Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Miss Ali, thank you. And for the benefit who might be listening online now or later, I'll go ahead and begin with a few comments for a new commissioner or commissioners. Um, welcome. Uh if your experience been anything at all along lines of what I experienced where I probably presume the rest of our commission experience, you probably got a notification from the county clerk. Yes. And maybe not so much else. Uh so you come here and you have no idea what's going on. I mean that's what certainly happened to me. I met with David and Jim. So

well very good. Uh I'll just say general expectations. You know these are informal but uh this goes for all of us. You know, I'd encourage all of us to be prepared, be on time, pay attention, ask questions, engage discussion, exercise good judgment. Um, we expect civility and courtesy in our interactions with the public and with each other. Uh, if you're going to be later absent, let David and me know. Uh, if you are going to be absent and you can't attend by Zoom, that's great. But, uh, being in person is much preferred for all of us. We just have better meetings that way. Um my goal and job as chairman is to run our meetings in an efficient orderly process. Uh and that mainly means trying to keep things on topic things or whatnot. Depending on how many people we have in the room and what how much business we have. It sort of depends on how much we emphasized and what not. And um that's a job. What am I doing? So he'll be an old hand in a month. and you'll know as much as us as the rest of us.

If there's anything we're doing uh that you understand why we're doing it, ask questions. All right. So, with that, we'll move on to a roll call. Miss Melli here, David here, here. And Mr. O'Brien is absent. And I am here. I don't see one online. Uh, may I have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Motion to approve. Okay. Second. Second. All right. All those in favor say I. I. Motion carries. We have a motion to approve the minutes for December 10, 2020. I move that we approve the minutes for summer 2025.

Have a second. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion carries. Uh, do you have any disclos? Uh, nothing from me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're off. Nothing.

And I have nothing also. Uh, so we will move on to our public applications and and Barb, the general secret we follow is we take a staff report, then we take questions from the applicant, then we conduct a public hearing, uh, then we engage in discussion, we make a decision, and that's what we'll do unless I forget to do something, whatever. Sir David. Yeah, Mr. Chair, commissioners. So, this first or this application is a zoning district amendment application for um Skate Larmy. Um Josh Caffer is he's the representing Skate Laramie here. Um there's not an address for this property, but it's off South Ka Street, which is down off of Fort Sanders, just south of town. Um the request is to change the zoning from small lot residential to commercial for a potential recreational facility. This was sent out to the usual folks um for review. Um, we received a number of reviews back or and uh the Albany County Road Bridge Department Rob Fisher superintendent noted that Kyoa Street is owned by Albany County, but it's not maintained by the Albony County Road Bridge Department. Um the South Learning Water Ser District just the operator had no objections, but he did recommend contacting them um to obtain a approval of a tap before they start their anticipated project. Um Y dot um provided some comments. um requested traffic estimates reminded developers and land owners that work in white dot rightway would either be permitted um or licensed through the

white dot district one maintenance folks. Um and then the city of Lar also reviewed this and they reviewed it with their the city of Laram growth plan and they felt it was consistent with it. Um so yeah so they they the applicant addressed the findings um for this this application. Um it was the number of plans kind of apply to this county comprehensive plan growth area plan and the major street plan. Um, see here. Guess my analysis. The planning department believes that the proposed zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestions of the Albony County comprehensive plan growth area plan for the following reasons. Priority growth area 2 promotes primarily residential uses, but it also allows for smallcale commercial uses. The rural commercial land use designation of the comprehensive plan supports hightraic areas. The property has direct access to future collector street that accesses Fort Sanders Road which is a collector street. The comprehensive plan promotes economic development and rec recreational opportunities. Flary growth area plan shows the location of the property for um has a future land use designation of ranch at the adjacent area to the south of the property is designated neighborhood commercial. Um so the zoning district amendment provides continuous land use designation of commercial through that area. Um the proposed the proposal addresses the required findings and is consistent with a development pattern. The area nearby area includes

commercial, industrial and residential uses. It lies between an industrial area and a highway. Basically um south water sewer district water may be available with proper permitting. Um in consultation with the south water sewer district should occur prior to future development to ensure water needs um of the use can be met. Findings of fact findings necessary for approval in the applicant responses referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has met the specified impacts and the same are incorporated herein. Conclusions of law applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the alment county zoning resolution. Um staff recommendation is to approve this um Sony district amendment and um refer to the commissioners with the approval recommendation. Um if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

David, under staff response for cultural resource impacts, uh your first sense reads this property is within the historic Fort Sanders period. What did you mean by that? Well, that whole area was in the Fort Sanders, the for old Fort Sanders area. Okay, Ros, why don't you lead off? Yeah. I have one question about the maps for the area, and I apologize. I'm trying these elf thoughts for the first time, so if I speak too loudly, please let me know. You're fine.

Thank you. I understand the maps until I got to uh the uh map that showed the university a fund and I wasn't sure why it was included in this application. Are you talking about the major street plan? Was that part of it? Is that what I put in the wrong place? Let me let me look. I'm looking. Okay. 44. What page of the pediat? That's what I'm looking for. I think it's page 44 of the 46.

Yeah, it is the Oh, so if it's the major street plan, it just that includes that area as well as Okay. So, that's okay. That was my only question. Thank you. Uh, while we're on those, u could you could you bring those up? I had some questions uh on the maps. Okay.

Um, and just a general comment and and all of our members, if there's ways that the staff report could be improved, then this is an opportunity for us to give these guys some feedback. I know we all kind of, oh, we know what we mean, but if it doesn't say that. Um, so on these I I it would be helpful if the piece of interest were identified on the maps was my comment there. But let's uh let's start with that uh with the street plan then and show us just where where is our piece. Let's make sure I plotted it correct. Yeah, that's the right spot. You've got it right. I got it in the right spot. Okay. Yep. So it's right there at that that kind of a curve. Yeah.

Mhm. So Kywood does not go clear through to 287. Correct.

Okay, that was my understanding. What What is the story on Ky? Has it got an easement or something or what what's the deal there? So, I don't know exactly how it all occurred, but it had to do with maybe what the road looked like way back when or whatever cuz I I think Fort Sanders was the old highway if if I'm understanding, but somehow there was an easement or the state had a piece of property or that went across there and then basically dead ends in that property. It was always thought that that always that went that went all the way through. For years and years that was a through street, but then a different landowner purchased that property, looked at the actual deed or the I guess it is I think it is a deed. Isn't it an easement? I think it's deed to to the county, but it goes and it just stops there basically at that property.

Um yeah, somebody went and did the research and like yeah, it doesn't go through this property. So him turning or shutting it off was okay because somebody did their research. But interesting. Yeah. So those barriers that have been set up there were just the land owner said this is mine and it ain't yours. Yep. Pretty much. Yeah. Okay. And that's a county road then on over to Fort Senters. It's a county easement or a county that we own the land but we don't maintain the road if that makes sense. So that whole right ofway and everything else discussion. Yeah.

Um all right. the the previous map, the LGA map. I had some couple of questions on that and the same one. So, I've got our piece. Well, I guess now that we have that kind of curve in what would be Kya, it's it's right there between the the yellow and the pink. Uh, I'd say it's between the green and the like right where my mouse is. Yeah, that's where it is. Okay. So, have I got the right place? Your eyes are better than mine. Yes. Yeah. It's right here.

