Title: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, WYOMING v. CROW

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, WYOMING v. CROW2003 WY 4065 P.3d 720Case Number: 01-244, 01-245Decided: 03/26/2003
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

 

                                                                                                
   

 

 

THE 
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF 
TETON COUNTY, WYOMING,

 

Appellant(Plaintiff) 
,

 

v.

 

THOMAS 
L. CROW AND CAROL-ANN G. CROW,

JAMES 
E. MOELLER AND SOUTHPAC TRUST

INTERNATIONAL 
INC., TRUSTEES OF THE

TLC/CGC 
TRUST, JEFFREY S. OVERTON,

 

Appellees(Defendants) 
.

 

THOMAS 
L. CROW,

 

Appellant(Plaintiff) 
,

 

v.

 

BOARD 
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF 
THE COUNTY OF TETON,

 

Appellee(Defendant) 
.

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Teton County

The 
Honorable Nancy Guthrie, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant Board of County Commissioners of Teton 
County:

Stephen 
E. Weichman, Teton County & Prosecuting Attorney, and James L. Radda, Deputy 
Teton County Attorney, Jackson, WY.  
Argument by Mr. Radda.

 

Representing 
Appellees Thomas L. Crow and Carol-Ann Crow:

Timothy 
Newcomb of Grant & Newcomb, Laramie, WY, and Katherine L. Mead of Mead & 
Mead, Jackson, WY.  Argument by Mr. 
Newcomb and Ms. Mead.

 

Representing 
Appellee Jeffrey S. Overton:

David 
B. Hooper and Tom Glassberg of Hooper Law Offices, Riverton, WY.  Argument by Mr. 
Glassberg.

 

 

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

 

*Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument.

 

 

            
HILL, Chief Justice.

 

[¶1]      The Board of 
County Commissioners of Teton County (Teton County) sought to enforce its Land 
Development Regulation (LDR or LDR's) which limits the size of a single-family 
residence to 8,000 square feet of habitable space.  So as to clarify what follows, we 
include the pertinent portion of the text of that regulation 
here:

 

SECTION 
2450.  MAXIMUM SCALE OF 
DEVELOPMENT

 

A.        
Residential Development.  
Notwithstanding the development standards specified in Table 2400, 
Schedule of Dimensional Limitations, single-family development shall 
comply with the following standards:

 

1.         
Habitable space.  The 
maximum amount of habitable space for a single family dwelling, including 
associated accessory structures, is 8,000 square feet.

 

2.         
Total square footage.  
The total floor area of a single family dwelling, including all 
associated accessory structures, shall not exceed 10,000 square 
feet.

 

3.         
Basements excluded.  
Basements, as defined in these Land Development Regulations, are excluded 
from the calculation of maximum scale of development.  For the purposes of this section, only 
floor area above ground shall be counted.  
Floors above ground shall include partial levels such as lofts and 
interior balconies.  (Amended 
9/27/94)  [Vol. 1, p. 
106]

 

The 
LDR's at issue here, as well as Teton County's Comprehensive Plan, were adopted 
on May 9, 1994.

 

[¶2]      Thomas and 
Carol-Ann Crow, and their trust (Crow), own a house in the Owl Creek Subdivision 
in Teton County.  During 1997-98, 
Crow built a house, which conformed to the square footage limitation imposed by 
Teton County.  The house was 
completed and approved as compliant with the applicable regulations on December 
22, 1998.  In January of 1999, with 
the assistance of a contractor, Jeffrey Overton (Overton), Crow remodeled the 
house to expand its habitable square footage to about 11,000 square feet1.  Teton County filed this action on April 
21, 2000, to enforce the applicable regulations and to abate the violations that 
had taken place.  Also on April 21, 
2000, Crow filed a lawsuit seeking declarative and injunctive relief, including 
a judicial declaration that portions of Teton County's LDR's were 
unconstitutional.  As a part of its 
prayer for relief, Teton County sought an order which would require Crow and 
Overton to abate the violations "by any and all means necessary, including, but 
not limited to, the removal, destruction, and demolition of the unapproved 
addition to the Crow residence."  
The district court determined that enforcement of the applicable 
regulation, as applied to Crow under the facts of this case, violated his due 
process rights and thus granted summary judgment in Crow's favor.  The effect of that decision required 
Teton County to abide the remodeling of the Crow residence.  All three parties enumerated above have 
joined in this appeal.

 

[¶3]      We will reverse 
the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent 
with this opinion.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶4]      As appellant in 
Case No. 01-244, Teton County raises these issues:

 

            
1.  Whether the district court erred a) in granting Crow's 
summary judgment motion on the basis that, as applied to the specific facts of 
this case, the enforcement of Section 2450 against Crow violates Crow's 
substantive due process rights, and b) in denying the County's summary judgment 
motion on the basis that, as applied to the specific facts of this case, the 
enforcement of section 2450 against Crow did not violate Crow's substantive due 
process rights?

 

            
2.  Whether the district court erred in granting Crow's summary 
judgment motion concerning Count II of the County's complaint pertaining to 
development without a permit?

 

[¶5]      As appellee in 
Case No. 01-244, Crow did not provide a summary of the issues, but we glean the 
following from the headings to Crow's arguments:

 

            
1.  The district court was correct in ruling that, "as applied 
to the specific facts of this case", Section 2450 of Teton County's Land 
Development Regulations "in no way rationally relates to the County's objective 
of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, morals, and general 
welfare," and, therefore, violates the Crows' substantive due process 
rights.

 

            
2.  The County's Land Development Regulations did not require 
the Crows to obtain a permit in order to make nonstructural changes to the 
interior of an existing, permitted and approved home.

 

            
3.  The Crow home is grandfathered under the Board's 
established custom and usage, which permits other subdivision lots to build out 
according to the rules and regulations in place when the subdivision was 
approved and platted.

 

            
4.  The Board's treatment of the Crows and the discriminatory 
intent of Section 2450 violates equal protection of the law under the United 
States and Wyoming Constitutions.

 

            
5.  The County's Land Development Regulations were not 
promulgated in accord with applicable laws.

 

            
6.  Teton County's Planning Director has impermissibly engaged 
in illegal rule making with respect to how "habitable space" is measured and the 
terms "habitable space" and "total floor area" are unconstitutionally vague and 
in violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and Art. 1, § 6 of the 
Wyoming Constitution.

 

            
7.  Section 2450 constitutes a taking.

 

            
8.  Section 2450 violates the Crows' unenumerated right to 
residential privacy.

 

            
9.  Section 2450 violates the Crows' right to associate with 
their family under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and Art. 1, 
§ 6 of the Wyoming Constitution.

 

[¶6]      As appellant in 
Case No. 01-245, Crow states these issues:

 

            
I.  Is the Board's regulation of "habitable space" and "total 
floor area" of homes  which are otherwise approved for safety, land use 
compatibility and aesthetics  in order to promote "community character, rural 
character, rural western character, land use and character type compatibility, 
social and economic diversity through housing affordability and social and 
economic diversity by lessening the demand on affordable housing," an exercise 
of power beyond that delegated to counties to regulate the location and use of 
buildings and use of lands in order to promote health, safety, morals or 
welfare, as required by W.S. § 18-5-201?

 

            
II.  If "community character, rural character, rural western 
character, land use and character type compatibility, social and economic 
diversity through housing affordability and social and economic diversity by 
lessening the demand on affordable housing" are legitimate state interests as 
defined by W.S. § 18-5-201, does Section 2450 promote the public health, safety, 
morals or general welfare, as required by W.S. § 18-5-201?

 

[¶7]      In response to 
the issues raised by Crow, Teton County restates the issues in Case No. 01-245 
thus:

 

            
1.  Whether Wyo. Stat. § 18-5-201 authorizes counties to 
regulate the height, bulk and scale of buildings?

 

            
2.  Whether Section 2450 of the Teton County Land Development 
Regulations satisfies the requirements of substantive due process 
facially?

 

[¶8]      Overton did not 
file a notice of appeal.  However, 
he raises these issues as an appellee in Case No. 01-244:

 

            
Appellee Jeffery S. Overton incorporates herein all of the issues set 
forth in the brief of Appellee Thomas L. Crow and, in addition, the following 
issues which are unique to Appellee Overton:

 

            
1.  When a plaintiff mistakenly files a lawsuit against an 
individual who was president of a corporation, rather than against the 
corporation itself, and the plaintiff fails to allege or to adduce any evidence 
that the individual or the corporation did or failed to do anything that relates 
to piercing the corporate veil, is the individual defendant entitled to 
dismissal as a matter of law?

 

            
2.  Is a person who is not a "Developer" subject to the Teton 
County Land Development Regulations?

 

            
3.  Can a person who is not a "Landowner" be made to abate 
alleged violations of the Teton County Land Development Regulations and be 
ordered to demolish real property which he does not own and which he does not 
have a legal right to enter?

 

            
4.  Can a person who is not a "Landowner" be made to pay a per 
diem fine for alleged continuing violations of the Teton County Land Development 
Regulations when the person is legally incapable of remedying the violation in 
order to stop the fine from continuing to accumulate?

FACTS

 

[¶9]      On March 21, 
1995, Crow appeared through counsel at a meeting of the Teton County Board of 
County Commissioners and requested permission to construct a house with 12,000 
square feet of habitable space.  
Crow owned four contiguous lots in the Owl Creek subdivision and a 
portion of his argument was based upon a theory that since he could build four 
separate houses with 8,000 square feet of habitable space, then he should be 
permitted to build one house with the larger dimensions on two of the adjoining 
lots.  The covenants that applied to 
the Owl Creek subdivision permitted such a building plan.  The minutes of the Board of County 
Commissioners contain the following entry concerning the 
application:

 

3.  A 
request from Peter Moyer for his client Tom Crow.  Mr. Crow has two lots in Owl Creek.  He would like to combine the two lots 
and build a 12,000 square foot house.  
The Owl Creek covenants allow for this.  However, the County does not deal with 
covenants and the County Plan only allows for an 8,000 square foot house.  Bill Collins stated that Mr. Crow would 
need a Plan Amendment or a Variance.  
Peter stated that it comes down to whether it is grandfathered.  Sandy stated that this was not 
grandfathered when the Plan was adopted.

 

So 
far as the record on appeal shows, Crow did not seek a plan amendment or a 
variance, nor did he further explore by administrative means whether or not his 
property was "grandfathered" so as not to be affected by the adoption of the 
1994 LDR's.

 

[¶10]   In April of 1996, Crow, acting 
through Overton, who is a general contractor, obtained a building permit to 
construct a house with approximately 8,000 square feet of habitable space, and 
10,000 square feet overall, on Lot 36 (the permit was limited only to Lot 36 and 
did not relate to any of the other contiguous lots owned by 
Crow).

