Wilson v. Board of County Com'Rs
| Decision Date | 14 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-213.,05-213. |
| Citation | 2007 WY 42,153 P.3d 917 |
| Parties | Philip and Freddie WILSON, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF The COUNTY OF TETON, a political Subdivision of the State of Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellants: Karen Budd-Falen and Brandon L. Jensen of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, WY. Argument by Mr. Jensen.
Representing Appellee: James L. Radda, Deputy Teton County Attorney, Jackson, WY.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL*, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] On May 7, 2004, Appellants, Phillip and Freddie Wilson (Wilsons), filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration from the district court: (1) That Division 4300 of the Teton County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDR or LDRs) (entitled "Open Space Standards"), which requires a developer to set aside open space within any proposed residential subdivision development is facially unconstitutional (as a taking without compensation) and, hence, unenforceable; (2) that Section 4330.D.3., which requires the developer to convey an easement for any open space within the residential subdivision development to a qualified organization (giving that organization authority to enforce the open space restriction), is unconstitutional on its face; (3) that Section 4330.D.3. of the LDRs (if not unconstitutional) is ultra vires and beyond the powers conferred upon Teton County by law; and (4) that Section 49440 of the Teton County LDRs (entitled "Calculation of Affordable Housing Standards for Residential Development") is facially unconstitutional (as a taking without compensation) and, hence, unenforceable. In addition, the Wilsons sought a court order enjoining Teton County from further enforcing the provisions of the disputed LDRs.
[¶ 2] By order entered on March 21, 2005, the district court granted Appellee's, Board of County Commissioners of the County of Teton (Teton County), motion to dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 4 pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (). With respect to Count 3, Teton County filed a motion for summary judgment and on July 18, 2005, the district court entered its order granting that motion. We will affirm the district court's orders on the basis that the Wilsons' claims are untimely, and they do not currently have standing to make a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the Teton County LDRs or to otherwise challenge the orders of the district court.
[¶ 3] The Wilsons raise these issues:
A. Whether the United States Supreme Court's standards with regard to the conditional granting of a development permit, as set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994), apply to Teton County's regulations conditioning subdivision approval?
B. Whether [Wilsons'] takings challenge is ripe for review even though Teton County has not been provided an opportunity to avoid an "unconstitutional application" of the challenged regulations?
C. Whether Teton County's subdivision regulations fail to substantially relate to a legitimate government interest?
D. Whether Section 4300.D.3 of Teton County's subdivision regulations provides for an unlawful physical appropriation of property?
E. Whether Teton County has express or implied authority to require the conveyance of rights to enforce open space restrictions to an organization qualified and dedicated to preserving the values intended by the open space restrictions?
F. Whether [Wilsons'] claims and allegations are barred by the statute of limitations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel, or laches?
Teton County offers this statement of the issues:
1. Whether the heightened judicial scrutiny required by Nollan v. California Coastal Commission . . . and Dolan v. City of Tigard . . . applies to Teton County's open space and affordable housing regulations, which are legislatively adopted, non-discretionary (formula-based or quantitative) land use regulations?
2. Whether the "rough proportionality" and "individualized determinations" standards of Dolan can ever be challenged facially?
3. Whether a challenge to the facial constitutionality of a land use regulation is ever tenable where the very terms of the challenged regulation permit those who administer it to avoid an unconstitutional application?
4. Whether the Wilsons' taking and substantive due process claims are barred by laches?
5. Whether Teton County's open space and affordable housing regulations comply with substantive due process?
6. Whether Section 4330.D. results in a physical invasion of property under the Takings Clause?
7. Whether Wyo. Stat. § 18-5-201 impliedly authorizes Teton County to require the conveyance of rights, in perpetuity, to enforce open space restrictions to an organization qualified and dedicated to preserving the values intended by the restrictions?
8. Whether the conveyance of such rights in perpetuity unlawfully deprives future boards of county commissioners from acting in the public good?
9. Whether there is anything about requiring the conveyance of rights, in perpetuity, to enforce open space restrictions pursuant to a development option that contravenes public policy?
