Brazinski v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'r of Teton Cty.

546 P.3d 545

2024 WY 40

V. Kathie BRAZINSKI; Case M. Brown; Margaret E. Creel; Joseph M. Demarsh; Jan Demarsh-Lovett; Lloyd Dorsey and Michele W. Dorsey, Trustees of the Dorsey Revocable Trust dated 12/5/2012; Mark Lovett; Allison F. Merritt; and Janice K. Smith, Trustee of the William R. and Janice K. Smith Revocable Trust, dated 3/15/2005, Appellants (Petitioners),

v.BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellee (Respondent),andStage Stop, Inc., Appellee (Intervenor/Respondent).

S-23-0157

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 10, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, The Honorable Melissa M. Owens, Judge

Representing Appellants: William P. Schwartz, Leah C. Schwartz of Ranck & Schwartz, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Schwartz.

Representing Appellee Board of County Commissioners of Teton County: Abigail S. Moore, Deputy County Attorney, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Stage Stop, Inc.: Brandon L. Jensen, Rachael L. Buzanowski of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Jensen.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ,^* BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] V. Kathie Brazinski, Case M. Brown, Margaret E. Creel, Joseph M. DeMarsh, Jan DeMarsh-Lovett, Mark Lovett, Allison F. Merritt, Lloyd Dorsey and Michele W. Dorsey, as Trustees of the Dorsey Revocable Trust, and Janice K. Smith, as Trustee of the William R. and Janice K. Smith Revocable Trust (hereinafter referred to collectively as Objectors) were residents of the Rafter J Ranch (Rafter J) Subdivision in Teton County. They appeal the Teton County Board of County Commissioners’ (Board) approval of Intervenor Stage Stop, Inc.’s petition to amend the Rafter J Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow Stage Stop to use Lot 333 of the Rafter J Subdivision for workforce apartments. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] The issues raised on appeal are:

1. Is the Board’s approval of the Rafter J PUD Amendment subject to judicial review?

2. Did the Board err by allowing the Rafter J PUD Amendment to change the use on Lot 333 without requiring a vacation of the Rafter J Subdivision Plat (Plat)?

3. Was the Board’s approval of the Rafter J PUD Amendment to allow workforce apartments as a conditional use of Lot 333 arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law?

FACTS

[¶3] The Board approved the Rafter J Subdivision in 1977, and the Plat was recorded in early 1978. The Rafter J Subdivision, which encompassed 447.83 acres, was divided into lots with uses designated in the notes on the Plat (Plat Notes), including mostly single residence lots, a few lots labeled for multiple dwellings, and a few lots set aside for facilities providing services and amenities to the Subdivision. Lot 333, containing 5.37 acres, was designated in the Plat Notes as "Ranch Headquarters & Local Commercial."

[¶4] When the Board approved the Rafter J Plat in 1977, Teton County did not have a comprehensive land use plan. However, after the Board approved Rafter J, it adopted a comprehensive plan and land development regulations in 1978 (1978 LDRs). Although the 1978 LDRs recognized PUDs, there was no formal PUD zone or application process; instead, "PUDs were often reviewed as part of the Subdivision [P]ermit or Development Plan." The purpose of a PUD, according to the 1978 LDRs, was to "encourage clustering of residential development to achieve preservation of open space and scenic areas[.]" PUD zones were officially recognized in later versions of the LDRs, which explained that PUD "zones permit variation from the strict application of the zones in order to achieve specific community goals that enhance the community’s implementation of the Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan. The intent of PUD zones is that large or complex developments under unified control be planned as a single, continuous project with greater design flexibility." LDR § 4.4.I.A.