 

[¶11]   Shortly after the house was 
completed in December of 1998, Crow appears to have added about 3,000 square 
feet of habitable living space by adding two bedrooms and three bathrooms under 
the existing vaulted roofs of two attached garages and the master bed/bath, as 
well as converting a porch to habitable space.  It was Crow's contention that this work 
was done "for safety concerns, for purposes of heating efficiency and to 
accommodate the needs of his extended family."  Crow contends that this work did not 
change the exterior or "footprint" of the house at all, although Teton County 
claims that to some small extent it did.  
It appears from some of the evidence in the record that the expansion of 
the Crow house was contemplated all along, but that the "Phase II" portion of 
the work was not begun until after the final inspection and approval of "Phase 
I" by Teton County, which was the initial 8,000 square feet of the house.  The remodeling work was done by Overton 
without benefit of a building permit.  
Overton conceded that a permit was not sought because everyone knew one 
would not be granted.

 

[¶12]   In addition to seeking demolition 
of the unauthorized additions to Crow's house, Teton County sought authority to 
inspect the structure in order to ensure compliance with applicable laws and 
rules and regulations.  Teton County 
also seeks to collect the applicable fine of up to $750.00 per day for the 
entire time period at issue here (i.e., early January of 1999 until 
present time).  Crow raised a number 
of counterclaims, in particular, challenging the constitutionality of certain of 
Teton County's LDR's.  Crow also 
filed a separate action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  The two actions were 
consolidated.

 

[¶13]   Crow articulated his "philosophy" 
with respect to the building, and then the expansion, of his Teton County house 
in this affidavit:

 

            
When Cally, my wife, and I were looking for the best possible place to 
build our retirement home, we decided upon Teton County from among many very 
desirable alternatives.  We did so, 
in part, because of the relatively limited amount of land which could ever be 
developed, leaving most of Teton County in its natural state.  It is very important to us to be able to 
reach [teach] our family, especially our grandchildren, the great value of 
associating with family and the importance and beauty of nature, especially as 
found in Teton County.

            
Among our many considerations in deciding where to retire was that we 
wanted to build a home, not only where we could spend our entire lives, but one 
that would be an especially attractive and suitable place for our entire family, 
including our children and particularly grandchildren.  We knew we would have to compete for our 
children's and our grandchildren's time, so we wanted to build a home where they 
would want to come and bring their friends.  Our approach has worked.  We have been blessed and continue to be 
blessed with numerous visits.  We 
are committed to teaching our family, especially our grandchildren, the 
incalculable importance of sense of family, of associating with one's family and 
of appreciating nature to a healthy and balanced life.  We wanted a home that could accommodate 
our extended family in a place where the beauty of nature is obvious and 
abundant.  We wanted a place which 
would be consistent with encouraging those values and conducive to passing them 
along to our grandchildren, especially.  
We felt the need to make a place that would be so attractive that other 
demands on their time would be overcome.  
That approach demanded that we build a home of a certain size with 
sufficient bedrooms.  Our approach 
would have the advantages that we would more likely see them more often, they 
would have exposure to those values that, for us, are among the most important 
in life, and incidentally, we would also get to know with whom they were 
consorting.  We have been visiting 
the Jackson area since 1995.  We are 
certain that Jackson Hole is the right place, and that our home is as it needs 
to be to accommodate our extended family and to attract our children and 
grandchildren in order to inculcate the values we believe they will need as they 
carry forth in their own lives.

 

 

[¶14]   The issues raised in these appeals 
must be considered in light of the authority that has been delegated to Teton 
County by the Wyoming Legislature with respect to planning and zoning.  The legislature has granted broad power 
to counties to regulate the unincorporated lands within their respective 
jurisdictions.2  Ford v. Board of County Commissioners 
of Converse County, 924 P.2d 91, 95 (Wyo. 1996); Snake River Venture v. 
Board of County Commissioners, Teton County, 616 P.2d 744, 752-53 (Wyo. 
1980).  The pertinent statutes are 
set out in their entirety in Appendix I.

 

 

[¶15]   We have already quoted Section 2450 
on the first page of this opinion.  
We add here that habitable space is also defined by the 
LDR's:

 

Habitable 
space.  Habitable space means heated space used 
for living purposes.  Heated storage 
areas, studios, exercise rooms, offices, and similar spaces are included as 
habitable space.  Barns, garages, 
unfinished attic space and under floor spaces are not included in habitable 
space.

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶16]   The district court resolved this 
litigation on cross motions for summary judgment.  We will set out here the key elements of 
the standard of review we apply to matters resolved by summary judgment.  However, we deem it prudent to note at 
this early juncture that, while there are numerous disputed material facts at 
issue, the district court resolved the issues on purely legal and constitutional 
principles.  Various portions of our 
decision will, of necessity, rely on standards of review more directly 
applicable to individual issues, and we will clarify the standard of review 
being applied as we go through those issues.

 

[¶17]   When we review a summary judgment, 
we have before us the same materials as did the district court, and we follow 
the same standards which applied to the proceedings below.  The propriety of granting a motion for 
summary judgment depends upon the correctness of the dual findings that there is 
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the prevailing party is 
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  
Reed v. Miles Land and Livestock Company, 2001 WY 16, ¶ 9, 18 P.3d 1161, ¶ 9 (Wyo. 2001).  A 
genuine issue of material fact exists when a disputed fact, if proven, would 
have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of an asserted 
cause of action or defense.  We, of 
course, examine the record from a vantage point most favorable to that party who 
opposed the motion, affording to that party the benefit of all favorable 
inferences that fairly may be drawn from the record.  Scherer Construction, LLC v. Hedquist 
Construction, Inc., 2001 WY 23, ¶ 15, 18 P.3d 645, ¶ 15 (Wyo. 
2001).  Central Wyoming Medical 
Laboratory, LLC v. Medical Testing Lab, Inc., 2002 WY 47, ¶ 15, 43 
P.3d, 121, ¶ 15 (Wyo. 2002).

 

[¶18]   In Case No. 01-244, the district 
court's holding that Section 2450 is unconstitutional as applied to Crow is at 
issue, and we must also address Crow's assertion that the district court erred 
in holding that it is facially constitutional.

 

 

 

[¶19]   We have had occasion to discuss this 
area of the law in some detail.  Although that occasion was some 17 years ago, 
little that we had to say then has changed in the ensuing years.  In a discussion of 
the police power vested in local governments we held:

 

Both the United States Constitution and the Wyoming 
Constitution impose due process limitations on exercises of the police 
powers.  The 
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. 1, § 
6 of the Wyoming Constitution all assert that no person shall be deprived of 
life, liberty or property without due process of law.  In general, Wyoming 
has, in zoning cases, interpreted its due process provision in a manner parallel 
to the federal provisions.  See e.g. Board of 
County Commissioners of Teton County v. Teton County Youth Services, Inc., 
Wyo., 652 P.2d 400, 414 (1982).

 

            
The due process clause has both a procedural and a substantive 
aspect.  State v. Langley, 53 Wyo. 332, 84 P.2d 767 (1938).  In the case at bar 
the trial court declared that Cheyenne's airport zoning ordinance failed to meet 
constitutional standards of substantive due process.  For the reasons that 
follow, we cannot agree with this conclusion.

 

            
The constitutional standard of substantive due process, under both United 
States and Wyoming interpretations, demands that a police power regulation must 
promote a legitimate public objective with reasonable means.  The substantive due 
process standard of reasonableness is applicable during the initial legislative 
process and theoretically confines the legislators.  The judiciary may, 
in the context of an actual case, be called on to measure the legislative 
performance against the constitutional standard.  When the legislative enactment lies in the 
economic and social welfare area, and when there are no suspect criteria or 
fundamental interests involved, the court will, in testing the enactment, 
inquire only as to whether the regulation is of debatable reasonableness.  In other words, if 
the court perceives that the legislature had some arguable basis for choosing 
the end and the means, it will sustain the regulation at least as to compliance 
with substantive due process.  Only when a regulation amounts to an arbitrary 
deprivation of regulatees' property will it be deemed to violate the dictates of 
substantive due process.  As we said in Washakie 
County School District No. One v. Herschler, Wyo., 606 P.2d 310, 333 (1980), 
cert. denied 449 U.S. 824, 101 S. Ct. 86, 66 L.Ed.2d 28:

 

"When an ordinary [nonfundamental constitutional] interest 
is involved, then a court merely examines to determine whether there is a 
rational relationship between a classification * * * and a legitimate state 
objective."

 

            
In the present case the appellees sought, and the trial court apparently 
granted, a declaration of the ordinance's general or facial invalidity under 
substantive due process.  We conclude, for reasons that follow, that the 
ordinance does comply with the requirements of substantive due process and that 
the trial court's contrary conclusion is erroneous.

 

            
The legitimate objectives of the police power are loosely characterized 
as being public in nature and the potential range is very broad.  See Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 104 S. Ct. 2321, 81 L. Ed. 2d 186 (1984); Berman v. Parker, 
348 U.S. 26, 75 S. Ct. 98, 99 L. Ed. 27 (1954).  There is no real dispute in this case that the 
objectives of the Cheyenne airport zoning ordinance are both public and 
legitimate.  The 
trial judge, in fact, stated:

 

"I think there is no question here that private property is 
sought for the public's good and safety * * *."

 

            
As to the means chosen by the Cheyenne council to achieve these 
objectives, we reiterate that, in the economic and social welfare area and when 
the ordinance is examined in a general, facial manner, the courts will usually 
go no further than to ascertain the debatable reasonableness of the legislative 
choices.  See Snake River Venture v. Board of County Commissioners, 
Teton County, Wyo., 616 P.2d 744, 753 (1980).  The United States Supreme Court, in dealing 
with general, facial challenges to local exercises of police power, has 
sustained the substantive due process reasonableness of a number of facets of 
local zoning.  
Thus, in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty 
Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303, 54 A.L.R. 1016 (1926), the 
Court determined that in a general sense, it is constitutionally reasonable and 
in accord with substantive due process for a local legislature to use 
comprehensive zoning and its uncompensated restrictions on use and bulk in order 
to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare.  In Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603, 47 S. Ct. 675, 71 L. Ed. 1228, 53 A.L.R. 1210 (1927), the Court upheld the general reasonableness of 
zoning setbacks and their requirement that portions of plots be left 
unbuilt.  In Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, New York, 369 U.S. 590, 
82 S. Ct. 987, 8 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1962), the Court upheld the general reasonableness 
of local zoning restrictions on excavations below the depth of the water 
table.  In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1978), the Court sustained the general 
constitutionality of height limitations that New York City had imposed to 
protect historic and aesthetic landmarks.  See also Welch v. 
Swasey, 214 U.S. 91, 29 S. Ct. 567, 53 L. Ed. 923 (1909).

 

            
These Supreme Court precedents do not address the specific issues of 
airport zoning and its general validity under the standards of substantive due 
process.  We 
note, however, that they do deal with zoning provisions and restraints on the 
portions of property that can be physically used.  Thus, the United States Supreme Court has 
sustained the general constitutional reasonableness of restrictions on the depth 
of activities in the subsoil ( Goldblatt v. Town of 
Hempstead, New York, supra), the lateral extent of activities on the surface 
(Gorieb v. Fox, supra, and Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., supra), 
and the height of activities in the airspace (Penn 
Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, supra).  We hold, therefore, 
that to the extent that the lower court in the present case purported to enjoin 
airport zoning in general as contrary to the demands of substantive due process, 
it was in error.

