Seherr-thoss v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners
329 P.3d 936
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- RST operates a gravel business on a 350-acre ranch in Teton County that predates the 1978 LDRs.
- The 1978 LDRs and the 1994 LDRs prohibited gravel operations in RST's zoning area, absent a valid exception or grandfathering.
- DEQ investigated RST beginning in 1995; by 1995 the operation covered about 3 acres and annual production/storage evidence emerged in 1996–1998.
- On June 7, 2010 the Planning Director issued a Notice to Abate; on February 16, 2011 an amended notice required reductions to pre-1978 levels and other limits.
- A contested case hearing in June 2011 led to a Recommended Findings; the Board adopted it with minor amendments on November 7, 2011, imposing three-acre footprint, 15,000 cubic yards/17,000 tons per year, and restricted hours.
- RST appealed to district court; the court affirmed; the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, holding RST retained a vested right to expand under § 18-5-207 subject to EQA constraints and voiding bonding/reclamation requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extent of zoning authority over expansion of grandfathered use | RST argues § 18-5-207 precludes expansion of land use; land expansion is not covered by the building/structure clause. | County contends § 18-5-207 permits regulation of alterations/additions that effect a change in use and applies to land-use expansion under diminishing-asset logic. | RST may expand on the parcel to the extent allowed by § 18-5-207 and diminishing-asset doctrine. |
| DEQ and county regulatory roles harmonization | Board overstepped by imposing bonding/reclamation; DEQ controls these aspects under the EQA. | DEQ and County regulate different aspects; no preemption if non-conflicting. | Bonding and reclamation requirements are void as duplicative of DEQ authority; no preemption. |
| Diminishing assets doctrine applicability and proof | RST proved intent to expand and diminishing-asset expansion is permissible; evidence supports expansion. | Record fails to prove manifest intent to expand and probable adverse neighborhood impact under the three-prong test. | Adopt three-prong diminishing-assets test; RST showed two prongs (active pre-1978 operation and intent to expand) and third prong (no substantial adverse impact). |
| Equitable estoppel and laches | County’s long delay and windfall relied on past gravel purchases create reliance on legality; estoppel should bar enforcement. | Governments are not barred by laches; no affirmative act of misconduct shown; enforcement timely when discovered. | Laches not established; no bar to enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Springs, Ltd. Liability Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Cnty. of Teton, 899 P.2d 1329 ((Wyo. 1995)) (harmonize state and county regulation of mines; no preemption)
- Snake River Brewing Co. v. Town of Jackson, 39 P.3d 397 ((Wyo. 2002)) (nonconforming uses and public policy considerations)
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 ((Wyo. 2008)) (substantial evidence review and standard of review for agency decisions)
- Ikemberry v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 5 P.3d 799 ((Wyo. 2000)) (evidentiary burden and weight of evidence in administrative review)
- Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co. v. City of Elmhurst, 165 N.E.2d 313 ((Ill. 1960)) (diminishing-asset concept in quarrying contexts)
- Moore v. Bridgewater Twp., 69 N.J. Super. 1, 173 A.2d 430 ((N.J. Super. App. Div. 1961)) (objective evidence of expansion and use of land for quarrying)