Snake River Venture v. Board of County Com'rs., Teton County

• Decision Date: 21 August 1980
• Docket Number: No. 5222,5222
• Citation: 616 P.2d 744
• Parties: SNAKE RIVER VENTURE, a limited partnership, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TETON COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 744

616 P.2d 744

SNAKE RIVER VENTURE, a limited partnership, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, TETON COUNTY, Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 5222.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Aug. 21, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1980.

Michael J. Sullivan, of Brown, Drew, Apostolos, Massey & Sullivan, and William T. Schwartz, Casper, for appellant.

Henry C. Phibbs, II, Jackson, for appellee.

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

ROSE, Justice.

This is a zoning controversy with a tortured procedural development. We will affirm the trial court, which held that the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter Board) unlawfully gave final approval to a project, which, when initially approved, was probably in conformity with county regulations but was in non-conformity with amended regulations at the time the Board gave its final approval. The fact that the appellant-developer had not begun any actual construction on the project at the time of the trial court's decision is highly significant to our disposition of this appeal.

THE FACTS

This case comes to us upon a set of stipulated facts, which we will reproduce in the abridged form indicated immediately below. It may, however, first be helpful for us to provide a simplified overview.

Appellant, Snake River Venture, is a limited partnership seeking to construct a subdivision and commercial development in Teton County. It applied to appellee, Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, for permission to do so. At first, the Board denied the application because it felt that the plan failed to conform to Board regulations. The Board was subsequently advised by its counsel that the regulations were not legally effective, whereupon initial approval was given to the subdivision plan. The Board then amended the county zoning regulations to make them more specific and in so doing followed the proper procedure to make the amended regulations effective. Thereafter, the Board completed its approval of appellant's project by issuing a planning certificate and approving the final plat.

Subsequently, in May, 1974, various county residents filed a declaratory-judgment action against the appellee-Board asking the court to declare that the Board had granted approval for the subdivision in violation of its regulations and that the authority for the development be rendered of no force and effect. Snake River was not a party to this action and the trial judge awarded judgment generally in favor of the county residents.

In 1976, appellant-Snake River filed a declaratory-judgment action alleging the prior judgment to be a cloud on its title and thus a deterrent to its right to develop its project. Snake River asked that the earlier judgment be declared to have no effect with respect to it and for a determination of the validity of the plat for its proposed development, which had been approved by the appellee. To this petition for declaratory judgment, the Board took the position, in its answer and counterclaim, that its approval of the development project had originally been illegal. The district court awarded judgment in favor of appellee-Board and Snake River has appealed.

The above-mentioned stipulation of facts is as follows:

"1. Plaintiff is a limited partnership which is the owner of lands in Teton County, Wyoming, more fully described as follows:

(Lands described here)

"2. Defendant is the Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, Wyoming.

"3. On or about December 6, 1972 the plaintiff partnership was formed for the purpose of acquiring and developing subject lands for condominium, apartment, townhouse and commercial purposes in accordance with plans and specifications earlier prepared. The property was acquired at a price of $225,044.44. Plaintiff expended the sum of $56,422.74 in formulating a development plan for the property and in securing planning, environmental and economic feasibility studies up to the date of approval of the subdivision plat by the County Commissioners.

"4. On August 1, 1967 the Board of County Commissioners for Teton County, adopted a resolution relating to the approval of subdivision plats, pursuant to the authority of §§ 34-12-101-115, Wyoming Statutes, 1977 (§§ 34-112 to 34-115, 34-117 to 34-126, W.S.1957) . . .

"5. Pursuant to and in conformity with the procedural provisions of §§ 289.1-289.9, Wyoming Statutes, 1957 (now §§ 18-5-201 18-5-207, Wyoming Statutes, 1977), on the 19th day of November, 1970 the Defendant, Board of County Commissioners for Teton County approved a master plan entitled 'Master Plan for Teton County' . . . Pursuant to and in conformity with the procedural provisions of §§ 18-289.1-289.9, Wyoming Statutes 1957, (now §§ 18-5-201 18-5-207, Wyoming Statutes, 1977), on the 3rd day of October, 1972 the Defendant, Board of County Commissioners, adopted a Subdivision Resolution for the regulation of subdivision applications and development in Teton County, . . .The resolution was to become effective January 1, 1973.

