Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 10 grounds exceeded the County's regulatory zoning authority and was unenforceable. Mackay argued that the County only had authority to regulate use of land, and that the County had failed to show how regula- tion of the transfer of an ownership interest in the campgrounds af- fected use of land. The County, on the other hand, asserted that its regulation prohibit- ing fractional ownership of campgrounds was "directly related to use . . . of the land encompassing the campgrounds." Finding there were no issues of material fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the district court granted summary judg- ment in favor of Mackay. The court agreed with Mackay that the regula- tion prohibiting fractional ownership of campgrounds was unenforce- able because it was beyond the County's zoning authority. The County appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. Agreeing with Mackay and the district court, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the County Land Development Regulation prohibit- ing fractional ownership of campgrounds exceeded the County's zon- ing authority. In so holding, the court explained that, pursuant to Wyoming statu- tory law (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-201), the County's "general zoning authority" was: "to promote the public health, safety, morals and gen- eral welfare of the county" by regulating and restricting "the use, condi- tion of use or occupancy of lands for residence, recreation, agriculture, industry, commerce, public use and other purposes in the unincorpo- rated area of the county." Thus, determined the court, the County could regulate the "use" and "occupancy" of lands, but was not authorized to regulate the ownership of lands. Accordingly, said the court, a county's zoning authority does not include the right to regulate land ownership absent a showing that a change in ownership will result in a change in use. The County had argued that the disputed regulation of campground fractional ownership was intended to ensure that camping spaces were available for visiting tourists and aimed for an "increased turnover of campsites," and was therefore a regulation on the use of campgrounds and a valid exercise of the its zoning authority. Reviewing the plain language of the regulation prohibiting fractional ownership of campgrounds, the court disagreed. The court noted that the new tenant in common owners, under their transaction agreements with Mackay, were subject to exactly the same time limitations on camp site occupancy as Mackay was before the transactions. The court found nothing in the disputed regulation that altered the length of occupancy or affected the rate of turnover at the two campgrounds. The regulation © 2018 Thomson Reuters 7