## Facts

- Cascade County approved rezoning approximately 668 acres owned by the Urquhart family from agricultural to heavy industrial.
- The rezoning was sought to enable construction and operation of a natural-gas-fired power plant, the Highwood Generating Station, by Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (SME).
- The property was surrounded by agricultural land historically used for farming and ranching.
- A County planning report acknowledged incompatibility with existing agricultural uses but reasoned the facility could have been authorized under existing agricultural zoning through a special-use permit.
- SME pursued rezoning rather than a special-use permit to support creation of a tax-increment financing district.
- Nearby landowners and related plaintiffs challenged the rezoning in district court seeking to set aside the decision and obtain extraordinary and declaratory relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the County and SME on the claim that the rezoning was illegal spot zoning.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the County and SME cross-appealed, arguing among other things that the challenge was barred by an earlier supervisory-control proceeding and that later events mooted the case.

## Issues

1. Whether a prior appellate denial of a petition for supervisory control precluded the plaintiffs’ later merits challenge or required them to secure a stay or injunction to preserve the case.
2. Whether the challenge to the rezoning was moot due to subsequent sale of the property and further steps toward development.
3. Whether the possibility of approving the power plant via special-use permit under existing zoning foreclosed a spot-zoning challenge to the rezoning.
4. Whether rezoning the parcel from agricultural to heavy industrial constituted illegal spot zoning under the three-part test of Little.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the County and SME.
- The Court held the prior denial of supervisory control was not a merits adjudication and had no preclusive effect; plaintiffs were not required to obtain a stay or injunction.
- The Court held the case was not moot despite the sale of the property and subsequent development actions.
- The Court held the availability of a special-use permit under the existing zoning did not bar a spot-zoning challenge to the rezoning.
- Applying the Little test, the Court concluded the rezoning was illegal spot zoning and invalidated the rezoning ordinance.

## Legal Principles

- A summary denial of an extraordinary writ petition (including supervisory control) is not a final merits adjudication and generally has no claim-preclusive effect.
- A zoning challenge is not rendered moot merely because the property has changed hands or development steps have occurred; courts may still invalidate an unlawful zoning decision.
- The legality of a rezoning is evaluated on its own terms; the existence of alternative permitting paths (such as a special-use permit) does not insulate a rezoning from spot-zoning review.
- Illegal spot zoning is assessed under the Little test, considering whether the rezoning: (1) authorizes a use significantly different from prevailing nearby uses, (2) confers special treatment on a parcel primarily benefiting a particular owner or developer, and (3) is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or general zoning scheme.
- A rezoning that isolates a parcel for a markedly different use in a predominantly uniform area, primarily to accommodate a single project, and contrary to governing growth policy or planning documents may be invalid as arbitrary and capricious spot zoning.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside Cascade County’s heavy-industrial rezoning of an otherwise agricultural parcel, holding it was illegal spot zoning under Little; neither an earlier extraordinary-writ denial nor later property transactions prevented judicial review or invalidation of the ordinance.


Plains Grains Ltd. P’ship v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cascade Cnty., 2010 MT 155, 357 Mont. 61, 238 P.3d 332 (Mont. 2010)