402 P.3d 984
Wyo.2017Background
- Four Shadows, LLC owns a 2.72-acre site (Granite Ridge) in Teton Village used as construction storage/staging since 2001; Taybacks own a nearby residence with a viewshed over the site.
- Four Shadows’ prior temporary permit expired Oct 1, 2015; it applied for a four‑year Basic Use Permit (BUP) for continued temporary construction staging and estimated need for staging could continue for up to ~20 more years.
- Planning staff found the application met land‑use regulations and recommended approval with conditions (including tying permit to a specific project); Four Shadows sought a four‑year BUP not tied to any single project.
- The Teton County Board of County Commissioners held public hearings, approved a BUP limited to two years (half what Four Shadows requested), with conditions and a requirement that any renewal application go to the Board.
- Taybacks petitioned for judicial review claiming (1) the use was not truly temporary (given 16 years of prior use and projected decades of future use) and (2) the Board failed to consider alternative sites; district court affirmed and Taybacks appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred by treating a long‑running, likely multi‑decade use as a "temporary use" under the LDRs | Taybacks: long history + projected continued use (~20 years) shows the use is not temporary in nature | Board/Four Shadows: "temporary use" is defined by the LDRs as a use established for a fixed period; the two‑year BUP is a definite fixed period so it qualifies | Held: The LDR definition controls; the two‑year permit establishes a fixed (definite) temporary use and the Board's interpretation was not contrary to law |
| Whether the Board was arbitrary or capricious for not considering alternative sites for staging | Taybacks: Board and staff discussed alternatives but made no findings or site‑comparative analysis; failure to consider alternatives was arbitrary | Board: No LDR or Master Plan provision required the Board to consider or make findings about alternative sites for construction staging | Held: No statutory/regulatory requirement to consider alternatives; failure to do so was not arbitrary or contrary to law |
| Standing to appeal the Board’s decision | Taybacks: N/A (claimants) — they argued harm from loss of views, dust, noise | Board: Taybacks lack standing | Held: Taybacks have standing because their property (viewshed, nuisance/dust/noise) gives a legally cognizable interest greater than the general public's |
| Standard and scope of review for the Board's action | Taybacks: procedural and substantive errors warrant reversal | Board: Agency action entitled to deference under arbitrary & capricious standard for informal proceedings | Held: Review under arbitrary and capricious standard (deferential); conclusions of law reviewed de novo — Board's decision had a rational basis and is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson Advisory Committee v. Board of County Comm’rs, 292 P.3d 865 (Wyo. 2012) (explains review scope for informal land‑use hearings and when agencies must make factual findings)
- Gilbert v. Board of County Comm’rs of Park County, 232 P.3d 17 (Wyo. 2010) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires rational basis review of agency findings)
- Hoke v. Moyer, 865 P.2d 624 (Wyo. 1993) (standing in land‑use appeals requires a legally recognizable interest beyond the general public)
- Northfork Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. Park County Board of County Comm’rs, 189 P.3d 260 (Wyo. 2008) (ownership near the affected area can suffice for standing in zoning disputes)
- Northern Laramie Range Foundation v. Converse County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 290 P.3d 1063 (Wyo. 2012) (interference with scenic views can establish injury for standing)