 

            
Substantive due process, with its emphasis on legitimate objectives and 
rational means, can be explored and applied in a general sense when the 
reasonableness of the entire ordinance or statute is in question.  See e.g. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 
supra.   It 
can also be examined in a specific sense, when the court evaluates the 
reasonableness of a law as applied to an individual.  See Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S. Ct. 447, 72 L. Ed. 842 (1928).

 

Cheyenne Airport Board v. Rogers, 707 P.2d 717, 726-28 (Wyo. 1985).

 

[¶20]   Crow contends that, on its face, Section 
2450 is not a rational or reasonable exercise of Teton County's police 
powers.  The 
regulations put in place by Teton County resemble those of many other 
jurisdictions and, on the face of things, they appear to be both rational and 
reasonable:

 

The courts have recognized this role of planning, in 
defining planning as concerned with ". . . the physical development of the 
community and its environs in relation to its social and economic well-being for 
the fulfillment of the rightful common destiny, according to a master plan' 
based on careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of present conditions 
and the prospects of future growth of the municipality,' and embodying 
scientific teachings and creative experience."

 

Donald G. Hagman and Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer, Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law, § 2.10 
at 26 (1986) (citing Angermeier v. Borough of Sea 
Girt, 27 N.J. 298, 142 A.2d 624, 629 (1958)).

 

[¶21]   Teton County is an area of extremely 
rare natural beauty, and Crow acknowledges that magnificence.  In addition to 
protecting the beauty of the valley, we note that Teton County might well wish 
to address the preservation of its colorful and storied past, as well as the 
impact that the construction, maintenance and servicing of large homes might 
have on the microeconomics of Teton County.  Crow fails in his efforts to cogently argue 
that the regulations lack a reasonably conceivable rational basis, and by the 
measuring stick identified in Rogers, as well as the 
great body of pertinent authority available on this subject, the regulations 
are, indeed, rational and that rationality is readily perceptible.  See, e.g., Crider v. Board of County Commissioners of the 
County of Boulder, 246 F.3d 1285, 1289-90 (10th Cir. 2001); Bannum, Inc. v. 
City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 157 F.3d 819, 822-24 (11th Cir. 1998); and WMX 
Technologies, Inc. v. Gaconade County, Missouri, 105 F.3d 1195, 1198-1201 
(8th 
Cir. 1997).

 

[¶22]   We hold that the regulations at issue 
here are not facially unconstitutional.

 

 

[¶23]   The district court granted Crow's motion 
for summary judgment on the basis that, as applied to the circumstances of this 
case, Section 2450 was unconstitutional as applied to Crow.  The district court 
recited many of the undisputed factual matters set out above but also made the 
finding that Crow "later added some interior flooring for heating and safety 
concerns."  The 
district court also took note that Crow's home did not change "from 
outside."  "The 
changes were only to the interior of [Crow's] home."  It is apparent from 
the record that these facts were very much in dispute.  The district court 
findings also included these:

 

            
10.  Section 2450 promotes the legitimate public objectives of 
protecting, promoting, and preserving (1) community character, (2) rural 
character, (3) rural western character, (4) land use and character type 
compatibility, (5) social and economic diversity through housing affordability, 
and (6) social and economic diversity by lessening the demand on affordable 
housing.

            
11.  Other subdivisions, specifically Teton Pines, have been 
allowed to build houses in excess of Section 2450's limitations. 

            
12.  [Crow] uses his residence solely for a family 
residence.

            
13.  [Crow] has a large immediate and extended family.

            
14.  [Crow] owns and built this residence on four contiguous 
lots.

            
15.  If developed individually, each lot could contain a 
residence of 8,000 square feet of habitable space, and 10,000 square feet of 
total floor area.

 

[¶24]   The district court then reached these 
conclusions:

 

            
Substantive due process in zoning requires that a regulation promote a 
legitimate public objective through rational means.  Cheyenne Airport Bd. v. Rogers, 707 P.2d 717, 723 [727] 
(Wyo. 1985).  A 
substantive due process claim can be examined in a specific sense when the court 
evaluates the reasonableness of a law as applied to an individual.  Id. at 728.

            
The addition of second story floor area within a completed residence in 
no way altered the aesthetics of the residence.  Therefore, enforcement of Section 2450 against 
[Crow] does not promote the aesthetic concerns of protecting, promoting, and 
preserving community character, rural character, or rural western character.

            
The addition of second story floor area within a completed residence in 
no way altered [Crow's] exclusive use of the structure as a residence for his 
large family.  
Therefore, enforcement of Section 2450 against [Crow] does not protect, 
promote, or preserve land use compatibility or character type compatibility.

            
The addition of second story floor area within a completed residence in 
no way affects social and economic diversity.  [Crow's] residence has the same impact on 
housing affordability with or without the additional flooring.  Similarly, [Crow's] 
residence has the same impact on the demand for affordable housing with or 
without the additional flooring.

            
As applied to the specific facts of this case, this Court concludes that 
the enforcement of Section 2450 of the LDR's against [Crow] in no way rationally 
relates to the County's objective of promoting and protecting the public health, 
safety, morals, and general welfare.  Therefore, as applied to the specific 
undisputed facts in this case, Section 2450 violates [Crow's] substantive due 
process rights.

 

We also note at this juncture that the district court 
appears to have granted summary judgment in favor of Overton on the basis that 
its resolution of Crow's due process issue rendered any further action against 
Overton moot.  
That would not necessarily be the case, and we cannot accept that 
rationale.

 

[¶25]   Teton County contends that the district 
court erred in concluding, as a matter of law and based upon disputed facts, 
that Section 2450 was unconstitutional as applied to Crow.  The gist of this 
conclusion is that, from the outside, Crow's house looks exactly the same with 
11,000 square feet of habitable space in it as it did with only 8,000 square 
feet of habitable space in it and, therefore, there is no rhyme or reason to 
Teton County's regulations in this regard.  We do not agree.  Teton County 
articulated its rationale in  detail, which we will set out below.  In treating the 
question of unconstitutionality of a statute, we impose a severe burden upon the 
challenger.  
Crow must establish that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a 
reasonable doubt, and any fact that can be rationally conceived to sustain the 
statute is to be assumed.  Crow is required to clearly and exactly show 
the unconstitutionality beyond any reasonable doubt.  Board of County Commissioners v. Geringer, 941 P.2d 742,746 (Wyo. 1997); and see Reiter v. State, 2001 WY 
116, ¶ 7, 36 P.3d 586, ¶ 7 (Wyo. 2001); see 
generally Hagman and Juergensmeyer, Urban Planning 
and Land Development Control Law, Chapter 10.

 

[¶26]   Crow's argument, which the district 
court accepted, that the square footage limitation was only aimed at the 
"envelope," "foot print," and/or "bulk" of the house, is incorrect.  Put another way, 
Crow argues that it is of no legitimate or reasonable concern to Teton County 
what the interior space of his house is like, so long as the exterior does not 
offend any regulation.   Once again, we do not agree.  We will begin our 
discussion with the very basics.  Teton County chose to address the broad range 
of concerns and problems it faced with burgeoning development, in an area of 
unique natural beauty and the availability of only a very limited amount of 
privately-owned land, by adopting a comprehensive planning and zoning 
ordinance.  All 
parties to this litigation agree that Teton County is unique in many ways and 
certainly is one of only a handful of areas on earth with such an abundance of 
natural amenities.  
Teton County chose as one tool in its arsenal of weapons to prevent the 
destruction of those natural amenities a limitation on the square footage of new 
homes to 8,000 square feet of habitable space.  It might have opted for 5,000 square feet or 
it might have chosen 15,000 square feet, but it picked 8,000.  A limitation of some 
sort is, without need of further justification, rational.  Indeed, the property 
in question is also burdened with private limitations that prohibited the 
building of residences that were either too small or too big.  Such private 
limitations, which usually take the form of covenants that run with the land, 
serve rational and legitimate purposes. In any event, we must give recognition 
to the fact that a limiting number of some sort is by its very nature reasonable 
in virtually any context, and, as will be shown from Teton County's planning 
process, painstaking thought went into selecting the "number."  Clearly, the number 
chosen provides for what can only be described as a house of commodious 
proportions, though it clearly does limit all persons' leave to build a single 
family dwelling of such proportions that it can accommodate multiple generations 
of families or, for that matter, groups of unrelated individuals which might 
exceed the capacity of an 8,000 square foot house.  Teton County 
intended that its regulations have such an effect, and we are convinced that a 
legitimate and rational purpose motivated the regulations.  Among these rational 
and legitimate purposes are:  (1) preserving community character; (2) 
preserving rural and western character; (3) promoting land use compatibility; 
(4) promoting housing affordability; and (5) mitigating against an unworkable 
increase in the number of low wage employees needed to provide services to, and 
maintain, large homes thereby lessening the demand for affordable housing in an 
area where affordable housing was scarce and getting scarcer.

 

[¶27]   Bill Collins, the Planning Director for 
Teton County, provided the evidence which is central to the resolution of this 
case in the form of an affidavit.  We have set out the content of that affidavit 
in detail in Appendix II.

 

[¶28]   Teton County also did considerable 
research in describing what it called its "Community Vision," and it is evident 
that both Collins' affidavit and the "Community Vision" statement were based 
upon a close study and complete inventory of all structures located in Teton 
County that predated the proliferation of large vacation homes.  The "Community 
Vision" statement adds considerable information that is important to the 
analysis of this issue.  We have set it out in detail in Appendix 
III.

 

[¶29]   Despite his strenuous criticism of Teton 
County's evidentiary materials, Crow presented no evidence which rebutted them 
even though he had the burden of proof.  Moreover, Teton County's conclusion that 
limitations on habitable space would have a salutary effect on the need for, as 
well as the availability of, affordable housing is supported by a study done by 
Pitkin County, Aspen, Colorado.  We are convinced that the Teton County LDR's 
are a rational, reasonable, and legitimate exercise of Teton County's police 
powers with respect to zoning and development.  Moreover, the evidentiary materials, when read 
in a light most favorable to Teton County, are virtually uncontradicted in 
establishing that Crow built an 8,000 square foot house with cathedral ceilings 
over the garages and other areas for the purpose of evading the limitations 
imposed by the Teton County LDR's.  We hold that the district court erred in 
entering summary judgment in favor of Crow on the basis that, as applied to his 
specific case, the LDR's were a violation of Crow's due process rights.

 

Did the District Court Err in 
Granting Summary Judgment with Respect to Teton County's Allegations of 
Development without a Permit

 

[¶30]   In addition to seeking an order 
requiring Crow to abate the violation (which may include removal, demolition and 
destruction of the excess habitable space), Teton County asked that the district 
court impose sanctions of a criminal nature (fines), as authorized by Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. §§ 18-5-204, 205, and 206.  The district court apparently concluded that 
those issues were rendered moot by its determination that the LDR's were 
unconstitutional as applied.  The Teton County regulations provide as 
follows in this regard:

 

Development.  Development means any of the following 
activities for which permission may be required pursuant to these Land 
Development Regulations:   (b) the construction, reconstruction, 
conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any buildings, 
structures, or accessory structures[.]

