Opinion ID: 2546361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Extension of the Study Areas

Text: [¶ 29] As adopted in 1996, Section 5 of the Plan provided for four study areas: the Design Criteria Study Area (development standards for highway rights-of-way), the Urban Reserve Study Area (agriculturally zoned areas within urbanizing areas), the Special Study Area (scenic, environmental, and recreational resources), and the Hillside Protection Study Period (development on slopes of 10% or greater). The study period for each area was to be three years, with the option for extension if necessary. In addition, Section 11 of the Plan created a three-year work program whereby ad hoc committees would be appointed to study certain enumerated developmental issues, specifically including issues related to the four study areas. [¶ 30] The Plan was adopted on April 23, 1996, meaning the study area and work program provisions would expire on April 23, 1999, unless extended. The county's planning and zoning commission began the process for approval of such extension by publication of a hearing notice on February 13, 1999. [13] In pertinent part, that notice indicated that an issue to be heard at the commission's March 17, 1999, meeting was the [p]roposed extension of the study period under Section 11.0 Work Program of the Plan. The notice also indicated that the board of county commissioners would consider the same matters during its meeting on April 7, 1999. [¶ 31] The minutes of the March 17, 1999, commission meeting indicate that the public meeting occurred, that public comment was accepted, and that, after discussion, the commission unanimously recommended to the board that the work program be extended. [¶ 32] On March 25, 1999, the county had published another public notice, this time announcing a joint workshop between the commission and the board on April 9, 1999, for the purpose of discussing general issues related to planning and zoning. The agenda available at the meeting listed the work program as one of four items for discussion. The minutes from the meeting reveal a lengthy and somewhat heated discussion of the work program, including citizen comments. In addition, the board considered the work program and took public comment in regard thereto at its regular meeting on April 7, 1999, and a continuation of that meeting on April 20, 1999. In the end, the board voted to extend the work program and study areas for an additional three years. [¶ 33] The landowners contend that, despite all of the foregoing, notice of the possible extension of the work program was insufficient to advise the public that the study areas might also be extended. The district court rejected this contention, for two reasons. First, the district court reviewed the Plan and found the work program and the study areas to be inextricably intertwined, meaning that notice of the former was notice of the latter. Second, the district court pointed out that some of the landowners had actually attended the April meetings for the specific purpose of opposing extension of the study areas. Thus, no prejudice could be shown to have resulted from the notices. [¶ 34] We agree with the district court's analysis. The fact that the work program and the study areas were linked is revealed in one of the findings of the resolution passed by the board extending them both: WHEREAS, a work program was established under Section 11.0 of the County's Growth Management Plan to address certain identified issues including not only the development of policies and standards for the study areas but the revision of the plan itself and the amendment of zoning and subdivision regulations[.] This clause is an accurate recitation of the Plan's work program provisions, wherein the topics under study specifically include the study areas. [¶ 35] The notice provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-202 both require only [n]otice of the time and place of hearing. As we have previously held, however, compliance with statutory requirements of notice and hearing does not always satisfy constitutional requirements of due process. Pfeil, 908 P.2d at 961. The constitutional test of procedural due process is reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.... Id. [¶ 36] The reasonableness of notice is determined by the circumstances, including the nature of the proceeding and the character of the rights to be affected. 16B Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law § 934 (1998). Under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA), for instance, different notice requirements are provided for general rulemaking activity and contested case hearings. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-103(a)(i); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-107(b) (LexisNexis 2003). Certainly, in the context of the present casea public hearing set for the purpose of reviewing planning and zoning resolutionsa published notice that identified the particular issues to be discussed, even in general terms, was sufficient. Notice to the public that the work program would be addressed was sufficient notice to the public that the individual aspects of the work program, including the study areas, were at issue.