BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS v. Crow

• Decision Date: 26 March 2003
• Docket Number: No. 01-244, No. 01-245.
• Citation: 65 P.3d 720,2003 WY 40
• Parties: The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Thomas L. CROW and Carol-Ann G. Crow, James E. Moeller and Southpac Trust International Inc., Trustees of the TLC/CGC Trust, Jeffrey S. Overton, Appellees (Defendants). Thomas L. Crow, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Teton, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

65 P.3d 720

2003 WY 40

The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Thomas L. CROW and Carol-Ann G. Crow, James E. Moeller and Southpac Trust International Inc., Trustees of the TLC/CGC Trust, Jeffrey S. Overton, Appellees (Defendants).

Thomas L. Crow, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Teton, Appellee (Defendant).

Nos. 01-244, 01-245.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 26, 2003.

Stephen E. Weichman, Teton County & Prosecuting Attorney, and James L. Radda, Deputy Teton County Attorney, Jackson, WY, Representing Appellant Board of County Commissioners of Teton County. Argument by Mr. Radda.

Timothy Newcomb of Grant & Newcomb, Laramie, WY, and Katherine L. Mead of Mead & Mead, Jackson, WY, Representing Appellees Thomas L. Crow and Carol-Ann Crow. Argument by Mr. Newcomb and Ms. Mead.

David B. Hooper and Tom Glassberg of Hooper Law Offices, Riverton, WY, Representing Appellee Jeffrey S. Overton. Argument by Mr. Glassberg.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN¹, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

HILL, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] The Board of County Commissioners of Teton County (Teton County) sought to enforce its Land Development Regulation (LDR or LDR's) which limits the size of a single-family residence to 8,000 square feet of habitable space. So as to clarify what follows, we include the pertinent portion of the text of that regulation here:

SECTION 2450. MAXIMUM SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT

A. Residential Development. Notwithstanding the development standards specified in Table 2400, Schedule of Dimensional Limitations, single-family development shall comply with the following standards:

1. Habitable space. The maximum amount of habitable space for a single family dwelling, including associated accessory structures, is 8,000 square feet.

2. Total square footage. The total floor area of a single family dwelling, including all associated accessory structures, shall not exceed 10,000 square feet.

3. Basements excluded. Basements, as defined in these Land Development Regulations, are excluded from the calculation of maximum scale of development. For the purposes of this section, only floor area above ground shall be counted. Floors above ground shall include partial levels such as lofts and interior balconies. (Amended 9/27/94) [Vol. 1, p. 106]

The LDR's at issue here, as well as Teton County's Comprehensive Plan, were adopted on May 9, 1994.

[¶ 2] Thomas and Carol-Ann Crow, and their trust (Crow), own a house in the Owl Creek Subdivision in Teton County. During 1997-98, Crow built a house, which conformed to the square footage limitation imposed by Teton County. The house was completed and approved as compliant with the applicable regulations on December 22, 1998. In January of 1999, with the assistance of a contractor, Jeffrey Overton (Overton), Crow remodeled the house to expand its habitable square footage to about 11,000 square feet². Teton County filed this action on April 21, 2000, to enforce the applicable regulations and to abate the violations that had taken place. Also on April 21, 2000, Crow filed a lawsuit seeking declarative and injunctive relief, including a judicial declaration that portions of Teton County's LDR's were unconstitutional. As a part of its prayer for relief, Teton County sought an order which would require Crow and Overton to abate the violations "by any and all means necessary, including, but not limited to, the removal, destruction, and demolition of the unapproved addition to the Crow residence." The district court determined that enforcement of the applicable regulation, as applied to Crow under the facts of this case, violated his due process rights and thus granted summary judgment in Crow's favor. The effect of that decision required Teton County to abide the remodeling of the Crow residence. All three parties enumerated above have joined in this appeal.

[¶ 3] We will reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ISSUES

[¶ 4] As appellant in Case No. 01-244, Teton County raises these issues:

1. Whether the district court erred a) in granting Crow's summary judgment motion on the basis that, as applied to the specific facts of this case, the enforcement of Section 2450 against Crow violates Crow's substantive due process rights, and b) in denying the County's summary judgment motion on the basis that, as applied to the specific facts of this case, the enforcement of section 2450 against Crow did not violate Crow's substantive due process rights?

