Carter v. Board of County Com'rs of Laramie County, 4278
| Decision Date | 31 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 4278,4278 |
| Citation | 518 P.2d 142 |
| Parties | Franklin E. CARTER et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF LARAMIE, State of Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Robert L. Duncan of Fennell & Duncan, Cheyenne, for appellants.
Edward L. Grant, Deputy County and Pros. Atty., Frederic C. Reed, Deputy Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before PARKER, C. J., and McEWAN, GUTHRIE, McINTYRE, and McCLINTOCK, JJ.
Plaintiffs, Laramie County residents and property owners, sought a declaratory judgment to restrain the board of county commissioners from enforcing a July 11, 1972, zoning resolution without having conducted a public election as required by § 18-284 (c. 6, Title 10 1), W.S.1957, and including an area beyond the three-mile limit prescribed in § 18-281 of the same chapter and title. According to the facts stipulated by the parties, the board had not pretended to comply with the mentioned statutes but instead purported to act under the authority of c. 6.1, Title 18 (§§ 18-289.1 to 18-289.9), W.S.1957, 1973 Cum. Supp., first passed in 1959 and amended in 1967. The district court decided for the defendant, dismissing the complaint of plaintiffs, who have appealed, arguing that the commissioners were required to conduct an election before establishment of zoning, that the zoning resolution was invalid as exceeding the jurisdictional limitations, and that the provisions of c. 6.1 were unconstitutional as an invalid delegation of legislative authority granted to the county and to the planning and zoning commission. The defendant responds that the provisions of c. 6 are not applicable and that c. 6.1, providing for the establishment of zoning regulations by the board of county commissioners upon the recommendation of a county planning and zoning commission within the county, is a valid and enforceable legislative act and is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to either the board or the commission.
It thus appears that aside from the claimed unconstitutionality of c. 6.1 because of invalid delegation of legislative authority the question presented in the appeal is which of the mentioned legislative provisions controls. Incidentally, plaintiffs argue that there can be no implied repeal of c. 6; but this facet is unimportant since defendant does not so claim, insisting instead that the two pieces of legislation deal with different subjects. Addressing ourselves to the principal question, we consider first the provisions in the respective statutes showing their purposes.
In the 1955 statute, § 18-285, states:
The provisions of the later acts of 1959 and 1967 state in the first section (§ 18-289.1):
'In order to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare, the board of county commissioners of any county shall be and hereby is authorized to regulate and to restrict the location and use of buildings and structures and the use, condition of use or occupancy of lands for residence, recreation, agriculture, industry, commerce, public use, and other purposes in the unincorporated area of the county. * * *' The mere reading of her respective sections relating to the purposes and authority of the board would seem to settle the implicit contention of the plaintiffs that the two chapters cover the same subject. The statements of the respective purposes clearly indicate that the legislature intended to deal with separate subjects and provide authority to accomplish different objectives by the two pieces of legislation. 2
We pass then to the argument that the mentioned provisions of c. 6.1 are unconstitutional as an invalid delegation of legislative authority. Plaintiffs urge that c. 6.1 is unconstitutional as an invalid delegation of legislative authority granted to the board for the reason that it violates Art. 2, § 1, Wyo.Const., which provides:
'The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments: The legislative, executive and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snake River Venture v. Board of County Com'rs., Teton County
...other aspects of conventional zoning (use of buildings and lands, location of buildings, et cetera). Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Laramie, Wyo., 518 P.2d 142 (1974). Before applying the law to the facts of this case, reference is made to two other legal 1. Zoning and......
-
Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Laramie Cnty.
...and towns "are but subdivisions of the State, deriving even their existence from the legislature"); Carter v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Laramie Cty. , 518 P.2d 142, 144 (Wyo. 1974) ("[T]he legislature may delegate a part of its power over local subjects to municipal corporations, county boards......
-
L.U. Sheep Co. v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Hot Springs, 89-148
...delegate a part of its powers to both cities and counties for the exercise of governmental functions. Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of Laramie County, 518 P.2d 142 (Wyo.1974). The legislature has expressly ceded to counties the power to acquire property through eminent domain and,......
-
State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Div. v. Holtz
...and, of course, such would be unconstitutional as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Laramie, Wyo., 518 P.2d 142 (1974). 2 If the suspensions were accomplished by the Courts, the statutory duties of the Division would be ei......
-
CHAPTER 7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RESTRAINTS ON OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
...§ 34-1-301 to -305 (1973). [51] City of Aurora v. Bogue, 176 Colo. 198, 489 P.2d 1295 (1971). [52] Carter v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 518 P.2d 142 (Wyo. 1974). [53] Holly Development, Inc. v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 342 P.2d 1032 (Colo. 1959). [54] See, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. ch. 27......
-
CHAPTER 5 ZONING AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT: HOW TO OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WHAT TO DO IF A PERMIT IS DENIED
...Mont. Code Ann. Title 76 (1983); Wyo. Stat. Ann. Title 18, Ch. 5 (1977); Carter v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Laramie, 518 P.2d 142 (Wyo. 1974) (upholding as constitutional the broad delegation of zoning powers to a county). [84] G. Raymond, supra n. 83 at 177. [85] Mont. Co......