Title: DONAGHY v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GREEN RIVER

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

DONAGHY v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF GREEN RIVER2002 WY 15055 P.3d 707Case Number: 01-206Decided: 10/07/2002
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

 

                                                                                                                                   

 

ROBERT 
DONAGHY and ELISE DONAGHY,

husband 
and wife,

 

Appellants(Petitioners),

 

v.

 

THE 
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE

CITY 
OF GREEN RIVER, acting by and

through 
its agents and members,

 

Appellee(Respondent).

 

 

Representing 
Appellants:

 

            
Robert and Elise Donaghy, Pro Se.

 

Representing 
Appellee:

 

            
Karen L. Marty of Marty & Ragsdale, Green River, 
Wyoming.

 

 

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

 

*  Chief Justice at time of expedited 
conference.

 

            
VOIGT, Justice.

 

[¶1]      This appeal 
arises from a dispute between Robert and Elise Donaghy (the Donaghys) and Jim 
and Helen Metziner (the Metziners) regarding the Metziners' attachment of 
fiberglass panels to the 2x4 rafters of their wooden patio structure, that 
structure having existed prior to the passage, in 1987, of Green River's zoning 
ordinance.  The City of Green River 
ultimately issued a building permit authorizing the fiberglass panels' 
attachment.  The Donaghys challenged 
the building permit's issuance before the Board of Adjustment of the City of 
Green River (the Board), arguing that the permit was issued improperly and that 
the attachment of fiberglass panels to the wooden patio structure violated Green 
River's zoning ordinance.  The Board 
concluded that the building permit was properly issued and that the attachment 
of fiberglass panels did not change the basic wooden patio structure or alter it 
to a degree that it would violate the zoning ordinance.  The Donaghys appealed this decision to 
the district court.  The district 
court affirmed the Board's decision, and this appeal followed.  We affirm.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      The Donaghys, as 
appellants, state the issues on appeal as follows:

 

            
A:        
Issuance of a building permit after the construction was 
complete.  The grandfathered 
structure was significantly altered by the overlay of a solid, 
highly reflective and precipitation discharging fiberglass roof (an increase in 
non-co[n]formity and an increase in total amount of space in 
area).

 

            
B:        The 
overlay of fiberglass panels resulted in a change of use which is prohibited by 
ordinance, and cannot be considered simply a repair.

 

            
C:        The 
setback requirement is violated since the fiberglass is placed into the setback, 
and angled such that nearly all precipitation that accumulates on the fiberglass 
roof is propelled onto the Appellant's property.

 

            
D:        The 
Green River Board of Adjustment did not consider Appellant's contention that the 
fiberglass cannot be assimilated into the environment.

 

(Emphasis 
in original.)  The Board, as 
appellee, essentially responds to the issues raised by the Donaghys within the 
context of the applicable standard of review.

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      The Donaghys and 
the Metziners are neighbors on Sunset Street in Green River.  In the 1960s, a predecessor to the 
Metziners constructed a wooden patio structure on what is now the Metziners' 
property, and a cement block privacy fence along the lot boundary between the 
properties now owned by the Metziners and the Donaghys.  Based on the documentation and 
photographs contained in the record, the patio structure apparently consists of 
a wooden structure that supports a series of "closely spaced" wooden 2x4 
"rafters," to use the Donaghys' terminology, which are angled vertically toward 
the cement block privacy fence and the Donaghys' property.  A forty-one year resident of the 
neighborhood recalled that in the past (without further qualification as to the 
relevant time period), a light canopy had periodically been used to cover the 
wooden patio structure (he imagined that the canopy was tacked to the structure, 
presumably to the series of 2x4 rafters), and had been informed that a roll-up 
awning had similarly been utilized.  
In August 1999, the Metziners attached fiberglass panels to the wooden 
patio structure's 2x4 rafters.

 

[¶4]      In December 1999, 
the Donaghys filed a Citizen Action Request with the City of Green River, 
complaining that the Metziners violated the city's zoning ordinance by attaching 
the fiberglass panels to the wooden patio structure's 2x4 rafters and that the 
Metziners also subjected the Donaghys to "lawn sprinkler damages" and 
"floodlight harassment."  Pursuant 
to this request, the city building inspector investigated the alleged zoning 
ordinance infractions and indicated by letter that the attachment of fiberglass 
panels did "not increase the area of the shed," nor did it "increase the amount 
of non-conformity with respect to setbacks or height limitations."  Subsequently, apparently at the city's 
suggestion, Helen Metziner submitted a building permit application dated January 
31, 2000, stating that the fiberglass panels had been installed "on an existing 
patio cover to replace canvas awning that had dis[i]ntegrated" and that "I did 
not know I needed a permit."  The 
City of Green River issued a building permit to the Metziners on February 2, 
2000 authorizing them to "put fiberglass roofing on existing 
shed."

