Board of County Com'rs of Teton County v. Teton County Youth Services, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 5597,5597
• Citation: 652 P.2d 400
• Parties: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellant (Respondent-Appellee), Roger Parrott and Gordon Reno, Appellants (Intervenors), v. TETON COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES, INC., Appellee (Petitioner-Appellant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 400

652 P.2d 400

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellant (Respondent-Appellee) Roger Parrott and Gordon Reno, Appellants (Intervenors), v. TETON COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES, INC., Appellee (Petitioner-Appellant).

No. 5597.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Oct. 21, 1982.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1982.

Henry C. Phibbs, II, Jackson, for Board of County Com'rs.

Warren W. Dill, Jackson, for intervenors.

Lawrence B. Hartnett, Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROSE, C.J., and RAPER, THOMAS, ROONEY and BROWN, JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

The troublesome problem to be resolved in this case is that of balancing a meaningful review by the judicial branch of government with the prerogative of a board of county commissioners to manage its own affairs. Acting pursuant to the Teton County Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Program ¹ (hereinafter referred to as the Plan), which was approved by this court in Snake River Venture v. Board of County Commissioners, Teton County, Wyo., 616 P.2d 744 (1980), the Board of County Commissioners of Teton County (hereinafter referred to as the Board) denied an application for a development permit submitted by Teton County Youth Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Youth Services). Youth Services sought review of that action in the district court, and the district court in a rather comprehensive Order Remanding Case to Agency held that the decision of the Board was not in accordance with law; was contrary to constitutional right and power; was in excess of statutory jurisdictional authority and limitations and lacking in statutory right; was entered without observance of procedure required by law; was not made upon a valid criteria; was unsupported by substantial evidence; and was arbitrary, capricious and characterized by an abuse of discretion. The district court therefore remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and order after commenting that there appeared to be no basis to conclude that the applicant did not meet the requirements of the Plan and that under those circumstances the statute granting the zoning authority required the granting of a certificate. We shall affirm the action of the district court in remanding the case to the Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, but in so doing we will depart from the provisions of the district court's Order Remanding Case to Agency which strongly indicate that the Board of County Commissioners of Teton County is required to grant the permit. Instead we will require as a remedy that a contested-case-style hearing be held in order that a record adequate for a meaningful judicial review may be developed.

Early in 1980 Youth Services leased a 24.5-acre tract of land, together with the improvements and buildings located thereon, situated approximately twelve miles south of Wilson, Wyoming, in Teton County, in an area known as Redtop Meadows Subdivision. Youth Services leased this property for the purpose of providing an alternative residential treatment center for the care and treatment of juveniles found to be in need of supervision or emotionally and socially handicapped. It would appear that children exhibiting serious delinquent behavior would not be eligible for admission into the facility. Prior to the lease to Youth Services this property had been used as a boys' ranch for a number of years. Under the plans developed by Youth Services the number of juvenile residents of the facility would be limited to twelve and there would be supervision by trained adults on a 24-hour basis. The use proposed by Youth Services did not require any additional construction because the existing improvements and buildings were adequate for its needs according to its plans.

On February 25, 1980, acting through Katie Thompson, as its agent, Youth Services filed an application for a development permit with the County Administrator of Planning Services. This was the initial step necessary to obtain county approval of the planned use by Youth Services in accordance with the Plan.

The Plan requires that applications for a development permit such as this undergo a two-stage review at the county level. ² The application first is reviewed by the County Planning Commission, which must review the application, supporting material and the report submitted by the County Administrator for Planning Services, in addition to holding a public review of the application after publication of a notice of such public meeting. Within thirty days after its review, the Commission is to submit a recommendation to the Board, which takes into account the required findings and considerations contained in the Plan. The application then is presented to the Board, which has the power to grant the permit as requested, grant the permit subject to such modifications and conditions as the Board deems necessary, or deny the permit.

The Commission and the Board, in considering any application, are to be guided by the following criteria:

"Section 8. Required Considerations. The following considerations shall be taken into account in the review of a development permit application by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners:

"a. Conformity with applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

"b. Potential effects on air quality and water quality.

"c. Potential effects on population growth and distribution.

"d. Potential effects on utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities.

"e. Potential effects on fire safety.

"f. Potential effects on traffic, with particular reference to noise, congestion automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, vehicle maneuverability, and snow removal.

"g. Potential effects on the character of the area in which the use is to be located, including possible intrusion on privacy in residential areas, and the scale and bulk of the use in relation to neighboring uses.

"h. Potential effects on the County's scenic resources.

"i. Potential effects on wildlife habitats, wildlife migration routes, and fisheries.

"Section 9. Required Findings. Before recommending or granting a development permit, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall make the following findings:

"a. The proposed use does not conflict with goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

"b. The proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element.

"c. The proposed use will meet required performance standards.

"d. The proposed use will conform with applicable environmental district regulations.

"e. The proposed use will not have a significant adverse impact on air quality or water quality.

"f. Existing utilities and public facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use.

"g. The proposed use will not cause traffic congestion or safety hazards.

"h. The proposed use will not interfere significantly with traffic flow, vehicle maneuverability, or snow removal.

"i. The proposed use will not have any significant adverse impact on neighboring properties that are either developed or undeveloped.

"j. The proposed use will not have any significant adverse impact on the County's scenic resources.

"k. The proposed use will not significantly adversely affect wildlife with respect to the site's vegetation or water resources in supplying food, water, cover, nesting, or other needs of wildlife.

"l. No element of the proposed use, including buildings, drives, pedestrian walkways, and recreation areas, will intrude on watercourses, bogs, lakes, or other areas that are critical wildlife habitats.

"m. No element of the proposed use will intrude on or present a barrier to wildlife migration, movement, routes, calving, fawning, or nesting areas.

"n. Development will be limited to those portions of the site having the least wildlife habitat value.

"o. The physical configuration of the development will be such that it does not encircle any areas of high wildlife habitat value.

"p. Developed and open space areas are designed to retain and enhance existing and potential wildlife habitats.

"q. The proposed use will not interfere with existing agricultural water rights, and provision has been made to ensure access to agricultural water supplies for maintenance."

On April 7, 1980, the County Planning Commission approved the application of Youth Services subject to certain conditions. The recommendation of the County Planning Commission then was forwarded to the Board for its consideration. Pursuant to a public notice of a hearing on this application before the Board which was published in the official county newspaper on April 10, 1980, the matter first was presented to the Board at its regular meeting on April 22, 1980. Following presentations on behalf of Youth Services and by opposing landowners in the area, the matter, after discussion, was tabled until further research of certain specified questions could be done. At its Board meeting on May 20, 1980, the Board unanimously voted to deny the permit. The proceedings before the Board are reflected in its minutes of April 22, 1980, May 6, 1980, May 20, 1980, and June 3, 1980. The relevant parts of the minutes of those meetings which are contained in the record follow:

Minutes of Meeting of April 22, 1980:

"1. Katie Thompson, Agent--Development permit for residential treatment center located on tract C Redtop Meadow Subdivision, approximately 12 miles south of Wilson. Holly Dill gave the review and background of the proposed project. Staff and Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions:

"1. Limit to 12 children.

"2. Review yearly of the permit. Also consideration of fire and police protection.

"Claire Smith spoke for the project and explained several of the concerns. The children would be referred to the center by School Districts and Social Services. Clair [sic] read the attached letter to the group present. Don Moyer stated the Ranch was built for kids. Sandy Shuptrine...