BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TETON COUNTY, WYOMING, a duly organized county of the State of Wyoming, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
MACKAY INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; twenty-one consecutively numbered entities FS JH 1 LLC through FS JH 21 LLC, each a Wyoming limited liability company; BUFFALO VALLEY RESORT, INC., a Wyoming corporation; and twenty-one consecutively numbered entities FS BV 1 LLC through FS BV 21 LLC, each a Wyoming limited liability company, Appellees (Plaintiffs).
Appeal
from the District Court of Teton County The Honorable Timothy
C. Day, Judge
Representing Appellant: Keith M. Gingery, Teton County
Attorney's Office, Jackson, Wyoming.
Representing Appellees: Matthew Kim-Miller and Hadassah M.
Reimer, Holland & Hart, LLP, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument
by Mr. Kim-Miller.
Before
BURKE, C.J., and HILL [*] , DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
BURKE,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
[¶1]
Mackay Investments, LLC, filed a declaratory judgment against
the Board of County Commissioners of Teton County, Wyoming,
challenging the Teton County Land Development Regulation
prohibiting fractional ownership of campgrounds. The district
court granted summary judgment in Mackay's favor, ruling
that the regulation was unenforceable because it was beyond
the County's zoning authority. The Board appealed. We
affirm.
ISSUE
[¶2]
Does the Teton County Land Development Regulation prohibiting
fractional ownership of campgrounds exceed the County's
zoning authority?
FACTS
[¶3]
The pertinent facts in this case are undisputed. Mackay owned
and operated two campgrounds in Teton County, JH Fireside
Resort and Buffalo Valley Fireside Resort. Long-term camping
is prohibited at both campgrounds. Pursuant to a settlement
agreement between Mackay and Teton County, [1] "no person
shall stay at the [JH Fireside Resort] for a period of longer
than twenty-nine (29) consecutive days in any sixty (60) day
period." Under the terms of a conditional use permit for
Buffalo Valley, [2] the length of stay there is limited to
"less than 30 days in any 90 day period." These
limitations are generally consistent with Teton County Land
Development Regulation § 6.1.5.D.2.d, which limits
campsite occupancy to "less than 31 days in any 90-day
period."
[¶4]
In 2015, Mackay transferred undivided tenant in common fee
ownership interests in JH Fireside Resort to twenty-one
separate entities (FS JH 1 LLC through FS JH 21 LLC). Mackay
retained an undivided tenant in common fee ownership interest
in the campground. As a result, the JH Fireside Resort is now
owned by twenty-two separate entities, each as a tenant in
common with an undivided interest in the whole. After a
similar transaction, Buffalo Valley Fireside Resort is also
owned by twenty-two separate entities (Mackay and FS BV 1 LLC
through FS BV 21 LLC) as undivided tenants in common.
[¶5]
All campground owners are subject to Tenancy in Common
Agreements, which assign each tenant in common access to
several campsites. Each owner may choose to camp at one of
its assigned campsites and rent out the rest. In the
alternative, an owner may choose not to use any of its
assigned spaces, and instead collect rental income for all of
the spaces from other campers. The Agreements acknowledge
that, pursuant to the settlement agreement and conditional
use permit discussed above, there are limitations on the
length of occupancy of any campsite by any one camper.
[¶6]
In 2016, Teton County sent a Notice of Violation to Mackay,
[3]
asserting that tenant in common ownership of the campgrounds
violates a section of the Teton County Land Development
Regulations that prohibits fractional ownership of
campgrounds. The County asserted that tenant in common
ownership is a prohibited type of fractional ownership. The
County warned that if tenant in common interests in the
campgrounds were sold to new owners, the County would take
additional enforcement action, potentially including monetary
penalties.
[¶7]
In response, Mackay filed a declaratory judgment action in
the district court seeking a determination that the Land
Development Regulation in question exceeded Teton
County's regulatory authority and was unenforceable.
Teton County answered, asking for a ruling that the
regulation was within the County's authority. Mackay
filed a motion for summary judgment. The parties agreed that
there were no disputed issues of material fact, and asked the
district ...