 

[¶5]      The Donaghys 
challenged the issuance of the building permit before the Board.  Following a hearing on April 6, 2000, 
during which documents, arguments, and sworn comments were received on behalf of 
both parties, the Board found that the building permit was properly issued and 
that the Zoning Ordinance of Green River, Wyoming, Appendix B, § 9.5(B) and 
(C)(2) (1987) (Zoning Ordinance) permitted the attachment of the fiberglass 
panels to the wooden patio structure's existing 2x4 rafters because it did not 
change the basic wooden patio structure or alter it to a degree that it would 
violate the zoning ordinance.  The 
Donaghys appealed this ruling to the district court, which affirmed the Board, 
and this appeal followed.

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶6]      We accord no 
special deference to the district court's decision and will consider the case as 
if it came directly from the agency.  
In re Jensen, 2001 WY 51, ¶ 9, 24 P.3d 1133, 1136 (Wyo. 
2001).  Our review is limited to a determination 
of the factors specified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) (LexisNexis 
2001).  The reviewing court 
shall:

 

Hold 
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

 

            
(A)       
Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in 
accordance with law;

 

            
* * *

 

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

 

Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E).

 

We 
recently held that the substantial evidence test is the appropriate standard of 
review in appeals from Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act contested case 
proceedings when factual findings are involved and both parties submit 
evidence.  Newman v. Wyoming 
Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 2002 WY 91, ¶ 22 (Wyo.2002).  We further held, that when only the 
party with the burden of proof submits evidence in the contested case proceeding 
and that party does not ultimately prevail, the arbitrary or capricious standard 
governs the judicial review of that agency decision.  Id.  Even if the factual findings are found 
to be supported by substantial evidence, the ultimate agency decision may be 
found to be arbitrary or capricious for other reasons.  Id. at ¶ 23.  We do not examine the record only to 
determine if there is substantial evidence to support the board's decision, but 
we must also examine the conflicting evidence to determine if the hearing 
examiner could have reasonably made its finding and order upon all of the 
evidence before it.  Id. at ¶ 
24, ¶ 25.  [When both parties 
present] cases-in-chief, we apply the substantial evidence standard.  We afford respect and deference to a 
hearing examiner's [in this case, the Board's] findings of fact if they are 
supported by substantial evidence.  
Haagensen v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 949 P.2d 865, 867 (Wyo.1997).  Our task is to 
examine the entire record to determine whether substantial evidence supported 
the hearing examiner's findings.  
[State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div. v.] Waggener, 
946 P.2d [808] at 814 [(Wyo.1997)].  
We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing examiner when 
substantial evidence supports his decision.  Id.  Substantial evidence is relevant 
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the agency's 
conclusions.  Id.  A hearing examiner's conclusions of law 
are afforded no special deference and will be affirmed only if truly in accord 
with law.  State ex rel. Wyoming 
Workers' Compensation Div. v. Barker, 978 P.2d 1156, 1159 
(Wyo.1999).

 

Kuntz-Dexter 
v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Div., 
2002 WY 101, ¶ 10, 49 P.3d 190, 192-93 (Wyo. 2002).

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶7]      In order to 
establish a context for resolving the issues raised by the Donaghys, we note 
that it is undisputed that the Metziners' wooden patio structure existed prior 
to the passage, in 1987, of Green River's zoning ordinance.  The Donaghys and the Board have analyzed 
the issues in this matter beginning with the premise that the Metziners' wooden 
patio structure is "nonconforming" in "use" and/or "structure."  We will follow their lead for purposes 
of this case.1  Zoning Ordinance § 9.5 addresses 
non-conforming uses:

 

Section 
9.5.  Non-conforming 
Uses.