10. Whether the statute of limitations bars the Wilsons' ultra vires claims?
11. Whether equitable estoppel bars the Wilsons' ultra vires claims?
[¶ 4] The Wilsons filed a complaint for declaratory relief on May 7, 2004, seeking to declare portions of the Teton County LDRs "unconstitutional, ultra vires, and consequently unenforceable." It is undisputed that the LDRs at issue were adopted by Teton County on May 9, 1994. The Wilsons contended that, on the face of the matter, the LDRs effected an uncompensated taking of private property (denied Wilsons the economically beneficial use of their property or were a physical taking) and, therefore, were facially unconstitutional. The Wilsons also contended that the LDRs did not "substantially advance a legitimate state interest, maintain an `essential nexus' with a legitimate state interest, or bear some roughly proportional relationship to the burden on the landowner." The Wilsons asked the district court to enjoin Teton County from "further use, implementation, or enforcement" of the LDRs. One of the central complaints voiced by the Wilsons was that, under the LDRs, approval of their Hog Island Subdivision (Subdivision) was contingent upon them setting aside ten acres of mandatory open space and approximately five acres for affordable housing units.
[¶ 5] The Subdivision consists of approximately forty acres and is located in Teton County about eight miles south of Jackson along U.S. Highway 89. The plat for the Subdivision was approved on October 19, 1999. As approved, the Subdivision was split into a thirty-acre parcel for residential development and ten acres of mandatory open space. The thirty residential acres were divided into eighteen residential lots. Three of the lots were sold as "affordable housing" (value set by Teton County at $40,000, $50,000, and $60,000). Three of the lots were sold as "attainable housing" ($80,000 apiece). Lot eighteen is reserved for current occupation and use by the Wilsons' construction business. The business enjoys grandfathered status at that location. The Wilsons sold four of the remaining lots, and three were gifted to their children. Four of the lots remained unsold at the time the complaint was filed. At the time the instant complaint was filed, the Wilsons purported to be pursuing administrative remedies against Teton County because of the unconstitutional standards that deprived them of the economically beneficial use of their property. If there has been any progress with respect to that matter in the interim, it has not been reported to this Court.
[¶ 6] Under the LDRs, the Wilsons were required to devote 25% (10 acres) of the acreage within their subdivision to open space. The Wilsons' open space (which they continue to own and from which they may bar the public) is designated as a "hay pasture" and "arena area." Of course, it is subject to the limiting easement that requires that it remain a hay pasture or some other approved open space use. It is this limitation on its use that the Wilsons contend amounts to a "taking" as contemplated by the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. The Wilsons were also required to devote 15% of their subdivision to affordable or attainable housing and they characterize this as a "taking" as well.
[¶ 7] The Teton County LDRs were enacted on May 9, 1994, and constitute a regulatory system which purports to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Teton County. Specific goals were these:
a. To maintain a sense of place and of community, and a way of life based upon Teton County's western heritage;
b. To protect Teton County's natural and scenic resources, including wildlife, as a primary element of community character;
c. To maintain social and economic diversity;
d. To maintain a balance between visitation and community life; and
e. To preserve the character of some existing neighborhoods and commercial centers and to enhance others through redevelopment.
[¶ 8] In addition, the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations set these objectives:
a. Maintain open space in continuous tracts to allow the continuation of agricultural options and to protect rural character where appropriate;
b. Protect key natural resources and features;
c. Identify and protect critical wildlife habitat and migration corridors;
d. Protect key scenic vistas and scenic areas;
e. Establish the spatial and functional relationships of structures to a site as the basis for regulating development; and
f. Facilitate the protection of important natural,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hanson v. Belveal
-
FR v. State (In re RR)
...court violated appellant's statutory rights and therefore declining to address due process claim); see also Wilson v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Cnty. of Teton , 2007 WY 42, ¶ 14, 153 P.3d 917, 922 (Wyo. 2007) (Court will not address constitutional issues if it is able to resolve the case on o......
-
FR v. State (In re Interest of RR)
...statutory rights and therefore declining to address due process claim); see also Wilson v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Cnty. of Teton, 2007 WY 42, ¶ 14, 153 P.3d 917, 922 (Wyo. 2007) (Court will not address constitutional issues if it is able to resolve the case on other grounds).[¶78] The juve......
- FH v. State (In re Interest of ECH)