Yep. Um, okay. And so the paint is is the uh suggested neighborhood commercial, but we're just just over the line into the what they call ranch. Yes. Then what was interesting there was that green area. I mean, we're not used to thinking of wetlands and parks and things down there. Um

comment on that. Where did that come from? How did that get delineated? Uh any thoughts on that? You know, I am not sure what where that I I'm not sure where the consultants came up with that layer or whatever that shows that because there there is I mean there's actually a drainage that runs on the other side of the road down in that commercial where it shows neighborhood commercial. Um and I think there is some stuff, you know, there is actually some wetlands type area um on the other side of like the uh the railroad. Marcus intermittent. Um yeah, and and maybe up north of it, but like there's really nothing out there. It's pretty flat.

Um I haven't really looked at the properties north too much, but this came up with the last subdivision or the subdivision that we had that's right next door. Ern, I actually think it's a mistake. Well, I Well, I was out there looking at it. It's it's actually kind of a swale and there's a little drainage that runs down through there. It would make a nice little open area and it's not developed. They spot is kind of of a low spot. It's not that. Yeah, these properties don't get into that low spot, but yeah, back I guess north of there. Yes. Which I think is what that green. Yes. Okay. But that's that has no no zoning impact at this point. Correct. Yeah.

And when I said I think it's a mistake. I mean I think they probably did their analysis online and shot their own foot. That's just my guess. Well, and it's interesting because I think I looked at the um the national wet wetlands inventory um and it doesn't show any show that large of an area. I don't even know if it shows anything on that side of the flood plane doesn't run through there. So, like I said, I don't know where they got the information. So, but maybe that maybe just because it's a low spot. I don't I was expecting a wellwind or something, but it isn't. It's just a nice low spot. Okay. Yeah. I just had one one comment. But I assume that there's no negative impact on the residential area.

No, I mean it's already a mix of I mean at least in my opinion it's already a mix of commercial, industrial and residential. Yeah. So it's I know there's some other businesses. Yeah. Okay. And the cement plant is right across the street. So right, that's about right. Yeah. The folks that have residents out there, they know what kind of an area it is. They're pretty used to it. Um, however, if there are people in the audience that that, you know, have opinions on that too, they can. All right. Just while we're on maps, one one previous to that was the other one where I want to make sure I put us in the right place. And again, it would be useful to just highlight those maybe for the when this goes forward to the board. Sure. So,

it'd be pretty easy to put a dot or something. Yeah, just something otherwise the map's kind of been referenced. So yeah, let's go uh up earlier pages. The last one or no, I'm sorry, that is the one. So yeah, and you talked in the narrative about PGA1 and two and we are right on the boundary or I I couldn't quite find my way around on that. Joe, where are we? Looks like right where my mouse is. Okay. You can Can you see it on the one behind you? Oh, that's the road, right? Oh. Oh, there we go. Yeah. Yeah. So, there it's in the orange.

In the orange. Okay. And the pink is is one and the orange is two. Yeah. So, what what is there a story there? Why is it that the the the higher priority growth area is to the south of it instead of kind of powdered beauty idea how that ended up that way.

Um I know that these maps were based on the urban growth areas defined by the city of Laramie. Um so I'm not sure why they designated that. I'm guessing we just copied that but that that's a guess because this is like before I mean I showed up when the the plan was adopted so I'm not sure what the discussion was around it. So, so in the narrative you told us about PGA 2, the fact that it's right there on the cusp, what what what are the story, what what's the similar narrative on PGA1? If it were in one, what would the difference be in terms of how you analyzed it? Well, I mean, I'd forgotten what what do we do in ones that we don't do twos?

I mean, ped growth area is the area where it can be I mean, potentially have water and sewer. I mean there is water in this area obviously um and potentially be annexed into the city at some point um I mean it's for higher growth or higher density type things. I mean when it comes to commercial I don't know there's much of a difference there's a lot of things in our in our comprehensive plan that aren't well defined. So um I don't know. So this to your mind could just as easily have been classified priority growth area one. I mean that would sure that would Yeah.

Uh and and so in the criteria for two it says central water or sewer. Is that the same for growth of one? Um is does one party growth area one is yeah where there's usually water and sewer available well extinction water and sewer or one or the other. Is that a difference? Uh I'm not sure what it says specifically in there. Are you looking at Jim? Uh, it just says this is an area where city services may be able to be extended efficiently. So, I guess both is what that is talking about. That's PJ1. PJ2 is like uh existing water and sewer districts. So, yeah.

Okay. But just so we understand it correctly, they do have potential access to South Laram Water District. I know they don't they'll need to get that officially, but there is no sewer out here. Is that correct? Right. So, they would come in for a septic system or something. Yes, I normal process.

Um, and to go back to your question um about why prior to growth area one, prior to growth area 2, this is a guess, but all of this area is pretty much developed into lots. all the orange area, but the pink area or whatever it looks like on your screens or whatever, um I believe that's more open. So maybe that's where they're the city was like, "Okay, we can develop this area." Um because it's it's still on large lots, if that makes sense.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. I mean, when you look at it, it seems obviously it's commercial. I got no objection to that. I was just trying to get the context of it. And then you look at the the zoning map and there these tiny little lots. Uh this guy and his neighbors are are like point2 acres. Uh so they're really nonconforming even to small lot residential, right? That's just a leftover from y way back when. Yes,

as usual. Okay. Um I think those are all the questions I had. Um Oh. Oh, yeah. I guess one more point on the staff report. Uh it uh one of the findings is uh to analyze how it compares to the comprehensive plan and the growth plan and the the various plans which you explain later on at that point. Number two, your staff response is the proposal generally follows the suggestion of the Albony County comprehensive plan. It it might be useful to expand that sentence to be more responsive to the prompt and tell us how it how it compares to the others. Okay,

which I think the answer is yeah, it it works with those as well. Trying to make it a little easier to understand what we got here. Um, just flipping through my notes here. I think we've covered it all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's all your questions. I have no questions. Thank you. Okay. Um, just I don't have any questions either. Just interest the swell we're talking about. That's actually further north. And you don't think it's mapped in green? Well, it's it's green, but it's further north than on the map. Doesn't affect this property at all. Oh, right. You can look at on Google map, right? No. No. I

David, I don't have any questions. So, would the applicant please step forward, Josh, and whatever questions we might have? Of course. And if you have anything you'd like to say first, please go right ahead.

Uh, thanks for having me. You're welcome. the uh yeah, we are a nonprofit. Skate Larmy is a nonprofit. We've been working in town for about 13 years. We've put a lot of uh work into expanding uh infrastructure in town and um kind of the next step for us would be to develop an indoor space where we can bring uh recreation inside over the winter. Um and so this is kind of a first step. We were lucky enough to get a donation to be able to buy this land last year and so we're had had some some stuff on the docket to clear and now we're pursuing it. Is a 7,000 foot building big enough for that?

Uh yeah, it might actually be a little smaller than that, but um yeah, you can get a lot with concrete and basically the art we can make with it. you can make a nice little compact space that can serve a lot of people. So, and um just so you know, I did meet with South Laram Water District last night and they said it looks good and I think we'll just need a 3/4 inch tap. So, Barb, do you have any questions for that?

