Opinion ID: 889368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The 2009 zoning ordinance

Text: ¶ 18 On August 25, 2009, while this case was pending on appeal, the Cascade County Commission voted to approve amendments to Sections 1 through 5 and 7 through 16 of the Cascade County Zoning Regulations (CCZR) and zoning map. The Planning Board cited the need to update the regulations and definitions and to alter certain zoning districts and boundaries. The 2009 amendments reflected the County's desire to update zoning definitions and to clarify regulations dealing with hoofed animals on residential lots and setbacks for wind turbines, among other matters. The amendments did not change or modify the I-2 Heavy Industrial designation created by the 2008 rezoning of the SME property. The amendments likewise did not change the zoning of any of the surrounding land. The SME property retains its I-2 designation (Heavy Industrial) implemented by the 2008 rezone at issue here. The surrounding land continues to be zoned Agricultural. ¶ 19 The County inexplicably waited until six days before the scheduled oral argument to file a notice of supplemental authority with this Court. The County represented that the 2009 version of the CCZR had replaced the zoning regulations in effect at the time of the District Court's November 28, 2008, order. The County claimed at oral argument that the new version of the CCZR superseded the version in place at the time of the 2008 contested rezone. The County argued that these amendments ratified the 2008 rezone and therefore mooted Plains Grains' challenges to the 2008 rezone. This Court ordered supplemental briefs from both parties as to what effect the County's adoption of the 2009 CCZR amendments had on Plains Grains' claims. ¶ 20 SME separately filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness on August 25, 2009. SME claimed that it had invested millions of dollars in site work, development of water sources, purchasing and securing space on the transmission network and commencing construction of certain concrete and steel foundation structures after its purchase of the property. SME claimed that, having undertaken these activities, it could no longer be restored to its original position. SME filed a second motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness on April 9, 2010. SME based this second motion to dismiss on Plains Grains' failure to appeal the August 2009 amendments to the CCZR by the March 1, 2010, deadline. SME argued that the August 2009 amendments had rendered moot Plains Grains spot zoning claim. We address each of SME's motions in due course.