329 P.3d 936
Wyo.2014Background
- RST operated gravel business on a 350-acre ranch in Teton County since 1977; LDRs adopted in 1978 and 1994 prohibited gravel without SUP.
- County issued a Notice to Abate in 2010 and amended it in 2011 to reduce production to pre-1978 levels.
- Board held a contested case hearing in 2011; issued an Order in November 2011 restricting footprint, bonding, reclamation, production, and hours.
- RST's appeal led to district court affirmation; this Court reversed the decision, holding RST’s grandfathered rights allow expansion to pre-1978 scope.
- Court adopted the doctrine of diminishing assets to define the geographic extent of a nonconforming land use and held bonding/reclamation provisions conflicted with DEQ; remanded for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the County regulate expansion of a grandfathered gravel use under 18-5-207? | RST: 18-5-207 unambiguously bars expansion. | County: 18-5-201 authorizes zoning; 18-5-207 permits limited regulation of land use expansion. | Ambiguous; adopted three-prong diminishing-assets test and allowed expansion within limits. |
| Does DEQ EQA preempt County regulation of expanding, nonconforming gravel operations? | RST: DEQ preempts county bonding and reclamation controls. | River Springs permits concurrent regulation if not conflicting; DEQ controls with EQA but county may regulate within limits. | Bonding/reclamation invalid as duplicative; DEQ retains primary regulatory role. |
| Does the doctrine of diminishing assets support expansion of RST’s gravel operation? | RST: evidence shows intent to expand; operation inherently expands with demand. | Board limited expansion; lack of objective intent. | Three-prong test adopted; evidence supports expansion; significant deference to substantial-evidence standard. |
| Was laches available to bar enforcement or otherwise affect the Board’s Order? | RST: long delay by County in enforcing LDRs caused prejudice. | Laches not applicable to governmental action. | RST failed to show injury/prejudice; laches not bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Springs, Ltd. Liability Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of Teton, 899 P.2d 1329 (Wyo. 1995) (harmonizes DEQ and county regulation; no preemption)
- Snake River Brewing Co. v. Town of Jackson, 39 P.3d 403 (Wyo. 2002) (limits on nonconforming use regulation; balancing public welfare)
- Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co. v. Du Page County, 165 N.E.2d 310 (Ill. 1960) (diminishing-asset concepts for mining lands)
- Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Nevada Cnty., 907 P.2d 1324 (Cal. 1996) (recognizes expansion to meet demand not an impermissible change in use)
- Crumbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc., 69 P.3d 601 (Kan. 2003) (limits demonstration of intent to expand for mining lands)