Title: Ford v. Board of County Com'rs of Converse County

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Ford v. Board of County Com'rs of Converse County1996 WY 125924 P.2d 91Case Number: 96-50Decided: 09/24/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Vince FORD,

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS OF CONVERSE COUNTY,

 Appellee (Defendant).

Appeal from District 
Court, Converse County, Dan Spangler, J.

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

James A. Hardee, 
Douglas, for Appellee (Defendant).

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

MACY, Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Vince 
Ford appeals from the judgment entered against him which upheld the validity of 
Converse County's development regulations.

[¶2]      We 
reverse.

ISSUES

[¶3]      Ford presents the 
following issues for our review:

I. May counties lawfully 
restrict development on unzoned land?

II. Do the Converse 
County Development Regulations constitute a zoning resolution as authorized by 
W.S. § 18-5-201 through 207?

III. Do the Converse 
County Development Regulations violate Article 1 Section 7 of the Wyoming 
Constitution?

FACTS

[¶4]      Although Appellee 
Board of County Commissioners of Converse County had adopted a land use plan, it 
had not adopted any zoning resolutions. Instead, the board of county 
commissioners utilized the development regulations which were included in the 
Converse County Subdivision, Development and Flood Damage Prevention 
Regulations. The regulations provided that a landowner who desired to develop 
property within the county had to obtain a development permit. The county 
planner, however, was not authorized to grant a development permit when the 
desired use of the property was not in compliance with the land use plan. In 
that instance, the applicant had to apply to the board of county commissioners 
for a variance from the land use plan.

[¶5]      Ford was the 
equitable owner of a parcel of land located in an area of Converse County which 
was designated by the land use plan as being rural residential. Ford applied for 
a development permit so that he could operate a fireworks stand on his property. 
The county planner informed Ford that his application lacked certain information 
and that a fee had to accompany the application. Ford did not pursue the 
application. Instead, he began operating a fireworks stand on the property even 
though he did not have a permit to do so. The board of county commissioners 
asserted that the regulations prohibited Ford from commercially using his land 
without obtaining a permit or a variance and initiated an action for a temporary 
restraining order. Ford filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking to have the 
regulations declared invalid insofar as they purported to limit his ability to 
use the land commercially. The district court found in favor of the board of 
county commissioners, upholding the validity of the regulations. Ford appeals to 
this Court.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶6]      WYO. STAT. § 
1-37-103 (1988) provides:

§ 1-37-103. Right of 
interested party to have determination made.

Any person . . . whose 
rights, status or other legal relations are affected by the Wyoming constitution 
or by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have any 
question of construction or validity arising under the instrument determined and 
obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations.

"Final orders 
and judgments entered in declaratory judgment proceedings may be reviewed as in 
other civil actions." WYO. STAT. § 1-37-109 (1988).

[¶7]      The board of 
county commissioners argues that Ford had to exhaust his administrative remedies 
before he could bring this action in the district court. We disagree. Ford was 
not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because he was challenging 
the validity of the regulations.

[¶8]      Although a 
"`[d]eclaratory judgment should not be used to usurp or replace specific 
administrative relief, particularly when the initial decision is committed to an 
administrative body,'" Union Pacific Resources Company v. State, 839 P.2d 356, 
365 (Wyo. 1992) (quoting City of Cheyenne v. Sims, 521 P.2d 1347, 1350 (Wyo. 
1974)), a declaratory judgment action is generally available when the party who 
is bringing the action asserts issues which only the courts have the authority 
to decide; i.e., the validity and constitutionality of administrative rules. 
Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association v. State, 645 P.2d 1163, 1168 (Wyo. 
1982); see also 2 AM.JUR.2D Administrative Law §§ 232, 512 (1994); Union Pacific 
Resources Company, 839 P.2d  at 366; BHP Petroleum Company, Inc. v. State, 
Wyoming Tax Commission, 766 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Wyo. 1989); BERNARD SCHWARTZ, 
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW § 8.37 (2d ed. 1984); 6 PATRICK J. ROHAN, ZONING AND LAND USE 
CONTROLS § 36.05 (1990).

