Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 16 as measured by objective manifestations and not by subjective intent; and, third, [the land owner] must prove that the continued operations do not, and/or will not, have a substantially different and adverse impact on the neighborhood. Here, all agreed that RST met the first prong of the test: he was actively conducting a gravel operation at the time the County's LDRs became effective. The court further found that RST presented sufficient evidence regarding the second -prong of the test; evidence showed that he intended to expand his operations beyond three acres when the County's LDRs became effective. Finally, the court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support the third -prong; objective evidence showed that continued operation of the gravel business did not and would not have had a substantially different and adverse impact on the neighborhood. Having found RST met the three -prong test, the court concluded that RST could expand his gravel operation on the parcel on which it lay to the extent that it complied with the requirements of the Wyoming Environmental Qual- ity Act ("EQA") and its accompanying regulations. The court found that protection also precluded the County from limiting the volume of gravel extracted. Accordingly, the court found that, under § 18-5-207, RST had a vested right to expand his gravel operation on the 300-acre parcel on which the operation was located "without unauthorized regulatory interference from the County, provided that he complies with other applicable laws, such as the EQA and the [Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality] DEQ's regulations." The court concluded that the Board's order as to reduction of the size of the land operations and the limit of the extraction volume was invalid as "an improper agency determination and exercise of authority." See also: Romero v. Rio Arriba County Commissioners, 140 N.M. 848, 2007-NMCA-004, 149 P.3d 945, 951 (Ct. App. 2006)(adopting three prong test); Town of Wolfeboro (Planning Bd) v. Smith, 131 N.H. 449, 556 A.2d 755, 759 (1989) (adopting three prong test); Town of West Greenwich v. A. Cardi Realty Associates, 786 A.2d 354, 363 (R.I. 2001) (adopting three prong test). See also:River Springs Ltd. Liability Co. v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Teton, 899 P.2d 1329, 134 O.G.R. 650 (Wyo. 1995). Case Note: In its decision, the court recognized that the three -prong test was "highly fact depen- dent and [would] vamy from cases to case, especially for the second prong." Case Note: The court emphasized that its decision was not addressing situations where an opera- tion expanded or sought to expand to an adjacent parcel. Case Note: The Board's order on RST's Notice to Abate appeal had also placed bonding and 2014 Thomson Reuters 11