So, it's primarily a skateboard uh type uh facility. Um so so we are working on a business plan right now uh for uh feasibility plus uh sustainability and um so particular uh particularly it would be like skateboarding scootering um there may be some BMX but it is pretty small for BMX um and then there would so probably about so the plan right now is a 5,000 foot uh building and that would um have about a,000 square foot. That would be a shop and kind of a teen hangout zone. Um, and just like a place to relax and warm up that would probably be heated uh to like a more reasonable level. And then the rest of the skate park would be a little colder. We're looking into um having kind of a passive. We really like this site because it has great southern uh uh exposure. So, if we can have lots of windows and um cut down our

You have concessions. So any Yeah, we would have snacks and stuff like that, but not a commercial kitchen at this time. Okay, good. And you have a marketing plan? Yes, we're working on it. So that's Good. Thank you. No, no problem. Anything else? No, we're off. Nope. Thank you. I'm up at this point. I don't have any questions either. Thank you very much. Uh so thank you. Uh we will open our public hearing. is a member of the public here would speak on this particular proposal online. I don't see anyone in the room or online. So, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move we close the public hearing.

I second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Okay. Discussion. Um Rob, why don't you leave it off? I like the idea. I see a lot of potential for um giving space for learn youth physical activities on the school burn.

Um yeah, just to to remind ourselves and I don't know that I saw it in the staff report uh but often there is the the uh regulatory point of we're approving a zoning change, not a use. Um, so some of these questions are certainly appropriate for context, but we need to be remind ourselves that what we're approving here is an envelope of use. Could end up being a skate facility, could be anything else that's allowed within that within that zoning. U so I don't know what could one of one of you guys are just give us a quick what is the what is that envelope of commercial zoning include that we are potentially well approving? Um a lot of things uh retail type uses um the mobile home park with conditional use in there restaurants professional offices multi-unit. Yeah. Let's see what else. And then these guys are all looking at the land use table that you may be familiar with. Let's solid those um automobile stuff uh like record service, repair shop, uh banks. So, so then just to follow that thread. Um, so again, I'm I'm supportive of this. Once this goes through, then a specific development comes back to you guys

and then you determine whether it's consistent with the zoning or not. What what other hurdles does one have to permitting hurdles does one go through to actually get something on the ground? This is it will leave us at this point. Correct.

Yeah. So the zoning res zoning certificates required. So that's where we look at the zoning setbacks and those types of requirements to make sure that it's fits in the land use plan which it or land use table which it does. Um it'll require a survey because of the size of the lots. Um it will also require a wastewater permit um that they'll have to make sure they can fit that on there. Um there's parking standards, landscaping if they apply to those things.

No, thank you. So that's all downstream from us, but but things that will happen. Okay. Uh that was the only discussion I had, Mr. Chair. Barbie, everything. Well, I think it's uh good for afficionados of uh that type of activity and it's a sort of a yearround opportunity because the parks, you know, they have the outdoor ones. When weather's bad, you know, you don't get to skate. So, I think it's a good opportunity.

Okay. Very good. Well, I'm for it. Also, may I have a motion from someone? I move that we approve uh recommend to the board of county commissioners approve the skate learning zoning district amendment ZDA 1125 adopting and incorporating and staff analysis finding fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in staff report. Is there a second? A second. Any further discussion? In that case, we'll conduct a vote. Barb I Ralph I burn

I and I vote also I. That motion carries. So thank you very much. And uh we're good to go as far as we're concerned. I grab my son. Go forth and prosper. Thanks a lot. Stay for the rest of the exciting meeting. Um okay. Uh, it is time for citizen comments and we have two citizens. Would you all like to make a comment about anything? I don't have any. And you, sir? Y'all just here to enjoy the meeting or either of y'all? No, it's been a long time since I've been to one of these. I'm just catching up.

Okay. Well, good enough. You're you're certainly welcome. Uh, in that case, uh, I thought we would do a round of induction introductions for our new members. in this case, one new member. Uh, so starting with staff, Joe, why don't you tell all of us who you are? Uh, I'm Joe Wilness. I am the associate planner and I have been here since 2020. And where are you from, Joe? I am from Topeka, Kansas. Flat land. David, uh, Dick G, planning director. Been here for almost 18 years. came from southeast Idaho. And you love your job?

Love my job every day. All right. I thought of you, Dad. Matt. Uh, Matt's deputy county attorney. You're originally from Colorado. Is that right? Uh, yes. Burn. Uh, Burn Hinckley. I've been on that side of the podium for quite a number of years and I've been sitting on this side for six five I guess coming up on six second term. Um and by profession you are

oh I'm a professional hydro geologist. I work uh water supply groundwater water rights expert witness work for subdivisions developers a lot of work for uh the state attorney general's office state engineer's office. So yeah, I'm kind of a science guy with particular emphasis on water resources. Ralph, my David, I am a retired wildlife biologist, ecologist from the University of Wyoming.

Originally from Israel. I came to uh Larmy 26 years ago via 10 years in Alaska. and I'm passionate about wildlife resources and natural environment. And I'm Michael Plaid. I'm originally from South Carolina and I started out life as a engineer in the army and uh moved here about 30 years ago and I managed money for a living and uh I've been here on the commission now for four years. And you are?

Me? I've been here about five years. Uh we came here from uh well I say we escaped from California. Um I was originally uh born and raised in northeastern Kansas. So he and I had a little bit of a connection there and left when I was a teenager and went to high school in Japan and then uh actually came back to California. So that was where I landed before I landed in uh Wyoming. Uh I'm retired. I've done a number of different things, but my last uh professional position was uh a professor at a private university in California. Um I'm um psychologist, industrial psychologist. Um I've done many different I've taken many different roles. I've worked in healthcare and law enforcement and government. I have 26 and a half years working in government. So kind of rounded. Yeah,

you're going to bring a different perspective from any of us. That's good. I'm sure of that. All right. Well, very good. Um, we will then uh move on to our current planning projects. Uh, and Barb, for your benefit, we have three different sets of resolutions or regulations dep. Yes.

Which we've spent some time, I mean probably the last two months, a fair amount of time looking at all them. So, this is well along. Um, and hopefully we can reach a decision tonight. Uh, we don't have to, but that's that's the target. And, um, here's where, you know, if you haven't been on board for the last couple months, you it might be tough to know what's going on exactly, but uh, you're you're free to make any comments, ask questions you want, too, and that's fine. So, uh, David, um, how about showing us what you got the planning and subdivision resolution amendments. Okay.

Okay. So these uh amendments so they've been like uh chair plat has said we've been doing through these for past few months. They focus on chapters 6 through 14. Um six starts with the the standards for like road standards and and some of those other standards. And then um there's some other obviously there's there's been some amendments throughout the entire document just to make sure that everything's consistent with the changes we're making now. Um and then there are a number of chapters that deal with um 9 through 14. They deal specifically with mobile home parks and campgrounds. those were taken out of this document and put into the zoning resolution where we feel they are more appropriately should be I guess. Um and then yeah I mean be happy to answer any questions about anything or however you guys would like to do this. Um this is also up for public hearing so if there's public that wants to discuss any of this as well. Um, yeah. I mean, I can go through kind of the summary if you want of everything that was changed.

No, that's not necessary. Okay. I just want to hear from you that you're satisfied we're ready to go on this. I'm satisfied ready to go on this. Yeah. Okay. Let's get a consensus from our colleagues. Do you all have any objections to how this looks as it stands? Yeah.