"6. During January, 1973, pursuant to the subdivision resolution, plaintiff filed an application for permit to subdivide and develop the premises (50.7 acres) above described proposing to develop 550 residential units and a commercial frontage area. The proposed subdivision is within the unincorporated area of Teton County and the plans provided for a central water and sewer system to serve the entire subdivision. The application was filed with the Teton County Planning Commission.

"7. After preliminary discussions the Planning Commission, at a hearing held February 28, 1973, took the matter under advisement and by letter dated April 18, 1973 rejected the plat and offered to consider a revised proposal, . . .

"8. Plaintiff submitted a modified plat and proposal in June of 1973, having reduced the density to 350 units and retaining the commercial area. An environmental impact study was also submitted along with other materials . . . The application and the plat were considered by the Planning Commission at the June 8, 1973 meeting and additional information as to sewerage facilities and environmental matters were requested by the Planning Commission at its June 20, 1973 meeting, a report submitted on behalf of plaintiff was considered and reviewed at the July 18, 1973 meeting of the Planning Commission and the project was again considered at the August 15 meeting and a special meeting was set for September 5, 1973.

"9. At a hearing held September 5, 1973 the Planning Commission voted to recommend disapproval of the new application relating their conclusions of September 5 hearing in their recommendations to the County Commissioners . . .

"10. A joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission was held on October 17, 1973 to review and consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission . . . The joint meeting was adjourned without any action being taken and the Commissioners requested an opinion of the County Attorney relating to the applicability of the Master Plan in approving or denying subdivision applications.

"11. Following receipt of an opinion . . . from the County Attorney, Robert Ranck, the meeting of the Commissioners was reconvened on October 18, 1973 and having received, considered and following the advice of the County Attorney, the Commissioners approved plaintiff's project, . . . subject to plaintiff providing the Planning Commission with certain additional information.

"12. On March 15, 1974, after receiving a request from a citizen's (sic) group calling themselves 'Friends of Jackson Hole,' the Board of County Commissioners refused to reconsider their decision of October 18, 1973, to approve the plaintiff's subdivision plat and proposed development . . .

"13. Thereafter and following additional submittals by plaintiff regarding sewer and water systems to the Planning Commission and the defendant Board, the County Commissioners on April 3, 1974, issued a Planning Certificate . . . authorizing commencement of development upon approval of a final plat. On July 2, 1974 defendant Board approved the final plat of the subdivision entitled 'Teton Rendezvous.' . . . The plat was filed and recorded in the records of Teton County, Wyoming on July 2, 1974 in Book 1 of Maps at page 9.

"14. At a meeting of the County Commissioners held December 11, 1973, the Commissioners amended the 1972 Subdivision Resolution, incorporating a density requirement of one residence for each three acres and revising certain procedural provisions, and readopted the Resolution . . . The Subdivision Resolution, as amended, was filed with the Secretary of State on February 1, 1974. Prior to this filing the previous Resolution, (sic) had not been filed with the Secretary of State, nor had notice of that Subdivision Resolution been mailed to the Wyoming Attorney General's office prior to its adoption, through an omission of which the County Commissioners were unaware.

"15. On May 13, 1974 certain third-party residents of Teton County commenced a civil action in Teton County District Court (Civil 3011) against defendant Board wherein plaintiffs sought to have the Court declare subdivision permits acted on by the Board to have been improperly issued. Plaintiff herein, Snake River Venture, though having knowledge of the litigation, was not joined as party and did not seek joinder . . . A Judgment favorable to the Teton County residents who were plaintiffs was entered by the Court on November 12, 1974.

"16. Teton County, in administering its Master Plan and Subdivision Regulations from and after January 1, 1973, up to and until the adoption of the current Teton County Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Program on January 1, 1978, approved the following applications to subdivide land in the unincorporated areas of the County:

(The stipulation contains a lengthy list of subdivision applications, almost all of which have a...