Case Title: State ex rel. Epp v. Mayor

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
State ex rel. Epp v. Mayor1995 WY 52894 P.2d 590Case Number: 93-180, 93-181Decided: 04/13/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

The 
STATE of Wyoming, ex rel., Gari R. EPP, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

The MAYOR, Town Council and Building Inspector of the 
Town of Dubois; and Painted Valley, Inc., Appellees (Respondents). Gari R. EPP, 
Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

PAINTED VALLEY, INC., a Wyoming corporation, Appellee 
(Defendant).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Fremont County, Elizabeth A. Kail, 
J.

Juline Christofferson, 
Jackson, and Jeffery R. Epp, Escondido, CA, for appellants.

Mark L. Carman of Williams, 
Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for appellees, The Mayor, Town Council and Building 
Inspector of the Town of Dubois.

Vance Countryman and David 
B. Hooper of Hooper Law Offices, P.C., Riverton, for appellee, Painted Valley, 
Inc.

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

* 
Retired July 6, 1994.

THOMAS, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Gary R. Epp (Epp) 
sought to address asserted violations of the zoning ordinances of the Town of 
Dubois by seeking mandamus against the city officials (Dubois) and injunction 
against Painted Valley, Inc. (Painted Valley), the owner of the property claimed 
to be in violation. The trial court ruled the remedy of mandamus would not lie 
because there was no identification of a clear, certain, and indisputable duty 
owed by Dubois, and no injunction against Painted Valley would be granted 
because it had complied with the applicable permit and certification procedures. 
Epp offers a number of contentions in seeking review of the order of the trial 
court, but all of them relate to the failure of Dubois to enforce the provisions 
of its zoning ordinances in connection with the construction of a metal storage 
building by Painted Valley. We agree with the trial court that Epp failed to 
demonstrate the propriety of a writ of mandamus, but we hold, in addition, Epp's 
failure to pursue administrative relief and exhaust administrative remedies in 
accordance with the zoning ordinance forecloses the remedy of mandamus. We 
affirm the order of the trial court denying the writ of mandamus and dismissing 
the case.

[¶2]      Epp defines the 
following issues in his Brief of Appellant:

I.          
The town of Dubois zoning ordinance prohibits the construction of a 
"storage building" in a business "D" district.

II.          
The town of Dubois zoning ordinance prohibits expansion of a lumberyard 
in a business "D" district.

III.         
Nonconforming grandfathered uses may not be expanded, changed, altered or 
extended within a business "D" district.

IV.        The 74 uses 
specifically prohibited by Sec. 18-30 do not have to be "injurious, noxious, or 
offensive by reason of odor, gas, smoke or noise" in order to be prohibited in a 
business "D" district.

V.        The town of 
Dubois building inspector issued permit # 471 to Painted Valley Lumber, in 
violation of the Dubois zoning ordinance, resulting in an illegal permit under 
Sec. 18-4.

VI.        The town 
council of Dubois, acting as the de facto board of adjustment or zoning 
committee, failed to review the illegally issued permit or otherwise enforce the 
Dubois zoning ordinance.

VII.       The town of 
Dubois zoning ordinance, with zoning map adopted and incorporated by reference, 
had a decipherable map from the date of adoption to the 
present.

VIII.      The town of Dubois has 
adopted a zoning ordinance pursuant to W.S. 15-1-601 in accordance with a 
comprehensive or "master" plan.

IX.        The 
District Court erred in failing to make the appropriate findings of fact and 
conclusions of law necessary for the issuance of the writ of mandamus despite 
the overwhelming evidence in support thereof, and as a result erred in its 
dismissal of the petition for writ of mandamus, pursuant to W.S. 1-30-101, et. 
seq., and the complaint for enforcement of the town of Dubois zoning ordinance 
after a single hearing on an order to show cause.

Painted Valley, in its Brief 
of Appellee, advances the following three issues:

1.         
Whether Appellant followed the proper procedure for an appeal from the 
issuance of a building permit. 

2.         
Whether the Writ of Mandamus should have been 
issued.

3.         
Whether the court abused its discretion when the court denied Appellant's 
petition for a writ of mandamus.

In the Appellees the Mayor, 
Town Council and Building Inspector of the Town of Dubois's Brief, the only 
issue addressed relates to the propriety of mandamus and is articulated 
as:

Was the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Properly 
Denied by the District Court?

