Case Title: Crouthamel v. Board of Albany County Com'rs

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97-99

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1998-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Crouthamel v. Board of Albany County Com'rs1998 WY 10951 P.2d 835Case Number: 97-99Decided: 01/27/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

Richard 
CROUTHAMEL, d/b/a Bookmark, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

BOARD OF ALBANY COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS, Appellee (Plaintiff).

 

Appeal from The Albany County 
District Court, Jeffrey A. Donnell, J.

 

Eric M. Alden, Wheatland, 
for Appellant (Defendant).

Cal Rerucha, Albany County 
Attorney; Ross D. Grisham, Student Intern, Guyton O. Terry, III, Student Intern, 
Laramie, for Appellee (Plaintiff).

 

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

 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 

[¶1] Appellant Richard 
Crouthamel, d/b/a Bookmark, Inc. (Bookmark), appeals from the district court's 
order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of the Board of Albany County 
Commissioners (County Board) and against Bookmark. The district court enjoined 
Bookmark from operating a commercial business on its property in Albany County, 
Wyoming. The County Board's moratorium resolutions on which the district court 
based its preliminary injunction were void ab initio; therefore, we reverse. 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2] Appellant Bookmark 
presents the following issues for our review:

 

1. Does a land owner lose the protection of W.S. § 
18-5-207 for a pre-existing, nonconforming use of lands from subsequent zoning 
regulations if his pre-existing use failed to comply with invalid 
regulations?

 

2. Does a landowner lose his status as a pre-existing 
nonconforming use by obeying a preliminary injunction later determined to be 
improvidently granted[?]

 

3. May a Board of County Commissioners adopt a 
"Schoeller" freeze resolution without the recommendation of an existing Planning 
and Zoning Commission?

 

4. May a Board of County Commissioners adopt a 
"Schoeller" freeze resolution which remains effective without a public hearing 
for over four and one half (4 1/2) months?

 

The County Board presents 
its issues in this way:

 

1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion 
in granting a preliminary injunction enforcing an emergency moratorium enjoining 
appellant from engaging in use of his property.

 

2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion 
in finding that the Order Vacating the Preliminary Injunction in Civil Action # 
25406 does not apply retroactively and that Appellant's commercial activity is 
not entitled to the protection of W.S. § 18-5-207 as a preexisting, 
nonconforming use where such use did not conform with then-valid land use 
regulations.

 

3. Whether the District Court erred in finding that a 
recommendation f[ro]m the zoning authorities satisfies the Schoeller continuum 
for the adoption of a freeze resolution.

 

4. Whether the District Court erred in finding that 
proper notice was given by the County Commission in compliance with the 
Schoeller continuum.

 

FACTS1

 

[¶3] Sometime during 1994, 
Bookmark applied for a change of use permit from Albany County for its property 
located at 188 S. Kiowa Street, in an unincorporated area in Albany County, near 
Laramie. At that time, the county utilized a performance-based land use 
regulation system, commonly referred to as the Land Use Management System 
(LUMS). Albany County did not have a traditional, zoned, land use system. When 
Bookmark applied for a change of use permit pursuant to the LUMS, the county 
planning commission held a hearing, and the County Board denied the permit 
application upon recommendation from the planning 
commission.

 

[¶4] In November of 1995, 
Bookmark opened for business despite the County Board's decision to deny 
Bookmark's commercial use permit application. In Civil Action No. 25406, the 
County Board sought injunctive and declaratory relief in the district court, and 
that court granted a preliminary injunction (first preliminary injunction) 
enjoining Bookmark from the commercial use of the property pending a final 
decision in the case. Bookmark obeyed that order. On September 24, 1996, this 
Court determined that the LUMS found in Converse County had no legal effect and 
were unenforceable. Ford v. County Comm'rs of Converse County, 924 P.2d 91 (Wyo. 
1996) ("Since comprehensive plans [LUMS] lack the legal effect of zoning laws, 
which actually regulate land use, the county plan by itself had no regulatory 
authority." Id. at 95). At that time, Albany County was utilizing a land use 
management system which was very similar to Converse County's land use plan. On 
October 2, 1996, the County Board, based on recommendations from the planning 
and zoning staff, adopted a resolution declaring a ten month moratorium2 on commercial and industrial 
development within the unincorporated areas of Albany County, 
Wyoming.

