Summary 2010 WY 7

Summary of Decision issued January 25, 2010

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

Case Name: Lawrence v. City of Rawlins and Trans. Comm. of Wyo.

Citation: 2010 WY 7

Docket Number: S-09-0134

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellant Lawrence: Bruce T. Moats, Law Office of Bruce T. Moats, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee City of Rawlins: Daniel T. Massey and Amy L. Bach of City of Rawlins, City Attorney’s Office, Rawlins, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Transportation Commission of Wyoming: No appearance.

Facts/Discussion: This is an appeal from two related district court orders in a declaratory judgment action between Lawrence and the City over a junkyard, which action was consolidated with the appeal of Lawrence’s municipal court conviction for violation of a nuisance ordinance. The junkyard was begun in 1958 prior to zoning. In 1973 a zoning ordinance was adopted by the City. In 1982 the City and the Lawrences signed a Settlement Agreement in which it was agreed that Lawrence would never deny the validity of the 1973 zoning ordinance, that he had no grandfathered rights in certain areas zoned residential and highway business, and that he agreed to fence and otherwise organize his business located on parcel 8. (There is a diagram of the parcels included in the opinion.)

Validity of the 1982 Settlement Agreement: One of the centrally contested issues was the validity of the zoning ordinance. The City believed its ordinance was valid and enforceable. Lawrence believed it was not. The parties agreed to settle that controversy by having Lawrence agree not to contest the validity and enforceability of the ordinance. The doctrine of mutual mistake does not fit that scenario. The district court had all the available documentation including the materials filed by both parties in support of their respective motions for summary judgment. Lawrence has not shown that the district court was not able to determine what parcels of land were at issue. Basically, the summary judgment rejected the applicability of the doctrine of mutual mistake, concluded that the Junkyard Control Act applied the Lawrence’s junkyard and left all remaining questions for the bench trial. The Court found no error in that resolution.
Grandfathered right to use areas not zoned industrial: All of the parcels were purchased prior to the 1989 effective date of the readopted zoning ordinance, the 1982 Settlement Agreement and the 1979 zoning change. It was clear from the evidence that all of the parcels were used in the junkyard business at one time or another. Nonconforming uses may obtain a grandfather exception but conforming uses have no such need. The junkyard remained legal in the areas not zoned industrial because they were “legal” in those areas before zoning occurred when there was nothing to forbid the use. Any grandfathered right to have the junkyard in the residential portions of parcels 4 and 6 and the highway business portion of parcel 3 were specifically relinquished and abandoned in the 1982 Settlement Agreement. The grandfathered right to use parcel 7 in the junkyard business has not been abandoned or discontinued.
Abandoned or discontinued use: The junkyard was a legal conforming use in the industrial zone both before and after the 1989 zoning ordinance adoption. All of parcels 1, 2, 5, and 8 were zoned industrial. The portion of parcel 3 south of parcel 5 and the portions of parcels 4 and 6 south of the residential zone were also zoned industrial. Lawrence has not abandoned or discontinued her junkyard use in those areas.

Conclusion: Lawrence’s junkyard is a conforming use in those areas that are zoned industrial. The concepts of abandonment or discontinuation of a nonconforming use are not applicable to those areas, and the district court must be reversed to the extent that they contradict that conclusion. Pursuant to the 1982 Settlement Agreement, the district court ordered Lawrence to screen parcel 8 and the Court affirmed that order.
Any grandfathered right for the existence of the junkyard as a nonconforming use in the residential zoned areas in parcels 4 and 6, and the highway business zoned area of parcel 3 was relinquished in the 1982 Settlement Agreement. The junkyard is not a legal nonconforming use in those areas and the order of the district court to that effect was affirmed. The junkyard was a grandfathered nonconforming use on parcel 7 which use has not been abandoned or discontinued. The order of the district court was reversed to that extent.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y8f2dm4 .

[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.]