Opinion ID: 2601786
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did the Board's approval of the subdivision's open space plan violate county regulations?

Text: [¶ 43] The subdivision is located on land that was zoned GR-5, which zone is described as follows in Park County Zoning Resolution Section 2-405 F: F. General Rural 5-Acre (GR-5). The GR-5 district allows moderate-intensity land uses. Conventional subdivisions will average 5 acres per housing unit. A variety of uses is permitted in this district in recognition of the varied land uses typical of rural areas. This district is also intended to promote the retention of open space, agricultural land, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat and scenic areas and prevent development on unstable geologic features. (Emphasis added.) The subdivision was actually developed, however, under Zoning Resolution 2-615 E, under the concept of lot grouping: E. Lot Grouping Requirements: Grouped lot subdivisions shall meet all of the following requirements: .... 3. A minimum of 50 percent of the acreage of the parent parcel shall be open space configured as a separate parcel owned and managed by a homeowners' association or other entity or as a contiguous area comprised of portions of individual building lots restricted against development by a conservation easement. Such areas shall meet the open space requirements of the subdivision regulations and shall be indicated on the plat or record of survey.... (Emphasis added.) [7] The Zoning Resolution contains the following pertinent definitions in Division 7-200: Open Space: An area of land that is essentially unimproved and is set aside or reserved for agricultural purposes or to be maintained in a natural state. Parcel: A contiguous area of land owned and recorded as the property of the same person or a single entity. [¶ 44] Northfork contends that the Board violated these regulations by approving the subdivision's final plat where the open space provided for therein was not a single contiguous parcel, was not entirely undeveloped, and did not fulfill Park County's policy that open space promote wildlife habitat and migration. A review of the final plat reveals that, indeed, the open space in the subdivision consists of one very large tract north of the housing lots, three separate tracts of relatively significant size within the subdivision, but largely surrounded by houses, a beltway surrounding the entire subdivision, and several narrow corridors connecting these various tracts. There appears to be no dispute that, taken together, these tracts cover approximately 53% of the entire subdivision. [¶ 45] The Board defends its approval of the subdivision's open space configuration with several arguments. First, it describes the subdivision as an innovative design, apparently intending to mean that the open space configuration best fits the underlying subdivision design while meeting the purposes of the Zoning Resolution, because it allows open space to pervade the development. Next, the Board notes that the prohibition of exterior lot line fencing actually creates a much larger open space area than the specifically reserved 53%. The Board then notes that Northfork has incorrectly defined open space as specifically contemplating wildlife habitat and migration; neither of those terms being included in the definition of the term. The Board also points out the numerous connective corridors, and argues that any roadways crossing open space areas should be considered de minimis. Finally, the Board argues that it should be given broad discretion in interpreting and applying its own rule, and that its approval of the open space design is not clearly erroneous or contrary to the rule. [¶ 46] We will affirm the district court and the Board as to the open space requirements for the following reasons. First, the final plat clearly shows the provision of open space that meets the definition contained in the Zoning Resolution. It is land reserved for agricultural purposes or to be maintained in a natural state. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the GR-5 zone requirements list separately open space, agricultural land, wildlife habitat, riparian habitat and scenic areas. The term open space is not, as is argued by Northfork, defined by the equivalent terms that follow it in that list. Rather, open space is defined as cited above from a separate section of the Zoning Resolution, which definition includes only agricultural purposes and natural state. See supra ¶ 43. The Lot Grouping requirements make no mention of wildlife at all. And even if we construed open space to include wildlife habitat, Northfork has not shown that wildlife will be any more inhibited in utilizing the open space within this subdivision as designed than it would be open space in a single-parcel configuration. In making that statement, we do not consider the migration patterns of any particular species of wildlife, there being nothing in the record suggesting a concern within the Zoning Resolution in that regard, and there being nothing in the record showing the disruption of the migration patterns of any particular species. [¶ 47] Having reached these conclusions ourselves from reviewing the record, we cannot very well determine that the Board acted unreasonably or against the great weight of the evidence in concluding that this subdivision design meets the purposes of the Zoning Resolution's open space requirements. While we are not convinced that the numerous corridors make the separate tracts contiguous, we are at the same time not convinced that the Board's acceptance of this flaw is so significant as to represent a violation of its own regulations. [¶ 48] Our standard for reviewing agency determinations is well established. We give deference to an agency's findings of fact and we do not reverse them unless they are contrary to the great weight of the evidence, or not supported by substantial evidence. Buehner Block Co. v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, 2006 WY 90, ¶ 10, 139 P.3d 1150, 1153 (Wyo.2006). On the other hand, we review de novo the interpretation and application of law. Id. This dichotomous approach applies to mixed questions of fact and law. Antelope Valley Improvement & Serv. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 992 P.2d 563, 566 (Wyo.1999). We consider the reasonableness of the agency's exercise of judgment, and we defer to the agency's interpretation of the language it normally implements, unless clearly erroneous. Buehner Block, 2006 WY 90, ¶ 11, 139 P.3d at 1153; Davis v. City of Cheyenne, 2004 WY 43, ¶ 6, 88 P.3d 481, 484 (Wyo.2004); Bryant v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Transp., 2002 WY 140, ¶ 9, 55 P.3d 4, 8 (Wyo.2002); Swift, 2002 WY 32, ¶ 10, 40 P.3d at 1238. [¶ 49] In the instant case, the Board considered the requirements of the GR-5 zone, the Board considered the requirements of Lot Grouping, the Board considered the definition of open space, and the Board concluded that the subdivision's open space configuration met the purposes of the Board's Zoning Resolution. The facts really are not at issuethe final plat is in the record. And we cannot say that the Board committed an error of law in determiningthrough the exercise of its judgmentthat the open space tracts retained under the ownership of Worthington substantially complied with the open space requirements of the Zoning Resolution.