 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thompson v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Sublette11/8/2001
claim, that the district court erred in finding that the White Pine activities are not authorized in an agricultural district (A-1) zone, involves an application of the law to the facts.
Where the determination to be reviewed presents a mixed question of law and fact, i.e., a conclusion reached through application of legal precepts to the historical and narrative events of a particular case, the reviewing court will defer to the agency's findings of basic fact but will correct misapplications of the law to those facts. If the agency has not invoked and applied the correct rule of law, we correct it. Rodgers v. State ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 939 P.2d 246, 249 (Wyo. 1997) (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
Estoppel
[ ] In their first claim for relief, the Thompsons allege that the board of county commissioners should be estopped from seeking to enjoin the activities on their land because of the actions of its own representatives. Specifically, the Thompsons allege that they purchased the land in question and made the improvements necessary for the operations of Logcrafters in reliance on statements made to them by a former commissioner and the county zoning administrator.
[ ] Prior to purchasing the land at issue here, the Thompsons owned a ten-acre parcel north of Cora in Sublette County where they conducted operations associated with Logcrafters. When they sought a variance from the county to allow them to build a storage facility on the ten-acre parcel, they allege they were told there would be no problem with their operations if they owned a larger parcel of land zoned A-1 closer to town. The Thompsons allege that they purchased the property now at issue in reliance on that assurance. They further allege that, before making the improvements necessary for Logcrafters' operations on the new property, they spoke with the county zoning administrator and received assurances that, because the land was zoned A-1 agricultural, no special permits were necessary. Based on the assurances of the zoning administrator, the Thompsons made improvements costing them $170,000. They claim that they were induced by the assurances of the county officials to believe their operations were permissible, they relied on the assurances to their detriment, and the board of county commissioners should now be estopped from enforcing the zoning regulations.
[ ] We have said that equitable estoppel should not be invoked against a government or public agency functioning in its governmental capacity, except in rare and unusual circumstances, and may not be invoked where it would serve to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. Sare v. Sheridan County Bd. of County Com'rs, 784 P.2d 593, 595 (Wyo. 1989); Big Piney Oil & Gas Co. v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Com'n, 715 P.2d 557, 560 (Wyo. 1986). In order to invoke the doctrine against a government or public agency functioning in its official capacity, there must be a showing of affirmative misconduct. In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, 753 P.2d 76, 90 (Wyo. 1988), cert. granted, 488 U.S. 1040, 109 S.Ct. 863, judgment aff'd, 492 U.S. 406, 109 S.Ct. 2994 (1989). Affirmative misconduct exists where a person, by his acts, representations, or admissions, intentionally or through culpable negligence induces another to believe that certain facts exist and the other person rightfully relies and acts on such belief and will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. Id. at 89.
[ ] Equitable estoppel does not apply to governmental or sovereign functions, especially where it would defeat t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|