 

The regulations go on to clarify that a "development permit" 
includes a "building permit," and that "structural alteration" means "any change 
in the supporting members of a building or structure, such as the bearing walls, 
beams, or girders, or any change in the dimension or configuration of the roof 
or exterior walls."  
Teton County issues building permits under the Uniform Building Code, 
Section 106.1, which provides:

 

Except as specified in Section 106.2, no building or 
structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, 
altered, repaired, moved, improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a 
separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from the 
building official.  
[932]

 

[¶31]   Even if a court were to conclude that 
the excess habitable space need not necessarily be demolished, or that the 
regulations as applied were unconstitutional (and we have found they are not), 
it was a question for a fact-finder to determine whether or not Crow violated 
the above-enumerated statutes and what penalty should be imposed. 

 

[¶32]   We agree with Teton County that it was 
an oversight for the district court to have failed to consider this aspect of 
the complaint.  
Upon remand it must be resolved.

 

Other Grounds for Affirmance Addressed by Crow in Response 
to Teton County's Appeal in Case No. 01-244

 

[¶33]   Crow contends that there are numerous 
bases upon which this Court can affirm the summary judgment, even if this Court 
rejects the district court's determination that the LDR's are unconstitutional 
as applied to Crow.  
As a preface to our discussion of the issues raised by Crow, we refer 
back to our standard of review for summary judgment and, in particular, that 
portion which dictates that we examine the record from a vantage point most 
favorable to that party who opposed the motion, affording to that party the 
benefit of all favorable inferences that fairly may be drawn from the 
record.  We note 
at the outset that Crow presents the facts in a light most favorable to his 
viewpoint and fails to take into account those facts favorable to Teton County's 
position.

 

[¶34]   Crow contends that what he did to his 
home did not require him to obtain a permit because the changes were not 
"structural" in nature.  The district court made no findings in this 
regard.  It 
appears that this issue was merely set aside once the district court determined 
that the LDR's were unconstitutional as applied to Crow.  It is evident both 
from the record and from the briefs that whether or not Crow was obligated to 
obtain a permit is a disputed question, both as a matter of fact and as a matter 
of law.

 

[¶35]   Crow also claims that his lot(s) were 
grandfathered in under old regulations, which preceded the LDR's at issue 
here.  The 
record extant simply does not support such an argument, although, of course, 
that issue will likely have to be further addressed by the district court on 
remand.  
However, at this juncture we again note that the record appears to 
support a conclusion that Crow advanced this argument to the Teton County's 
Planning Officer and was rebuffed.  Upon being rebuffed, that issue was not 
further pursued by Crow until this stage of the proceedings.  Having failed to 
establish that the property was grandfathered and having failed to pursue any 
administrative or legal remedies prior to having the house built, the district 
court may be compelled to determine that he may not now raise that issue.  See Hagman and Juergensmeyer, Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law, § 23.4, 
at 780-81.  In 
any event, detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law will be 
required.

 

[¶36]   Crow contends that the LDR's violate his 
rights to equal protection of the law, that Section 2450 constitutes a taking, 
that it violates Crow's "unenumerated rights" to "residential privacy," and that 
it violates Crow's right to "associate" with his family.  These contentions 
are not supported by pertinent authority nor cogent argument, and they were not 
considered or decided by the district court below.  For these reasons we 
decline to  
consider them further.  GGV v. JLR, 2002 WY 
19, ¶ 20, 39 P.3d 1066, ¶ 20 (Wyo. 2002); Garnick v. Teton County School District No. 1, 2002 WY 
18, ¶ 37, 39 P.3d 1034, ¶ 37 (Wyo. 2002); Shumway v. Worthey, 2001 WY 130, ¶ 9, 37 P.3d 361, 
¶ 9 (Wyo. 2001).

 

[¶37]   Crow further contends that the LDR's 
were not promulgated in accordance with applicable law and that Teton County has 
engaged in "illegal" rule-making.  These issues were not considered by the 
district court in any meaningful sense, and we will not consider them 
further.

 

[¶38]   In his cross-appeal, Crow contends that 
the methods used by Teton County to control and limit development are an 
exercise of power beyond that delegated to Teton County by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
18-5-201.  In 
addition, he contends that to the extent this Court might determine that the 
LDR's are within the power granted to Teton County by the legislature, those 
LDR's do not serve to promote the public health, morals, or general welfare, as 
required by § 18-5-201.

 

[¶39]   Crow's argument goes like this:  Some "permanent 
residents" stereotyped newcomers to Teton County as "wealthy/affluent 
non-residents" who were causing land values to skyrocket.  Furthermore, Crow 
characterizes Teton County's efforts to channel and control development as 
discrimination and exhibiting an "animus" for "wealthy non-residents."  Crow also contends 
that the LDR's are founded by a belief in the minds of "permanent residents" 
that the "very affluent" or those "with extensive families" have no part in 
Teton County's "community fabric."  Crow also contends that others had violated 
the LDR's and either were not prosecuted or were given a slap on the hand and, 
therefore, nothing should be done to him or, at most, he should be slapped on 
the hand.  Crow 
also contends that the existing structure was inadequate to house his 
"extensive" family, that there were heating problems, and ominous safety 
problems for the grandchildren, and that the only apparent means to remedy those 
problems was to expand the "habitable space" in the home by 3,000 square 
feet.  After 
presenting this version of the case, Crow concludes that it is a single 
paragraph in the district court's judgment that brings him to this Court, and 
that is the district court's finding that:

 

10.  Section 2450 promotes the legitimate public 
objectives of protecting, promoting and preserving (1) community character, (2) 
rural character, (3) rural western character, (4) land use and character type 
compatibility, (5) social and economic diversity through housing affordability, 
and (6) social and economic diversity by lessening the demands on affordable 
housing.

 

[¶40]   We have held elsewhere in this opinion 
that the Teton County LDR's do not violate Crow's constitutional rights to due 
process either facially or as applied.  We are now called upon to address Crow's claim 
that Teton County lacked the requisite statutory authority to adopt the LDR's in 
dispute.  We, of 
course, must construe Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-201 in accordance with our 
standards applicable to statutory construction:

 

In interpreting statutes, our primary consideration is to 
determine the legislature's intent.  All statutes relating to the same subject or 
having the same general purpose must be considered and construed in 
harmony.  
Statutory construction is a question of law, so our standard of review is 
de novo.   We begin by making an inquiry respecting 
the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their 
arrangement and connection.  We construe the statute as a whole, giving 
effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe all parts of the 
statute in pari materia.  Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides v. 
Clark, 2001 WY 78, ¶ 12, 30 P.3d 36, ¶ 12 (2001).

 

Allsop v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., 2002 WY 22, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 1092, ¶ 9 (Wyo. 
2002).

 

Our standard of review with respect to the construction of 
statutes is well known.  In interpreting statutes, our primary 
consideration is to determine the legislature's intent.  All statutes must be 
construed in pari materia and, in ascertaining the 
meaning of a given law, all statutes relating to the same subject or having the 
same general purpose must be considered and construed in harmony.  Statutory 
construction is a question of law, so our standard of review is de novo.  We endeavor to 
interpret statutes in accordance with the legislature's intent.  We begin by making 
an inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed 
according to their arrangement and connection.  We construe the statute as a whole, giving 
effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe all parts of the 
statute in pari materia.  When a statute is 
sufficiently clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain and ordinary 
meaning of the words and do not resort to the rules of statutory 
construction.  
Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional 
Guides v. Clark, 2001 WY 78, ¶ 12, 30 P.3d 36, ¶ 12 (Wyo.2001); Murphy v. State Canvassing Board, 12 P.3d 677, 679 
(Wyo.2000).  
Moreover, we must not give a statute a meaning that will nullify its 
operation if it is susceptible of another interpretation.  Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401, 413 (Wyo.1990) (citing McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278, 1283 (Wyo.1980)).

 

Shumway v. Worthey, 2001 WY 130, ¶ 8, 37 P.3d 361 ¶ 8 (Wyo. 
2001).

 

[¶41]   Moreover, we will not enlarge, stretch, 
expand, or extend a statute to matters that do not fall within its express 
provisions.  Gray v. Stratton Real Estate, 2001 WY 125, ¶ 5, 36 P.3d 1127 ¶ 5 (Wyo. 2001); Bowen v. State, Wyoming 
Real Estate Commission, 900 P.2d 1140, 1143 (Wyo.1995).

 

[¶42]   Crow states a conclusion that the LDR's 
do not fall within the authority delegated to Teton County, but we are unable to 
perceive a cogent argument or find pertinent authority which supports that 
supposition.  
The statute confers on Teton County broad authority to shape its destiny, 
control its growth, and determine how best to promote the health, safety, 
morals, and general welfare of its citizens.  Crow's view is one to be pursued at the ballot 
box and not in the courtroom.  The word "welfare" has as its meaning in the 
context of this statute:  "the state of faring or doing well: thriving 
or successful progress in life: a state characterized esp. by good fortune, 
happiness, well-being, or prosperity."  Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 
2594 (1986).  
Teton County's choice of the word "character" in conjunction with the 
words "rural" and "western" connotes something that we think is quite clear, 
especially given Teton County's documentation of its plan.  "Character," in this 
context means:  
"main or essential nature esp. as strongly marked and serving to 
distinguish:  
individual composite of salient traits, consequential characteristics, 
features giving distinctive tone (each town came to have a character of its own 
 Sherwood Anderson)."  
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 376.  Indeed, preserving 
"community character" is at the very heart of zoning and planning 
legislation.  
Hagman and Juergensmeyer, Urban Planning and Land 
Development Control Law, § 3.16, at 62-63.  We hold that Teton County's decision to 
preserve its community character served the welfare of the people of Teton 
County and is within the delegation of the authority granted it by Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 18-5-201.

 

[¶43]   Crow contends that the LDR's violate the 
privacy of his home.  
For this proposition he cites United States v. 
Orito, 413 U.S. 143, 93 S. Ct. 2674, 2676-77, 37 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1973), in 
which the United States Supreme Court held that the constitutional zone of 
privacy with respect to pornographic materials does not extend beyond the 
home.  No such 
invasion of the privacy of the home is at risk in this case.  In all other 
respects, cogent argument or pertinent authority does not support this argument, 
and we will not consider it further.

 

[¶44]   Crow contends that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
18-5-201 does not authorize Teton County to regulate buildings with respect to 
size or bulk, i.e., "habitable space," etc.  Teton County has the 
authority to restrict the "location" of buildings.  Buildings are 
located in three dimensions  length, width, and height.  Included within the 
power to limit the location, is the authority to place limitations on bulk, 
including square footage.  Moreover, this contention is not supported by 
pertinent authority.