 

[¶5] On or about October 3, 
1996, Bookmark again opened its doors for business on the subject property. The 
County Board again sought and obtained a cease and desist order against 
Bookmark, prohibiting the commercial use of the property once again because the 
district court determined that the first preliminary injunction, based on the 
LUMS, was still in effect. Bookmark then filed a motion to vacate the first 
preliminary injunction. On February 6, 1997, the district court vacated the 
first preliminary injunction in accordance with our decision in Ford, because 
the LUMS system on which the injunction was based exceeded the statutory 
authority granted to counties to regulate land use and was, therefore, 
invalid.

 

[¶6] Bookmark once again 
opened its doors for business, and the County Board filed another complaint and 
petition for injunctive relief in Civil Action No. 25907. The County Board 
argued that the moratorium resolution it passed in October of 1996, and a second 
moratorium resolution it adopted in February of 1997, prohibited Bookmark's 
commercial use of the property. The district court granted the second 
preliminary injunction, effective until August 2, 1997. Bookmark timely filed 
this appeal.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Statutory and Case Law 
Background

 

[¶7] In Wyoming, counties 
have been granted broad authority to regulate the use of their lands through the 
use of zoning plans and resolutions. Ford v. Board of County Comm'rs of Converse 
County, 924 P.2d 91, 95 (Wyo. 1996) (citing WYO. STAT. §§ 18-5-201 through -207 
(1996)). The board of county commissioners for each county may create and 
establish a planning and zoning commission. WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202(a) (1997). 
Once established, the planning and zoning commission has the authority to 
prepare a comprehensive zoning plan. WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202(b) (1997). If the 
planning and zoning commission intends to certify its  recommendation of the zoning plan to the 
board of county commissioners, it must first hold at least one public hearing, 
providing at least thirty days notice of the time and place of the hearing 
before the date of the hearing. Id.

 

[¶8] Before the board can 
adopt the recommendations of the planning and zoning commission, the board must 
hold at least one public hearing. WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202(c) 1997. Notice of the 
time and place of hearing shall be given at least fourteen days before the date 
of the hearing. Id. After the public hearing, the board shall vote on whether to 
adopt the recommendation of the planning and zoning commission. Id. No zoning 
recommendation shall be adopted unless a majority of the board votes in favor 
thereof. Id. In Ford we held that comprehensive zoning plans lack the legal 
effect of zoning laws and cannot be equated with comprehensive zoning in legal 
significance. Ford, 924 P.2d  at 95. "A comprehensive plan is generally a 
prerequisite for the adoption of zoning resolutions.  Section 9-8-301. In this case, the board 
of county commissioners developed a comprehensive plan but never adopted any 
zoning resolutions." Id. "It is the proper zoning enactment which has the force 
and effect of law." Id.

 

[¶9] Once a county passes a 
zoning resolution, it is unlawful to use any land within the area included in 
the zoning resolution without first obtaining a zoning certificate from the 
board of county commissioners. WYO. STAT. § 18-5-203 (1997). No zoning 
certificate may be issued unless the planned use fully complies with the zoning 
regulations. Id. If the Board denies an application, that decision may be 
reviewed by the district court and by the supreme court. Id. If a landowner 
violates a zoning resolution passed by the board pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 
18-5-202, the resolution is enforceable by injunction. WYO. STAT. § 18-5-205 
(1997). However, the Act also contains a "grandfather" clause, which provides 
that a zoning resolution shall not prohibit the continuance of any use for which 
the land, building or structure is used at the time the zoning resolution is 
adopted, and it is not necessary to obtain any certificate permitting such 
continued use. WYO. STAT. § 18-5-207 (1997).

 

[¶10] County boards have the 
power to enact a freeze resolution without notice and hearing, if necessary. 
Schoeller v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 568 P.2d 869, 878 (Wyo. 1977). 
However, that power is subject to restrictions. Id. "[A] freeze-resolution may 
initially continue only for a length of time which affords an opportunity to 
give notice and hold a hearing on the issue of whether or not such a resolution 
should be given more permanent status under [WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202]." Id. at 
878-79. We adopted the following continuum in Schoeller:

 

(1) On recommendation of the county zoning 
commission, the board can adopt a freeze-resolution in appropriate circumstances 
without prior notice and hearing; (2) pursuant to [WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202], 
notice of such action shall be promptly given in a newspaper of general 
circulation in the county, which also shall notice a hearing to be held on the 
thirtieth day3 after the publication on the 
question of whether or not the freeze-resolution should be extended pending the 
formulation of a comprehensive plan; and (3) within a reasonable time, if the 
freeze-resolution is so extended, the board shall adopt a comprehensive plan 
under [WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202].

 

Schoeller, 568 P.2d  at 879.

