Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson County
| Citation | 283 Mont. 486,943 P.2d 85,54 St. Rep. 756 |
| Decision Date | 23 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-203,96-203 |
| Parties | ASH GROVE CEMENT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY; and Chuck Notbohm, Glenna Obie and Leonard Wortman, the Commissioners of Jefferson County, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
John Alke (argued); Hughes, Kellner, Sullivan & Alke, Helena, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Valerie D. Wilson (argued), Jefferson County Attorney, Boulder, for Defendants and Respondents.
Ash Grove Cement Company (Ash Grove) appeals from the order of the Fifth Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, granting summary judgment in favor of Jefferson County and the Jefferson County Commissioners and dismissing Ash Grove's complaint. We reverse and remand with instructions.
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Does state law prohibit Jefferson County from regulating air and water quality and siting hazardous waste facilities?
2. Did Jefferson County unlawfully establish the boundaries of a zoning district via 3. Did Jefferson County properly adopt the local vicinity plan for a portion of north Jefferson County on either a stand-alone basis or as an amendment to, or partial repeal of, the comprehensive master plan?
adoption of the local vicinity plan for a portion of north Jefferson County?
Ash Grove owns and operates limestone quarries and a cement plant near Montana City, in Jefferson County. In recent years, substantial residential development in the area has resulted in increased enrollment at the Montana City School, located approximately one-half mile from Ash Grove.
In the spring of 1992, the Jefferson County Planning Board (Planning Board) began developing a comprehensive master plan (Master Plan) for Jefferson County. While the Master Plan was being developed, Ash Grove was considering burning hazardous waste in its dry fuel cement kiln and, in 1993, it filed applications for the necessary permits. A group of Montana City residents opposed to Ash Grove's proposed burning of hazardous waste formed an organization called "Montanans for a Healthy Future" (MHF). In November of 1993, numerous residents of Jefferson County, including members of the MHF, petitioned the Planning Board to include language in the Master Plan addressing the burning of hazardous waste. At some point thereafter, Ash Grove withdrew its applications for the permits to burn hazardous waste.
In response to concerns about Ash Grove's interest in burning hazardous waste, the Planning Board included language in the proposed Master Plan which would allow residents of each Jefferson County "community" or "vicinity" to work with it in developing planning and implementation programs consistent with the Master Plan. These local vicinity plans could include "performance standards" covering air pollution or the handling and disposal of hazardous waste.
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (County Commissioners) adopted the Master Plan by Resolution No. 46-93 in December of 1993 "for its jurisdictional area (the entirety of Jefferson County outside of the limits of the incorporated towns of Boulder and Whitehall)." Ash Grove's cement plant and mining quarries are located within this jurisdictional area.
The "fundamental goal" of the Master Plan is to "help guide and manage community change to best serve its citizens' overall long-term interests." To that end, the Master Plan recognizes that three basic forces--economic, physical and social/cultural--shape all communities and that these forces must be considered together and balanced to best achieve the citizens' goals. The "Community Goals Statement" in the Master Plan summarizes the citizens' goals relating to each of these three forces; each goal is followed by a list of objectives meant to accomplish the goal. The goals and objectives set forth in the Master Plan are intended to guide future decision-making in planning and zoning decisions for the county.
Insofar as they relate to the present dispute between Ash Grove and Jefferson County, the Master Plan's stated goals and objectives seek to retain existing industries, support economic development throughout the county, preserve the county's scenic beauty and healthful environment and invte continued mineral exploration, extraction and refinement. The Master Plan recognizes that the culture and economy of Jefferson County historically have been dependent on land utilization and states, in this regard, that "Montana City is ... the site of a plant that produces cement out of raw materials mined in the nearby vicinity."
The Master Plan classifies the area around the Ash Grove cement plant as "Mining and Industrial: Intensive Mineral Processing and Industrial Uses." The stated purpose of this land use classification is
[t]o encourage the preservation of, continued use and expansion of these areas for mining, processing or industrial activities in a manner that will provide fair and reasonable protection of properties in nearby vicinities.
The Master Plan classifies the areas around Ash Grove's quarries as "Mining: Active Surface," with the stated purpose of
encourag[ing] the maximum utilization of mineral resource areas currently being mined or planned to be developed for surface mining activities in a manner consistent with community protection objectives.