[¶3]      In May of 1989, 
Bob Baker purchased the Dubois Builder's Supply, Inc. from Margaret Alexander. 
The business was and is located at 307 South First Street in Dubois. Baker 
incorporated the business, and it was renamed as Painted Valley, Inc. When Baker 
purchased the business, the materials for erection of a large metal storage 
building to house additional inventory, which had been planned by the prior 
owner, were on the property and were included in the purchase 
price.

[¶4]      In October of 
1991, Baker applied for a building permit to construct the metal storage 
building on the premises. The application was completed by the town clerk, and 
Baker furnished a diagram of the building plans. Several weeks later, the city 
engineer came to Painted Valley and told Baker the permit had been approved. The 
approval by the city engineer was based on his opinion the metal storage 
building was an additional conforming use to an existing retail supply store or, 
alternatively, the metal building was a grandfathered used which was not 
prohibited by the Dubois zoning ordinance.

[¶5]      Construction on 
the building commenced in the late fall of 1991, but was discontinued during the 
winter months. The concrete foundation was completed by the early spring of 
1992. Baker was mayor of Dubois at that time; he served as mayor from June of 
1990 through May of 1992. In April of 1992, Epp asked Baker to reconsider his 
plans to construct the building because Epp, a member of the town architectural 
committee, believed the building would be an illegal infringement of zoning 
regulations. Epp also was of the opinion the building would not conform to the 
western atmosphere of the town of Dubois. Baker did not acquiesce, and Epp then 
sought injunctive relief, which was denied by the district court commissioner in 
July of 1992. The particular relief sought would have resulted in a rescission 
of Painted Valley's building permit.

[¶6]      The building was 
completed and, in October of 1992, Painted Valley sought a certificate of 
occupancy. A new building inspector reviewed the file and inspected the 
building. The new building inspector, as did the city engineer, determined the 
building either was a conforming use or a grandfathered, non-conforming use. 
Dubois could issue a certificate of occupancy for a grandfathered, 
non-conforming use so long as a conforming use was not displaced as a result. 
The new building inspector then issued two certificates of occupancy to Painted 
Valley. One allowed the building as a conforming use, and the second provided 
for the extension of a grandfathered, non-conforming use.

[¶7]      In the meantime, 
in September, Epp filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. The object was to 
force Dubois to remove the metal storage building Painted Valley had 
constructed. In July of 1993, the district court entered its order that the writ 
would not issue; dismissed the case against Dubois; and in the same order, 
dismissed the proceedings earlier filed against Painted Valley. Epp's appeal is 
taken from that order.

[¶8]      Epp contends 
Painted Valley does business as a lumber yard, which is a grandfathered, 
non-conforming use in a business "D" district under the Town of Dubois zoning 
regulations. His argument is that Painted Valley's permit for a metal "storage 
warehouse" was issued illegally by the city engineer because a grandfathered, 
non-conforming use in a business "D" district cannot be extended or expanded 
under the provisions of the Dubois ordinance under any circumstances. He also 
asserts ancillary and technical claims that the permit was deficient because a 
certificate of occupancy was not applied for "coincident with the application" 
for the building permit, and the application for the permit was not accompanied 
by a "statement of intended use." 

[¶9]      The pertinent 
provisions of Chapter 18 of the Ordinances of the Town of Dubois, entitled 
"Zoning," are:

Article 
III. Administration.

*          
*           
*           
*          
*           
*

Sec. 18-5. 
Requirements for building permits.

No permit shall be issued by the building inspector * 
* * until a statement of the intended use has been filed by the applicant and 
unless the plans and intended use indicate that the building and premises are to 
conform in all respects to the provisions of this chapter, or unless such 
proposed building or use shall have been duly authorized by the board of 
adjustment.

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

Sec. 18-7. 
Certificate of occupancy.

No land shall be used or occupied, * * * and no 
building hereafter erected, structurally altered or moved, shall be used or 
changed in use until a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued by the 
building inspector stating that the building or the proposed use thereof 
complies with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. A like certificate shall 
be issued for the purpose of maintaining, renewing, changing, or extending a 
nonconforming use. A certificate of occupancy, either for the whole or part of a 
building, shall be applied for coincident with the application for a building 
permit and shall be issued within ten days after the erection, structural 
alteration, or moving of such building, or part thereof, shall have been 
completed in conformity with the provisions of this title. (Emphasis 
added.)

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

Article 
VIII. Business "D" District.

Sec. 18-30. 
Use.

Buildings or premises may be used and buildings may 
be erected or structurally altered for use permitted in any residence district 
or for any other use except the following:

*           
*           
*           
*           
*          
*

46. Lumber yard or planing 
mill;

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

67. Storage warehouse; 

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

75. 
And in general those uses which may be injurious, noxious, or offensive by 
reason of omission [sic] of odor, smoke, gas or noise.

