Mustang Run Wind Project, LLC v. Osage County Board of Adjustment
2016 OK 113
Okla.2016Background
- Mustang Run Wind Project, LLC applied to the Osage County Board of Adjustment for a conditional use permit to build a 68‑turbine wind energy facility on ~9,400 acres; the Board denied the application after public hearings.
- Mustang appealed to the Osage County District Court; the Osage Nation and Osage Minerals Council intervened. The district court held a trial de novo on the board record and other submissions.
- The district judge found Mustang had met ordinance and regulatory requirements, rejected opponents’ evidence as speculative (wildlife impacts, viewshed, burial sites, mineral harm, property‑value loss), and ordered the Board to issue a conditional use permit subject to reasonable additional conditions.
- The Osage County Board of Adjustment and the Osage Nation appealed, advancing mainly two legal claims: (1) county boards lack statutory authority to grant conditional/special use permits, and (2) the district court failed to apply local ordinances and improperly substituted its own ‘‘vision’’ for the Board’s discretion.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal and reviewed whether county boards have authority to grant conditional use permits, whether the district court properly reviewed the record and applied standards, and whether the district court’s factual findings were against the clear weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Mustang's Argument | Board/Osage Nation's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Authority: Can a county Board of Adjustment grant conditional/special use permits? | Ordinances and the City‑County Planning and Zoning Act authorize Boards to hear/decide special questions and grant conditional uses under local ordinances. | Legislation does not expressly give county boards power to grant special/specific use permits; county boards only have narrow powers under statute. | Board has authority to grant conditional use permits under §866.23 and the Pawhuska‑Osage County ordinances; Court rejects Nation's blanket prohibition. |
| 2. Record & ordinance application: Did the district court fail to consider/apply Ordinance §6.5.2 and Wind Energy Ordinance? | Mustang: district court reviewed complete record, public hearing transcript, and parties’ submissions; ordinances were before the court by parties’ reliance. | Board: trial court’s order did not cite §6.5.2 specifically, so it must not have applied it. | Trial court considered the ordinance‑based objections and the record; failure to cite the ordinance in the order did not render the decision invalid—substance over form. |
| 3. Scope of discretion: May the Board deny a conditional use even when applicant satisfies ordinance conditions? | If applicant meets ordinance conditions, permit should follow; Board may impose reasonable additional conditions but not exercise unfettered discretion to deny based on amorphous ‘‘vision.’’ | Board claims broad discretion to deny for ‘‘general welfare’’ reasons even if ordinance standards are met. | Board’s discretion is quasi‑judicial, bounded by evidence and fixed principles; it cannot arbitrarily withhold a conditional use that meets ordinance standards. |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence: Were the district court’s factual findings against the clear weight of the evidence? | Mustang: evidence showed compliance and objections were speculative; district court’s findings supported. | Opponents: substantial deference/presumption in favor of Board decision; Mustang failed burden. | District court’s findings are supported by the record and not against the clear weight of the evidence; judgment affirmed (permit to be issued with reasonable conditions). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankoff v. Board of Adjustment of Wagoner County, 875 P.2d 1138 (Okla. 1994) (discusses de novo review power of district court and standards for boards of adjustment)
- Nucholls v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Tulsa, 560 P.2d 556 (Okla. 1977) (boards of adjustment exercise quasi‑judicial, not legislative, power; discretion must be reasonable)
- Triangle Fraternity v. City of Norman ex rel. Bd. of Adjustment, 63 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2002) (standard of appellate review for district court determinations on board appeals)
- Harts Book Stores, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 281 S.E.2d 761 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981) (when applicant meets ordinance conditions, a special/conditional use permit cannot be withheld arbitrarily)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (zoning/regulatory actions must not be arbitrary or unreasonable under police power)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (U.S. 2013) (exemplifies limits on conditioning permits absent nexus and rough proportionality)