 

Any 
use or structure in existence in the city on the effective date of this 
ordinance that complied with all previously applicable legal and safety 
requirements is deemed to be legally non-conforming.  A non-conforming use occurs when any 
property is used for a purpose or in a manner that does not conform to the use 
regulations, as described in the table of uses, Section 9.2, for the zoning 
district in which it is located.  A 
non-conforming structure is a structure that does not conform to the height and 
bulk requirements for the zoning district in which it is located.  Such legally existing non-conforming 
uses and structures are not subject to the provisions of this chapter, yet any 
changes to such use or structure shall meet the following 
requirements:

 

(A)       No Area 
Enlargement:  A non-conforming 
use may be continued on the same land area and within the same floor area as 
that which existed on the date when the use first became non-conforming.  The area occupied by a non-conforming 
use within an existing structure or tract of land may not be enlarged or 
extended.

 

(B)       
Structural Alteration:  
Except as provided herein, no person or persons may engage in any 
activity that causes an increase in the extent of non-conformity of a 
non-conforming structure.  In 
particular, physical alteration of a non-conforming structure is unlawful if 
such activity results in:

 

(1)       An increase 
in the total amount of space devoted to a conforming use; 
or

 

(2)       Greater 
non-conformity with respect to dimensional restrictions such as setback 
requirements or height limitations.

 

(C)       
Termination:

 

(1)       If active 
and continuous operation of a non-conforming use is discontinued for a period of 
eighteen (18) consecutive months, the structure or tract of land shall 
subsequently be used only for a conforming use.

 

(2)       The right 
to operate and maintain a non-conforming primary structure shall not terminate 
if the structure is damaged or destroyed in any manner.  Repair or replacement of such damaged or 
destroyed structures shall be permitted, providing that the repair or 
replacement will comply with Section 9.5(B) of this ordinance.  Any non-conforming structure may be 
repaired or upgraded, so long as the extent of non-conformity is not 
increased.

 

(Emphasis 
in original.)  In addition, the 
Zoning Ordinance defines "use" as the "purpose for which land or a building is 
designed, arranged or intended, or for which land or a building is or may be 
occupied" and "non-conforming use" as one "which lawfully occupied a building or 
which was a lawfully permitted use on a zone lot at the time this ordinance, or 
amendments thereto, became effective that does not conform to the use 
regulations of the district in which it is located."  Zoning Ordinance § 1.7(B)(89), 
(122).  A "structure" is anything 
"constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground" and a 
"non-conforming structure" is one "existing on the effective date of this 
ordinance, or amendments thereto, that does not conform to the provisions of 
this ordinance nor to the use regulations of the district in which it is 
located."  Id. at § 
1.7(B)(88), (120).

 

[¶8]      The Donaghys 
first argue that it is apparent from the wooden patio structure's construction 
that the structure was not intended to support a roof, but was designed to be an 
"open air patio covering."  They 
cite to a photograph of the patio structure, noting that the structure's 2x4 
rafters are "closely spaced," and from this photograph, conclude that the wooden 
patio structure was designed to be an "unobtrusive, weather resistant, open air 
patio covering, permitting the free escape of cooking smoke, and the free 
entrance of diffuse sunlight."  The 
addition of fiberglass panels to the patio structure, according to the Donaghys, 
therefore increased the non-conforming "use" of the structure in violation of 
Zoning Ordinance § 9.5(B).  They 
argue that the fiberglass panels functionally changed the use of the structure 
because the structure now discharges precipitation onto the Donaghys' property 
and reflects light from the Metziners' security floodlights, which light 
interferes with Mrs. Donaghy's amateur astronomy.  The wooden patio structure's "new" use, 
then, is "to reflect light and discharge precipitation" and the Metziners 
"knowingly overlayed a solid reflective (of light) and discharging (of 
precipitation) fiberglass roof upon an open air grandfathered structure 
converting it into a private nuisance . . .."

 

[¶9]      Despite this 
functional analysis, the Board received other evidence which it could reasonably 
accept in concluding that the attachment of fiberglass panels to the wooden 
patio structure's existing 2x4 rafters did not change the purpose for which the 
structure was designed, arranged, intended, or might be occupied, or otherwise 
increased the extent of any non-conformity in relation to the structure's past 
use.  It is undisputed that the 
Metziners did not alter the wooden structure underlying the fiberglass panels, 
and upon examination, the building inspector concluded that the attachment of 
fiberglass panels did not increase the structure's area.  Further, the wooden structure included a 
series of 2x4 rafters, and the Metziners attached the fiberglass panels to these 
rafters to replace a canvas awning that had disintegrated.  A light canopy (likely "tacked" to the 
structure's rafters), as well as a roll-up awning, had similarly been used in 
the past to periodically cover the structure.  Indeed, pursuant to the terms of this 
particular zoning ordinance, the Metziners could conceivably have reattached a 
canvas, or similar, covering indefinitely for the same use, which the Donaghys 
do not dispute.  See, e.g., 
Horwitz v. Dearborn Tp., 332 Mich. 623, 52 N.W.2d 235, 236-37 
(1952).