[¶9]      In Rocky Mountain 
Oil and Gas Association, we said:

[W]here the relief 
desired is in the nature of a substitution of judicial decision for that of the 
agency on issues pertaining to the administration of the subject matter for 
which the agency was created, the action should not be entertained. If, however, 
such desired relief concerns the validity and construction of agency 
regulations, or if it concerns the constitutionality or interpretation of a 
statute upon which the administrative action is, or is to be, based, the action 
should be entertained.

645 P.2d  at 
1168.

DISCUSSION

[¶10]   Ford asserts that, since the board 
of county commissioners had not enacted any zoning resolutions, it could not 
prohibit the commercial use of unsubdivided land located within that county. The 
board of county commissioners counters that the Wyoming statutes do not require 
counties to enact zoning resolutions, claiming that counties are only required 
to enact land use regulation schemes.

[¶11]   WYO. STAT. § 18-5-102 (1996) 
provides:

§ 18-5-102. Powers of 
county commissioners.

Each board of county 
commissioners may provide for the physical development of the unincorporated 
territory within the county by zoning all or any part of the unincorporated 
territory.

WYO. STAT. § 
18-5-201 (1996) provides:

§ 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.

WYO. STAT. § 
18-5-203 (1996) provides in pertinent part:

§ 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.

WYO. STAT. § 
9-8-301 (1995) provides:

§ 9-8-301. Development of 
plans.

(a) All local governments 
shall develop a local land use plan within their jurisdiction. The plans shall 
be consistent with established state guidelines and be subject to review and 
approval by the commission.

(b) All incorporated 
cities and towns shall have the option to develop a land use plan in accordance 
with the requirements of W.S. 9-8-302(a), or cooperate with the county to 
develop such a plan under W.S. 9-8-302(b).

(c) All counties shall 
develop a county-wide land use plan which shall incorporate the land use plans 
of all incorporated cities and towns within the county.

[¶12]   While planning and zoning are 
similar concepts, the terms are not interchangeable:

§ 9-8-102. 
Definitions.

(a) As used in this 
act:

. . .

(vi) "Land use planning" 
means the process which guides the growth and development of an area and assures 
the best and wisest use of that area's resources now and in the 
future;

. . .

(xvi) "Zoning" means a 
form of regulatory control granted to local governments which may be used to 
guide and to develop specific allowable land use[.]

WYO. STAT. § 
9-8-102(a)(vi), (xvi) (1995).

[¶13]   Zoning is the process that a 
community employs to legally control the use which may be made of property and 
the physical configuration of development upon the tracts of land located within 
its jurisdiction. 1 PATRICK J. ROHAN, ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS § 1.02[1] 
(1991). The legislative division of the community allows only certain designated 
uses of land so that the community may develop in an orderly manner in 
accordance with a comprehensive plan. Eves v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of 
Lower Gwynedd Township, 401 Pa. 211, 164 A.2d 7, 9 (1960).

[¶14]   Planning is the establishment of an 
overall concept for the future physical development of the total area and 
services of the community. 1 ROHAN, supra, at § 1.02[3]. Planning, therefore, is 
more than a suggested pattern of land use; it involves the planning of all the 
usual public improvements and services which go into making up the community. 
Id.

[¶15]   A comprehensive plan should not be 
confused with, or used as a substitute for, comprehensive zoning, nor may a 
comprehensive plan be equated with comprehensive zoning in legal significance. 
Chapman v. Montgomery County Council, 259 Md. 641, 271 A.2d 156, 157 (1970); see 
also Richter v. City of Greenwood Village, 513 P.2d 241, 242 (Colo.Ct.App. 1973) 
(holding that, while a comprehensive plan is helpful in guiding the harmonious 
development of a municipality, a city is not bound by the zoning recommendations 
in a master plan). A comprehensive plan is merely a policy statement which is 
implemented by zoning enactment. 1 E.C. YOKLEY, ZONING LAW AND PRACTICE § 5-3 at 
225 (4th ed. 1978). Zoning is a part of and a product of planning because it is 
the medium through which the goals of the comprehensive plan are achieved. 
Shelton v. City of Bellevue, 73 Wn.2d 28, 435 P.2d 949, 953 n. 2 (1968). It is 
the proper zoning enactment which has the force and effect of law. 1 YOKLEY, 
supra, at 225.