 

[¶45]   Crow contends that Teton County may not 
seek to promote or preserve "community character, rural western character, land 
use and character type compatibility, social and economic diversity through 
housing affordability, and social and economic diversity by lessening the demand 
on affordable housing," as these things have nothing to do with the "health, 
safety, morals and general welfare" of the people of Teton County.  In support of this 
argument, Crow cites Kindler v. Anderson, 433 P.2d 268, 271 (Wyo. 1967), where we said that covenants or other restrictive 
conditions placed in a deed to property, "being in derogation of the common 
law, are not favored, are to be strictly construed, will not be extended by 
implication, and in case of doubt the restrictions will be construed in favor of 
the free use of land.  
Nevertheless, if the language imposing the restrictions is clear and 
unambiguous the rule of strict construction does not apply."  The result in that 
case was that the plaintiffs were permitted, because of the presence of 
ambiguity in the covenants, to use the premises for dispensing intoxicating 
spirits.  That 
case has no application whatsoever to the circumstances of this case.  Crow characterizes 
the LDR's adopted by Teton County as being a "social agenda," "a permissive 
platform," "invasive of peoples' natural and civil rights,'" "spiritual," 
"aesthetic," related only to "beauty," "health," "spaciousness," "cleanliness," 
and a "well balanced" and "carefully patrolled" environment.3  Such things, Crow 
argues, are only within the power of the State and have not been delegated to 
Teton County.  
We disagree.  
We hold that the LDR's at issue do not exceed the authority delegated to 
Teton County to ensure the general "welfare" of the people of that county.

 

[¶46]   Finally, Crow contends that, even if all 
those standards like "community character," "rural character," "rural western 
character," etc. are legitimate state interests which Teton County has the 
authority to adopt, they are not promoted by Section 2450 and, therefore, this 
Court should declare them to be invalid.

 

[¶47]   In support of this proposition, Crow 
relies on Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 
Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2796, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 
(1993).  In the 
Daubert case, the Supreme Court of the United States 
opined:

 

            
Faced with the proffer of expert scientific testimony, then, the trial 
judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to [Fed. R. Ev.] Rule 104(a), 
whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) 
will assist the trier of fact to understand and determine a fact in issue.  This entails a 
preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the 
testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology 
properly can be applied to the facts in issue.

 

The Court did not set out a detailed methodology to be used 
by judges in making such an assessment but pointed to salient features of such 
an analysis, which included:  Whether the scientific theory can be (and has 
been) tested, whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and 
publication, the known or potential rate of error, and "general acceptance" 
within the applicable scientific community.  Crow contends that Teton County cannot rely on 
its own studies or those done by a sister resort with very similar 
"characteristics," Pitkin County, Aspen, Colorado.  Crow's argument 
continues that it must be assumed the trial court relied on those materials, and 
since there is no credible evidence in the record to support a conclusion that 
Teton County's regulations promote the "general welfare" of the citizens of 
Teton County, then this Court may not rely upon any of those materials to 
approve of Teton County's LDR's.  There are several leaps in logic in this 
argument, and we decline to make them.  It is not clear what consideration the 
district court gave to any of the evidentiary materials in the record that have 
pertinence to resolution of the issues at large.  It is not clear that the Daubert case has any relevance at all in these 
circumstances.  
The issue appears to be more in the nature of whether or not Teton County 
may justifiably rely on the experiences of a county like Pitkin County in 
deciding or further evaluating critical issues about development.  It seems almost 
unquestionable that relying upon the experiences of a sister resort city would 
be solomonic on the part of the people of Teton County rather than unreasonable, 
as suggested by Crow.  
However, these are bridges that must be crossed as they present 
themselves in further proceedings before the district court which must give 
plenary consideration to the issues presented by the parties.  As noted above, in 
those proceedings, Crow must carry the burden of proof that the regulations have 
no rational basis and are, therefore, unconstitutional.

 

[¶48]   Overton asks that this Court decide a 
number of questions that have not yet been addressed by the district court.  For instance, 
Overton contends that the district court should have dismissed the claims 
against him because the complaint named him rather than his corporation as 
defendant, and that he is neither a developer nor a landowner so he cannot be 
subject to the LDR's nor can he be made to demolish something that belongs to 
someone else.  
Curiously, Overton purports to adopt by reference all issues and 
arguments briefed by Crow.  In many, if not most, circumstances such 
incorporation by reference may require this Court to ignore issues raised in 
such a manner.  
Each party to an appeal is required to submit a brief.  Moreover, here it 
appears that Overton has no interest in any of the issues briefed by Crow.  Perhaps, Overton 
intended that he would like to appear here in the role of an amicus curiae, but 
Overton did not make such a request, and we have granted no leave in that 
regard.  The 
LDR's have not been applied to him, as they were to Crow, and Crow's other 
arguments essentially seek to vindicate rights personal to Crow.  Finally, we note 
that Overton did not file a notice of appeal and, on that basis alone, we cannot 
consider the issues he raises in his brief.  However, Overton is "saved," so to speak, 
because the district court did not purport to address any of Overton's defenses 
or to otherwise adjudicate any of the claims against him.  Upon remand, it will 
be necessary for the district court to give plenary consideration to those 
issues as well as the others identified more fully above.

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶49]   The order granting summary judgment is 
reversed in all respects, and the matter is remanded to the district court for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

 

APPENDIX I

 

§ 18-5-201.  Authority vested in board of 
county commissioners; inapplicability of chapter to incorporated cities and 
towns and mineral resources.

            
To promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the 
county, each board of county commissioners may regulate and restrict the 
location and use of buildings and structures and the use, condition of use or 
occupancy of lands for residence, recreation, agriculture, industry, commerce, 
public use and other purposes in the unincorporated area of the county.  However, nothing in 
W.S. 18-5-201 through 18-5-207 shall be construed to contravene any zoning 
authority of any incorporated city or town and no zoning resolution or plan 
shall prevent any use or occupancy reasonably necessary to the extraction or 
production of the mineral resources in or under any lands subject thereto.

 

§ 18-5-202.  Planning and zoning commission; 
composition; residency requirements, terms and removal of members; vacancies; 
rules; record; meetings to be public; secretary; preparation and amendments; 
purpose; certifications and hearing; amendments.

            
(a) Each board of county commissioners may by resolution create and 
establish a planning and zoning commission.  The commission shall be composed of five (5) 
members appointed by the board at least three (3) of whom shall reside in the 
unincorporated area of the county, provided that this provision shall not affect 
the membership composition of any existing commission.  The terms of the 
members appointed to the first planning and zoning commission shall be of such 
length and so arranged that the terms of one (1) member will expire each year, 
and thereafter each member shall be appointed for a term of three (3) 
years.  Any 
member of the commission may be removed for cause other than politics or 
religion and after public hearing by the board of county commissioners.  If a vacancy occurs 
in the commission the board of county commissioners shall fill the vacancy by 
appointment for the unexpired term.  The planning and zoning commission shall 
organize within thirty (30) days after its establishment, shall adopt rules for 
the transaction of its business and keep a record of its actions and 
determinations.  
Three (3) members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of 
business.  All 
meetings, records and accounts of the commission shall be public.  The county clerk 
shall serve as secretary to the commission.

            
(b) The planning and zoning commission may prepare and amend a 
comprehensive plan including zoning for promoting the public health, safety, 
morals and general welfare of the unincorporated areas of the county, and 
certify the plan to the board of county commissioners.  Before certifying 
its plan or amendments thereto to the board the commission shall hold at least 
one (1) public hearing.  Notice of the time and place of hearing shall 
be given by one (1) publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the 
county at least thirty (30) days before the date of the hearing.  Any person may 
petition the planning and zoning commission to amend any zoning plan adopted 
under the provisions of W.S. 18-5-201 through 18-5-207.

            
(c) The planning and zoning commission shall prepare recommendations to 
effectuate the planning and zoning purposes and certify its recommendations to 
the board of county commissioners.  Before adopting the recommendations the board 
shall hold at least one (1) public hearing.  Notice of the time and place of hearing shall 
be given by one (1) publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the 
county at least fourteen (14) days before the date of the hearing.  After public hearing 
has been held, the board shall vote upon the adoption of the planning or zoning 
recommendation.  
No planning or zoning recommendation shall be adopted unless a majority 
of the board votes in favor thereof.

 

§ 18-5-203.  Certificate required to locate 
buildings or use land within zoning resolution; issuance and denial; appeal upon 
denial.

            
It is unlawful to locate, erect, construct, reconstruct, enlarge, change, 
maintain or use any building or use any land within any area included in a 
zoning resolution without first obtaining a zoning certificate from the board of 
county commissioners and no zoning certificate shall be issued unless the plans 
for the proposed building, structure or use fully comply with the zoning 
regulations then in effect.  The board of county commissioners shall act 
promptly upon any application filed with it and shall grant certificates when 
the proposed construction or use complies with the requirements of the zoning 
resolution.  If 
it denies the application, the board shall specify the reasons for such 
denial.  The 
decision of the board of county commissioners may be reviewed by the district 
court and by the supreme court upon appeal in the same manner as provided in 
W.S. 15-626 [§ 15-1-609], for review of decisions of boards of adjustment.

 

§ 18-5-204.  Violation of W.S. 18-5-202 (c); 
continuing violation.

            
No person shall locate, erect, construct, reconstruct, enlarge, change, 
maintain or use any building or use any land in violation of a resolution or 
amendment adopted by any board of county commissioners under W.S. 18-5-202 
(c).  Each day's 
continuation of such violation is a separate offense.

 

§ 18-5-205.  Enforcement of zoning resolution 
by injunction, mandamus or abatement; appeal.

            
Any zoning resolution passed by the board pursuant to W.S. 18-5-202 (b) 
and (c) is enforceable in addition to other remedies provided by law by 
injunction, mandamus or abatement.

 

§ 18-5-206.  Penalty for violation of 
W.S. 18-5-201 through 18-5-204.

Whoever violates any provision of W.S. 18-5-201 through 
18-5-204 shall be fined not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) for 
each offense.

 

§ 18-5-207.  Continuation of existing uses; 
effect of alteration or addition; future use after discontinuation of 
nonconforming use.

            
A zoning resolution enacted under the provisions of W.S. 18-5-201 through 
18-5-206 shall not prohibit the continuance of the use of any land, building or 
structure for the purpose for which the land, building or structure is used at 
the time the resolution is adopted and it is not necessary to secure any 
certificate permitting such continuance.  However the alteration or addition to any 
existing building or structure for the purpose of effecting any change in use 
may be regulated or prohibited by zoning resolution.  If a nonconforming 
use is discontinued any future use of such land, building or structure shall be 
in conformity with the provisions of the resolution regulating uses in the area 
in which the land, building or structure is located.

 

§ 18-5-208.  Coordination of planning efforts 
with federal agencies.

            
The board of county commissioners of a county which has officially 
adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to W.S. 18-5-202(b) may participate in 
efforts to coordinate the plan with federal regional forest or other resource 
management plans as provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976 and federal regulations adopted pursuant to that act, including, but not 
limited to, Title 36, of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 219.7 and Title 
43, of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1610.3.

 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 18-5-201 through -208 (LexisNexis 
2001).

  

APPENDIX II

 

Affidavit of Bill Collins

8. Community Character.

 

(a)  The Teton County Comprehensive Plan and Land 
Development Regulations prepared and adopted by Teton County were aimed at 
preserving the character of the County.  One theme was echoed time and time again:  "Preserve the 
character of Teton County. Keep what we like about the County, and improve or 
change the things we don't like." (Teton Plan at p. 3-4)  The overriding 
community character theme in the Teton Plan and TCLDRs is the County's goals of 
maintaining and preserving its small-town character, rural character and western 
character.  The 
goals of preserving western and rural character are relevant to Section 
2450.

