Title: Bard Ranch Co. v. Frederick

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Bard Ranch Co. v. Frederick1997 WY 159950 P.2d 564Case Number: 96-330Decided: 12/23/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

BARD 
RANCH CO., a Wyoming Corporation, Appellant (Petitioner),

 

v. 

 

CHUCK FREDERICK; Charles Coleman; and WILLIAM 
WINDMEIER, each in their official capacities as members of the Board of 
Commissioners of Platte County, Wyoming; NWIP, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation 
licensed to do business in Wyoming; and WYOMING PREMIUM FARMS, LLC, a Wyoming 
Limited Liability Company,  

Appellees (Respondents).

 

Appeal 
from The District Court of Platte County

 The 
Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

Kermit C. 
Brown (argued) and Bruce B. Waters of Smith, Stanfield & Scott, 
Laramie.

 Representing 
Appellees: 

John B. 
Robinson, Platte County Attorney, for Board of Comm'rs of Platte 
County.

 

Rex E. 
Johnson (argued) of Sherard, Sherard & Johnson, Wheatland, for NWIP, Inc. 
and Wyoming Premium Farms.

 

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

LEHMAN, Justice. 

[¶1]            
Appellant Bard Ranch Co. (Bard) petitioned for review of the Platte 
County Commissioners' (Commission) decision to issue agricultural zoning 
certificates to Wyoming Premium Farms (WPF). The district court certified the 
case pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b). We hold, however, that events occurring 
during the pendency of the appeal make determination of the issues unnecessary. 
We, therefore, dismiss this case as moot.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Bard presents 
three issues for review:

 

1.      
Are confined feeding facilities 
and lagoons permitted under Class V-Agricultural Zoning as 

defined in the Platte County Land Use 
Regulations?

 

2. Did the Board of Commissioners of Platte County, 
Wyoming, improperly issue the zoning permits for feeding facilities and lagoons 
under Class V-Agricultural Zoning as defined in the Platte County Land Use 
Regulations?

 

3. Should the action of the Board of Commissioners of 
Platte County, Wyoming, be reversed and this matter remanded for further 
proceedings appropriate under the Platte County Land Use 
Regulations?

 

WPF 
responds:

 

1. Does Bard Ranch Co. ("Bard") have standing to 
bring this appeal?

 

2. What procedure must be followed by county 
commissioners when issuing zoning certificates in a county which has adopted a 
zoning resolution?

 

3. Did the Platte County Commissioners 
("Commissioners") follow the proper procedure when they issued five zoning 
certificates to Defendant Wyoming Premium Farms, LLC ("WPF") on October 1, 1996 
(four sites and one alternate site)?

 

[¶3]      Bard is a 
corporate ranch owning land in Platte County near some of WPF's hog confinement 
sites. Under Platte County's zoning plan, the lands in dispute were zoned for 
agricultural use. Pursuant to W.S. 18-5-203, the Commission issued agricultural 
zoning certificates to WPF in October 1996, allowing for construction of four 
hog confinement sites. Bard petitioned the district court for review of the 
Commission's decision, asserting that the Commission violated the Platte County 
zoning regulations by issuing agricultural zoning certificates to WPF for what 
Bard contended was an industrial use. Finding that the issues presented in 
Bard's petition had statewide impact and that an appeal from any determination 
would be likely, the district court certified the case to this 
court.

 

[¶4]            
Although not established by the record, both parties concede in their 
briefs that while this case was pending WPF applied for a zoning change of their 
land to an industrial classification. The Commission approved the rezoning and 
replaced WPF's agricultural zoning certificates with special permits pursuant to 
the Platte County zoning regulations. Bard has apparently petitioned the 
district court for review of these decisions as well.

 

DISCUSSION

[¶5]            
Generally, we review administrative decisions to determine if the agency 
action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in 
accordance with law. W.S. 16-3-114(c) and W.R.A.P. 12.09(a). Our general law on 
justiciability provides that courts should not consider issues which have become 
moot. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Wyoming Oil and 
Gas Conservation Comm'n, 693 P.2d 227, 233 (Wyo. 1985). We do not decide 
cases when a decision will have no effect or pertains only to matters that might 
arise in the future. McLain v. 
Anderson, 933 P.2d 468, 472 (Wyo. 1997). A case is moot when the 
determination of an issue is sought which, if provided, will have no practical 
effect on the existing controversy. Id. Therefore, if events occur during 
the pendency of an appeal that cause a case to become moot or make determination 
of the issues unnecessary, we will dismiss it. Id.; see also Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. 
Air Freight, Inc., 773 P.2d 911, 924-25 (Wyo. 1989).

 

[¶6]      Both parties 
concede that the Commission rezoned WPF's land and that WPF is currently 
operating under industrial permits. Because the current zoning scheme is 
industrial, determining the validity of the old agricultural zoning certificates 
will have no practical effect on the existing controversy. Nevertheless, Bard 
argues that determination of the issues presented in this appeal is necessary 
because WPF intends to operate under the old agricultural zoning certificates if 
Bard's challenge to the industrial rezoning is successful. While the possibility 
exists that the rezoning may be overturned, we will not consider issues that 
pertain only to matters that might arise in the future. McLain v. Anderson, 933 P.2d  at 472. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as 
moot.