One one point I'd like to come back to. Um, this is kind of a a fine point. We've kicked it around enough. I just and I've had some com conversations with Mr. Mr. Gurch on uh well, you want to bring that up that piece on 31 where it talks about if you're within a mile of the city. Uh my colleagues will recall that I had some concern that we had this provision about how You cannot make subdivision decisions based on comprehensive plans without those having been brought through the process of being turned into zoning regulations. Uh, as I read the that that piece starting at at that.

No, we're looking at the Oh, the clean version. The 31 32 the clean version. Yeah, page 31. I'm sorry. Uh, it's section B. It's that part about uh specific page. Do you have a page number for 33-1 on the clean version? I think so. Oh, 18 helping me with my eyesight, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

Yeah. So, so what we have here is a section that is about the requirements that the county look for. It used to be you had to concurrence from the city on a subdivision within a mile, the so-called donut. Now it's been reduced to simply you have to ask to get their opinions and so forth. Um and then as this was drafted, our council took the opportunity to put in this part about no subdivision shall be uh required to to follow a comprehensive plan. Uh and then that's I thought immediately contradicted by the number a under the findings which says you have to make sure that it's consistent with the plan. So I saw those two as contradictory in my Mr. He's pointed out that that the the previous language with the exception of that qualification is specific to the to the donut uh and is a direct quote from state statute. So probably we shouldn't be monkeying with it. And I had played with some amendments to try to resolve what I saw as a as quite a contradiction. But as as we've discussed it, I realized that that very important point which has been made in court cases that we cannot make subdivision decisions based on comprehensive plans without the comprehensive plan being turned into approved zoning regulations applies to everything. And so my my most recent suggestion, which I'd like to hear Mr. 's response is that that qualification really shouldn't be here because it makes it sound like it only applies to the donut, but should be uh global to the whole discussion. And I'd suggest that maybe we look at putting it in chapter 4, section 7A, where it talks about what our role is in our review of of the subdivisions. that would uh I I

thought put it in a more appropriate spot and make it clear that it is appropriate to our review and our recommendations to the board. So, I don't know if you'd had a chance to look at that, but but did you have a response to that suggestion? I did not see that come through. Um

Okay. Okay. Well, I I think I can summarize it, which would be to to to take it out of this piece because it's a it's you you've inserted it in the middle of other quote from state statute, but to move it over where it has a more prominent role and applies much more widely than just to the the donut section, if I'm remembering right, section chapter 47A is our authorization, our review authority, and what it is that we do with these things. and my suggestion is that

that's true. Um, it really comes back to the the solution to this issue isn't I guess so much calling out that standard um that it has to be incorporated into the provisions of regulation. it's just to do it to actually incorporate the provisions into the regulations as binding standards. Um the reason we had are we made that qualifying statement in chapter three which was maybe three years ago or no two years ago was it I think it was part of the the first half

resolutions was because there had been uh quite a bit of contemporary dustups over the provisions of local land use plans to subdivisions. Um and with uh a large group of people taking the language of that statute which was incorporated into the zoning res our subdivision resolution um as sort of affirmation that we have to uh ensure it's consistent even though that would also be in direct violation of Wyoming Supreme Court holdings and Wyoming statute 98301. Um, so since that's really statutoily the only place land use plans are called out um and it's consistent with or I guess it's applicable to that specific situation um within the zoning resolution. I think that's why it's there. Um, and I guess again my my advice would be not to necessarily codify that as a generalized statement particularly in 7A which is uh largely about procedural um requirements of review. uh but to um I guess just do as as the law already requires and if there's anything in a local land use plan that

this commission feels is necessary to um make a development standard then let's do that and make it regulation. Well, and why I thought it was it was relevant to let's see, I'm trying to find my chapter or did I say chapter 4? Section seven.

Yeah, chapter 4. Section seven. Um, that's where it talks about what what we're supposed to be doing as as our authority and reviewing these things is where it seemed to be the most appropriate place for it. But your suggestion is that we just remain silent on that. Yeah, because I mean this is all stated in the in the affirmative what the planning and zoning commission is to do. Um, and it's all it's all statutory except for uh what we what we added about uh WDEQ um concerns. Uh, so I'm not sure that it would necessarily fit. Um,

and are are you naturally in there? We could I mean I suppose there was we did finally add because I don't think there was a block. Uh it wasn't expressly stated previously, but we did finally say something that no subdivision permit shall be approved without or unless it satisfies all applicable uh requirements and standards of this resolution for subdivisions. We had that somewhere I think in four. Um

well that's where evaluation by planning and zoning commission was where that that's where that section seven I was referring us to seemed appropriate. And and I mean the flip side of my argument is putting it there specifically under the donut makes it sound like it only applies to the donut which is incorrect. Is that right? So that that standard correct um or the standard of or the principle of you cannot hold development uh to a land use plan unless it's in you know its provisions are made part of regulation. Yes, that is not exclusive uh to the donut, but that is also the only point in this resolution which expressly calls out um local land use plans. So, just in terms of of subject matter, that's where well, unless we moved it to evaluation by planning and zoning commission and then we called out. I mean that that just seemed like the right home for it in terms of if I'm trying to understand what I'm called to to as an either developer or as a commissioner in reviewing it.

What you're called to under the provisions of chapter 4 is just the applicable standards of this resolution. Um, if you look at section one of chapter 4, so a few sections up, but still just under the general subject matter of subdivision permits, it states no subdivision permit shall be approved for an application which does not conform to the applicable requirements and standards of this resolution. So in terms of scope that entire discussion of section seven is confined to within the aable standards and requirements of this resolution. Um the only time land use plan is mentioned anywhere is from that quotation of Wyoming statute. So while you are correct that um the inapplicability of land use plans is a broader is broader conceptually than just the one half mile review. uh it makes the most sense to actually have the conditioning language associated with where it's discussing um application or application of consistency with comprehensive plan or land use plan.

Well, yeah, except that it's only discussing that in the context of the donuts. That's true, but that's the only time it occurs in this regulation um or entire resolution because the idea is that if you want it to be applicable, make it just part of make it a standard. Um, so I don't I don't feel that it's it's necessary to I guess create a a separate call out to um something that honestly should be a principle guiding every single decision. of the county and land use regulation.

Well then, all right. If you

if you don't think it's appropriate under section 7A, my motion would be that we strike it from its current location because it isn't appropriate there and that it implies that it's only to applies to the donut. So, I think that our regulations are confusing to have it there. And if it goes without saying, then it goes without saying. if it is applicable to everything is worth saying. We should say it in a way that makes it clear that it is applicable to everything. That's just the logic of my of my concern. That's not how I read it and and I'm satisfied with it as it's shown. Now,

may I ask a question? Absolutely. What is the donut? Well, there used to be a legislative designation around great cities, a onem zone where the city had substantial amount of say influence over happen within that zone. We call that the donut. It was called the donut. It's been repealed. Yeah. So, yeah, previously it was subdivisions that were within one mile of the boundaries of a city um had to get concurrent um approval from the county and the city council. Okay. Uh but that was repealed six six seven years ago ago.

Well, and it was moved into a an advisory role instead of a of a compulsory role. Okay. As you might imagine, there was a lot of push back from counties saying, "Wait a second, why is the city playing in our pool when when there's no jurisdiction there?" Uh, all right. Well, to to I would move that we strike the language from its current location uh because it's ambiguous and and confusing and it and I it doesn't qualify in my mind as as being useful regulation and in fact is misleading. So, is there a second? I second.