 

(b)  Community character has been a fundamental 
concept of planning and zoning for decades.  Initially, the terms used to define and 
protect community character were land use and development intensity.  Over the past 30 
years or so, planning and zoning concepts have become more sophisticated and 
refined in the ways they define and address character issues.  Character now is not 
only defined and regulated through land use and development intensities, but 
also by bulk, scale, height, lot size, landscaping, design criteria, scenic 
vistas and other aesthetic features.

 

(c)  Chapter Three of the Teton Plan is entitled 
"Community Character."  
Chapter Three is divided into four parts: (a) Issues; (b) Summary, 
Statement of Goals and Objectives; (c) Implementation Strategies; and (d) 
Actions.  The 
portion of Chapter Three devoted to "issues" opens with the following passage: 
"The preservation and enhancement of community character is perhaps the most 
fundamental and pervasive growth and development issue facing Teton County." 
(Teton Plan, 3-1)  
The "issues" statement expresses concern over "certain types of 
development, which are out of character with Teton County, regardless of the 
amount of land they occupy." (Teton Plan, 3-4)  One such type of development is the scale of 
residential structures, described as "very large single-family homes of 5,000 
square feet or more." (Teton Plan, 3-4)  The "actions" statement of Chapter Three 
refers to the adoption of a new land development regulatory system (TCLDRs), one 
goal of which is to limit the maximum floor area of residential structures. 
Section 2450 implements that goal by limiting the amount of habitable space and 
total floor area to 8,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet respectively. Other 
sections of the TCLDRs implement that goal as well.

 

(d)  The TCLDRs address community character in 
several ways.  
The regulations provided for clustering of housing units, leaving areas 
of contiguous open space that allow agricultural operations to continue, 
preserve scenic vistas and wildlife routes, and maintains the openness of Teton 
County while accommodating development.  The TCLDRs also promote agricultural 
operations by exempting certain agricultural structures from permitting 
requirements or providing expedited review processes for agricultural 
structures.  The 
regulations also include provisions that are aimed at preserving the long scenic 
vistas and the wildlife population that characterize Teton County. And finally, 
in relevance to this case, through Section 2450 the TCLDRs regulate the scale of 
development to maintain a scale of development similar to the past scale of 
development to preserve the character of Teton County.  [1 At the time of 
adoption of the Teton Plan, this western and rural character in the County was 
set by ranches where the average house was only 1,342 square feet, where ranches 
often had several homes, and where the largest square footage on any single 
ranch complex was 6,988 square feet.] [Footnoted inserted into text]

 

(e)  The scale of development is related to 
community character, as defined in the Teton County Plan, and the TCLDRs 
regulate the scale of development to preserve community character by a variety 
of provisions. Section 2450 is just one of those. Others are found in the 
schedule of dimensional limitations, Table 2400, which limits lot area, 
setbacks, floor/area ratios and maximum height. The setbacks describe the 
maximum ground floor area, and a maximum height creates a maximum volume. In 
urban and suburban districts, these factors are the primary scale and bulk 
determinants, and are geared to creating urban and suburban character types. In 
the larger lot Neighborhood Conservation districts, impervious surface can also 
become an important factor in determining scale of development. In the largest 
lots, those of estate or rural character, Section 2450, with its maximum scale 
requirement of 8,000 square feet for the residence is the operative factor, 
ensuring building scale is consistent with the rural and estate character 
districts. Character in these areas is defined by buildings whose scale is such 
that they are background elements. Teton County's approach to regulating the 
character of development in different districts through land use, scale, height, 
and other regulations, is common in modern land development regulations. 
Furthermore, as is explained above, Section 2450 is one of the planning, and 
zoning tools that further the community character goal established by the County 
in the rural and estate districts by regulating the scale of development.

 

(f)  There is also a social aspect to the concept 
of Teton County community character. As noted in ¶ 8(c) above, the "issues" 
statement in Chapter Three, Community Character, expresses concern over "certain 
types of development, which are out of character with Teton County, regardless 
of the amount of land they occupy." (Teton Plan, 3-4) One such type of 
development is the scale of residential structures, described as "very large 
single-family homes of 5,000 square feet or more." (Teton Plan, 3-4)  At the time that the 
Plan was proposed, debated and enacted, homes with large amounts of living space 
were a relatively new occurrence in Teton County. These homes with large amounts 
of living space represented a change away from the small western community; they 
were viewed as a threat to a socially diverse community. If left unchecked, 
homes with large amounts of living space were viewed as eroding the community's 
very sense of character. Many viewed these large homes as representing 
conspicuous consumption and using disproportionate consumption of resources.

 

(g)  Teton County recognized and agreed during the 
planning process for the Teton Plan and TCLDRs that the County had historically 
been a western ranching community where buildings take a backseat to the unique 
landscape of wide-open spaces. At the time of adoption of the Teton Plan, this 
western and rural character in the County was set by ranches where the average 
house was only 1,342 square feet, where ranches often had several homes, and 
where the largest square footage on any single ranch complex was 6,988 square 
feet.  One of 
the policies embraced in the Teton Plan and the TCLDRs is that the scale of 
future residential development needed to be consistent with the scale of 
residential development that existed prior to adoption of the plan if the 
County's rural and western character was to be maintained. Section 2450, TCLDRs, 
which limits the size of single-family residences to 8,000 square feet, helps 
achieve this objective (along with other regulations in the TCLDRs), and 
consequently is an important planning and zoning tool in the County's effort to 
preserve and protect its community character.

 

9. Community Aesthetics.

 

(a)  Inherent in the goal of protecting and 
preserving community character is the goal of protecting and maintaining 
community aesthetics. Teton County is one of the most aesthetically pleasing 
counties in the country. Contributing to this aesthetic are the broad scenic 
vistas and the dominance of the rural natural landscape over built 
structures.

 

(b)  Generally, community aesthetics focuses on 
the appearance of development in relation to the community - its height, scale, 
the size of the lot it sits on, landscaping, and other design and architectural 
features.

 

(c)  Community aesthetics is an important part of 
the County's goals of protecting and promoting community character because part 
of the character goal includes protecting and preserving the relationship 
between the natural and built environments, particularly in areas of rural 
character.

 

(d)  Section 2450 specifically furthers the goal 
of protecting and preserving community aesthetics because it regulates the scale 
of single-family residences primarily in the rural and estate areas of the 
County, assisting in achieving an aesthetic that preserves both rural character 
and western character, by enabling the natural landscape to dominate over 
structures.

 

(e)  A second aesthetic component of the rural and 
western character embraced by the County in the Teton Plan and TCLDRs is 
protecting and preserving scenic vistas. Traditionally, homes in the County were 
one-story ranch houses that hugged the ground and provided a low roofline that 
preserved these vistas. By the early 1990s, however, development of much larger 
two-story residential edifices of a scale that was greater than the traditional 
farmhouse and ranch development had begun to occur, affecting these vistas and 
the aesthetic of the County.

 

(f)  Regulating and limiting residential 
development to a certain square footage as Section 2450, TCLDR does, is a 
reasonable way to assist in the achievement of this goal of preserving and 
protecting community aesthetics, since it maintains the development of 
residential buildings in the rural and estate areas of the County at a certain 
relationship to the natural environment and regulates the blocking of vistas. A 
square footage limit is a reasonable zoning technique that is routinely 
effective at furthering the County's goal, is understood by the general public 
and contractors, and is relatively easily administered.

 

10. Maintaining Land Use 
Compatibility/Character Type Compatibility.

 

(a)  A key concern in land use planning and zoning 
generally is that neighboring land uses are compatible with one another. 
Generally this land use compatibility concern is directed at the land uses 
within the same area or district that have external adverse impacts because of 
the use itself (e.g., the location of a store in a residential neighborhood). 
The community character approach used in the Teton Plan and land development 
regulations (the use of community character types) looks beyond land use to 
determine the elements that create similar or consistent character or which 
differ substantially in character, creating incompatibility or even nuisances 
for neighboring development.

 

(b)  Regulating the floor area of single-family 
residences in the County as Section 2450 does furthers the County goal in the 
Teton Plan of maintaining compatibility within areas of specific character types 
and land uses. The reason is that Section 2450 prevents the potential adverse 
impacts that large-scale single-family homes can have on residential 
neighborhoods. Frequently, large homes (certainly those with over 8,000 square 
feet of habitable space) can be used more like tourist accommodations, corporate 
retreats, or entertainment complexes. Bunk rooms or large numbers of bed rooms 
are designed to accommodate many visitors. Huge dinning rooms, game rooms, and 
other spaces are designed like tourist or corporate retreats to handle large 
groups of people. When used for private, business or corporate purposes, the 
character of the large-scale single-family use changes as traffic rates and 
noise levels increase and activities on the site change, resulting in serious 
incompatibilities with the general character of single-family areas. Regulating 
maximum floor area limits the potential for these types of land use 
incompatibilities.

 

11. Housing Affordability.

 

(a)  Encouraging housing affordability is also a 
goal embraced by the County in the Teton Plan that Section 2450 furthers (See 
Teton Plan, Chapter 5). Because of a number of factors, the County is and has 
been affected by a severe housing affordability problem. This is created by the 
fact that a growing number of persons who work in the County and have lived in 
the County can no longer afford to live in the County, or purchase homes in the 
County.  A 
survey of employees in 1998 indicated that over 66 per cent of the employees in 
Teton County earned less than $30,000 a year.

 

(b)  There is no single planning, zoning or other 
solution that acting alone, will address a housing affordability problem. 
Instead, the problem must be managed through the use of numerous regulatory and 
other programs, and then constantly revisited and revised and improved over 
time. Teton County is using both regulatory (Secs, 49400, 49500 and 2450, 
TCLDRs) and programmatic (the work of the Teton County Housing Authority) 
approaches to addressing the housing affordability problem in the County.

 

(c)  Chapter Five of the Plan is entitled 
"Affordable Housing." The very first paragraph of the chapter explains that many 
of the County's homes are used as second homes, or vacation homes; that the 
demand for these homes is created by non-residents who have acquired their 
purchasing power outside the County; that this demand by non-residents with 
greater purchasing power [has] caused an upward spiral in land prices, 
unaffordable to most County residents; that as a result, residents have been 
displaced outside the community:

 

From 1970 to 1990, Teton County created more jobs than it 
did homes, leaving the housing supply far below demand. Furthermore, much of the 
new and existing housing stock has been occupied as 
second or vacation homes, not by residents.  Since second home owners can generally pay 
more than residents when purchasing property, price of property in Teton County 
has become unaffordable to most Teton County residents.  As a result, many of 
those employed in the County have been forced to find housing outside the 
community, share housing with others, live in substandard or inadequate housing, 
or hold more than one job in order to afford the limited housing that is 
available.