Over a period of nearly two years after formal adoption of the Master Plan in 1993, a group of residents from the Montana City area worked together with the Planning Board to develop a local vicinity plan for the specific area of northern Jefferson County in which Ash Grove is located. In the early stages, the local vicinity plan included proposed zoning regulations which prohibited the treatment, storage, disposal or incineration of hazardous waste within two miles of a school, residence or day care facility. The Jefferson County Planner subsequently noted numerous problems with the proposed zoning ordinance.
The County Commissioners then hired an attorney to review the proposed local vicinity plan and zoning ordinances. The attorney advised that the County Commissioners should adopt the local vicinity plan and zoning regulations sequentially rather than simultaneously. The proposed local vicinity plan was revised accordingly to delete the accompanying zoning regulations.
Jefferson County adopted the Local Vicinity Plan for a Portion of North Jefferson County (LVP) pursuant to Resolution No. 51-95 on September 26, 1995. The County Commissioners stated that they were amending the Master Plan via adoption of the LVP and that
to the extent that the Jefferson County Master Plan contains any provisions inconsistent with the Vicinity Plan, the Jefferson County Master Plan should be deemed amended, repealed and/or superseded by the provisions of the Vicinity Plan.
The LVP states that the area it covers has a "unique rural residential character" and is
home to active farms and ranches, residential subdivisions, neighborhood retail and commercial business operations, offices and professional uses, child care and day care facilities, school and other governmental uses and facilities.
Although Ash Grove also is located in the area, the LVP fails to mention industrial uses or mining.
One of the stated goals of the LVP is to create location standards for the placement of facilities which treat, store, dispose of or burn hazardous waste a certain distance from schools, day care facilities and residences. The LVP also sets forth goals for the preservation and enhancement of water and air quality and "[t]o plan for and guide future development in a manner consistent with the Jefferson County Master (Comprehensive) Plan."
Ash Grove challenged the validity of the LVP on numerous grounds in a declaratory judgment action brought against Jefferson County and its County Commissioners (collectively, Jefferson County) in October of 1995. Both Jefferson County and Ash Grove moved for summary judgment, the motions were fully briefed, and oral arguments were presented in February of 1996. The District Court subsequently granted Jefferson County's motion, denied Ash Grove's motion and dismissed the entirety of Ash Grove's complaint. Ash Grove appeals.
Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., criteria used by that court. Matter of Estate of Lien (1995), 270 Mont. 295, 298, 892 P.2d 530, 532 (citation omitted). Ordinarily, such a review requires that we first determine whether the moving party met its burden of establishing both the absence of genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Estate of Lien, 892 P.2d at 532.
In this case, however, the dispositive facts surrounding the simultaneous adoption of the LVP and amendment of the Master Plan are undisputed. Through their cross-motions for summary judgment, each party asserted entitlement
to judgment as a matter of law. The District Court having granted Jefferson County's motion for summary judgment, we need only determine whether the court correctly concluded that Jefferson County is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether the interpretation of the law is correct. Carbon County v. [283 Mont. 492] Union Reserve Coal Co., Inc. (1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686 (citation omitted).
Ash Grove argues that Jefferson County cannot regulate air and water quality or set siting requirements for hazardous waste facilities through adoption of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heffernan v. Missoula City Council
...in Bridger Canyon Prop. Owners' Assn. v. Plan. and Zoning Commn., 270 Mont. 160, 890 P.2d 1268 (1995), and Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson County, 283 Mont. 486, 943 P.2d 85 (1997). ¶ 70 In 2003, the Legislature revised some of the laws related to growth policies and planning boards. One ......
-
Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Flathead Cnty.
...for a Livable Missoula, Inc. v. City Council , 2006 MT 47, ¶ 23, 331 Mont. 269, 130 P.3d 1259 ; Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson Cnty. , 283 Mont. 486, 495–96, 943 P.2d 85, 91 (1997) ; Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs , 2016 MT 256, ¶¶ 25–31, 385 Mont. 156, 381 P.3d 5......
-
Deserly v. Department of Corrections
...issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson County (1997), 283 Mont. 486, 491, 943 P.2d 85, 88; Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same Rule......
-
Helena Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Lewis & Clark Cnty. Planning & Zoning Comm'n
...“actually [use the] additional information in any meaningful way.” It contends this case is comparable to Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson County, 283 Mont. 486, 943 P.2d 85 (1997), where we held that the zoning board had implemented regulations that conflicted with existing uses. The Coun......