Title: WALTER C. COOK v. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT for the City of Laramie, Wyoming and THE CITY ENGINEER of the City of Laramie, Wyoming
Citation: 1989 WY 133, 776 P.2d 181
Docket Number: 
State: Wyoming
Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court
Date: June 19, 1989

Annotate this Case WALTER C. COOK v. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT for the City of Laramie, Wyoming and THE CITY ENGINEER of the City of Laramie, Wyoming 1989 WY 133 776 P.2d 181 Case Number: 88-219 Decided: 06/19/1989 Supreme Court of Wyoming WALTER C. COOK, APPELLANT (PETITIONER), v. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF LARAMIE, WYOMING AND THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF LARAMIE, WYOMING, APPELLEES (RESPONDENTS). Appeal from the District Court, AlbanyCounty, Arthur T. Hanscum, J. Dennis C. Cook, Laramie, for appellant. Kathleen A. Hunt of Smith, Stanfield & Scott and David R. Nicholas of Corthell & King, Laramie, for appellees. Before THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY, and GOLDEN, JJ., and LEIMBACK, District Judge. URBIGKIT, Justice. [¶1.] This zoning controversy over installation of a residence side yard patio in the Alta Vista subdivision, Laramie, Wyoming has engendered a singular course of litigation which directs this court to establish whether the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Laramie, Wyoming (Board) has jurisdiction and whether it should have considered an appeal from the city engineer's action to enforce the city's zoning ordinance by requiring homeowner removal of a cover from the recently constructed patio. [¶2.] We reverse and remand for further hearing by the administrative agency. [¶3.] In the summer of 1987, appellant Walter C. Cook (Cook) undertook improvements to his residence which were to include a concrete patio and a metal and glass panel cover. Before Cook started any construction, he checked with the City Engineer of the City of Laramie, Wyoming (City) about a building permit or other requirements for the installation. There is at least an appearance of conflict in the record whether he advised the City officials that the planned improvement would include not only the patio but also its cover. [¶4.] Based on information obtained, Cook went ahead to complete construction. The building inspector1 then addressed him orally and with a follow-up written notice dated September 29, 1987: This letter is in regard to the roof structure you have erected on your lot at 1058 Bonita. Section 17.12.030 of the Laramie Municipal Code requires the structure to have a minimum side yard setback of at least ten feet. The structure currently extends to your property line. Section 301 of the Uniform Building Code requires a permit to be obtained for a structure such as this. My records indicate that a permit has not been issued. I must ask that the structure be brought into compliance within a period of fifteen (15) days of receipt of this notice. [¶5.] Observedly and expectedly, Cook became very upset after having expended about $2,500 to construct the patio cover. He filed a comprehensive petition for review with the Board to appeal from the "order, requirement, decision or determination." He argued that the patio cover was not subject to side year clearance requirements under the zoning ordinance because it was neither a principal nor an accessory building. By documentation and prayer, he alternatively asked that the building inspector be overruled or a variance be granted. His petition proceeded to hearing without answer from the City as required by the Board's rules. Photographs of a large variety of similar structures in this area were presented to the Board. Also presented were the approving views of several people in the neighborhood, although the adjoining homeowner objected. [¶6.] Following the hearing, no separate decision providing findings and conclusions was prepared. The decision is only authenticated by minutes of the hearing held November 17, 1987, which by conclusion provided that "Toro made a MOTION to deny the variance. Seconded by Lauer. Valdez asked for further discussion. There was none. MOTION CARRIED." [¶7.] There is also no documentary evidence of any decision constituting a determination of an appeal from the City's action. Cook sought review in district court2 by utilizing the tape recording of the hearing and a summary of his testimony which had been omitted from the original recording. Exhaustive briefing followed with decision on the substantive issues: As to whether the Zoning Board's failure to address Petitioner's first claim violated its duty to Petitioner under the law and its own rules, the Court agrees with Respondents that the Board of Adjustment is restricted to granting variances. No authority has been given to the Board to review the interpretations of the City Engineer's Office. Therefore, the Board did not address Petitioner's first claim because they are not in a position to do so. Petitioner failed to present evidence to the Board that would substantiate a granting of the variance requested. The Board only has the power to grant a variance in the case of an exceptionally irregular, narrow or steep lot or other exceptional physical condition. Therefore, the Board's denial of a variance was properly based. This Court concludes that the Zoning Board of Adjustment's decision should be affirmed. This Decision Letter constitutes the mandate of the Court from which Petitioner's further prerogatives for review will run. If Petitioner does not exercise those rights within fifteen days, then