's interpretation of its rule is afforded great weight." The court 6 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 22 () () t,)