2. Whether the district court erred in granting Crow's summary judgment motion concerning Count II of the County's complaint pertaining to development without a permit?

[¶ 5] As appellee in Case No. 01-244, Crow did not provide a summary of the issues, but we glean the following from the headings to Crow's arguments:

1. The district court was correct in ruling that, "as applied to the specific facts of this case", Section 2450 of Teton County's Land Development Regulations "in no way rationally relates to the County's objective of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare," and, therefore, violates the Crows' substantive due process rights.

2. The County's Land Development Regulations did not require the Crows to obtain a permit in order to make nonstructural changes to the interior of an existing, permitted and approved home.

3. The Crow home is grandfathered under the Board's established custom and usage, which permits other subdivision lots to build out according to the rules and regulations in place when the subdivision was approved and platted.

4. The Board's treatment of the Crows and the discriminatory intent of Section 2450 violates equal protection of the law under the United States and Wyoming Constitutions.

5. The County's Land Development Regulations were not promulgated in accord with applicable laws.

6. Teton County's Planning Director has impermissibly engaged in illegal rule making with respect to how "habitable space" is measured and the terms "habitable space" and "total floor area" are unconstitutionally vague and in violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and Art. 1, § 6 of the Wyoming Constitution.

7. Section 2450 constitutes a taking.

8. Section 2450 violates the Crows' unenumerated right to residential privacy.

9. Section 2450 violates the Crows' right to associate with their family under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and Art. 1, § 6 of the Wyoming Constitution.

[¶ 6] As appellant in Case No. 01-245, Crow states these issues:

I. Is the Board's regulation of "habitable space" and "total floor area" of homes—which are otherwise approved for safety, land use compatibility and aesthetics—in order to promote "community character, rural character, rural western character, land use and character type compatibility, social and economic diversity through housing affordability and social and economic diversity by lessening the demand on affordable housing," an exercise of power beyond that delegated to counties to regulate the location and use of buildings and use of lands in order to promote health, safety, morals or welfare, as required by W.S. § 18-5-201?

II. If "community character, rural character, rural western character, land use and character type compatibility, social and economic diversity through housing affordability and social and economic diversity by lessening the demand on affordable housing" are legitimate state interests as defined by W.S. § 18-5-201, does Section 2450 promote the public health, safety, morals or general welfare, as required by W.S. § 18-5-201?

[¶ 7] In response to the issues raised by Crow, Teton County restates the issues in Case No. 01-245 thus:

1. Whether Wyo. Stat. § 18-5-201 authorizes counties to regulate the height, bulk and scale of buildings?

2. Whether Section 2450 of the Teton County Land Development Regulations satisfies the requirements of substantive due process facially?

[¶ 8] Overton did not file a notice of appeal. However, he raises these issues as an appellee in Case No. 01-244:

Appellee Jeffery S. Overton incorporates herein all of the issues set forth in the brief of Appellee Thomas L. Crow and, in addition, the following issues which are unique to Appellee Overton:

1. When a plaintiff mistakenly files a lawsuit against an individual who was president of a corporation, rather than against the corporation itself, and the plaintiff fails to allege or to adduce any evidence that the individual or the corporation did or failed to do anything that relates to piercing the corporate veil, is the individual defendant entitled to dismissal as a matter of law?

2. Is a person who is not a "Developer" subject to the Teton County Land Development Regulations?

3. Can a person who is not a "Landowner" be made to abate alleged violations of the Teton County Land Development Regulations and be ordered to demolish real property which he does not own and which he does not have a legal right to enter?

4. Can a person who is not a "Landowner" be made to pay a per diem fine for alleged continuing violations of the Teton County Land Development Regulations when the person is legally incapable of remedying the violation in order to stop the fine from continuing to accumulate?

FACTS

[¶ 9] On March 21, 1995, Crow appeared through counsel at a meeting of the Teton County Board of County Commissioners and requested permission to construct a house with 12,000 square feet of habitable space. Crow owned four contiguous lots in the Owl Creek subdivision and a portion of his argument was based upon a theory that since he could build four separate houses with 8,000 square feet of habitable space, then he should be permitted to build one house with the larger dimensions on two of the adjoining lots. The covenants that applied to the Owl Creek subdivision permitted such a building plan. The minutes of the Board of...