 

(Plan, Affordable Housing, p. 5-1) (emphasis added).  The Plan 
characterizes this increase in housing costs, substantially in response to 
second and vacation housing demand, as the "root of 
the affordable housing problem." (Plan, Affordable Housing, p. 5-1) (emphasis added).  Even the "issues" 
statement in Chapter Three, Community Character, recognizes the connection between 
second and vacation housing demand and the upward spiral of land costs, noting 
that "[a] strong second home market has caused residential property 
values to skyrocket." (Plan, Community Character, p. 3-3) (emphasis added).

 

(d)  The significance of the displacement of 
residents is twofold: 1) the displacement affects the ability of the business 
community to effectively conduct business, due to lack of hiring choices, 
resulting in both a lower quality of service and staff shortages.  (Plan, Affordable Housing, p. 
5-8); and 2) the displacement affects the County's social structure:

 

Social and economic classes that once mingled in the 
community are growing apart as households that cannot afford homes in Teton 
County are relocating to Teton Valley, Idaho, Alpine, and Bondurant. The 
community as a whole has decried this trend. As described in the Community 
Character chapter, maintaining both a social and economic diversity within Teton 
County is very important to its residents.

 

(Plan, Affordable Housing, p. 5-8).

 

(e)  According to the Plan, these second or 
vacation homes are disproportionally large.  People seeking locations to build second or 
vacation homes are more likely to build large homes.  One of the guiding 
principles in the chapter on Community Vision declares that "[h]igh-end residential 
. . . development will not be permitted to dominate the community at the 
expense of affordable housing opportunities for permanent residents." (Plan, p. 
1-7) (emphasis added).  
The connection between very large single-family homes and second, or 
vacation, homes also finds support in the issue paper on affordable housing:

 

One of the elements driving the housing affordability 
problem is the gap between what people of modest income and those at the top of 
the market can afford.  
Jackson Hole's 
recent growth has not been so much due to new year-round residents, but rather 
is from the very affluent who build second homes ranging from 5 to 12 times the 
size of most normal housing in the valley.  It is impossible for middle income 
residents to compete in this market.

 

Exh. 3-C (page 28 of the Issue Paper on Affordable Housing) 
(emphasis added).

 

(f)  The chapter on Affordable Housing suggests a 
strategy limiting the gross living area which could be built on a given lot as a 
way to slow rising land costs:

 

Maximum floor area ratio -- This strategy would limit the gross living area which 
could be built on a given lot.  Usually such a requirement relates directly to 
community character objectives.  Under certain land market conditions, however, 
it can tend to slow the upward spiral of land costs by clearly defining the 
amount of development permitted on a lot-by-lot basis.  It is unlikely, however, that such limits will bring new 
dwelling units within the range that is affordable by residents of the 
community.

 

(Plan, Affordable Housing, p. 5-15) (emphasis added).

 

(g)  According to the Plan, then, limiting the 
gross living area which could be built on a given lot, arguably slows the upward 
spiral of land costs, which, in turn, will make land more affordable for housing 
that resident workers can afford.  In this way, limiting the size of 
single-family homes to a certain number of square feet slows the upward spiral 
of land costs, which, in turn, makes more available housing that resident 
workers can afford.  
By making affordable housing more available for resident workers, Section 
2450 promotes the social and economic diversity of Teton County's 
population.

 

(h)  The Pitkin County, Colorado, Affordable 
Housing Regulation Support Study, attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 3-B, 
supports the connection between very large single-family homes and the problem 
of affordable housing.  
That Study concludes that the employment required to operate and maintain 
a residence rises with the size of the residence at an exponential, rather than lineal rate. Since, according 
to the Study, "most of those employed [for the operation and maintenance of 
large single-family residences] will receive wages and salaries that place them 
in a position of economic stress in terms of their ability to purchase or rent 
housing," larger single-family residences increase the number of low wage 
service sector jobs at a greater rate than smaller houses.  As one of the 
regulatory approaches, Section 2450, TCLDRs furthers the affordable housing goal 
by mitigating against the rise in the number of low wage employees in the 
County.

 

12. I am not aware of any violations of Section 2450 of the 
Land Development Regulations other than the violation of Section 2450 which is 
the subject matter of the above entitled matter.  [Emphases in original; some footnotes 
deleted.]

  

APPENDIX III

 

 

COMMUNITY VISION

Teton County's popularity as a gateway community and 
destination resort skyrocketed during the 1980's, bringing with it dramatic 
increases in population and development.  The 1980's marked the second consecutive 
decade of above-average growth, and residents feared they were losing control 
over their future.  
Their quiet western community had mushroomed into a flourishing resort 
that threatened to leave residents' needs and values behind.

 

As the decade drew to a close, residents and community 
leaders of Teton County and the Town of Jackson recognized that the time to 
confront their concerns had come.  Rapid growth was diminishing the small town 
values and western heritage cherished by so many. Housing had become so 
expensive and scarce that it was forcing some residents to leave the 
community.  
Development was beginning to disrupt open ranchlands and natural 
resources.  
Improvements in the valley's infrastructuretransportation, sanitary 
sewer, parking--lagged sharply behind population and visitation growth.  Existing land 
development regulations were proving inadequate to deal with these pressures, 
and residents began to express the need for a system which would do a better job 
of managing the changes they were seeing in Teton County's character.

 

In 1989 and 1990, the Town and the County began independent 
but parallel information-gathering efforts to determine what residents 
envisioned for Teton County's future.  The County initiated "small-area" meetings 
where planners met informally with residents of various areas of the 
county.  
Meanwhile, Town planners divided Jackson into seven neighborhood planning 
areas and conducted similar workshops of their own.

 

Citizens attending Teton County's Small Area Plan meetings 
and the Town's series of neighborhood meetings made it abundantly clear that 
they were not satisfied with the recent directions of the area's growth and 
development.  
Issues most often cited were increased traffic, commercial growth, and 
lack of affordable housing opportunities.  They were articulated as issues of character: 
people felt their community was disappearing.

 

Both local governments recorded residents' comments with the 
intent of using that information to develop separate land use and development 
plans with implementing regulations.  In considering what residents were telling 
them however, local officials realized that growth and development issues such 
as transportation, air and water quality, and wildlife habitat do not stop at 
jurisdictional boundaries.  They saw that the character of Jackson was 
interdependent with that of Kelly, Moran[,] Wilson, and Alta.  Clearly, a major 
cooperative planning effort was needed.  Neither jurisdiction could hope to solve 
community-wide problems without the help and support of the other.  What direction was 
growth taking?  
What would Jackson and Teton County look like at buildout under the 
regulations in effect at that time?  Much of Teton County's ranchlands, with its 
pastures, hay meadows, and broad sweeping vistas, was zoned for development at 
one unit per three to six acres.  Dividing a 1,000-acre ranch into three- to 
six-acre lots does not preserve rural character, and does not provide either 
affordable housing or open space.

 

Many residents felt the community was becoming out of 
balance, with resort and commercial development far outpacing the growth of 
employee units and other types of affordable housing.  While "the market" 
was producing some affordable housing, it was not keeping up with the need.  In the Town, 
affordable housing was often being built at the expense of established, mostly 
single-family neighborhoods which happened to be zoned MR-2 or MR-4, while 
existing affordable housing stock was continuing to be displaced by 
non-residential uses in Core Commercial and MR-4 zones.

 

The community and elected officials took action. Several 
community groups, state and federal agencies, consultants and residents 
contributed to a joint planning effort.  Public forums were held to outline the most 
commonly voiced concerns. One such forum was the Successful Communities 
workshop, which drew more than 300 participants in March, 1990.  During this 
workshop, participants identified Jackson Hole's natural and community assets as 
well as areas of concern, from which a vision statement was derived.  Finally, specific 
actions to bring about the vision were identified, under the themes of (1) 
preservation of the high quality of the natural and built environment; (2) 
wildlife protection; (3) encourage economic and social diversity; (4) growth 
management; (5) preservation of Jackson Hole's quality of life; and (6) just 
compensation.

 

In response to the identified assets and concerns, a 
consulting team headed by Lane Kendig, Inc., was selected from a group of 
nationally recognized planners to produce a comprehensive plan and draft 
development regulations.  During the information gathering or 
"Reconnaissance" phase of the planning process, the consultant team produced a 
series of five "Issues Papers" in which they evaluated economic development, 
natural resources, affordable housing, population and growth, and community 
character in Teton County. Public officials, local planning staffs, and the 
consultants met with the general public during a series of workshops to discuss 
the papers and possible strategies for addressing the issues which they 
raised.

 

Through the summer and early fall of 1991, hundreds of 
residents gathered and spoke at moderated, informal roundtable discussions at 
the Jackson Hole High School.  They shared their concerns for Teton County's 
future, and told one another about personal likes and dislikes with respect to 
the Town's and County's development.  Lane Kendig also gave the public some early 
thoughts on how their concerns might be addressed, and he personally led several 
question and answer sessions.

 

 

From the comments and discussions at the workshops and 
mediated roundtables through the Reconnaissance phase, a vision for Teton 
County's future began to emerge.  Residents expressed a strong desire to retain 
a rural western character and a sense of true community. They wished to maintain 
a socially and economically diverse population and to not become a resort where 
only the wealthy can afford to reside.  They were committed to preserving open space, 
affordable housing, and wildlife, and to avoid making the mistakes they 
perceived had been made by other resort communities.

 

The vision includes:

 

·                                                              
scenic vistas preservation;

·                                                              
wildlife diversity and abundance;

·                                                              
a continuation of ranching and other traditional 
agriculture;

·                                                              
good quality air and water;

·                                                              
a strong economy based upon visitation, offering unique 
visitor experiences in the outdoors;

·                                                              
a balanced community not dominated by lodging and 
resorts;

·                                                              
nodes and clusters of affordable homes; and

·                                                              
good schools, parks, and other services to support community 
life.

 

In addition, the Town of Jackson focused on local and 
neighborhood concerns:

 

·                                                              
safe, secure residential neighborhoods with quiet 
streets;

·                                                              
a variety of housing types to support a diverse 
community;

·                                                              
an efficient transportation system which is safe for 
pedestrians and cyclists as well as vehicles;

·                                                              
a vital, pedestrian-oriented downtown area which welcomes 
both visitors and locals;

·                                                              
major streets which are attractive and set a positive 
community image;

·                                                              
protected and restored resources, such as the Town's 
hillside areas, and Cache and Flat Creeks; and

·                                                              
residential and commercial buildings which reflect Jackson's 
heritage, character, and image.

 

Clearly, the results of this visioning process presented a 
very tall order for the officials and planners charged with formulating a 
comprehensive plan including land development regulations.  On the surface, at 
least[,] some of the goals and desires expressed appeared to conflict or compete 
with others.  
For example, how could the integrity of single-family neighborhoods be 
preserved while still providing a variety of housing types and opportunities to 
support a diverse population?  If open space and wildlife habitat were to be 
preserved, how could housing be truly affordable?

 

Embracing these conflicts, the visioning provided an 
umbrella guideline that would structure the entire planning process.  A plan needed to be 
formulated which would identify the critical elements that define the character 
of the Town of Jackson and Teton County, and that the plan would recommend how 
community character could not only be preserved but actually enhanced through 
positive change.