76. 
All uses excluded from an Industrial "E" District.

*           
*           
*         
*           
*           
*

Article 
XII. Nonconforming Uses.

Sec. 18-58. 
Continuance of existing use.

The lawful use of a building existing on the 
effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or authorized by a 
building permit issued prior thereto, may be continued, although such use does 
not conform with the provisions of this chapter, and such use may be extended 
throughout the building.

Sec. 18-59. 
Extension.

No nonconforming use shall be extended so as to 
displace a conforming residential use. A nonconforming use may be changed to a 
use of the same or higher classification according to the provisions of this 
chapter * * *.

[¶10]   Before addressing the issues 
articulated by the parties, we consider, in the nature of a jurisdictional 
issue, the proposition Epp failed to pursue an appropriate administrative 
remedy. We are satisfied Epp failed to follow an administrative review process 
provided by the zoning ordinance and, under precedent extant in Wyoming, he was 
required to do that. The pertinent provision of Chapter 18 of the Ordinances of 
the Town of Dubois, entitled "Zoning," are:

Article 
XIII. Board of Adjustment - Appeals.

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

Sec. 18-64. 
Appeal - Filing.

Appeals to the Board may be taken by any person 
aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the town of Dubois. 
Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time not to exceed ten days as 
provided by the rules of the board, by 
filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the board, a 
notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer from whom the 
appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers constituting 
the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. (Emphasis 
added.)

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

Sec. 18-68. 
Board - Powers.

The board shall have the following 
powers:

A.        To hear and 
decide appeals when it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, 
decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement 
of this chapter, or of any ordinance adopted pursuant 
thereto;

B.        To hear and 
decide special exemptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which the board is 
required to pass under the ordinance;

C.        To vary or 
adjust the strict application of any of the requirements of any ordinance 
adopted pursuant to this chapter in the case of an irregular, narrow, shallow, 
or steep lot or other physical condition applying to a lot or building as a 
result of which strict application would result in practical difficulty or 
unnecessary hardship that would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the 
land or building involved. No adjustment in the strict application of any 
provision of such ordinance may be granted by the board unless it 
finds:

(1)       That there are 
special circumstances or conditions, fully described in the findings of the 
board, applying to the land or building for which the adjustment is sought, 
which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to the land or building and do 
not apply generally to land or buildings in the neighborhood, and have not 
resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption of the 
ordinance.

(2)       That, for reasons 
fully set forth in the findings of the board, the circumstances or conditions 
are such that the strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would 
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or building, that the 
granting of the adjustment is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or 
building, and that the adjustment as granted by the board is the minimum 
adjustment that will accomplish this purpose; and

(3)       That the granting 
of the adjustment will be in harmony with the general purposes and intend [sic] 
of the ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise 
detrimental to the public welfare;

D.        To grant 
exceptions and variances upon request where, after a showing that an illegal 
construction or a nonconforming building or use existed for a period of at least 
five years in violation of local ordinance or ordinances and the city or town 
has not taken steps toward enforcement.

In exercising the above mentioned powers the board 
may, in conformity with law, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify 
the order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to 
that end shall have all powers of the officer from whom the appeal is 
taken.

As early as March of 1992, 
Epp was aware Painted Valley was pouring footings preparatory to the 
construction of the metal building. Epp raised this concern about the building 
permit at a town council meeting in March. Epp then approached Baker, expressing 
his concern about the legality of the building. In April, he went to the city 
hall to determine if a building permit, in fact, had been issued to Painted 
Valley and, at that time, he expressed his concerns to the new building 
inspector who started work that month. On May 12, 1992, he presented a letter to 
the mayor and town council in which he asked them to reconsider all building 
permits issued to "non-conforming" uses within the past two years, specifically 
referring to the Painted Valley and Intermountain Electric building permits.1 

[¶11]   These efforts evidence Epp's 
apparent displeasure with the metal building erected on Painted Valley's 
property. We are satisfied at the time, there was not an officially-appointed 
board of adjustment, and the board was not appointed until October 4, 1992. It 
is clear, however, Epp also was aware the town council served as the acting 
board of adjustment until a board could be appointed, and he is charged with 
knowledge of the remedy of administrative review. Epp should have sought review 
of the grant of the permit and, if he believed the council could not sit as the 
board of adjustment, should have demanded the appointment of the board. He did 
not pursue this remedy.

