Opinion ID: 884702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Necessity of special use permit

Text: ¶ 17 As noted, Sutey Oil first argues the provisions of the Anaconda-Deer Lodge County Development Permit System did not require that it obtain a special use permit in this case. Sutey Oil points specifically to Chapter XII of the County's Development Permit System which governs development in the Highway Commercial Development District in which Sutey Oil's Thriftway Super Store is located. Sutey Oil argues that the expansion it proposed constituted a permitted use pursuant to the provisions of Chapter XII, and asserts it was thus not required to obtain a special use permit. Because it did not need a special use permit, Sutey Oil argues, that the Planning Board subsequently denied its application should have no legal effect upon Mr. Sutey's right to operate a gaming room and acquire an on-premise beer and wine license at his present commercial location. ¶ 18 In response, respondents note that Sutey Oil did not appeal the Development Permit System administrator's decision to require a special use permit in this case, but instead agreed to follow the process and submitted an application for a special use permit. Respondents assert that, because Sutey Oil did not appeal from the Development Permit System administrator's decision requiring that it obtain a special use permit, Sutey Oil failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on this issue. ¶ 19 Neither the District Court's initial order remanding this case to the Planning Board, nor its final decision affirming the Board of Adjustment's decision contain a discussion regarding the propriety of the Development Permit System administrator's decision requiring that Sutey Oil obtain a special use permit to proceed with its proposed expansion. Moreover, nowhere does Sutey Oil dispute the respondents' assertion that it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and is thus precluded from objecting on appeal to the requirement that it secure a special use permit. In light of the foregoing, we decline to address Sutey Oil's argument that it should not have been required to secure a special use permit under the circumstances of this case.