Is there any further discussion? Would Mr. like to say anything more? I I have I have a request. I don't understand. I I haven't been able to follow argument. Can you simplify it? Why is it there? And why cannot it be moving? And what happens if we strike it?

Okay. Um it is there because this is the only place in the entire subdivision resolution which discusses land use plans uh at all. Um so uh the other uh I guess issue is that in the past it has come up where the statutory language um has been used for the argument that no we can in fact use comprehensive plans or local land use plans um in reviewing and approving subdivision proposals. which uh are are in direct conflict with the statutory and case law rule that you cannot use them um as standards for development unless it's actually made a regulatory standard. uh and the

can we take this language and move it to a its own section. So add a segment below. Just add another and and in the same category but another sub subsection with just that language that clearly states that it has nothing to do with the dawn. Something in every case will do this. And

to me it seems easy to do and less confusing. I I I see why you want it in the why it's important to have it in there. But maybe to reduce confusion, we can make it its own section, subsection. While Matt thinks about that, Burn, can I have a specific what you're striking, what your motion is to strike? Um, it's the first clause preceding the well and however

yeah it's so the first part of that sentence including however um and then it would be a capital T to the extent practical this yeah we strike it through the word however what I have highlighted yes yes yes

yes because because absent that what you've got there is a direct quote out of state statute if I've understood this correctly. Okay. And so then we're adding this this uh qualification and and I completely agree this is an important point and it's one that we've come back to and it's been litigated and that's how we came. So I think it is such an important point that it should not be left within this discussion of the donut. Okay. How about the section one or chapter 1 section five relationship to other resolutions or laws? Okay,

we just carry copy and paste everything before however as a second sentence to um section five. Okay.

So, the motion that's on the table right now would pass. Hold on. I have a I'm sorry. I didn't catch that. So, please repeat that. We're gonna move it to uh section or chapter one section five. Section five is relationship to other resolutions or laws. Says if a municip or if municipal, county, state or federal law, regulations or uh future county resolutions impose additional standards on land use within the unincorporated area. So, we're we're going to take that section, move it there. Well, just take that that first clause. Yeah. Copy. You're satisfied with that? Yeah. modify my amendment to include that to to say let's move that clause rather than striking it. Okay. If that's acceptable to the second, that would be my motion. Okay. Is acceptable.

Are you comfortable with moving it to there, sir? Uh yeah, I can live with it. All right. In that case, I think we have consensus here. Uh we do have a mineral on the table. It's been seconded. So, I will call a vote on this. off. Burn. Yes. Barb. Yes. And I vote I also. So that carries. We have public hearing. Did we have a public hearing for that? Uh we did not. Well, no. We have just amended this. So now this is back on the floor. Sounds good. So procedurally we're okay. Yeah. So B, we're back to you. Do you have anything else? I do not. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Barb, and I'm fine with what we have also. Now come back to public hearing. So is there any member of the public who wishes to comment on this planning and subdivision resolution seven amendments going once going twice hearing seeing none. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move we close the public hearing. Is there a second? All those in favor say I. I. Okay. So, uh, Barb, at this point, what we would seek is a motion to, um, notice it and publish it.

We're just send it forward. We've already published it. All right. So, recommendation to the board of county, uh, including the amendments. The amendments. Yeah. Whatever. As amended. As amended. As amended. Okay. Okay. So, may I have a motion for that? I move we recommend this regulation forward to the full board of county commissioners as amended for their resolution. That's good enough. Is there a second? I second. Is that Is that a motion in the proper order, gentlemen? What's that? I'm sorry. I didn't Oh, I just um I think so.

Did you recommend a Do they need a recommendation? Would you say that again? Okay. I didn't hear a recommendation. I recommend that we send the amendments to the planning and to the subdivision resolution forward to the board of county commissioners with a recommendation that they approve it as amended. There you go. Yes. Okay. And a second. I second it. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I.

I. That motion carries. Uh next up we have zoning resolution moment amendments for mobile home park ground standards and again public hearing decision. Right Mr. Cher commission members so this is these are the chapters that were taken from the platting and subdivision regulation put into the zoning resolution and amended. So they aren't exactly what was put into or what what we took out. Um we did some ch made some changes. Um so and these amendments would include some definitions that will go into chapter 2. Um amends the land use table and and then adds to chapter five a conditional use for mobile home park vehicles and the standards for that. And then I think another chapter, chapter nine for conditional use uses for campgrounds and standards for that. Um, yeah. So, and if you have any questions specifically for this, we will answer those.

Okay. Well, my same set of questions, David, you're satisfied, ready to go, Matt? Yes.

Okay. What's the consensus here about those? Um, I had just a couple things that caught my eye as I was going through it. Go ahead. Um, and I'm sure every time you read it, you'll find something or other. Um, the one that caught my eye just as a editorial piece is in well, let's see. I'm on page page four of the clean version under parking. page page four.

PDF page five. It's on page five now. Is it page five? PDF page five. Oh. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Document PDF five. Correct.

Document page four. Parking U sub paragraph little B. Uh, it says at least one parking space shall be located on each mobile home space and the remainder located in designated common parking areas. I think what we probably mean is that they have to have one on each mobile home space, but they can have others elsewhere, but they could put two or three on the space, couldn't they? I'm as I as I read that, it sounded to me like you're you have to have any extras located somewhere else in a common parking area. Was that intention?

I'm suggesting probably not which it it should I would think it wanted to say located on each mobile home space and the remainder may be located in con designated common parking narrative. I think the word at least right but it's the remainder that I'm wondering about. This makes it sound like the remainder go in the common parking area. But at least one means you can have two, three. So this this is saying that not that

in the entire development account allow for two dedicated parking spaces um per mobile home space. Uh however, that doesn't not each one has to be not every single parking space has to be provided at the mobile home space. You can have one at the mobile home space, but then in order to meet that required number, two per mobile home space, ah then it has to be somewhere else. Okay. No, that's fair. I I was reading that differently, but that's fair. Okay. Um then I just had some general questions. Uh were there any public comments on this?

None. Okay. And I I don't know, maybe we'll have some later today. Um, and then the the point is we're moving mobile home parks from conditional use to prohibited uses in all except commercial zones. Does that sound right? That's correct. And all the setbacks, plot sizes, and all those are pretty standard and look at those with care. But did those all come forward from previous versions of this? I believe so. Yeah, sounded pretty standard. Yeah.

So then um it's the in egg zones, right? What we're talking about here is kind of KOA sort of facilities. It sounds like if I want to let people just pitch a TP on my south 40, is that forbidden? No, I mean they could they can. So that isn't a campground or how how does it Well, I mean it depends on how many TVs. Okay. A bunch of TVs. So then it would be a campground. Yes. If it if it met the the uh definition by number of say that.

Okay. So I mean what is it? I I guess I'm just kind of looking for a campground is three or more campsites. So, say on an egg piece of ground, if I had more than three, if I had more, no, three or more, I guess it says if I had three tepeees, to use my analogy, that would be not permissible. Yes. Unless I mean if they're not renting them out, if it's not specific spaces that they have for that, if it's just a family getting together and they put, you know, a bunch of whatever, that would be okay. If it's just for a temporary amount of time, um, but if it's for commercial purposes and it's going to be the campground's going to be there all the time, then that's that's a different story. So I think it's more about the spaces and using it for commercial purposes than it you know at that point I guess.