this file shall be returned by the Clerk of the District Court to the City of Laramie for enforcement action under the Board's original decision. DISCUSSION 1. Procedure. [¶8.] The litigants initially present two procedural arguments. First, the City argues that the petition for review was improperly served when served only by delivery to the city clerk. The contention addresses a requirement that the petition for appeal to the Board must be served only on the chairman of the board.3 Second, Cook argues that by the terms of the Board's rules, the City was obligated to file an answer, and, lacking compliance, was estopped to appear and defend. [¶9.] Section 4 of the Board's rules and regulations provides: The agencies or persons against whom the Petition has been filed shall be allowed Twenty (20) days from and after the date of service of the Petition within which to file with the City Clerk his, her or its answer or other appearance. A copy of such answer or other appearance shall be served upon the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5, Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 5 requires a $10.00 filing fee and provides that the city clerk shall docket and maintain the file in each case. Section 6 provides: In the event of failure of either the Council, Commission or Board as the case may be, or any contestee to answer or otherwise appear within the time allowed by these rules, and provided that Section 3 hereof has been complied with, said agency or contestee so failing to answer or otherwise appear, shall not be allowed to answer or otherwise appear thereafter and after written notice to the petitioner, the proceeding will be brought before the agency to which it was presented for consideration and appropriate action. [¶10.] Without attempting to unravel whether the layman in the volunteer office of chairman should have been served instead of the city clerk as the normal agent for service on the City, it will suffice to conclude that sufficient notice was given for the hearing to be scheduled and absent objection by the City, jurisdiction exists and the failure, if any, was waived. [¶11.] We are then faced with the procedural requirement for filing an answer, which was ignored by the City. Proper and prompt objection by a request for entry of default was made by Cook at the Board hearing so that a waiver by him cannot be applied. In these proceedings, the public official acts in behalf of the public in general, and we apply the rule that rights for the public interest to be protected and considered by an administrative agency cannot be foreclosed as a waiver by the responsible public official. See Johnson v. City of Glendale, 12 Cal. App. 2d 389 , 55 P.2d 580 (1936), municipality and its officers cannot waive compliance with claim time; Building Com'rs Of, Town of Brookline v. McManus, 263 Mass. 270, 160 N.E. 887 (1928), building commissioner is without authority to waive or modify zoning by-laws; Cawley v. Board of Trustees of Firemen's Pension or Relief Fund of City of Beckley, 138 W. Va. 571, 76 S.E.2d 683 (1953); and Park Bldg. Corp. v. Industrial Comn., 9 Wis.2d 78, 100 N.W.2d 571 (1960), building inspector could not waive failure to comply with safety order. [¶12.] A public office is held by public trust, 67 C.J.S. Officers § 11 (1978); therefore, sanctions or continuance may be appropriate and provided, but the public interest in whose discipline the city engineer acts cannot be waived by unintentional default. 2. Substantive. [¶13.] Our review of administrative agency action is confined to the matters explicitly referenced in W.S. 16-3-114(c) and W.R.A.P. 12.09. W.S. 16-3-114(c) provides: To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall: (i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; (C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right; (D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or (E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute. [¶14.] Originally, this appeal raises two issues: (1) whether the decision, if constituting a zoning decision, was appealable to the Board, and (2) whether the decision was a zoning decision. [¶15.] In present appellate brief, the City concedes the first issue correctly that under state law which is controlling, a zoning decision by the enforcement officer may be appealed to the governmental zoning board of adjustment.4 See W.S. 15-1-608. The more important appointed body is the board of adjustment which hears appeals from the actions of the municipal officers charged with enforcing the zoning ordinance - generally the city engineer or other officer having authority to issue building permits. E. Rudolph, Wyoming Local Government Law § 5.1 at 148 (1985) (emphasis added and footnote omitted). [¶16.] The City now alternatively argues that a substantive decision on a zoning question was made or that the question presented was an interpretation of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and not a zoning subject at all. Suffice it to observe that the action of the Board speaks from its written record, which stated that "Toro made a MOTION to deny the variance. Seconded by Lauer. Valdez asked for further discussion. There was none. MOTION CARRIED." Undeniably, a requested variance invokes a zoning decision.5 [¶17.] In Wyoming, an administrative agency is required to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. W.S. 16-3-110 provides in part: A final decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case shall be in writing or dictated into the record. The final decision shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law