Case Title: J & G Wholesale v. Albany County Com'rs

Citation: 

Docket Number: 92-120

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1993-01-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
J & G Wholesale v. Albany County Com'rs1993 WY 14845 P.2d 1377Case Number: 92-120Decided: 01/29/1993Supreme Court of Wyoming

 

J & G 
WHOLESALE,

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

ALBANY 
COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS and the 
Albany 
County Planning 
Commission,

Appellees 
(Defendants).

Appeal from District 
Court, Albany 
County, Arthur T. Hanscum, 
J.

Mike Reese of 
Wiederspahn, Lummis & Liepas, P.C., Cheyenne, for appellant.

Kennard F. 
Nelson of Kirkwood & Nelson, Cal Rerucha, 
Albany 
County 
Atty., 
Laramie, for appellees.

Before MACY, C.J., and 
THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT* and GOLDEN, JJ.

* Retired January 1, 
1993.

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶1]      In this appeal we 
are asked to decide whether Albany 
County has a more restrictive 
ordinance concerning outdoor advertising than those standards set out in the 
Wyoming Outdoor Advertising Act. In addition, we review the district court's 
grant of summary judgment on a civil rights claim which determined that Albany 
County did not take state action as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 
1983.

[¶2]      We affirm the 
district court, but on grounds quite different from those employed by the 
district court.

[¶3]      Appellant, J 
& G Wholesale, provides this statement of the issues:

I. As a matter of state 
law, may the Wyoming Highway Department (now Wyoming Transportation Department) 
refuse to issue outdoor advertising permits based upon objections by a local 
government even though a more restrictive local ordinance does not 
exist?

II. Did the District 
Court err in interpreting the elements of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 
1983 when it denied Appellant's requested relief and held that: (1) The action 
by the Albany County Commissioners and Albany County Planning Commission was not 
sufficient to impose liability under § 1983 and (2) that the appellees were 
insulated from § 1983 liability since Appellees' "participation" in the 
billboard permit process "cannot be deemed to be State action"?

[¶4]      In its responsive 
statement to the issues raised by appellant, the appellees, Albany County 
Commissioners and the Albany County Planning Commission 
(Albany 
County), contend: "In granting 
summary judgment * * * the district court correctly applied the substantive 
law."

[¶5]      The facts of this 
case are a bit difficult to decipher from the record because the parties made 
little or no attempt to synthesize the procedural background in logical or 
chronological order. We are able to discern that in 1984 a predecessor of 
appellant was notified that the placement of a fireworks stand and trailer for 
employees along a highway in Albany 
County (13 miles south of 
Laramie on U.S. Highway 287) was 
in violation of Albany 
County's Land Use Management 
System. After renewal of the notice, appellant submitted a permit request to the 
Albany County Planning Commission. A temporary permit was issued, pending 
further application and clarification of the initial request. Eventually, the 
Planning Commission received a site improvement proposal and it determined that 
a minor activity permit for the site was required. Appellant was then advised of 
the forms required and procedure for obtaining a minor activity permit. The 
Planning Commission did a site inspection and discovered that the fireworks 
stand was in full operation. It then informed appellant that unless a permit 
application was submitted, the Planning Commission would seek a restraining 
order. On July 4, 
1988, a permit application 
was submitted. At its July 28, 
1988 meeting the Planning 
Commission voted to approve the minor activity permit with conditions. 
Apparently the conditional approval did not sit well with appellant, so on 
February 3, 
1989, it sought to disavow 
the minor activity permit application and continue its business under what it 
called a "grandfather clause" for the predecessor in interest to appellant. 
Appellant did not seek judicial review of the Planning Commission's decision or 
otherwise challenge the conditional permit.

[¶6]      Rather, appellant 
then made application to the Department of Transportation (formerly the Wyoming 
Highway Department) for an outdoor advertising permit pursuant to 
WYO. STAT. §§ 24-10-101 et 
seq. (1977). By letter dated February 27, 
1989, the Department informed 
the Albany County Planning Commission of that application and gave this 
additional information:

The locations at 403.49 
and 403.56 RT [milepost sites] are located at the storage yard of J & G 
Wholesale and meet the state requirements for permit if we consider the area to 
be unzoned commercial as defined in the State's Rules and Regulations governing 
outdoor advertising.

The structure at 403.70 
RT now has on-premise advertising displayed (Storage Trailers, etc.). This makes 
it exempt from the State's Outdoor Advertising Law.

The two structures at 
Mileposts 413.44 and 413.74 LT meet the State's requirements for a state permit 
if we consider the area within 600 feet of either side of the business to be 
unzoned commercial and/or industrial as defined in the Rules and 
Regulations.

