Helena Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Lewis & Clark County Planning & Zoning Commission
2012 MT 272
| Mont. | 2012Background
- HSG challenges District 43 zoning adopted via Part 1 zoning, which prohibits mining and favors residential uses.
- District 43 was petitioned by local landowners, with 60% affected freeholders needed for approval; protest thresholds were met/not met per statute.
- HSG owns ~421 acres north of East Helena; DEQ mining permit was granted for 110 acres but that issue remains separate from District 43.
- Growth Policy (2004) guides land use in Helena Valley, emphasizing rural residential balance and directing mining to rural areas, not transitional zones.
- Area F (transitional) around District 43 contains residential development and existing gravel pits; district boundaries were designed within this context.
- District 43’s adoption invoked staff growth-policy analysis and public input; the district was challenged for potential gerrymandering and legality under growth policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the County abuse discretion by not considering existing uses or complying with the Growth Policy? | HSG: growth policy compliance was ignored; zoning conflicts with existing land uses. | County: substantial compliance with Growth Policy; district reflects surrounding residential uses and allows orderly development. | No abuse; substantial compliance prevailed. |
| Does the mining ban in District 43 constitute illegal reverse spot zoning? | District 43 singles out HSG to block mining contrary to comprehensive planning. | District compliance with growth policy and surrounding uses negates reverse spot zoning. | Not reverse spot zoning; not in the nature of special legislation; district aligns with growth policy. |
| Does HSG have a constitutionally protected property right to seek a mining permit or takings claim against the County? | HSG has a vested property interest in expanding mining and its land value; denial/pattern injures value. | DEQ retains discretion; no guaranteed permit; no takings without a Penn Central analysis. | HSG has a protected real-property interest; remand for Penn Central takings analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson County, 283 Mont. 486 (Mont. 1997) (local plans that conflict with master plan fail substantial compliance)
- Little v. Bd. of Co. Comm’rs, 193 Mont. 334 (Mont. 1981) (substantial compliance standard for growth policies and zoning)
- Town & Country Foods, Inc. v. City of Bozeman, 2009 MT 72 (Mont. 2009) (deference to local zoning boards; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court 1978) (three-factor takings framework)
- Kafka v. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 2008 MT 460 (Mont. 2008) (threshold property interest; ad hoc Penn Central inquiry)
- Seven Up Pete Venture v. State, 327 Mont. 306 (Mont. 2005) (loss of permit opportunity not automatically a taking)
- Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Bd. of Co. Comm’rs, 2001 MT 99 (Mont. 2001) (spot zoning analysis and growth policy considerations)