 

[¶10]   Based on this evidence, the Board 
could properly conclude that the Metziners' attachment of fiberglass panels to 
the structure's existing 2x4 rafters merely constituted an "upgrade" in material 
consistent with the wooden patio structure's past use, as opposed to a change or 
expansion in its use.  Zoning 
Ordinance § 9.5(B) and (C)(2), which the Board cited in conjunction with its 
findings, would seem to permit such a circumstance.  Accordingly, given the applicable 
standard of review, we must defer to the Board's findings in this 
respect.

 

[¶11]   Based on their assertion that the 
wooden patio structure's "new" use is to "reflect light and discharge 
precipitation," the Donaghys further argue that Zoning Ordinance § 9.5(C)(1) was 
violated because a covering over the structure's 2x4 rafters was absent for more 
than eighteen consecutive months.  
Zoning Ordinance § 9.5(C)(1) states:

 

If 
active and continuous operation of a non-conforming use is discontinued for a 
period of eighteen (18) consecutive months, the structure or tract of land shall 
subsequently be used only for a conforming use.

 

This 
argument was not presented to either the Board or the district court nor does 
the argument appear to be jurisdictional or fundamental in nature.  We "strongly adhere to the rule 
forbidding us to consider for the first time on appeal issues that were neither 
raised in, nor argued to, the trial court,' except for those issues which are 
jurisdictional or are fundamental in nature."  Bredthauer v. TSP, 864 P.2d 442, 
446 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Oatts v. Jorgenson, 821 P.2d 108, 111 (Wyo. 1991)).

 

[¶12]   The Donaghys next assert that the 
attachment of fiberglass panels to the wooden patio structure violates the 
setback requirements found in Zoning Ordinance §§ 2.3(8), (10) and 9.5(B) 
because the panels increase the structure's non-conformity in that regard.  Zoning Ordinance § 2.3 establishes 
minimum setback requirements for principal buildings and uses, as well as 
accessory uses, while section 9.5(B) states:

 

Structural 
Alteration:  Except as provided herein, no person or 
persons may engage in any activity that causes an increase in the extent of 
non-conformity of a non-conforming structure.  In particular, physical alteration of a 
non-conforming structure is unlawful if such activity results 
in:

 

* 
* *

 

(2)       Greater 
non-conformity with respect to dimensional restrictions such as setback 
requirements or height limitations.

 

In 
advancing this argument, the Donaghys have not directed us to any evidence 
contained in the record indicating that the attachment of fiberglass panels 
resulted in a greater non-conformity as to the ordinance's setback 
requirements.  The Board had before 
it the building inspector's finding that "the addition of a fiberglass roof 
would not increase the amount of non-conformity with respect to setbacks or 
height limitations."  It is 
undisputed that the underlying wooden patio structure existed prior to the 
ordinance's passage and that the Metziners did not alter the underlying wooden 
patio structure in attaching the fiberglass panels.  It is not apparent from the photographs 
contained in the record that the fiberglass panels meaningfully exceed the 
dimensions of the underlying wooden patio structure, and the Donaghys do not 
make such an allegation.  It follows 
that if the underlying structure violated the ordinance's setback requirements, 
that structure's non-conformity was "grandfathered" because it existed prior to 
the ordinance's passage, and that, absent some alteration to the underlying 
structure, attaching fiberglass panels to the structure's 2x4 rafters did not 
increase any existing setback non-conformity.

 

[¶13]   The Donaghys also contend that 
attaching the fiberglass panels, a solid surface, to the wooden patio structure 
essentially doubled the land area covered by the structure, and significantly 
increased the structure's total surface area, because prior to the addition of a 
solid surface, only empty space existed between the structure's 2x4 
rafters.  Zoning Ordinance § 9.5(A), 
the only ordinance section cited by the Donaghys in advancing this argument, 
provides as follows:

 

No 
Area Enlargement:  A non-conforming use may be continued on 
the same land area and within the same floor area as that which existed on the 
date when the use first became non-conforming.  The area occupied by a non-conforming 
use within an existing structure or tract of land may not be enlarged or 
extended.

