CHRISTOPHER TAYBACK and CLARE PHILLIPS TAYBACK, Appellants (Petitioners),
TETON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Appellee (Respondent) and FOUR SHADOWS LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Appellee (Intervenor).
from the District Court of Teton County The Honorable Timothy
C. Day, Judge
Representing Appellants: Mark D. Sullivan of Mark D.
Sullivan, P.C., Wilson, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee Teton County Board of County
Commissioners: Erin E. Weisman, Teton County Attorney's
Office, Jackson, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee/Intervenor Four Shadows, LLC: Matthew
E. Turner of Geittmann Larson Swift LLP, Jackson, Wyoming.
BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
Christopher and Clare Phillips Tayback challenge the Teton
County Board of County Commissioners' (Board) decision
granting Four Shadows, LLC a Basic Use Permit (BUP) to use
its property in Teton Village for temporary construction
storage/staging. The Taybacks claim the Board erred by
granting the permit because Four Shadows' use was not
temporary and the Board did not consider alternative sites.
The Taybacks present the following issues on appeal:
1. Was the Board of County Commissioners' Order contrary
to law and arbitrary and capricious where it permits a
16-year "temporary" use to continue, and where the
Appellees each concede that the use is intended to continue
until Teton Village is built out, an indeterminate period of
time, estimated to last 10 to 25 more years?
2. Where the Board did not conduct or require any examination
of alternative sites for the proposed use, and made no
findings concerning alternatives available to Four Shadows,
LLC, was its Order unsupported by substantial evidence,
arbitrary and capricious?
Board adds another issue:
1. Do the [Taybacks] have standing to appeal the Board's
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Granting
Approval of Basic Use Permit BUP 2015-0065?
Shadows does not present a statement of the issues on appeal.
Teton Village is located in the unincorporated area of Teton
County, Wyoming. Four Shadows owns a 2.72 acre property in
the village, which is referred to as the Granite Ridge site.
Since 2001, Four Shadows has leased the site to contractors
working on projects in Teton Village. The contractors use it
for various construction storage and staging needs, including
as a location for their construction trailers, equipment and
material storage, and staging of construction activities. In
2010, the Taybacks purchased a residence that looks down upon
the Granite Ridge site.
Four Shadows had a permit for the Granite Ridge site that
expired on October 1, 2015. Consequently, in September 2015,
Four Shadows filed an application with Teton County for a
four-year BUP for temporary use of the property as a
construction storage/staging site. At the time Four Shadows
applied for the permit, the site was leased to two
contractors who were working on separate projects in Teton
Village. Four Shadows' application stated that the need
for construction storage/staging areas would continue until
the planned construction of Teton Village was complete, which
it estimated would take another twenty years.
Although the Teton County Planning Director could have made
the decision on Four Shadows' application, he decided to
send the matter to the Board because there was some
controversy over the Granite Ridge site. The Planning
Department notified neighboring property owners, including
the Taybacks, of Four Shadows' application. The notice
invited them to submit written comments to the Board and/or
attend an upcoming public hearing.
The Board held the public hearing in November 2015. The
Planning Department staff submitted a report and gave a
presentation at the hearing. They listed the "Key
Issues" for the Board's consideration as: 1)
"What are the best locations for construction staging
areas in Teton Village that would have the least amount of
impact" on residential development? 2) "Should
these construction staging areas continue to be permitted as
temporary uses when they are anticipated to be ongoing for
twenty years?" 3) "Are there ways to mitigate the
impacts to neighboring property owners when construction
staging areas are located near residential areas?"
The staff confirmed that Four Shadows' application
complied with the county's land use regulations and
recommended approval of the BUP, subject to seven conditions.
One of the staff's recommendations was that the permit be
tied to a particular project. Specifically, the staff
recommended that the permit terminate when one of the
projects that was then being staged at the site, the Caldera
House, was complete.
Four Shadows requested a four-year BUP which was not tied to
any particular project. Four Shadows' representative
explained that, because its site was used by different
contractors for various projects, the overall impact of
construction in Teton Village was reduced. Members of the
public, including Ms. Tayback, were allowed to comment. The
comments (written and verbal) expressed support for and
opposition to the permit.
[¶10] At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board
voted unanimously to approve the permit with several
conditions, including that the permit would expire in two
years.Prior to entering its written findings of
fact, conclusions of law and order, the Board voted to
reconsider. It held a second public hearing on January 5,
2016, with the discussion being focused mostly upon the
proposed conditions to the permit. Shortly thereafter, the
Board issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order approving Four Shadows' application for a BUP
allowing temporary use of the Granite Ridge site for
construction storage/staging of "any development project
within Teton Village." The permit was limited to two
years from the date of approval and required any request for
renewal to be heard by the Board. The permit also included
other conditions, including: 1) limiting outdoor use of the
site to Monday through Saturday from 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; and
2) only allowing certain activities on the site.
The Taybacks filed a petition for review with the district
court, claiming the Board's decision granting Four
Shadows' permit was erroneous. The district court allowed
Four Shadows to intervene in the proceeding. The Board
claimed the Taybacks did not have standing to contest the
permit. The district court ruled that the Taybacks had