Clare Sikora v. City of Rawlins, 2017 WY 55

Jared and Kasandra Ramsey owned a dilapidated garage on a C-2 (commercial) lot adjacent to Clare Sikora’s home; the pre-1989 garage was nonconforming (grandfathered) to current setback rules.
The Ramseys consulted Rawlins building staff about replacing the garage; staff initially advised they could keep the grandfathered status if the new building remained within the old footprint.
The Ramseys began piecemeal work; city inspector DeShann Gordon stopped that approach, required full demolition, and the City issued a demolition permit and later a “New Construction” permit; the new garage was built within the old footprint and passed final inspection.
Clare and her son observed the new construction and voiced concerns to city staff but did not pursue the available administrative appeals (Board of Adjustment, city council, or city manager) within the code’s 30-day appeal period.
Clare filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the City’s issuance of the permit; the district court granted summary judgment to the City, holding Clare failed to exhaust administrative remedies, failed to join indispensible parties (the Ramseys), and that the municipal ordinance permits reconstruction within the same footprint.
On appeal, Clare did not contest the indispensible-party ruling and instead challenged (1) the exhaustion finding and (2) the court’s interpretation that the ordinance allows demolition and reconstruction that retains grandfathered status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clare was required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a declaratory action	Sikora: She lacked notice of a discrete, reviewable city decision because multiple permits were issued and the City’s decision was a “moving target,” so exhaustion was impracticable	City: Rawlins code provides a 30‑day administrative appeal; Sikora had actual knowledge of construction and the city’s position and therefore had to seek administrative review first	Court held Sikora failed to exhaust administrative remedies; actual knowledge of the alleged violation imposed a duty to seek available administrative review
Whether Rawlins Municipal Code § 19.52.030 permits demolition and reconstruction of a nonconforming building so long as the new structure remains within the prior footprint	Sikora: "Reconstruct" and related terms should be read to forbid full demolition/new construction that results in a new nonconforming building; restoration differs from new construction	City: Ordinance language unambiguously permits reconstruction (“reconstructed”), restoration, alteration or repair in whole or in part so long as nonconformity is not increased; section titles do not limit meaning	Court held the ordinance unambiguously allows demolition and reconstruction ("construct again") within the same footprint, preserving grandfathered status so long as degree of nonconformity is not increased

Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Black, 361 P.3d 841 (Wyo. 2015) (summary judgment standard in declaratory actions)
City of Casper v. Holloway, 354 P.3d 65 (Wyo. 2015) (declaratory action cannot substitute for administrative appeal; court may still interpret ordinance)
State ex rel. Baker v. Strange, 960 P.2d 1016 (Wyo. 1998) (actual notice of an alleged zoning violation requires attempt at administrative review within a reasonable time)
Quinn Revocable Trust v. SRW, Inc., 91 P.3d 146 (Wyo. 2004) (limits on using declaratory relief to bypass administrative process)
William F. West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrrell, 206 P.3d 722 (Wyo. 2009) (administrative expertise and fact finding justify exhaustion rule)
Wyodak Res. Dev. Corp. v. Wyo. Dep’t of Revenue, 387 P.3d 725 (Wyo. 2017) (statutory interpretation—ambiguity inquiry)
Bates v. Chi. Lumber Co., 375 P.3d 732 (Wyo. 2016) (rules of statutory construction; give effect to plain meaning)