The other two structures 
located at Milepost 413.74 and 413.80 now display on-premise advertising which 
makes them exempt from the State's Outdoor Advertising Law.

We can issue the four 
permits if your office and/or the County 
Commissioners have no objection to the 
Wyoming State Highway Department declaring the two areas unzoned commercial for 
the purpose of Outdoor Advertising. We have enclosed a copy of the State Statute 
and the Rules and Regulations for your reference.

[¶7]      The Planning 
Commission responded to the Department of Transportation with this 
letter:

In your February 27, 
1989 letter to our office 
regarding J & G Wholesale's application for billboards, you stated, "We can 
issue the four permits if your office and/or the 
County 
Commissioners have no objections to 
the Wyoming State Highway Department declaring the two areas unzoned commercial 
for the purpose of outdoor advertising." The County does have objections. The 
County has had a policy for at least five years which stated that all billboards 
must secure an Albany County Minor Activity Permit before they are erected. As 
you know, Albany 
County has a permit system in 
lieu of conventional zoning. As such, all changes in land use activities must 
receive County approval prior to being constructed. Mr. Haddenham withdrew his 
minor activity permit application for the signs at 
1348 U.S. 
Highway 287 on February 3, 
1989. The Board of County 
Commissioners then informed him that he had until March 3, 
1989 to reapply or the County 
would commence enforcement actions. (See enclosed letter). He has not reapplied 
as of yet and has, in fact, informed me that he has no intentions to do 
so.

The County has also 
informed Mr. Haddenham that three of the four billboards just south of 
Laramie are also illegal. The 
County informed him that he must reapply for a minor activity permit for those 
billboards as well. (See enclosed letter).

In conclusion, let me 
restate that the County would very much object to your issuance of a license for 
the billboards prior to Mr. Haddenham receiving the County's approval for the 
signs.

[¶8]      By letter dated 
March 4, 
1989, appellant received this 
additional information from the Transportation Department:

We have contacted the 
Albany County Planning Office and were informed that you do not have county 
permits for the structures which you have erected. The Rules and Regulations 
promulgated by the Wyoming Highway Commission, Section 15, d, 
states:

Local ordinances, 
regulations or resolutions more restrictive than the provisions of the Outdoor 
Advertising Act are not affected by these rules; therefore, the Wyoming Highway 
Commission has adopted a policy of denying outdoor advertising permits to those 
structures which are not in compliance with the local jurisdictions, rules, 
regulations and/or resolutions.

Based on this policy and 
after consultation with a Senior Assistant Attorney General, we must deny your 
permits.

We do, however, agree 
that the structures which display land for lease and/or storage for trailers, 
boats, etc., are on premise and exempt from state control. We are returning your 
application and money order and must again request removal of said structures 
unless they display on premise advertising.

You are further notified 
that your right to request a hearing before the Wyoming Highway Commission does 
still exist. However, you must submit a written request within 15 days of the 
date of this notice.

[¶9]      Appellant 
apparently did seek a hearing before the Transportation Commission, but it was 
not submitted within the time allowed under the statute. 
WYO. STAT. § 24-10-109(b) 
(Supp. 1992). In its letter refusing to conduct a hearing, the Commission also 
pointed out that little purpose could be served by such a hearing, since the 
principal problem was the zoning problem which was entirely within the control 
of Albany 
County. Appellant was also 
invited to appear before the Commission at its February 22, 
1990 meeting. Copies of this 
correspondence were addressed to the Albany County Planning Commission, and by 
letter dated February 21, 1990, the Planning Commission repeated that it 
"strongly object[ed]" to appellant's proposed billboards and that appellant had 
not cooperated in the planning office's efforts to resolve the Albany County 
zoning issues. Appellant eventually did make a presentation to the 
Transportation Commission, with the assistance of legal counsel, on April 12, 
1990, but by letter dated April 16, 1990, appellant was informed that "the 
Commission determined Albany County has jurisdiction in the matter regarding 
zoning and therefore upholds the Department's rejection of Mr. Haddenham's sign 
application * * *."