 

This 
argument is misplaced.  It is 
undisputed that the Metziners did not alter the underlying wooden patio 
structure, and the Board had before it the building inspector's finding that the 
attachment of fiberglass panels did "not increase the area of the" structure,2 as well as evidence regarding the 
past use of materials to cover the structure.  Accordingly, substantial evidence 
supports the conclusion that the land and floor area, as well as the area 
occupied by the "use" of the structure, remained 
unchanged.

 

[¶14]   The Donaghys next argue, citing 
Zoning Ordinance § "2.1#4 and #5" and referring to these numbered sections as 
"Residential District Regulations," that the Board erred by failing to consider 
factors such as certain "negative impacts" to the Donaghys' property, drainage 
requirements, "general appropriateness" in location and site design, and whether 
fiberglass could be "assimilated into the environment."  Zoning Ordinance § 2.1 is found in 
"Chapter 2.  Residential District 
Regulations."  That particular 
section does not contain subsections enumerated as "4" or "5."  However, Zoning Ordinance § 2.1(B)(2)(d) 
does contain subsections enumerated as "4" and "5," as well as language 
consistent with that utilized by the Donaghys in advancing this argument.  Specifically, Zoning Ordinance § 
2.1(B)(2)(d) provides as follows:

 

(B)       Criteria 
for Zone Establishment:

 

* 
* *

 

            
(2)       
Mobile Home Zone Establishment Criteria:

 

                        
* * *

 

(d)  In addition, a mobile home subdivision 
shall:

 

* 
* *

 

4.         
Minimize any negative impacts on surrounding neighbors or 
neighborhoods.

 

5.         
Meet all applicable residential criteria concerning utilities, drainage, 
street and parking design and construction, landscaping and general 
appropriateness and quality in terms of location and site 
design.

 

(Emphasis 
in original.)  The Donaghys have not 
directed us to any evidence contained in the record indicating that the 
Metziners' wooden patio structure is located in a "mobile home 
subdivision."  Therefore, this 
particular zoning ordinance section appears to be inapplicable to the 
circumstances of the instant case.

 

[¶15]   Finally, the Donaghys assert that 
the Board erred in concluding that the building permit was properly issued 
because the permit was issued over five months after the Metziners attached the 
fiberglass panels to their wooden patio structure.  However, based on the Board's findings, 
and the particular circumstances of this case, it does not appear that the 
Metziners were necessarily required to obtain such a permit.  Zoning Ordinance § 1.6(C)(7) provides as 
follows:

 

Permits 
shall not be required for structures existing nor for the use of any structure 
or land area established prior to the effective date of the zoning 
ordinance.  Any modifications to 
existing structures or changes of use of any structure [or] land area performed 
after the effective date of the zoning ordinance shall require permits as 
provided by this ordinance.

 

The 
Board found, specifically citing Zoning Ordinance § 9.5(B) and (C)(2), that 
attaching fiberglass panels to the wooden patio structure's existing 2x4 rafters 
did not change the basic wooden patio structure or alter it to a degree that it 
would violate the zoning ordinance.  
In other words, the Board concluded that the attachment of fiberglass 
panels in this manner did not alter or modify the wooden patio structure, change 
the structure's use, or increase any non-conformity concerning the structure or 
its use.  We previously detailed the 
substantial evidence supporting these findings.  Absent some structural modification or 
change of use, it does not appear that a building permit was required.3  This approach coincides with the 
seemingly broader pronouncement contained in Zoning Ordinance § 1.4(A) as to the 
ordinance's intended application:

 

The 
enactment of this ordinance shall not prohibit the continuance of the use of any 
land, building or structure for the purpose for which such land, building or 
structure is used at the time the ordinance takes effect, and it shall not be 
necessary to secure any permit or certificate permitting such continuance; 
provided, however, that any significant alteration of or addition 
to any existing building or structure or the change in use of any land, building 
or structure within any area subject to the provisions of these regulations 
shall be regulated or prohibited.

 

(Emphasis 
added.)

 

[¶16]   For the foregoing reasons, we 
affirm.

 

FOOTNOTES

  1See Snake River Brewing Co., Inc. 
v. Town of Jackson, 2002 WY 11, ¶ 26 n.7, 39 P.3d 397, 407 n.7 (Wyo. 
2002).

  2The Donaghys' attorney also 
acknowledged at the hearing that the Metziners did not alter the wooden patio 
structure's square footage in attaching the fiberglass 
panels.

  3It is certainly advisable to consult 
the proper authority prior to engaging in any activity that might fall within 
the purview of a zoning ordinance.