Okay. It's a conditional use I guess on I see on on the egg glance. So maybe that's how I would how I would accommodate those guys. Um and then there's a a large section about the number of toilet facilities and so forth. So these it's assumed these these things will be on central water and sewer. Uh not necessarily. I mean they can use wells to provide water. Um so as long as they could meet those fixture counts, they could go on individual wells.

Yeah. And that fixture count that all that is from what's previous well currently in regulations. Okay. I was just trying to find a place in my home for these much lower density camping opportunities that I personally have taken advantage of many places. Sure. Okay. No, thank you for that for that context. That's all I had. Chair Rob, do you have anything? Yeah. Okay, Rob. Then how about a motion to move this forward? Excuse me. Does have a public hearing first.

Good. I don't know. Maybe I need more slip side. No. Is there any member of the public who would wish to comment on this particular set of uh zoning resolution amendments? Seeing no one in the room or online wishing to comment. I have a motion to close the public hearing. Close the public. Second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. And now uh how about a motion to move this forward?

I move that we forward the amendments for this uh regulation to the county commissioners for approval. I'll second. Um all those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Um okay. So the final one of these David again there's actually two more well the final one that we're trying to move forward perhaps as well anyway the zoning certificate standards here.

Yeah. So um what we have here is um just these clarify clear up some things in the zone certificate and um conditional use standards. We rename the chapter. Um we added some some clarification to the definitions and we anything that was like land use permit we changed to zoning certificate to be consistent with what the statutes call what we're providing to people. Um and then the other I guess big change is that we have we split those out. We split zoning certificates out into those little structures and and just uses as well um for the purpose of when we have somebody who wants to do something that doesn't require a structure like I don't know outdoor storage for boats and RVs or something or um those types of things or um so that we can require zoning certificate specifically for that if conditional use isn't required. Um, so yeah. So that's what we're we're kind of doing here. Some clean up. Um, and just kind of clarification and yeah, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Um, I know that Mr. Hy may have some thoughts as well.

Well, once again, my question is, you're satisfied. Is it ready to go? Uh, yeah. I I think they're good, Matt. Yeah, very much so.

Okay. Uh any questions? Okay. Um yeah, my comment again just just in the spirit of let's try to make these as as coherent to everyone as we can as possible. And so I read through them kind of as though I'm coming to them cold. Um and my concern was just the explanation under expiration. And so I talked to Mr. G a little bit about how I thought it would be useful to clarify what these certificates are and what their expiration means. Uh the concern I had is that it wasn't clear whether if it expired in if I have a a certificate to do a certain thing and it says that expires in two years, does that mean I have to subsequently have some review to see that I'm still in compliance with my zoning and so forth? uh as opposed to what it what it means in a more expensive way is no you have a a conditional you have a permit to do something and if you don't do it within two years then it expires and you have to apply again. Now I thought that the language that you supplied Mr. Girtz that just slightly expanded on this I thought was an improvement over that first paragraph. um if you want to bring that up or I can res recite it, but I I I know it's not your amendment, but I'm I think your suggested language improves the regulation and would be happy to offer it as an amendment.

Yeah, we'll we'll bring it up for you. Okay. Basically, all this amendment does is just it just clarifies just what this whole expiration business means. Uh for the benefit of just the general public who's reading this and may be confused, Mr. Chair. Um, yes. Yes, sir.

And so I guess my my point is and would be is that this has been in place for years. We've never had any issues, problems with it. Um, expiration is usually dealt with pretty well. We feel like it's pretty clear where it says it's going to expire after 2 years. to us that means that if you if you have not put to use or started building that a structure or whatever it is you're trying to do then that means you have to come in and get a new permit. Um we have that the the standard below it that says that you can get an extension and talks about substantial progress um where like 50% or more of an exterior building is or structure is is um is built. I mean, you you can show that something's going on. Our our intent isn't necessarily to say you have a zoning certificate, you have two years to absolutely get everything complete on that. We just want to make sure that you're using it because we don't want to like, you know, just have these zoning certificates out there forever if they're not going to use them. That's why there's expiration on it. Um, but that being said, um, what we have up here is is the next best thing we feel like. Well, yeah, I guess I would. So, how is this different? Well, twofold. Um, my initial concern, which is completely separate from everything else, uh, was that the current expiration um, language is is really just addressed towards when you're actually building something or renovating something. Um this would also address the commencement of a use. Uh if there's a use which is separate um from any sort of construction or alteration of a structure. Um so this would then say that you have

to make substantial progress on a structure or commence the use. So it addresses both of those which is kind of in large part the impetus for these um amendments uh was that zoning certificates under statute are required to also permit uses of land or structures. Um, so it's not always in conjun in in conjunction with building. Uh, and yeah, I guess it maybe also just says that um adds a little more clarification that it's um the basis of expiration is upon that not putting it to use or making substantial progress, not just a statement that it expires after two years. And and that clarification is precisely what I'm after.

So you're saying you're in favor of this amended language? Uh I'm indifferent. You favor it. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I think if unless there's a reason not to, we should try. You have any reason to oppose? I mean I don't have any anything too big. I mean we we're just I guess of the mentality if it ain't broke don't fix it. Well, I'm I'm very much that view also. However, I'm not willing I'm not unwilling to accommodate my colleagues views here. So, right. And we're and we're not we would be okay with this with the change. Okay. Uh well, how do my other colleagues feel about this amended language here?

I think it's good. I'm sort of indifferent to it, but I'm assuming that when people apply, they're given all the information they need and they have the responsibility for taking the steps to renew it or whatever they need to do. You know, I don't think we need to handhold it. You know, it's kind of my I don't know that we need to change it. It's kind of like your driver's license. you know, it's due and it's your responsibility to renew it. I mean, we don't have to draw them a picture.

Yeah. I'll also add in that it's it's on the very front page of the application. It's the very first thing under important notices and it's also on the certificate that they get when it's approved. So,

yeah, my feelings leave it as a chance. Burn, feel free to make a motion. No, my motion is to um to replace the language with that which was suggested by Mr. Gersch, not meaning to to assign him authorship or support. Um, and it's a simple matter of of yes, I think that the regulation is clearer to anybody reading it. Um, and they shouldn't have to go get the interpretation. Maybe they don't get as far as actually applying for the certificate. So, so, uh, yeah, to Barb's point, no, we're not holding their hand, but I think our regulations should be as as forthcoming as as we can reasonably make them. Um, so it's a small matter, but absent an objection to clarification, why wouldn't we clarify? So, that's the substitute of my motion. I guess I should have waited for a second before I leave discussion. Is there a second? I

Okay. Well, there was further discussion on that. We'll take a vote on this amendment. Um Barb, I'm gonna say J. Thank. Yes. Rob, yes. And I vote as a tie. Bills on a tie. Yeah. So, we're going to keep the clean line version. Sure. Any other changes, amendments, suggestions? Uh David. Yeah. Um, did you bring that insist on excuse me?

What did you guys just do? We Nothing. Nothing. Yes. right now with the clean line version. Okay. I don't have anything specifically right now. Okay. Very good. Uh in that case, let's conduct a public hearing. Is there anyone on the public who wish to speak or comment on this matter online and present hearing? And seeing none, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor say I. I. Okay. Uh, now I'm looking for a motion to move this forth.

