Case Title: SWIFT v. SUBLETTE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 01-44

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2002-02-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
SWIFT v. SUBLETTE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS2002 WY 3240 P.3d 1235Case Number: 01-44Decided: 02/25/2002

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2001

 

                                                                                                
   

 

SARA T. 
SWIFT, an individual; and

CIRCLE 
NINE RANCH, INC., a

Wyoming 
corporation,
Appellant(Petitioner),

 

v.

 

SUBLETTE 
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS, 

Appellee(Respondent).

 

W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b) Certification from the District Court of Sublette 
County

The 
Honorable D. Terry Rogers, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Phelps 
H. Swift Jr. of Mullikin, Larson & Swift, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Swift.

 Representing 
Appellee:

William 
H. Twichell, Deputy County Attorney for Sublette County, Pinedale, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Twichell.

 

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

 

            
HILL, Justice. 

[¶1]      The critical 
question in this zoning dispute is whether a concrete batch plant is an 
"associated extraction" activity in connection with a gravel pit operation.  We conclude that it is not and reverse 
the decision of the Sublette County Board of County Commissioners granting a 
conditional use permit for the operation of a concrete batch plant within a 
zoned agricultural district.

 

[¶2]      Sara T. Swift and 
Circle Nine Ranch, Inc. (Appellants) present two issues for 
review:

 

1.                  
Did the 
Sublette County Commissioners' resolution approving the issuance of a 
conditional use permit authorizing the concrete batch plant in the Agricultural 
(A-1) Zoning District violate the Sublette County Zoning 
Resolution?

 

2.                  
Was the 
evidence sufficient to satisfy the mandatory findings for the issuance of a 
conditional use permit under Chapter V of the Zoning 
Resolution[?]

 

The Sublette County Board of County 
Commissioners (the Board) concurs with the Appellant's statement of the 
issues.

 

[¶3]      Joe's Concrete 
and Lumber, Inc. operates a gravel pit on land near Boulder, Wyoming at the 
intersection of State Highway 187 and Sublette County Road 353.  The gravel pit is situated on land zoned 
Agriculture (A-1).  The Zoning and 
Development Regulations Resolutions (Zoning Regulations) of Sublette County 
allow gravel pits in agricultural districts as a conditional use.  Gravel pits and "associated extraction 
activities" are permissible upon issuance of a conditional use permit and 
compliance with specific development standards set out in the Zoning 
Regulations.1

 

[¶4]      On June 27, 2000, 
Joe's Concrete and Lumber filed an application for a conditional use permit to 
continue operation of the gravel pit and to include a batch plant2 at the site.  The Appellants, who own land adjacent to 
the gravel pit site, opposed the application.  They objected to the increased traffic, 
noise, and dust associated with a batch plant.  After a public hearing on July 20, 2000, 
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board approve the 
conditional use permit.  The Board 
subsequently approved the permit on a two-one vote.  Appellants petitioned for review of the 
Board's decision with the district court, which certified the dispute to us 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09.

 

[¶5]      The scope of our 
review is defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 2001), which 
provides in relevant part:

 

(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. 
. . .  The reviewing court 
shall:

            
. . . .

(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[.]

 

Martens 
v. Johnson County Board of Commissioners, 954 P.2d 375, 378-79 (Wyo. 1998) (citing Reaves v. Riley, 782 P.2d 1136, 1138 
(Wyo. 1989)).  We give no deference 
to the agency's conclusions of law, and if the correct rule of law has not been 
invoked and correctly applied, then we will rectify the agency's errors.  Martens, 954 P.2d  at 
379.

[¶6]      The Zoning 
Regulations of Sublette County allow for the issuance of a conditional use 
permit for gravel pits and "associated extraction activities" within land zoned 
Agriculture (A-1).  Resolution of 
this dispute is dependent then upon a determination of whether a concrete batch 
plant can be considered part of the "associated extraction activities" of a 
gravel pit.  The Board argues that 
an expansive reading of the subject phrase in conjunction with the traditional 
deference paid by this Court to an agency's interpretation of its rules and 
regulations is sufficient grounds for concurring with its conclusion that a 
concrete batch plant is an "associated extraction" activity of gravel pits.  The Appellants' counter argument is that 
under the plain language of the Zoning Regulations, a concrete batch plant is 
more properly characterized as a processing activity as opposed to an extraction 
activity.