 

The Preliminary Injunctions

 

[¶11] The County Board 
admits that its Land Use Management System (LUMS) mirrored the "comprehensive 
plan" found invalid in our decision in Ford v. Board of County Comm'rs of 
Converse County, 924 P.2d 91 (Wyo. 1996). Therefore, when Bookmark applied for a 
change of use permit in Albany County, Wyoming, the County Board had no 
authority to either grant or deny a permit regulating the use of that property. 
The district court was correct when it vacated the first preliminary injunction 
as improvidently granted.4

 

[¶12] After publication of 
the Ford decision, the County Board adopted a moratorium resolution which 
restricted commercial use of property within the county to maintain the status 
quo while it adopted legal zoning laws. "We have recognized that the zoning 
authority which has been granted to counties includes the power to adopt 
temporary freeze resolutions so that the status quo may be preserved until 
planning and zoning decisions can be made." Id. at 95 (citing Schoeller, 568 
P.2d at 874-75). However, if the County Board's temporary freeze resolution 
(moratorium) was not adopted in accordance with Wyoming statutes and our holding 
in Schoeller, the resolution was invalid. Schoeller, 568 P.2d  at 
879.

 

[¶13] After hearing 
arguments from both parties, the district court granted a preliminary injunction 
"enjoining . . . Bookmark, Inc . . . . from operating a commercial business at 
188 South Kiowa Street, Albany County, Wyoming, until August 2, 1997 or until 
further order of this Court[.]" In the second preliminary injunction order the 
district court found that the County Board's moratorium resolutions "resulted 
from Ford v. Board of County Commissioners of Converse County, 924 P.2d 91 (Wyo. 
1996), and that there was reasonable cause for the adoption of said resolutions 
given the lack of zoning authority present in Albany County, Wyoming resulting 
from the Ford decision[.]"

 

[¶14] The district court 
also properly determined that the County Board "has authority to adopt a 
temporary freeze under Schoeller v. Board of County Commissioners, 568 P.2d 869 
(Wyo. 1977) and Ford, and under Wyoming law governing the regulation of property 
use[.]" In Ford we clearly recognized that counties have the "power to adopt 
temporary freeze resolutions so that the status quo may be preserved until 
planning and zoning decisions can be made." Ford, 924 P.2d  at 95 (citing 
Schoeller, 568 P.2d at 874-75). The district court then found that Bookmark's 
activities constitute a commercial activity as defined by those resolutions and 
that such use violates the resolutions; therefore, it granted the second 
preliminary injunction.

 

[¶15] However, the district 
court erred when it determined that the recommendation to the County Board from 
the county planning office, rather than the planning and zoning commission, 
constituted a sufficient recommendation from the "county zoning 
authorities."  The district court 
also committed error when it determined that the freeze resolutions were 
enforceable because "prompt notice of the proposed adoptions of said resolutions 
was given in a newspaper of general jurisdiction for Albany County, 
Wyoming[.]"

 

[¶16] First, Schoeller 
requires that, before the county commissioners can adopt a resolution, the 
planning and zoning commission must recommend adoption of the resolution to the 
county board. Schoeller, 568 P.2d  at 879. The County Board admits that no such 
recommendation was made to the County Board. Rather, the planning and zoning 
staff recommended that the County Board adopt the resolution. The district court 
determined that a recommendation from the Albany County Planning Office to the 
County Board constituted a recommendation from the county zoning authorities 
because whether the commission or the staff made the recommendation was "form 
over substance." We disagree. "[T]he rule of strict construction must be adopted 
in determining whether the delegated powers have been acceptably exercised." 
Schoeller, 568 P.2d  at 876. Failure to follow the statutory requirements in 
adopting a freeze resolution results in a void, or invalid, freeze resolution. 
Id. at 879. Therefore, the ten month moratorium was void ab initio when the 
initial recommendation to the County Board came from the planning staff and not 
the planning and zoning commission.

 

[¶17] Second, Schoeller 
requires that the resolution shall provide that it will be published in the 
newspaper, and that thirty days after the adoption of a resolution, a public 
hearing will be held to determine whether or not the board should extend the 
resolution.  Schoeller, 568 P.2d  at 
879. The County Board did not undertake the required notice and hearing. In 
short, the County Board did not comply with either the first or the second 
requirements from the continuum in Schoeller when it adopted the ten month 
moratorium on commercial use of property within Albany county. Therefore, the 
moratorium was an invalid exercise of the county's police power. Id. at 878. 