I don't know if I would word it right, but I would make a motion to move it forward to the county commissioners uh, as written for approval. For approval. Is there a second? I'll second that. Any further discussion? hearing say now vote I Barb I burn I and I vote I also so that motion carries. Um on to the next item livestock production definitions and standards. David.

And just before you begin, in your mind, is this ready to go? Is this ready to go? Yeah, it's up to you guys.

Okay, go for it then. Um so yeah so uh just to give a little background on this the reason that we've uh brought this standard forward or just to define these things is to because of the statutes that have to do with subdivision standards. They require fencing for any subdivision that is surrounded by lands that can legally have cattle run at large. Um, and where the statutes do not define what at large is, that means it can run anywhere. And so this is I guess a way to um to define and and put some limitations on where livestock can can be run at large. Um and it's basically just limited limit limiting them from running at large on like small acreage lots up to rural or ranchet which is 5 acre 2 acre lots. Um and then anything else we would just leave allowed. So by doing that now we have some restrictions um for for that allows then people that are doing a subdivision within a small um lot area that may be like smaller residential or real residential when they do a subdivision they don't have to do the fencing requirements as the state statute says. It's just providing a little bit of relief for some of those those areas. Um, for the most part, I don't know, honestly, a lot of the stuff is out in the area, out in the county where there's agricultural and some of that. So, it might it won't affect any of that. But, um, and it also just

provides us, um, a definition too, which we haven't had of what livestock production is. Um, which is something we need to do for a lot of our uses um, that are in our use table, which that's a project that we are hoping to get to at some point. Um, any questions for that for me? I'd be happy to answer those. Um, at this point, this this one would be if you're okay with this um being published for a hearing, that's the next step is a public hearing before you. So, this wouldn't be the last time you saw it. Yeah. I'm good. Ralph, I'm good. Nothing to add.

So am I. Uh, Matt, do you have anything to add? Um no in case that next step in fact would be a motion to notice this schedule for public hearing. I move that we publish this that meeting will be the March meeting. Okay. I move that we publish this for public comment schedule hearing at our regular March meeting.

I all those in favor say I. time. That motion carries. Um, okay. So, our next item is commission training discussion. Um, I believe the last time we had any training education. Yeah. Excuse me. Meeting dates was on your Yeah. Sorry. Um, yeah. Meeting dates.

All right. So, typically we do um second Wednesday of the month, five o'clock. If that works for everyone, then we can continue doing that. Um we do need to come up with a date for the November meeting though. That falls on Veterans Day and the county is closed. Are we open on either the two days uh bracketing that day, Tuesday or Thursday?

We are. And I guess from me and David's point of view, we would rather do the Tuesday than the Thursday if that's what you plan to do. How would that sit with y'all? Yeah, I think that'd be fine. Okay. So, November 10. 10. Yeah. Yep. Five o'clock still works for everyone here. All right. Well, let's do that. Cool. Um, so now that I'm back on track here, uh, will you make a motion and approve that? Yeah. For the the dates through January, 2027. Yeah.

With that with that new date for November 10th. Yeah. So, may I have a motion to approve the dates and times proposed to include the change of or the addition of the date? I make a motion. I make a motion to approve the dates and times for 2026 including the um November change by one day to November 10th and the rest of the dates to January 13th, 2027. Is there a second? I second. All those in favor say I. I. I.

Motion carries. Very good. Okay. Now, training and education. Um, so the last time we had any formal training was I think four years ago. Um, I don't remember what David did, but I do remember that Matt gave us an excellent presentation. Um, and I'm thinking with two new commissioners, uh, and four years of time have left. I've been in there. Excuse me. I was in there. Oh, really? That was after I was uh appointed. Yeah. Yeah. I think it was like two years ago, maybe. So, it's not perfect. Three years ago. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe it was three years ago.

Uh yeah. No, I'll stand corrected. In my mind, everything's five years ago or 10 years ago. In this case, it's three years. At any rate,

the main point is we do have two main two new commissioners. your presentation for um for that you gave for legal matters I thought was excellent. I think we could send have repeated and David if you have any items that you would like to uh especially share with our new commissioners about how your office works, what you expect from us, what you like, anything that will help us do our jobs better, that'd be great. Uh and then for my colleagues, if there are things you'all would like to have included, now's the time to say so. Well, I visited uh David uh and uh is it Jim or Joe?

Joe Joe yesterday and uh received two large which I have not had time to go through yet. I should have all read by now. Okay. um maybe just going through and highlighting some of the probably the most important or what stands out, you know, that you deal with more often than others that are in those those notebooks. And if we have questions,

well, one thing I will say to that, um I mean already you can see that that what we do primarily deals with three buckets of stuff. And the first bucket, I'm not going to say it's the most important bucket, but it probably is, is dealing with public applications because that's where resolution does in fact meet the public.

It doesn't matter what we have in the resolution if we don't deal with the public in a proper and good manner uh impartial uh and with some expediency. The second bucket uh again going back to what we've dealt with over the last four years has in fact been dealing with resolution and it's substantially different from what it it was four years ago or five years ago. And then I'll just say the third bucket sort of miscellaneous projects and miscellaneous items that come forward. Max.

Um, Bill, sorry to interject, but uh I think that uh when I developed a sort of presentation three years ago, um it was in response to sort of particular issues that were occurring um at that time or questions. Um so I guess from my perspective it would be helpful to know what what you would like um to be addressed. Well, um in that case, do you still hear a presentation? I do.

Why don't you forward that to us and I can make some comments? I'm sure Bernie makes some comments. I mean, anyone can make some comments and maybe we can have a little back and forth between now and the meeting. Um I mean I just sort of think of general overview of like what our legal basis is for having a planning zone condition. Uh maybe a little bit of our our laws. I mean I know I spoke with Burn. One thing I remember you saying it was just a single statement stands on mine is that we speak with one voice once to make a decision. Yeah.

Uh so I mean a few things along legal lines you think we should know if we just don't know anything. Uh, and anything that might help you do your job better that you want us to know. Okay. So, Mr. Chair, yes. Are are we we're talking about a special session? Is that I mean, just No, we're talking about a a piece that we will do at our next meeting. Well, at our next meeting because in the past we have we have scheduled a special session for this special. So, yeah, that's how I'm I guess just to start out. What are we what are we trying to frame here? a separate meeting or I was not thinking in terms of separate meeting but we can't but what's I was thinking separate too because I think the content would be

it was very very helpful and and I mean my for my training I mean I would uh you know need to insist that that's um with an executive session in order to best be able to provide yeah well legal advice schedule special meeting that that was where I assumed we were headed and Barb kind of speaks for the new side. You this is why we're talking about it so we can make a good decision. Okay.

Uh so in that case let's think about sometime in February and I want to close a date. Um in our most critical attendees of course are our new members. So I I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves without question Mars. Yeah. Well, we could do that as well. Uh David, have you had any contact with Greg? Yeah. I mean, he he actually showed up to the building, but when he got here, he was a little bit late, and so all the doors were locked, so I didn't know I don't think he knew where to come. Um, so how did you find out? He emailed me. So, so yeah. So, he he came. He just got a little bit late and the doors were upstairs all locked. So, well, I heard something at that door, actually.

