Opinion ID: 2634525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Illegal Residence

Text: [¶ 14] We also believe that there is a question of fact as to whether the shed was an illegal residence. The 1972 Zoning Resolution states that [p]rimary residential uses not related to ranching and agriculture will not be permitted within this [RAM (ranching, agricultural, and mining)] district. Carbon County Zoning Resolution of 1972, § 300. The resolution goes on to define primary residence as [a] place used for residential purposes. Id. at § 600. There apparently is no definition of residential purposes contained in the 1972 Zoning Resolution. [¶ 15] It is clear from the deposition of Christensen that the shed was used sparingly as a place to sleep. While it had some utilities, it had no toilet or septic facilities. We believe that reasonable minds could disagree as to whether a shed without all normal utilities that was occasionally used for sleeping was truly [a] place used for residential purposes. Id. [¶ 16] Second, the word primary, as contained in the resolution, must have some meaning. In interpreting a statute, we will assign words their ordinary and obvious meaning according to their arrangement and connection. Fontaine v. Board of County Com'rs of Park County, 4 P.3d 890, 895 (Wyo.2000) ( quoting Flores v. Flores, 979 P.2d 944, 946 (Wyo.1999)). Black's Law Dictionary defines primary as [f]irst; principal; chief; leading. Black's Law Dictionary 1190 (6th ed.1990). Therefore, if the shed could be deemed a residence, there appears to be a question of fact as to whether it was primarily residential. [¶ 17] Finally, the resolution permits a residence that is related to ranching and agriculture. Agricultural uses were defined in the resolution as [l]and including necessary buildings and structure, which shall be used for agriculture including, but not limited to ... grazing ... pasturage ... and animal... husbandry.... Carbon County Zoning Resolution of 1972, § 600. In his deposition, Christensen stated that at various times, on the subject property, he cared for and ultimately sold a substantial number of calves. Thus, if the shed could be deemed a residence, there is a question of fact as to whether it was related to agriculture. Such a use would be permissible under the resolution. We believe, based on the foregoing, that there are multiple questions of fact in the record about the status of the shed that need to be resolved.