[¶16]   "`As an arm of the state, the 
county has only those powers expressly granted by the constitution or statutory 
law or reasonably implied from powers granted.'" Board of County Commissioners 
of Laramie County v. Dunnegan, 884 P.2d 35, 40 (Wyo. 1994) (quoting Dunnegan v. 
Laramie County Commissioners, 852 P.2d 1138, 1142 (Wyo. 1993)). Counties have 
been statutorily granted the authority to regulate the use of their lands. WYO. 
STAT. §§ 18-5-201 to -207 (1996). We have found that the authority granted in § 
18-5-201 gives counties broad power to regulate their lands. Snake River Venture 
v. Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, 616 P.2d 744, 752 (Wyo. 1980). 
The authority is, however, for zoning:

Specifically, the boards 
were empowered to create planning and zoning commissions which would develop 
comprehensive plans outlining the counties' zoning restrictions. From these 
plans, zoning resolutions would be drawn which were to provide details 
describing the zoning restrictions and the procedure necessary to effectuate any 
zoning changes.

Croxton v. Board 
of County Commissioners of Natrona County, 644 P.2d 780, 783 (Wyo. 1982) 
(emphasis added) (referring to §§ 18-5-201 to -207). "Counties should have, and 
do have, broad authority to require compliance with zoning provisions in their 
efforts to promote orderly development of unincorporated areas." River Springs 
Limited Liability Company v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Teton, 
899 P.2d 1329, 1334 (Wyo. 1995) (emphasis added).

[¶17]   Once a county has adopted zoning 
resolutions, a landowner cannot develop or use any land within that area without 
obtaining a zoning certificate. Section 18-5-203. The board of county 
commissioners is strictly bound by the zoning regulations in issuing 
certificates. Id. If the proposed use does not comply with the regulations, the 
board of county commissioners cannot issue a certificate. Id. If it complies 
with the regulations, the board of county commissioners must issue the 
certificate. Id.

[¶18]   A comprehensive plan is generally a 
prerequisite for the adoption of zoning resolutions. Section 9-8-301. In this 
case, the board of county commissioners developed a comprehensive plan but never 
adopted any zoning resolutions. Since comprehensive plans lack the legal effect 
of zoning laws, which actually regulate land use, the county plan by itself had 
no regulatory authority. Forks Township Board of Supervisors v. George Calantoni 
& Sons, Inc., 6 Pa.Cmwlth. 521, 297 A.2d 164, 166-67 (1972).

[¶19]   We have recognized that the zoning 
authority which has been granted to counties includes the power to adopt 
temporary freeze resolutions so that the status quo may be preserved until 
planning and zoning decisions can be made. Schoeller v. Board of County 
Commissioners, 568 P.2d 869, 874-75 (Wyo. 1977). In Schoeller, we held that the 
board of county commissioners could not extend such temporary freeze resolutions 
for a period of five years without adopting permanent zoning resolutions. 568 P.2d  at 874. The regulations at issue in this case were adopted approximately 
eighteen years ago and, therefore, could not constitute temporary freeze 
resolutions under our Schoeller decision.

[¶20]   Ford contends that the regulations 
violate Article I, Section 7 of the Wyoming Constitution.

[W]here a constitutional 
question is raised, if the record also presents some other and clear ground upon 
which the court may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and the 
question of constitutional power will be left for consideration until that day 
when a case arises which cannot be disposed of without considering it, and when, 
consequently, a decision upon such question must be met head-on.

Schoeller, 568 P.2d  at 879. We, therefore, will not address Ford's constitutional question at 
this time.

CONCLUSION

[¶21]   The district court erred in finding 
that the regulations were legally sufficient to allow the board of county 
commissioners to regulate the use and occupancy of lands in the unzoned areas of 
the county.

[¶22]   Reversed.