Case Title: Juroszek v. City of Sheridan Bd. of Adjustment

Citation: 

Docket Number: 97-88

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Juroszek v. City of Sheridan Bd. of Adjustment1997 WY 150948 P.2d 1370Case Number: 97-88Decided: 12/19/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

OSCAR JUROSZEK,  

Appellant (Petitioner), 

 

v. 

 

CITY OF SHERIDAN BOARD OF 
ADJUSTMENT,  

Appellee (Respondent).

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sheridan County

 The 
Honorable John C. Bradley, Judge

 

 

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

John G. 
Fenn of Yonkee & Toner, Sheridan.

 Representing 
Appellee: 

Stephen K. 
Gregersen, Sheridan.

 

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

MACY, Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellee City of 
Sheridan Board of Adjustment granted a zoning variance for a funeral home and 
crematorium to be constructed in a residential area on land which adjoined 
Appellant Oscar Juroszek's property. Juroszek petitioned the district court, 
asking it to overturn the Board of Adjustment's decision, and the district court 
denied his request. Juroszek appeals from the district court's 
denial.

 

[¶2]      We reverse the 
Board of Adjustment's decision.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Juroszek presents 
three issues on appeal:

 

1. Did the Sheridan Board of Adjustment act 
arbitrarily and capriciously when failing to make specific findings as required 
by W.S. § 15-1-608(b)(ii), and was its decision supported by substantial 
evidence when granting a variance for a funeral home to be placed in a[n] R-1 
residential area?

 

2. Did the Board of Adjustment's failure to adopt 
rules and regulations pursuant to the enabling stat[ut]e and W.A.P.A. cause 
[its] decision to grant a variance to be prejudicially 
fatal?

 

3. Did the Board of Adjustment's failure to adopt 
rules and regulations cause the notice provided regarding its June 13, 1996 
hearing to be defective and contrary to well established notice requirements of 
administrative hearings?

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      Mark Ferries 
submitted a sketch plat to the City of Sheridan Planning Commission in April 
1996, proposing a planned unit development to reorganize lots in the Colony 
South Addition. The planned unit development contemplated that a funeral home 
site would be located on approximately 2.1 acres, a residential development 
would be located on 3.3 acres, and an open space would be left on the remaining 
1.4 acres. The existing lots had previously been zoned R-1 under the zoning 
ordinance for single family residential homes. The Planning Commission directed 
Ferries to request a zoning ruling from the Board of Adjustment on what zone a 
funeral home should be allowed in.

 

[¶5]      The Board of 
Adjustment published a notice in the local newspaper on May 4, 1996, and May 8, 
1996, advising that it would consider Ferries' proposal at its May 9, 1996, 
meeting. At that meeting, the Board members discussed whether a funeral home was 
an allowed use for an R-1 residence district. They agreed that, although they 
would not generally allow funeral homes to be constructed within residence 
districts, the proposed funeral home was appropriate for this particular area. 
The Board of Adjustment recommended that Ferries apply for a variance which 
would allow the funeral home to be built in this area.

 

[¶6]      Ferries applied 
for a variance and attached a memorandum which explained the reasons why the 
Board of Adjustment should allow the funeral home to be constructed in the R-1 
residence district. The Board of Adjustment published a notice on June 8, 1996, 
and June 13, 1996, advising that it would consider Ferries' application for a 
variance on June 13, 1996. The Board members unanimously approved Ferries' 
application at its June 13th meeting. The minutes from that meeting 
provided:

 

3. Request for variance to place a funeral home in 
a[n] R1 Residential Zone at Lots 5 through 15, Block 1, and Lots 5 through 13, 
Block 2, Colony South Addition.

 

Discussion: [Phil] Nowak reminded the City that, 
pursuant to instructions to the City, he would appreciate that a copy of the 
actual language of proposed variance be included in the package for the board of 
adjusters. There was general assent. Clay Jenkins suggested that, during the 
current re-write of the zoning ordinance, the issue of proper placement of 
funeral homes be addressed. He pointed out that funeral homes are nowhere 
mentioned in the zoning ordinance, and thus are presumably only allowed in Zones 
B2 or lower. This is so because all zones higher than B1 define "allowed uses," 
without mentioning funeral homes. All zones below B2 exclude uses, without 
mentioning funeral homes.