[¶10]   On March 13, 
1991, appellant filed suit, 
seeking declarations that the Transportation Department could not refuse to 
issue it outdoor advertising permits based upon the objections raised by 
Albany 
County because there was no 
legal justification for its objections and that 
Albany 
County had no authority to 
regulate outdoor advertising under its current ordinances. In addition, 
appellant sought, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: to enjoin Albany County from 
interfering with its rights to obtain billboard permits from the Transportation 
Department; damages from Albany County for having deprived it of its property 
under color of state law; and attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

[¶11]   The district court granted partial 
summary judgment in favor of appellant, holding that 
Albany 
County did not have an 
ordinance which was more restrictive than the state outdoor advertising act. 
However, the district court also found that 
Albany 
County did not deny the permits 
for outdoor advertising and, therefore, did not take state action as 
contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[¶12]   The first question raised by 
appellant is engendered by WYO. STAT. § 24-10-111 (1977) 
which provides: "Nothing in this act shall be construed to abrogate or affect 
the provisions of any lawful ordinance, regulation or resolution, which is more 
restrictive than the provisions of this act." Because the parties failed to 
focus the issues raised in this appeal with precision, we are constrained to 
analyze the case in a manner quite divergent from that presented in the 
briefs.

[¶13]   The Wyoming Outdoor Advertising Act 
is the point of embarkation for our analysis. That act provides for regulation 
of outdoor advertising in order "to promote the safety, convenience and 
enjoyment of travel on, and protection of the public investment in highways 
within this state, and to preserve and enhance the natural scenic beauty or 
aesthetic features of the highways and adjacent areas * * *." 
WYO. STAT. § 24-10-102 
(1977). To accomplish this purpose, outdoor advertising is regulated "in 
accordance with this act and the rules and regulations promulgated by the 
commission * * *." Id. The act goes on to 
provide definitions which illuminate the remainder of the act. In this case, we 
have no doubt that the signs at issue are "outdoor advertising" as defined by 
the act.1 Of particular importance to the 
resolution of this matter is this statutory provision:

§ 24-10-104. Outdoor 
Advertising visible from highways prohibited; exceptions.

(a) No outdoor 
advertising shall be erected or maintained which is visible from the 
main-traveled way of the interstate or primary highways in this state, except 
the following:

* * * * * *

(v) Signs displays and 
devices located in unzoned commercial or industrial areas, within six hundred 
sixty (660) feet adjacent to the highway right-of-way, which areas shall be 
determined from actual land uses and defined by regulations to be promulgated by 
the commission.

Outdoor 
advertising described in WYO. STAT. § 24-10-104(a)(v) 
"shall conform with standards contained, and shall bear permits required, in 
regulations which are promulgated by the commission under this act." 
WYO. STAT. § 24-10-104(b). 
The commission is authorized to adopt rules and regulations to implement the 
statutes. WYO. STAT. § 24-10-105. An 
"unzoned commercial or industrial area" means:

[T]hose areas not zoned 
by state or local law, regulation or ordinance which are occupied by one (1) or 
more industrial or commercial activities other than outdoor advertising signs on 
the lands along the highways for a distance of six hundred (600) feet 
immediately adjacent to activities, and those lands directly opposite on the 
other side of the highway to the extent of the same dimensions; provided, those 
lands on the opposite side of the highway are not deemed scenic or having 
aesthetic value.

WYO. STAT. § 
24-10-103(a)(ix).

[¶14]   In the rules and regulations 
promulgated by the Department of Transportation, "unzoned commercial or 
industrial area" is defined thus:

Those areas not zoned by 
state or local law, regulations or ordinance which are occupied by one or more 
industrial or commercial activities, within six hundred sixty (660) feet of the 
highway right-of-way and visible from the travel way. This area shall extend 
along the highway for a distance of six hundred (600) feet from the commercial 
or industrial activity; and those lands directly opposite on the other side of 
the highway to the extent of the same dimensions; provided, those lands on the 
opposite side of the highway are not deemed scenic or having aesthetic value. 
Unzoned commercial and industrial area designations must be approved by the 
local planning authority and/or the county commissioners having jurisdiction 
over the area.

TRANSPORTATION 
COMMISSION OF WYOMING, RULES AND REGULATIONS, OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, Ch. XVI, 
Section 2.(w) (emphasized language added by 1992 amendment).

