Case Title: Sheridan Planning Ass'n v. Board of Sheridan County Com'rs

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Sheridan Planning Ass'n v. Board of Sheridan County Com'rs1996 WY 134924 P.2d 988Case Number: 95-235Decided: 10/08/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
SHERIDAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION,

Appellants 
(Petitioners),

v.

BOARD OF SHERIDAN COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS; and Powder Horn Subdivision, 

Appellees 
(Respondents).

Appeal from District 
Court, Sheridan County, John C. Brackley, J.

Debra J. 
Wendtland of Connor & Wendtland, Sheridan, for 
Appellants.

Matthew F. 
Redle, County Attorney; and Carol A. Doughty, Deputy County Attorney, Sheridan, 
for Appellee Board of Sheridan County Commissioners.

Robert James 
Wyatt, Sheridan, for Appellee Powder Horn Subdivision.

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

* Chief Justice at time of 
oral argument.

TAYLOR, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      We are asked to 
review a Board of County Commissioners' decision approving a planned unit 
development zoning variance. Concluding that the Board of County Commissioners 
did not unlawfully delegate its authority to regulate land use, that there was 
substantial compliance with the local ordinance controlling the approval 
process, and that the Board of County Commissioners' other actions are 
non-reviewable legislative acts, we affirm.

I. ISSUES

[¶2]      Appellants, 
Sheridan Planning Association, state the issues as follows:

1.         Does 
the Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution comply with state 
statute?

2.         Did 
the Sheridan County Commissioners follow the Sheridan County Planned Unit 
Development Resolution?

[¶3]      Appellee, Powder 
Horn Subdivision, states the following issues:

1.         
Whether this matter is properly before this court and actually 
justiciable?

*           
*           
*           
*           
*           
*

2.         
Whether the decision of the Sheridan County Board of County Commissioners 
approving the final planned unit development plan for the Powder Horn should be 
affirmed by this court?

[¶4]      The Board of 
Sheridan County Commissioners, as appellee, states these issues:

1.         Was 
the Board of County Commissioners' decision to approve the Powder Horn Planned 
Unit Development lawful and supported by substantial evidence?

2.         Is 
the Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution, as applied, legally 
valid?

3.         Is 
the approval of a planned unit development by the Board of County Commissioners 
a contested case?

II. 
FACTS

[¶5]      In June of 1994, 
the developer of the Powder Horn Subdivision requested a zoning variance to 
accommodate a new subdivision. Ultimately, following required public hearings, 
the Board of Sheridan County Commissioners (Commissioners) approved a Schematic 
Plan for the Powder Horn Subdivision as a planned unit development (PUD) 
pursuant to the Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution. Following 
more public hearings, the Sheridan County Planning and Zoning Commission 
(Planning and Zoning Commission) unanimously recommended approval of a Final 
Master Plan for the PUD of the Powder Horn Subdivision. On May 15, 1995, 
additional public hearings were scheduled by the Commission and notice of these 
hearings was mailed to all persons who owned property adjacent to the PUD. 
Following those hearings, the Final Master Plan was approved, although the 
Commissioners did attach a number of conditions to the Final Master Plan. A 
group of area residents identified as the Sheridan Planning Association (SPA) 
challenged the validity of the Commissioners' decision. The case was certified 
to this court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

III. 
DISCUSSION

[¶6]      When a case is 
certified to this court, we examine the decision as if we were the reviewing 
court of first instance. Montana Dakota Utilities Co. v. Public Service Com'n of 
Wyoming, 847 P.2d 978, 983 (Wyo. 1993). Decisions will, of course, be affirmed 
on any legal ground appearing in the record. Deisch v. Jay, 790 P.2d 1273, 1278 
(Wyo. 1990).

[¶7]      In their first 
argument, the SPA contend that the Sheridan County Planned Unit Development 
Resolution is invalid because it unlawfully allows the Commissioners to delegate 
their authority to regulate land use to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In 
support of this proposition, the SPA point to Part II, Section IV(F)(1) of the 
Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution which states, "[w]ithin 
[t]hirty (30) days after final submission the Planning Commission shall either 
approve or disapprove the Final PUD Plan." Based on this language, the SPA argue 
that the Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution is invalid because 
it grants final authority to the Planning and Zoning Commission rather than the 
Commissioners. We disagree with this analysis.

[¶8]      The SPA discount 
the executive control of the approval process retained by the Commissioners. See 
Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution, Part I, The Planned Unit 
Development Approval Process, Steps 2 and 3 and Part II, Section III(C). Only 
after the Commissioners have held a public hearing on the proposed plan and 
approved the schematic plan for the PUD does the provision cited by the SPA come 
into play. Further, the Planning and Zoning Commission can approve the final PUD 
plan only if it is in substantial compliance with the schematic PUD plan 
previously approved by the Commissioners. We hold that the Sheridan County 
Planned Unit Development Resolution ensures that the Planning and Zoning 
Commission acts in a manner consistent with the will of the Commissioners and 
that the Commissioners' authority to regulate land use has not been unlawfully 
delegated under the Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution. 
Peachtree Development Co. v. Paul, 67 Ohio St.2d 345, 423 N.E.2d 1087, 1093 
(1981).

[¶9]      The SPA also 
argue that they are entitled to a trial-type hearing. Of course, nonlegislative 
decisions by county commissioners are reviewable under the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act. Holding's Little America v. Board of County Com'rs 
of Laramie County, 670 P.2d 699, 703 (Wyo. 1983). However, amendments to zoning 
laws are legislative acts and, as such, are not reviewable. McGann v. City 
Council of City of Laramie, 581 P.2d 1104, 1106 (Wyo. 1978). The approval of a 
PUD plat is tantamount to amending zoning regulations and is, therefore, a 
legislative act. Jurkiewicz v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 85 Ohio App.3d 503, 
620 N.E.2d 146, 147 (1993). We hold that the approval of a PUD plan by the 
Commissioners is a legislative act that is not reviewable under the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act. McGann, 581 P.2d  at 1107. Further, we hold that a 
trial-type hearing is not required during this legislative process. Foster's 
Inc. v. City of Laramie, 718 P.2d 868, 873 (Wyo. 1986).

[¶10]   Finally, the SPA argue that the 
Commissioners failed to comply with the Sheridan County Planned Unit Development 
Resolution. We disagree, as the record contains substantial evidence of 
compliance. Having concluded that the Commissioners substantially complied with 
the Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution and having held that 
their actions were non-reviewable legislative acts, we need not consider the 
remaining arguments presented by the SPA.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶11]   The decision of the Board of 
Sheridan County Commissioners is affirmed.