 

[¶18] The moratorium should 
have been allowed to continue only for the length of time necessary to afford 
opportunity to give notice and hold a hearing on the issue of whether the 
resolution should be given a more permanent status. Id. at 878-79. Under the 
current statutes, that period is fourteen days. WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202(c) (1997); 
and see Schoeller, 568 P.2d  at 879. Therefore, even if the zoning and planning 
commission had properly given the County Board a recommendation to adopt them, 
the first moratorium became void on or about fourteen days after October 2, 
1996, and the second moratorium became void on or about fourteen days after 
February 7, 1997. See Schoeller, 568 P.2d  at 879.

 

[¶19] "Once a county has 
adopted zoning resolutions, a landowner cannot develop or use any land within 
that area without obtaining a zoning certificate." Ford, 924 P.2d  at 95 (citing 
WYO. STAT. § 18-5-203). According to counsel for the County Board, the county 
did not adopt a zoning resolution until August 1, 1997. Since the county had not 
adopted a valid zoning resolution and the ten month moratorium was void ab 
initio, the preliminary injunctions which kept Bookmark from operating a 
commercial business should not have been granted. In spite of the improvidently 
granted preliminary injunctions, Bookmark established its intended commercial 
use in 1995 and again in 1996. Therefore, we hold that Bookmark may continue to 
use its land as if the invalid moratorium resolutions had never been adopted. 
See WYO. STAT. § 18-5-207 (1997). In other words, Bookmark's commercial use is 
"grandfathered," and commercial operations may continue without seeking a 
certificate permitting a nonconforming use. WYO. STAT. § 18-5-207 
(1997).

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶20] The district court 
erred when it granted the second preliminary injunction enjoining Bookmark from 
operating a commercial business on the subject property. Because the preliminary 
injunction was improvidently granted, we reverse and remand this case to the 
district court for appropriate action.

 

          
          

FOOTNOTES

1 We have taken a large part of the 
background information in this statement of facts from the Brief of Appellee. 
The records from the proceedings which occurred before this case was instituted 
(Civil Action No. 25406) are not included in the transmitted record on appeal. 
Inexplicably, some pleadings and orders from Civil Action No. 25406 are attached 
to the Appellant's brief as an appendix. Both parties then refer to the appendix 
in an apparent attempt by both parties to persuade this Court to consider the 
appendix as part of the transmitted record on appeal. WYO. R.APP. P. 7.01(e)(2) 
requires that appellate briefs contain a statement of the relevant facts with 
appropriate references to documents listed in the index of the transmitted 
record. The orders and pleadings found in the appendix to Appellant's brief have 
not been designated by the parties for transmission to this Court in accordance 
with WYO. R.APP.P. 3.01, and were not certified by the district court in 
accordance with the rules. Although we recognize that the parties asked the 
district court to take judicial notice of the record from Civil Action No. 25406 
during the preliminary hearing, the parties should have asked the district court 
to make portions of the record from Civil Action No. 25406 part of the record on appeal for this case if those documents were 
necessary to a comprehensive statement of facts for appellate 
review.

 

Additionally, 
we note that the preliminary injunction and the moratorium were, by their own 
terms, only effective until August 2, 1997. Neither party has provided any 
supplementation to the transmitted record on appeal to establish that this case 
is not moot. The County Board assured us during oral argument that a 
comprehensive zoning system is in place in Albany County as of August 1, 1997, 
in accordance with the directive from the district court's preliminary 
injunction order. The status of the preliminary injunction, from which Bookmark 
appeals, remains unclear except for the mention, in oral argument, of an issue 
concerning the $5,000 bond posted by the County Board when the preliminary 
injunction was granted. The parties claim the issues before us are not moot. In 
the interest of judicial economy and with due regard for the fact that Bookmark 
has been kept from opening its business in Albany County long enough, we will 
take them at their word.

 

2The ten month moratorium will also be 
referred to as a "temporary freeze" or "emergency freeze" or "freeze" 
resolution.

 

3The statute we analyzed in Schoeller was 
WYO. STAT. § 18-289.3, which required a thirty-day notice period. As noted 
above, WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202, the current version of that statute, requires a 
fourteen-day notice period.  
Therefore, if a county adopts a freeze resolution or moratorium pursuant 
to WYO. STAT. § 18-5-202 (1997), there must be notice and a hearing within 
fourteen days concerning whether or not to continue the 
freeze.

 

4Both parties present arguments 
concerning whether the order vacating the first preliminary injunction should be 
applied retroactively or purely prospectively. However, because we find that the 
"temporary freeze" was improperly adopted by the County Board, we need not reach 
that issue.