Wyoming Supreme Court Clarifies Finality & Voting Standards for Municipal Planning Decisions

Introduction

Case: Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods et al. v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints & City of Cody Planning, Zoning, and Adjustment Board (2025 WY 64).
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming – opinion delivered 13 June 2025.
Key Parties:

Appellants: Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods (POCN) – a group of homeowners opposing construction of a LDS temple in Cody, Wyoming.
Appellee: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”).
Appellee (non-participating): City of Cody Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board (the “Board”).

The controversy arose after the Church sought approval to construct a temple in a Rural Residential (RR) zone. It filed three parallel requests: (1) a “special exemption” from the 30-foot height cap, (2) a site-plan approval, and (3) a conditional use permit (CUP) because houses of worship are conditional uses in the RR zone.

This judgment resolves whether the district court properly dismissed POCN’s petitions for judicial review as untimely. Central to that determination were: (a) when the Board’s decisions became “final agency action,” and (b) the number of votes needed to approve a site plan under Cody Municipal Code § 9-2-3 as compared with Wyo. Stat. § 15-1-608(c).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wyoming unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of POCN’s challenges, holding:

The Board finally approved the Church’s site plan and CUP on 15 June 2023.
Because those approvals constituted final agency action, POCN’s petitions, filed more than 30 days later (21 and 24 August 2023), were untimely under W.R.A.P. 12.04(a).
Cody Code § 9-2-3 governs site-plan approval and requires only a majority of members present; therefore the 3-to-2 vote on 15 June sufficed even though it did not command four votes from the seven-member Board.
The Board lacked statutory or ordinance authority to revisit or modify its 15 June approvals at later meetings; its subsequent “reconsiderations” were nullities.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 2007 WY 62 – establishes that a timely petition for review is “mandatory and jurisdictional.”
Air Methods / Rocky Mountain Holdings, 2018 WY 128 – defines “final administrative order” as one leaving nothing further for the agency to do.
Rosenberger v. City of Casper Bd. of Adjustment, 765 P.2d 367 (Wyo. 1988) – boards of adjustment have no inherent power to rehear or modify final decisions absent statutory authority.
Ahearn v. Town of Wheatland, 2002 WY 12 – when state statute is silent, local ordinance controls if not inconsistent with state law.
Ebzery v. City of Sheridan, 982 P.2d 1251 (Wyo. 1999) & Goodman v. Voss, 2011 WY 33 – minutes reflecting a vote can themselves constitute a reviewable final decision.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three logical steps:

Textual Interpretation of Cody Code § 9-2-3 vs. Wyo. Stat. § 15-1-608(c)

“Section 15-1-608(c) does not apply to Cody Ord. § 9-2-3 because § 9-2-3 is not a zoning ordinance.”
Title 9 (Building Regulations) is distinct from Title 10 (Zoning). Therefore, the state statute mandating four concurring votes for zoning matters did not override § 9-2-3’s plain requirement that the “affirmative vote of a majority… in attendance” suffices for site-plan approval.
Finality of Agency Action
Once three of five members voted “aye” on 15 June, the site plan stood approved; the CUP motion adopted the staff report wholesale, which included the dispositive finding that the temple’s flat-roof height complied with the 30-foot limit, rendering any special-exemption request moot. Nothing further remained for the Board to decide; therefore the decisions were final.
Lack of Reconsideration Authority
Neither Wyoming enabling statutes for boards of adjustment/planning commissions nor Cody’s ordinances empower the Board to sua sponte revisit approved site plans or CUPs, except for revocation under § 10-14-1(K) (breach of conditions or public-nuisance grounds) – neither of which applied. Hence all “re-tabling,” “re-considering,” or “amending” actions at subsequent meetings were ultra vires and did not reset the 30-day appeal clock.

3. Impact of the Judgment

This ruling carries significant practical and doctrinal consequences:

Municipal Practice: Planning boards statewide must heed the exact voting standards embedded in the specific ordinance governing the item before them (site plan vs. variance vs. CUP). Misapplying state-level voting rules can inadvertently yield unappealable approvals.
Finality Doctrine Strengthened: Parties opposing an agency decision must assume the clock starts the moment a motion passes and is memorialized in minutes – even if the board later re-opens discussion.
Guardrails on Self-Reconsideration: The decision discourages boards from “second guessing” themselves without statutory authority, fostering predictability for applicants and neighbors alike.
Litigation Strategy: Objectors must file protective petitions for review within 30 days of any board vote that could plausibly be final; awaiting issuance of a written permit or recording may forfeit judicial review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Site Plan: A detailed drawing and narrative showing building placement, access, utilities, landscaping, lighting, etc., required prior to issuance of a building permit.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Permission to conduct a land use that is “conditional” (neither prohibited nor expressly allowed) in the zone, subject to satisfaction of enumerated criteria and possible conditions.
Final Agency Action: The moment an agency’s decision-making process is complete and nothing remains but to implement the decision – triggers appeal deadlines.
Majority Present vs. Majority of the Board:
- Majority Present – more than half of the members who actually attend the meeting (e.g., 3 of 5).
- Majority of the Board – more than half of the board’s full complement, whether or not absent (e.g., 4 of 7).
Ultra Vires: Latin for “beyond the powers”; any subsequent Board action lacking statutory authority is legally void.

Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods crystallizes two pivotal rules:

For non-zoning matters governed by Cody Code § 9-2-3, a simple majority of members present approves a site plan; state statutes addressing zoning boards do not alter that calculus.
Once such approval (or a CUP) is voted and memorialized, the agency’s action is final; absent a specific ordinance authorizing rehearing, the board cannot revisit its decision, and any judicial challenge must be brought within 30 days.

These principles reinforce certainty in land-use regulation and underscore the critical importance of timely judicial review. Municipal boards, developers, and citizen groups alike must now navigate Wyoming’s planning process with sharper awareness of when – and how – rights to appeal mature and expire.