[¶12]   In LeBeau v. State ex rel. White, 
377 P.2d 302 (Wyo. 1963), in accordance with § 1-880, W.S. 1957 [now WYO. STAT. 
§ 1-30-104 (1988)], we limited the writ of mandamus to those situations where 
there was no adequate remedy at law and pointed out that a right of appeal is a 
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. That approach was consistent with 
State ex rel. Walls v. State Bd. of Land Comm'rs, 36 Wyo. 302, 254 P. 491 
(1927). It would be an unfortunate policy decision to permit a party to avoid an 
administrative process which encompasses discretion by invoking the writ of 
mandamus. We emphasize the discretionary power of the board of adjustment in 
accordance with Section 18-68.B of the zoning ordinance to "hear and decide 
special exemptions to the terms of the ordinance." We hold the dismissal by the 
district court can be sustained because of the failure of Epp to invoke the 
administrative remedy.

[¶13]   In addition, we affirm the decision 
of the trial court that Epp did not establish the necessary elements to justify 
a writ of mandamus. Our statutes provide as follows:

Mandamus is a writ issued in the name of the state to 
an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board or person commanding the performance 
of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, 
trust or station.

WYO. STAT. § 1-30-101 
(1988).

The writ must not be issued when there is an adequate 
remedy at law. It may issue on the information of the party beneficially 
interested.

WYO. STAT. § 1-30-104 
(1988).

When the right to require the performance of the act 
is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not performing 
it, a court may allow a peremptory mandamus. In all other cases an alternative 
writ must first be issued on the allowance of the court, or a judge 
thereof.

WYO. STAT. § 1-30-105 
(1988).

[¶14]   As we have dealt with the 
application of this statutory remedy, we have held the purpose of mandamus is 
limited to compelling the performance of ministerial duties defined clearly and 
prescribed by Wyoming law. Williams v. Stafford, 589 P.2d 322 (Wyo. 1979); State 
ex rel. Irvine v. Brooks, 14 Wyo. 393, 84 P. 488 (1906). The writ cannot issue 
when the petitioner has an adequate remedy at law; it cannot be invoked as a 
substitute for the appeals procedure; and it cannot be used to control the 
exercise of judicial discretion by lower tribunals. State ex rel. Feeney v. 
Dist. Court of the Seventh Judicial Dist., 614 P.2d 710 (Wyo. 1980); LeBeau. 
Mandamus will not lie unless the duty itself is absolute and incontrovertible, 
or clear, certain, and indisputable. Wyoming Bd. of Equalization v. State ex 
rel. Basin Elec. Power Coop., 637 P.2d 248 (Wyo. 1981); State ex rel. Badley v. 
City of Sheridan, 513 P.2d 647 (Wyo. 1973); LeBeau.

[¶15]   These are classic requirements for 
the issuance of a writ of mandamus. When those requirements are compared with 
the zoning ordinance of the Town of Dubois, we note the board of adjustment is 
afforded the power "to hear and decide special exemptions" to the terms of the 
ordinance. The language of the ordinance affords discretionary powers with the 
board of adjustment. There is no demonstration of an incontrovertible duty that 
is not open to interpretation, question, or choice. Even if we accepted for 
purposes of argument Epp's contentions the building permit was issued in 
violation of Section 18-4 of the zoning ordinance because use of the building is 
prohibited as a storage building, a lumber yard, or an expansion, change, 
alteration or extension of a grandfathered, non-conforming use, we still are 
confronted with the discretion of the town council to "hear and decide special 
exemptions." Ordinances of the Town of Dubois, Zoning, Section 18-68.B. The 
ordinance itself affords sufficient discretion to the board of adjustment to 
foreclose any right to mandamus on Epp's part.

[¶16]   While it does not appear the 
injunction action and the petition for writ of mandamus ever were consolidated 
by the trial court, the order of dismissal manifests a de facto consolidation. 
We address, for that reason, Epp's contentions the building permit and the 
certificate of occupancy were not lawfully issued. Painted Valley complied with 
the requirements of the Dubois Zoning Ordinance as interpreted by the city 
engineer and the building inspector. Section 18-5 of that ordinance requires a 
"statement of intended use" to be filed by the applicant. Painted Valley 
furnished the information required in response to pertinent questions by the 
town clerk about the proposed construction of the storage building, and the 
clerk completed the standard form utilized by the Town of Dubois entitled 
"Application for Building Permit." That form does not have a separate space for 
an "intended use," but it is clear Painted Valley answered all questions asked 
of it. All information required by the form was provided. Furthermore, the form 
demonstrates on its face Painted Valley desired to erect a metal business 
building, sixty-eight feet by one-hundred ten feet, within the town 
limits.