 

 

A critical link between the visioning and the articulation 
of goals, objectives and strategies to realize the vision is "Issues 
Mapping."  As 
the term implies, issues mapping is a graphic and geographic depiction of 
community planning issues and opportunities, and the spatial relationships among 
them.  The 
issues map provides a framework for understanding the issues analyzed in the 
chapters which follow this Community Vision.  It also provides a guideline against which 
proposed land development applications and public investments can be 
measured.

 

The Community Issues Map for the Town of Jackson is both 
vision and direction for future growth and development.  It indicates areas 
where residents and officials find the present character desirable, and 
therefore, want it preserved.  In other areas, an auto urban or suburban 
character should be preserved; at the same time it is recognized that some 
enhancement is needed.  
In practical terms, this means that new development in these areas should 
contribute to the existing character and not be allowed to start a shift or 
trend toward another more intense character type.  Much of East Jackson, Upper Cache Creek, and 
the Sage Addition area are recommended for enhancement.

 

The Issues Map illustrates areas with significant 
environmental constraints and natural resources within the Town which must be 
considered and preserved, to the extent possible, when development is 
proposed.  There 
are steep slopes in north Jackson, west of Flat Creek, on the north side of Snow 
King Mountain, and along the east side of South Highway 89.  Some of these areas 
are not suitable for building, and any development needs to be clustered on the 
most suitable areas of each site.  Parts of the butte side slopes in north 
Jackson are crucial winter range for mule deer, so development should be limited 
to allow the animals continued use and movement through the area.  Forested areas on 
Snow King Mountain are used extensively by moose and deer.  Although not 
designated as crucial winter range, these areas should also receive some degree 
of protection.

 

Jurisdictional wetlands along Flat Creek in the Karns Meadow 
and immediately north of High School Road are also designated for protection on 
the Issues Map.  
As the most prominent natural resource in all of Jackson, but one which 
has not been treated as the community amenity it could be, Flat Creek is also 
designated as a special restoration corridor.  Details of the restoration plan for Flat Creek 
may be found in Chapter 4, Natural Resources.

 

Affordable housing nodes and other areas for higher density 
residential development are indicated, mainly in West Jackson where commercial 
services are available, transit is provided, and overall access service is 
plentiful.  The 
Issues Map recognizes the distinction between general community commercial needs 
in the shopping areas along W. Broadway and lodging and visitor services which 
should be focused primarily on the Jackson core area.  The Issues Map 
illustrates that the area in and around Snow King Resort will continue to be the 
major center for resort-type uses in Town.

 

The Community Issues Map also depicts such non-regulatory 
issues as urban design and transportation.  It indicates that special treatments are 
needed for the Town's three major gateways: north and south Highway 89, and at 
Highway 22 entrance to Town.  Through a properly designed combination of 
monument signage and landscaping, a favorable first impression of the community 
and a clear sense of arrival will be created, with the message that the traveler 
is leaving one type of character and entering a distinctly different type.

 

The "transit nodes," which are major transfer points or 
other key facilities associated with the bus system, are also indicated.  For this system to 
expand to meet community-wide service needs, a major terminal and park-and-ride 
facility is recommended for consideration at the intersection of Highways 89 and 
22.  The Map 
also designates major links of the pathway system, reflecting the importance 
given in the visioning process to the ability to travel about the Town and 
County on foot, by horseback, by cycling, or cross country skiing.

 

The Issues Map indicates the need for special design guides 
to preserve the unique pedestrian character of the Town Square.  As well, the 
commercial areas along south Highway 89 are designated for design improvements 
to parking, access, internal circulation, signage and landscaping to enhance the 
existing character and mitigate the Highway's "strip commercial" appearance.

 

In Teton County, the major issues tend to be broader and 
were of necessity mapped at a much smaller scale.  The County Issues Map primarily depicts three 
areas of concern.  
The first is "open space."  These are lands on which ranching should 
continue, wildlife habitat preserved, and the visual qualities of scenic vistas 
protected.

 

Examples include the hay meadows of South Park, the Spring 
Gulch scenic area, ranchlands along the Teton Village road, Buffalo Valley and 
the western most entrance to Teton County from Alta.  These lands also 
include the Snake, Hoback, Gros Ventre and Buffalo Fork river corridors and 
those hillsides and butte sides which are crucial winter range for 
ungulates.  
These areas should be kept free of development to the maximum extent 
possible to help preserve rural character, critical wildlife habitat and 
important image-setting scenic vistas and river corridors, and to encourage the 
continuation of ranching and other types of traditional agriculture as a vital 
part of the community's character.  The County should encourage the preservation 
of the rural character, critical wildlife habitat and important image-setting 
scenic vistas and corridors, and encourage the continuation of ranching and 
other types of traditional agriculture as a vital part of the community 
character.  
Where possible, the County should be flexible with its development 
regulations as an encouragement to landowners to permanently protect these 
wildlife, scenic and agricultural areas.  In addition, where non-regulatory options are 
available, these should be encouraged.  For example, a land trust's resource analysis 
in preparation for a conservation easement, may be sufficient to replace the 
County's site analysis.

 

The second type of area identified on the County Issues Map 
are the "neighborhood conservation" areas.  These are lands which are already subdivided, 
and which have been determined to generally constitute acceptable patterns of 
development within already established boundaries.  These lands include 
the vast majority of the large-lot platted subdivisions in the County, as well 
as planned developments, such as Rafter J, Spring Creek Ranch, Boyles Hill 
(Indian Springs) and Teton Pines.  In these areas development will be allowed to 
continue as it was originally approved, with very little (if any) change to be 
effected by the land development regulations adopted to implement this Plan.

 

The third type of area shown on the County Issues Map is how 
new development relates spatially to the community's overall vision.  These are the areas 
seen as appropriate for future growth and include the Teton Village and Grand 
Targhee Resorts.  
This third type also includes new limited commercial areas near the 
Aspens and in Wilson and Hoback Junction, intended to meet the basic service 
needs of residents.

 

In addition, perhaps the most important areas for future 
development are the housing ""cluster targets."  These are areas which, from the standpoint of 
access, ability to provide services and/or contiguity with existing development, 
are most appropriate for relatively high density housing.  One such area is in 
the northwest part of South Park at the south side of High School Road across 
from Cottonwood Park.  
Smaller potential affordable housing nodes are designated in Wilson and 
Hoback Junction adjacent to existing communities.  It is this clustering of development 
potential, with its required open space preservation, that allows rural 
character objectives, such as wildlife and scenic resource protection, to be 
achieved.

 

Like the Town map, the County Issues Map also reflects an 
increasing awareness of the need for alternatives to automobile 
transportation.  
Areas to be considered for new or expanded transit service are depicted, 
including Wilson and Hoback Junction.  Major links in the proposed pathway system are 
also shown.

 

 

In order to provide the finishing touches to the visioning 
process and to better translate the community vision into plans and regulations, 
a vision statement was drafted, based on stated values of the community.

 

It is the vision of the citizens, planners and elected 
officials, who have all contributed to this plan, to guide and manage change and 
development to:

 

 

The vision also includes the intent that development on 
private lands in Teton County be compatible with surrounding public land values 
and uses, including Grand Teton National Park, Yellowstone National Park, and 
Bridger-Teton National Forest, because all towns, neighborhoods and resorts in 
Teton County are integral to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

 

Fortunately, Teton County residents enjoy common values upon 
which they can build a future.  This planning effort sought a "common ground" 
among several points of view. There is widespread commitment for protection of 
Teton County's natural resources, outdoor recreational opportunities, sense of 
community and small-town feeling and social diversity.

 

The Comprehensive Plan for Teton County needs to acknowledge 
and protect the benefits of growth while adopting reasonable limits. In an 
effort to create a "best-choice" future for our community and to design a 
regulatory system that serves this purpose, the benefits of growth must be 
balanced with the benefits of growth management.

 

The guiding principles shown below have been articulated to 
reconcile the benefits of growth with the benefits of growth management:

 

1.                                          
Teton County's wildlife and scenic resources are a local and 
national treasure, and, therefore, the community recognizes a stewardship 
responsibility for their protection.  Future development in Teton County will take 
place in this context.

2.                                          
Teton County is a community first and a resort second.  Social diversity is 
a defining characteristic of the community, and sufficient housing is seen as 
essential, to retain that characteristic in the future.  High-end residential 
and commercial development will not be permitted to dominate the community at 
the expense of affordable housing opportunities for permanent residents.

3.                                          
The intent of this Plan is to create conditions for a 
sustainable visitor-based economy not dependent upon growth, and an economy that 
reflects the unique small-town, Western commercial character of Jackson, and the 
outdoor recreational opportunities of Teton County as key components of the 
visitor experience.

4.                                          
As a community grounded in values of individualism, fairness 
and hospitality, the intent of this Plan is to provide property owners and local 
businesses with as much flexibility as possible in the use and development of 
their property.  
Local elected officials will be entrusted with discretionary 
decision-making power to protect public health, safety and welfare.

 

The Plan chapters which follow provide the means to achieve 
the vision and guiding principles through a detailed analysis of issues, 
establishment of goals and objectives, consideration of strategies and selection 
of appropriate actions.  However, these chapters do 
not represent the culmination or end-point of the process.  The term "planning 
process" defines the on-going or cyclical nature of planning.  While certain 
aspects of the planning program have been formulated to the point that they are 
ready for implementation, others require continuing monitoring and analysis 
before they too are ripened.

 

The most significant areas in which the planning process 
will continue following adoption of this Plan are:

 

1.                                                
Definition of the fair share of affordable housing to be 
provided by new residential, commercial and resort development;

2.                                                
Specification of fees to address the impacts of development 
on parks and recreation, schools and roads;

3.                                                
Consideration of growth management techniques intended to 
insure balance among the residential, commercial and resort development sectors 
and to influence the rate of community change to avoid cycles of community "boom 
and bust;"

4.                                                
Establishment of planning capacity guidelines, providing a 
range for each resort's ultimate development, within which each resort can 
develop its own master plan;

5.                                                
Formulation of historic preservation design guidelines;

6.                                                
Re-running the County's transportation model to determine 
the intermodal transportation improvements necessary to serve the vision 
expressed by this Comprehensive Plan.

 

This plan is intended to guide the inhabitants of Teton 
County, Wyoming, into the 21st century in a manner that honors Jackson Hole 
and Alta's heritage and setting, and endows future generations.  The Plan also seeks 
to build on conditions existing in 1993.

 

 

FOOTNOTES

  1Although 
the record is not entirely clear in this regard, it appears that the district 
court accepted that Crow's house had approximately 11,000 square feet of 
habitable space.  
It was evident in the proceedings below that Crow disputed this fact and 
that a resolution of this question is very material to the outcome of this 
case.  On remand 
this factual issue must, of course, be resolved by the fact-finder.

  2Indeed, 
counties and other "agencies" of the state, as well as other enumerated 
governmental entities, may jointly formulate such plans.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-1-101 through 110 (LexisNexis 
2001).

   3See Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32-33, 75 S. Ct. 98, 
102, 99 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1954).