separately stated. Findings of fact if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. Since this case involves an appeal from an administrative agency, this court must be guided by W.S. 16-3-114(c). In determining whether the action of an agency is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, the court ascertains whether the decision is supported by the record. * * * It is an abuse of discretion for an administrative agency to act without collecting the necessary facts. First National Bank of Thermopolis v. Bonham, Wyo., 559 P.2d 42 (1977). * * * Thus, if the principal reasons for the action are not set forth, the courts have no way of determining whether the agency considered the relevant factors. Holding's Little America v. Board of CountyCom'rs of LaramieCounty, 670 P.2d 699 , 703-04 (Wyo. 1983). See also Mountain Fuel Supply Co. v. Public Service Com'n of Wyoming, 662 P.2d 878 , 886-87 (Wyo. 1983); Larsen v. Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 569 P.2d 87 , 90-91 (Wyo. 1977); Powell v. Board of Trustees of Crook County School Dist. No. 1, Crook County, 550 P.2d 1112 , 1120 (Wyo. 1976); and Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 446 P.2d 550 , 554-55 (Wyo. 1968). Cf. Harris v. Wyoming State Tax Com'n, 718 P.2d 49 (Wyo. 1986), where separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law were not required because of involved stipulated facts, a limited question, and no inhibition of appellate review; Foremost Life Ins. Co. v. Langdon, 633 P.2d 938 , 942 (Wyo. 1981), where findings of fact were not required because facts were stipulated to; and Regan v. City of Casper, 494 P.2d 935 (Wyo. 1972), where civil service commission decision letter satisfied W.S. 9-276.28 (1957) (predecessor to W.S. 16-3-110). It is insufficient for an administrative agency to state only an ultimate fact or conclusion, but each ultimate fact or conclusion must be thoroughly explained in order for a court to determine upon what basis each ultimate fact or conclusion was reached. The court must know the why. Geraud v. Schrader, 531 P.2d 872 , 879 (Wyo.), cert. denied sub nom. Wind River Indian Education Association, Inc. v. Ward, 423 U.S. 904, 96 S. Ct. 205, 46 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1975). A variance decision must be supported by adequate findings. See E. Rudolph, supra, § 5.2 at 150 and R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 20.17 (3d ed. 1986). There is good reason for this rule as witnessed by present argument as to the exact decision and why that decision was made by the administrative agency with its negative vote. [¶18.] Although the Board did not make findings on the denial of the variance, a review of the hearing transcript reveals that the Board did not even determine whether minimum side yard clearance is a zoning question and whether the cover over a patio could create the problem not caused by the patio floor surface itself. Consequently, with this state of the record, there is little to conclude but that a variance decision was somehow made in contravention to W.S. 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C). We will not pursue the other issues argued by Cook speaking in terms of constitutional deprivation, estoppel and discriminatory enforcement since these issues were never considered by the administrative agency where the hearing was decided only on a variance for a claimed side yard, enclosed encroachment. W.S. 15-1-608(b)(iii). [¶19.] Although the issue has at least been conceded, it is apparent from reading the statute, W.S. 15-1-608, that two very separate decisional functions are vested in this Board. Under W.S. 15-1-608(b)(ii) and (iii), there is a power to grant zoning ordinance variances. As a separate and appellate function, the Board acts in appellate responsibility: (a) The board shall: (i) Hear and decide: (A) Appeals from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this article; (B) All matters referred to it or upon which it is required to pass under any such ordinance. (ii) Fix a reasonable time for hearing an appeal, give public notice, adequate notice to the parties in interest and decide the appeal within a reasonable time. Any party may appear in person at a hearing or by agent or attorney; (iii) Adopt rules in accordance with the provisions of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this article. (b) The board has the power to: (i) Hear and decide special exemptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which the board is required to pass under the ordinance; * * * * * * (iv) Reverse or affirm wholly or partly the order, requirement, decision or determination as necessary, but no power exercised under this paragraph shall exceed the power or authority vested in the administrative officer from whom the appeal is taken. W.S. 15-1-608. [¶20.] Furthermore, a decision of the Board is not subject to override by the city council, and pursuant to W.S. 15-1-609, "[t]he decision of the board may be reviewed by the district court pursuant to Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure."6 [¶21.] The decision of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for the district court to enter an order requiring the Board to hold a hearing on any issue presented by Walter C. Cook either addressing the zoning ordinances or action of the City Engineer of the City of Laramie, Wyoming with regard to homeowner maintenance of the presently installed patio cover. [¶22.] Reversed and remanded. MACY and GOLDEN, JJ., file opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. FOOT