 

[¶7]      We apply our 
rules for interpreting statutory language to the interpretation of the rules and 
regulations of an administrative agency. Antelope Valley Improvement and 
Service District of Gillette v. State Board of Equalization, 992 P.2d 563, 
566 (Wyo. 1999), reh'g granted, 4 P.3d 876 (Wyo. 2000).  If the language of a rule evidences a 
plain meaning, then that meaning will be applied. Id.  

 

[¶8]      We now turn to a 
consideration of the meaning of the phrase "associated extraction 
activities."  The parties do not 
debate whether the batch plant is an "activity;" rather, the crux of their 
dispute is over whether or not it is an "associated extraction" activity.  The root of "associated" has several 
different meanings depending upon the context in which the word is used and 
whether it is used as an adjective, verb, or noun.  The word is used in the Zoning 
Regulations as a modifier of "activity."  
In that context, the plain meaning of the word can easily be 
discerned:

 

Associate 
-- 1: closely 
connected (as in function or office) with another  2:  closely related esp. in the 
mind.

 

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 
Dictionary 70 (10th ed. 1998).  
"Extraction" is the process of extracting 
something:

 

Extract  1 a: to draw forth (as by research) 
. . .  b: to pull 
or take out forcibly . . .  
c: to obtain by much effort from someone unwilling 
. . .  2: to 
withdraw (as a juice or fraction) by physical or chemical process; also: 
to treat with a solvent so as to remove a soluble substance 3: to 
separate (a metal) from an ore.

 

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 
Dictionary 412 (10th ed. 1998).  Putting the plain meaning of the words 
together, the Zoning Regulations define gravel pit operations to include 
activities closely connected or related to the process of withdrawing the gravel 
from the ground.  The question now 
is whether a concrete batch plant fits within that plain meaning.  

 

[¶9]      A batch plant 
mixes gravel with sand, water, and cement to produce concrete.  Obviously, the gravel used in the 
process has already been extracted from the pit.  There is nothing in the record to 
indicate that the batch plant bears any relation to the actual physical 
extraction of the gravel from the ground.  
There is no indication that a batch plant refines or processes the gravel 
in a manner that removes or separates the gravel from other substances.  The batch plant processes the gravel 
with other ingredients to create a product  concrete  it does not extract or 
assist in the extraction of the gravel from the ground.  This conclusion is supported by 
reference to the Zoning Regulations where cement and concrete manufacturing is 
an authorized use in a heavy industrial district but is noticeably absent from 
the list of authorized uses for agricultural districts.  This evidences intent on the part of the 
drafters of the Zoning Regulations to treat concrete manufacturing distinctly 
from gravel pit operations.  There 
is no rational argument to support a finding that the batch plant is "closely 
connected or related to the process of withdrawing the 
gravel."

 

CONCLUSION

[¶10]   It is true, as the Board points 
out, that we generally defer to an agency's construction of its own rules and 
regulations.  However, it is equally 
true that "where the agency's interpretation is clearly erroneous or 
inconsistent with the rule or regulation's plain meaning, we must disregard it." 
Croxton v. Board of County Commissioners of Natrona County, 644 P.2d 780, 
784 (Wyo. 1982).  A concrete batch 
plant is not an "associated extraction" activity of a gravel pit under the plain 
meaning of the words used in the Zoning Regulation.  Accordingly, the decision of the Board 
granting a conditional use permit for a concrete batch plant within an 
Agriculture (A-1) zone is reversed.

FOOTNOTES

  
1Appellants also 
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that 
the batch plant application complied with the development standards.  In light of our decision on the issuance 
of the conditional use permit in the first instance, we do not reach this 
issue.

 

  
2A batch plant 
mixes gravel with sand, water, and cement to produce 
concrete.