 

Motion to Grant Variance: [Phil] 
Nowak

 

Second: Nancy Drummond

 

Vote: 4 - 0 Variance granted.

 

The Board of Adjustment did 
not consider other business during this meeting.

 

[¶7]      Juroszek, who was 
an adjacent landowner, filed a petition on July 26, 1996, asking the district 
court to overturn the Board of Adjustment's decision. The district court denied 
his request, and Juroszek appealed to this Court.

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶8]      W.R.A.P. 12.09(a) 
limits judicial review of an administrative decision to a determination of the 
matters which are specified in WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c) (1997). Section 
16-3-114(c) provides in pertinent part:

 

(c). . . . 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;

. 
. .

(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case 
reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by 
statute.

 

We review an administrative 
decision as if it had come directly to this Court from the agency. Dunning v. Ankney, 936 P.2d 61, 63 
(Wyo. 1997). We are not compelled to accept the conclusions reached by the 
district court. Id.

 

[¶9]      In determining 
whether an agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
otherwise not in accordance with the law, we review the record as a whole to 
ascertain whether the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence. 
Holding's Little America v. Board of 
County Commissioners of Laramie County, 670 P.2d 699, 703 (Wyo. 1983). 
Substantial evidence in this context means relevant evidence which a reasonable 
mind could accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. Id. To determine if substantial evidence 
exists, we review all the evidence and decide whether the agency could 
reasonably conclude as it did. Ward v. 
Board of Trustees of Goshen County School District No. 1, 865 P.2d 618, 623 
(Wyo. 1993). The party attacking the agency's decision has the burden of proving 
that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Pfeil v. Amax Coal West, Inc., 908 P.2d 956, 962 (Wyo. 1995).

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶10]   Juroszek contends that the Board of 
Adjustment acted arbitrarily and capriciously in granting a variance without 
providing specific findings and that, therefore, its decision was not supported 
by substantial evidence. The Board of Adjustment argues that its decision to 
grant the variance was supported by the memorandum which Ferries attached to his 
application for a variance and by the minutes of the May 9, 1996, meeting and 
that, since the case was not contested, the Board of Adjustment did not have to 
provide specific findings with its decision.

 

[¶11]   The Board of Adjustment is an 
administrative agency which has the power to grant variances related to land use 
matters. WYO. STAT. § 15-1-608 (1997). Section 15-1-608(b)(ii) authorizes the 
Board of Adjustment to:

 

(ii) Vary or adjust the strict application of any of 
the requirements of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this article in the case 
of any physical condition applying to a lot or building if the strict 
application would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the land or 
building involved. No adjustment in the strict application of any provision of 
an ordinance may be granted unless:

 

(A) There are special circumstances or conditions, 
fully described in the board's findings, which are peculiar to the land or 
building for which the adjustment is sought 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;

 

(B) For reasons fully set forth in the board's 
findings, 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, the granting of the adjustment is necessary for the 
reasonable use thereof and the adjustment as granted is the minimum adjustment 
that will accomplish this purpose; and

 

(C) The granting of the adjustment is in harmony with 
the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and will not be injurious to 
the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public 
welfare.

 

[¶12]   Under this section, the Board of 
Adjustment must provide findings which set out the relevant factors that it 
considered and addressed in making its decision. The record does not contain the 
required findings nor does it reveal that the Board members considered the 
statutory factors before they voted. In fact, the minutes of the June 13, 1996, 
meeting only indicate that the meeting lasted seven minutes during which time 
the Board members unanimously voted to grant the variance. When an agency does 
not set forth the reasons for its action, this Court cannot determine whether it 
considered the relevant factors. Holding's Little America, 670 P.2d  at 
704.

 

[¶13]   The Board of Adjustment failed to 
provide findings of fact and conclusions of law with its decision pursuant to § 
15-1-608(b)(ii); therefore, its decision to grant the variance was not in 
accordance with the law, § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), regardless of whether or not this 
was a contested case. Because our holding on this issue is dispositive, we will 
not address the remaining issues. Fowler 
v. Fowler, 933 P.2d 502, 506 (Wyo. 1997).

 

[¶14]   The Board of Adjustment's decision 
is reversed.