[¶15]   
Albany 
County has adopted a 
comprehensive land use management system as authorized and contemplated by 
WYO. STAT. §§ 18-5-201 et 
seq. (1977). That land use management system does not purport to deal 
specifically with outdoor advertising, but the record does demonstrate that 
Albany 
County has traditionally 
treated outdoor advertising as an activity for which a minor activity permit is 
required. The land use plan has established criteria which must be met in order 
to obtain a minor activity permit, but those criteria provide no specific 
guidance concerning outdoor advertising. Moreover, the Albany County Land Use 
Management System does not designate areas as zoned or unzoned, commercial or 
noncommercial, industrial or nonindustrial. Rather, management objectives are 
achieved by discrete activities, e.g., subdivision, mountain subdivision, 
subdivision improvements, variances, mobile home parks, campgrounds, and major 
subdivisions. Minor activity permits are described only in the "Administrative 
Procedures" chapter of the Land Use Management System, which states:

A Minor Activity Permit 
is required for construction of any proposed development of two through five 
dwelling units. A Minor Activity Permit is also required for any proposed 
development or land use change or expansion comparable in size or impact to two 
through five dwelling units, including business or commercial developments on 
all parcels of land less than 35 acres. This permit application shall be 
reviewed by the Staff using the Land Use Management System, Chapter IV criteria, 
and if requested, by the Commission before the application is forwarded to the 
Board for final action.

[¶16]   Of course, we must read all these 
statutes, as well as rules and regulations, together and attempt to give all of 
them a full measure of meaning. We agree with the district court that 
Albany 
County has not established a 
"lawful ordinance, regulation or resolution which is more restrictive than the 
provisions of [the outdoor advertising] act." WYO. STAT. § 24-10-111. 
However, this determination really begs the larger questions which were not 
addressed by the parties in the district court or in this appeal. The real 
questions are: (1) whether the Transportation Department may delegate to the 
counties decisions about outdoor advertising in "unzoned commercial or 
industrial areas," (whether by policy or duly adopted regulation) and (2) 
whether the legislature has preempted county regulation of outdoor advertising 
unless the county has adopted a more restrictive ordinance. We need not decide 
those questions in this case. The regulatory provision cited above, Ch. XVI, 
Section 2.(w), (which was apparently only a "policy" before (1992)) appears to 
exceed the statutory grant of authority to adopt rules and regulations, and, 
absent the existence of a more restrictive ordinance, it would appear that the 
Outdoor Advertising Act is intended to cover this field of government 
regulation. Because these questions are not presented, we leave them for another 
day and another case.

[¶17]   In summary, we agree with the 
decision of the district court that Albany 
County does not have a more 
restrictive ordinance than the standards enunciated in the Outdoor Advertising 
Act. 

[¶18]   In the civil rights portion of its 
complaint, appellant alleged that it made lawful application to the Department 
of Transportation for outdoor advertising permits and that 
Albany 
County went to "great lengths" 
to prevent issuance of those permits. Further, the Transportation Department's 
rejection of those permits was the direct result of that interference which 
caused damages, principally in the form of appellant's inability to lease the 
outdoor advertising signs.

[¶19]   There are several legal concepts 
fatal to appellant's complaint. It suffices if we make these observations. 
Albany 
County had no control over the 
adoption of the policy (now a regulation) in which the Transportation Department 
delegated to the counties a first right of approval over outdoor advertising in 
unzoned commercial and industrial areas, nor could it control the final decision 
which rested solely with the Wyoming Transportation Commission. Hence, 
Albany 
County cannot be held liable 
for the damages, if any, suffered by appellant. Schepp v. 
Fremont 
County, Wyoming, 900 F.2d 1448, 1456-57 
(10th Cir. 1990); Schepp v. Fremont 
County, Wyoming, 685 F. Supp. 1200, 1206 
(D.Wyo. 1988). Moreover, the record is clear that 
Albany 
County did not inject itself as 
a volunteer in this controversy. Appellant initiated an administrative 
proceeding by applying for outdoor advertising permits. As it was required to do 
by its own regulations, the Department of Transportation sought evidence from 
Albany 
County. 
Albany 
County was, thus, in the role 
of an adverse witness vis-a-vis the appellant and is immune from appellant's 
civil rights complaint. Overman v. Klein, 103 Idaho 795, 799-96, 654 P.2d 888, 892-93 (1982); Moses v. McWilliams, 379 Pa. Super. 150, 549 A.2d 950, 956-59 (1988); Dowd v. City of New Richmond, 137 Wis.2d 539, 405 N.W.2d 66, 76 (1987); 1 JOSEPH G. COOK AND JOHN L. SOBIESKI, JR., CIVIL RIGHTS 
ACTIONS ¶ 2.07[C] (1991). The district court properly dismissed the civil rights 
portion of appellant's complaint.

[¶20]   The judgment of the district court 
is affirmed.

Footnotes

1  "Outdoor advertising" 
means any outdoor sign, display, light, device, figure, painting, drawing, 
message, plaque, poster, billboard, or other thing which is designed, intended 
or used to advertise or inform and which is visible from any place on the 
main-traveled way of the interstate or primary systems."

WYO. STAT. § 
24-10-103(a)(iii) (Supp. 1992).