Summary 2009 WY 122

Summary of Decision issued October 6, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Anderson v. Bd. of County Comm’r of Teton County, WY

Citation: 2009 WY 122

Docket Number: S-08-0102

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, the Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge.

Representing Appellants Anderson: Andrea L. Richard and Jennifer A. Golden, the Richard Law Firm, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, Board of County Commissioners: James L. Radda, Deputy County Attorney, Teton County, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees Baltensperger: William R. Fix, William R. Fix, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The Baltenspergers applied for and were granted the necessary permits allowing them to construct a barn/equestrian center on their property in Teton County, Wyoming. The Andersons objected to the construction permits and appealed to the Board. After the Board affirmed the grant of the permits, the Andersons petitioned the district court to review the final administrative action. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Accessory residential structure: The Board determined that the barn was an accessory residential structure because it was incidental, subordinate or secondary to the residence on Lot 4A and devoted primarily to the residence and that it did not change the character of the premises. The Andersons claim the record does not support that finding primarily because the proposed barn at 6,750 sq. ft. will be much larger than the residence at 1,056 sq. ft. The Andersons pointed to no authority that stated the barn must be smaller than the residence in order for its use to be considered subordinate to the residential use of the premises. The record was clear that the residential structure was in place when the Baltenspergers applied for the construction permits.
Whether approving the construction permits violated the LDRs: The Andersons relied upon Section 5120.N.1 of the LDRs to support their contention that Teton County was required to impose restrictions on the Baltenspergers’ development to minimize adverse impacts on the neighborhood. The Court stated that the Section provides authority to Teton County to impose restrictions or conditions upon approved permits, but does not mandate it. Additionally, the LDRs only require the County to assess potential injury to the neighborhood when considering applications for variances but not when considering applications for building permits or Grading and Erosion Control (GEC) permits as in the instant case. The Board was correct when it determined that consideration of private covenants was not within the scope of the LDRs and that Teton County was correct in not imposing restrictions based upon the alleged violations of private covenants.

Conclusion: The Court would not consider the Andersons’ claim that the approval of the construction permits was based on conclusory findings as that issue was not adequately raised below. After reviewing the record, the Court found substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that the center was an accessory residential structure. Additionally, Teton County’s approval of the Building Permit and the GEC Permit did not violate the LDRs and was in accordance with law.

Affirmed.

D.J. Waldrip delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ydvwc8f .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]