Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

/) '(",/ : o (~ Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2009\ Volume 31 No. 22 . therefore be an "accessory use or building," permitted in the NC-SF zon!ng district. Under the county's land develoyment regulations (the "LDRs"), an "accessory use or building" was defined as: "a separate use or structure which: (a) is incidental, subordinate or secondary to, and devoted primarily to the principal use ot structure served and does not change the character of the premises; and (b) is located on the same lot... as the principal use or structure served." The Bal!enspergers applied to the county for permission to build the proposed barn. Specifically, they applied for a Building Permit and a Grading and Erosion Control ("GEC") Permit. The. county associate planner (the "Planner") determined that the proposed barn met all pertinent standards in the county's LDRs. Because it found the barn would be an "accessory residen- tial structure," the county's planning commission approved the is- suance of the Building Permit. The GEC Permit was also issued to the Baltenspergers. . Ernest and Martha Anderson (the "Andersons"), owners of Lot 4B adjacent to the Baltenspergers' Lot 4A" appealed the issuance of those permits. Among other things, the Andersons contended that the barn was not an "accessory residential structure." They said this was because the proposed barn was much larger (more than 5,000 square feet larger) than the residence. The Andersons maintained that the proposed barn would therefore be the primary use of the lot. Since, under the LDRs, the barn was not allowed as a primary use of a lot, the Anderson's argued that the Building Permit should not have issued. The Board of County Commissioners of the county (the "Board") affirmed the grant of the permits. It found that the barn was an "ac- cessory building" within the LDRs' definition. . The Andersons then appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed the Board's decision. It upheld the grant of the permits. . The Andersons again appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of Wyoming concluded that the barn was an accessory residential structure pursuant to the LDRs. Rejecting the Andersons' argument, the court noted that nothing in the LDRs (or other authority) required a barn be smaller than a residence in or- der for its use to be considered "subordinate to the residential use of the premises." In fact, noted the court, "barns are often larger than houses." Since the residential structure was in place when the Baltenspergers applied for the construction permits, the court found that the "nature of the premises" had already been established as res- idential. This, concluded the court, supported the Board's finding that @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 5 45