[¶5] Although the Rafter J Subdivision was formed before Teton County officially adopted PUD zones, subsequent versions of the LDRs designated the Rafter J Subdivision as a PUD. Until the current dispute, no one objected to the designation of Rafter J as a PUD. Under current LDR 8.7.3.E, "[a]pproval of a PUD constitutes a zoning map amendment that has the effect of applying the master plan as the zone-specific standards for the site." LDR 4.4.1.C.2 sets out the requirement for a PUD to have a master plan:

A PUD shall include … a master plan that establishes the general configuration and relationship of the principal elements of the proposed development and specifies terms and conditions defining development parameters, including uses, general building types, density/intensity, resource protection, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, open space, public facilities, and phasing.

Because the Rafter J Subdivision predated the PUD zone designation, it did not have "a formal Master Plan." Consequently, the Teton County Planning Staff (Planning Staff) used the Plat Notes as the "PUD guiding documents" "equivalent to a [M]aster [P]lan." Again, no one contested the use of the Plat Notes as the Rafter J PUD Master Plan until this dispute arose.

[¶6] The Plat Notes designated Lot 333 as "Ranch Headquarters & Local Commercial." The Planning Staff determined the "Local Commercial" Plat Note subjected Lot 333 to Local Convenience Commercial (CL) zoning district standards, which permitted uses "intended to serve the day to day needs of local residents." "Institutional use" was one of the conditional uses allowed under the CL standards. In 1998, the Board approved an application to construct a 50,000 square foot assisted-living facility on Lot 333 as a conditional institutional use. The assisted-liv- ing facility operated from 2004, when construction was completed, until 2021, when it shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic.

[¶7] In 2021, Stage Stop purchased Lot 333 and applied for an amendment to the PUD and a conditional use permit (CUP) to convert the assisted-living facility to workforce apartments. The Planning Staff prepared a report on Stage Stop’s application which stated "[u]nder the current standards of the Rafter J PUD, Lot 333 is subject to the uses and standards of the [CL] District of the 1978 LDRs." Under the CL standards and the underlying Rural-3 zoning, use of Lot 333 for apartments was not permitted as a conditional use. However, the LDRs provided a process to amend a PUD to allow apartments as a conditional use.

[¶8] The Planning Staff also recognized the PUD option was no longer available for new developments in Teton County, but the LDRs continued to allow amendments to existing PUDs. "Therefore, [Stage Stop was] seeking to amend the Rafter J PUD to include an allowance for apartments [as a conditional use] on this lot only[.]" After two public hearings, at which residents of the Rafter J Subdivision, including the Objectors, voiced their concerns, the Planning Commission recommended the Board approve Stage Stop’s request for a PUD amendment to allow apartments as a conditional use on Lot 333.

[¶9] The Board held two additional public hearings, and the Objectors and other Rafter J Subdivision residents again contested changing the PUD to allow workforce apartments. The Board approved Stage Stop’s request to amend the Rafter J PUD to allow apartments for the "Teton County Workforce" as a primary conditional use on Lot 333.

[¶10] The Objectors petitioned the district court for review of the Board’s decision, and the district court allowed Stage Stop to intervene. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision, and the Objectors then appealed to this Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] [¶11] The Board is an administrative agency governed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-101(b)(i) (LexisNexis 2023). "We review an agency’s decision as if it came directly to us, without giving any deference to the district court decision." Tayback v. Teton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2017 WY 114, ¶ 12, 402 P.3d 984, 987 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Hardy v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’ Comp. Div., 2017 WY 42, ¶ 10, 394 P.3d 454, 457 (Wyo. 2017)). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2023) governs judicial review of agency actions:

(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

(i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:

(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;

(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or

(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.

[2–5] [¶12] In accordance with the LDRs, the Board held informal public hearings on Stage Stop’s application. Unlike contested case hearings which follow an adversarial process, the witnesses at the public hearings were not sworn or subject to cross-examination and comments were taken from members of the audience. See Tayback, ¶ 13, 402 P.3d at 988. "Given the informality of the proceedings, we review the Board’s decision using § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A)" and will set aside its decision only if it is " ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ " Tayback, ¶ 12, 402 P.3d at 988 (quoting § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), and citing...