[¶17]   With respect to the failure of 
Painted Valley to apply for a certificate of occupancy at the same time it 
applied for the building permit, as required by Section 18-7 of the zoning 
ordinance, Painted Valley, again, did what the clerk required. Baker was told by 
the city engineer first and, later the building inspector, that the metal 
storage building did conform with the zoning ordinance and, when it was 
completed, Painted Valley received two certificates of occupancy. Painted Valley 
followed the instructions provided by city personnel charged with the function 
of issuing building permits. We cannot discern the issuance of the permit was 
unlawful and, since Painted Valley held a properly issued building permit, there 
was no basis to afford injunctive relief to Epp.

[¶18]   Pursuing further the claim that the 
building was not lawfully constructed, we perceive the erection of the metal 
storage building by Painted Valley was not a change in use. Article XII of the 
Ordinances of the Town of Dubois - Zoning addresses the continuance and 
extension of non-conforming uses. Those provisions of the ordinance include 
these propositions:

Sec. 18-58. 
Continuance of existing use.

The lawful use of a building existing on the 
effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or authorized by a 
building permit issued prior thereto, may be continued, although such use does 
not conform with the provisions of this chapter, and such use may be extended 
throughout the building.

Sec. 18-59. 
Extension.

No 
nonconforming use shall be extended so as to displace a conforming residential 
use. A nonconforming use may be 
changed to a use of the same or higher classification according to the 
provisions of this chapter. Whenever a district shall hereafter be changed, any 
then existing nonconforming uses in such changed district may be continued or 
changed to a use of a similar or higher classification, provided all other 
regulations governing the new use are complied with. (Emphasis 
added.)

The city engineer determined 
the new metal storage building either was a conforming use or, alternatively, it 
was an extension of a grandfathered, non-conforming use. Epp contends the 
Painted Valley lumber yard is not a conforming use, but the parties agree it 
could be considered a grandfathered, non-conforming use according to the 
ordinance. It was erected pursuant to a duly authorized building permit, and its 
purpose was to store indoors building materials previously stored outdoors in 
substantially the same location on the business property. The operation by 
Painted Valley of a retail lumber yard may well be considered a conforming use. 
The new building then would be an adjunct to that conforming use as an accessory 
building which is defined as:

[A]       building 
subordinate to the main buildings on the same lot and used for purposes 
customarily incidental to those of the main building.

Ordinances of the Town of 
Dubois - Zoning, Article II, § 18-3.

On the other hand, if the 
lumber yard operated by Painted Valley is a grandfathered, nonconforming use, 
the storage building is simply an extension of that use which does not displace 
a conforming residential use. This approach is described in Article XII, § 
18-59, Ordinances of the Town of Dubois - Zoning. We agree with the district 
court that it would not matter whether the storage building is an adjunct of a 
conforming or a non-conforming use; in either instance, the erection of the 
building did not constitute a change of use.

[¶19]   We affirm the decision of the 
district court to deny the writ of mandamus because mandamus cannot be used to 
avoid an appropriate administrative remedy, and Epp failed to demonstrate the 
statutory grounds for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. In addition, we affirm 
the denial of injunctive relief on the ground Painted Valley complied with the 
ordinance and, like the district court, we are not persuaded there is any 
demonstration of an unlawful use.

 

FOOTNOTE

1 That letter, dated May 12, 1992, 
reads:

To Dubois Town 
Council:

I am here as a 
citizen to ask you to reconsider the building permit and moving permit issued to 
Intermountain Electric Inc.

Legal research 
indicates that the approval of this permit is beyond the scope of the authority 
the Town has in our present zoning ordinance. The ordinance itself is inadequate 
in that it does not authorize the expansion of a non-comforming [sic] 
grandfathered use. By allowing the expansion of a non-conforming grandfathered 
use without a hearing to address that proposal, the Town is exceeding it's [sic] 
statutory authority and the result of the Towns [sic] action is in conflict with 
the prohibited uses.

In addition, 
and for the same above reasons, I am also asking you to reconsider the building 
permit issued last October of 1991 to Painted Valley Lumber Inc. Further, I 
would like the Town to research all permits issued to non-conforming uses within 
the past two (2) years so that compliance can be initiated or mitigated in any 
appropriate cases.

Respectfully,

/S/ Gari R. 
Epp