Oh, really? I thought that was unlocked until 5:15, but I'm not sure that he knew it was there. Yeah. Well, that's a miss. Well, too bad. Uh yeah. So, well, if we think in terms of March, then that means we can talk about this again for a date in our February meeting, and that should work well enough. That'll give us time for us all to think a little more about what we might like. So, let's let's let's do that. Yeah. Yeah. I just just my input to that would be uh maybe as you suggest a minute ago, invite some of us who've been plowing this ground for some years now to to what what did what did we learn? I know I have a list of things that that I didn't understand initially.

Uh and it really wasn't I mean Mr. has done a terrific job of keeping us on track in terms of the state statutes and so forth, but I'll confess that's doesn't catch in my civic mind without a context for it. Uh so my suggestion for the members would be mostly coming from Mr. and Joe uh what is the what is the workflow and and what is the real concepts that we're talking about like this business of of comprehensive planning zoning and and uh individual applications to respond just quickly what you said I think the most important thing we do is zoning resolution once you have established what can happen here and somebody comes forward within those parameters then we're just fine-tuning so the the real the real guts of this in my mind are the zoning decisions And then they're of course applied to individual permits

and and interpreting the comprehensive plan into regulations. So I think we spent some time on that but we can have a round table. Yeah. Well as with so many issues we all have our different views and perspectives and that's why there's five of us here for that very reason. So we have that. Okay. Uh in that case uh I think we've covered that. So, so just so I understand what we've done is we're going to wait till our February meeting to schedule a special meeting send something out and we'll look at it and then talk about it at the next meeting. Yeah. Okay.

Um so staff updates, Mr. chair. Um the only application went forward was the Bingham zoning district agreement and that was um denied at the board county commissioner stage. So was it or was it not unusual that we didn't get any citizen comments or public comments? I thought that was weird because yeah very that was a new one.

Usually like at least a couple people will come to ours. There might be more at the board of county commissioners, but where there was no public comment and then all of a sudden there was the whole neighborhood, it was very different. But yeah, we thought it was unusual. Yeah. Can I ask just a reader digest version? What was that project?

So um the proposal was to change some zoning from agricultural to ranchet um off of Two Rivers Road. Um it was right across the railroad tracks if you've been on that first turn on Two Rivers Road. Um it's right past some residential and then you get on the other side of this the railroad tracks and um so that was denied. Um and then denied I mean recommended for Denmile here and then it was denied by the board of county commissioners. Okay. Thanks. I just just expanding on that briefly to your to your point Mr. Chair.

Sure. Um the discussion was uh the appropriate density for a new residential development county. Um it wasn't whether they have it or not and uh and the recommendation from here was that that was a higher density than we felt was appropriate to that location. Sure. Um and then it went forward to the to the board with our recommendation of denial on that basis. said, I think most all of the comments that I heard uh spoke to the appropriate density

of whether 5 acre loss is too small as opposed to say tens or 20s 30s and and I was gratified that the board sustained our recommendation on it. The issue with the specific location was part of it was in a flood plane that is not often flooded but has flooded recently in 2010. And so to put a nice density neighborhood, to put the density they wanted, they couldn't make a nice neighborhood in in the lot.

If they had proposed smaller density, lower density, it would have fit well within what the surrounding looks like and the neighbors look like. So, so because of the location they they they went over density in our opinion. Yes. Well, I'll add one other thing. We don't know what they're going to propose. The application was for a zoning district amendment. Yeah.

And the next step had that been approved would be a subdivision application. At that point, they would present what they wanted to do. And there was a presumption they wanted to do a lot. They could do a lot. Anyway, that's how it went. So, uh, thank you for that, David. Um, Joe, where enforcement standing these days? I didn't check today, but uh, it's a lot still. I'm assuming it's still about 100 active. Er, you were about to say something. Well, I was just going to invite Mr. Girtz to give us all reminder what what's in the hopper. What's what's kind of in

I was ask we typically ask these guys at the end of our meetings to just kind of remind us what's what's on the front burner what's on the back burner. Sure. Um so what I'm trying to get through right now is our wastewater regulations and the intergovernmental agreement. Um so working through that um with Matt. So delegation delegation agreement I say you said the road okay different some kind of an agreement with somebody um yeah what's that

sort of um and then um one of the projects that um one of the commissioners is really interested in is is lighting and updating our lighting um regulations. So, this is kind of a new thing that you haven't heard of yet, but um I've looked at some other counties and might get something on that to you. Um we still have the short-term rental stuff hanging out there. Um which we've we completed the survey. I'm just doing the analysis of that and I'll I hope to bring something to you next month.

Um so, I'll have that. Um, we also need to look at um battery energy storage systems potentially and then also um something that's just came up recently. What are we talking about? Um, yeah. Data centers. Um, right now they're they're allowed in commercial property. Lar County just uh approved. Yeah. What's supposed to be the largest one? A garment. Yeah. Yeah. A mega gargantu. So, I don't know how much of that you'll see next month, but we've got a bunch of stuff we're trying. Where was the lighting? What lighting were you talking about?

Uh, just we have a overall light lighting ordinance or regulations um that we just need to tighten up a little bit. It's hard to apply to streets or uh so basically residential commercial like Yeah. Okay. like lights that are next to, you know, somebody's house or or whatever. Um, just to try to keep it more on people's property and not go everywhere else and so keep it out people's eyes. But yeah, would be a good opportunity to look at effects on nocturnal animals, too. Yeah, we'll expect a study from Commissioner Ben David on that. There's a lot out there. So,

yeah. Yeah, for sure. But I think that's about it. Anything else on Mission Joe? Anything that anything crazy that's been coming up that we think that's about it unless you guys have questions or remember something we should Okay. Well, one thing we do have to think about is we need to have elections next month. Let's call for bylaws. I'm willing to continue serving as chairman if y'all wish me to, but uh anyway, we'll have elections and um just for chair and vice chair. Right now we don't have a vice chair, but we're gonna get by with this meeting. Looks like Oh, yeah. Um, any other question or comments?

I do have a couple of questions. Uh, do we have an update on the uh uh wind farm on Tai sighting? Um, do we know what's happening? So, I get an update like once a month. They send us an update of what they're doing. Um, really not a whole lot. They've got a few roads out there. I think they've got a couple of pad sites complete. Um, they go out there and basically check to make sure that they're following their swap plan. You know what the whatever it is.

Yeah. Some kind of storm water plan or whatever. But other than that, I'm not aware aware of anything that's happened. They're supposed to be doing something. Do they have a certificate expiration date? What's that? Do they have a certificate expiration date? They do. I believe it's July on their application. It's been five years, I believe. So, yeah, that was 2021. 2026. Yeah, which we're in 2026. We're in 2026. Time flies. So, and another followup is what about the solar farm? Do we know anything about that?

Uh, what solar farm? I haven't heard anything from anybody on solar farm. So, it was approved by the city, not the county. We haven't approved solar farm. I I don't know. Where is it at? The one on Monolith. You're talking what? The one on Monolith? No, there was another one. Oh. I'll ask the city if we didn't deal with it before I joined. No. Okay. I mean, at one point there was there was one proposed out on on the long ranch, but that one went away. Um, and I haven't heard anything since. So, okay. Okay. I thought it was another one and I'll check to see.

Thank you. Just because I don't know doesn't mean somebody's not scheming about stuff or something. Um, anything else? That was not really good. Well, thank you either.

Thank you. Um, one thing that, uh, I might bring up in future meetings, but I'll coordinate with you guys, is revisiting our water situation in the county. Um, we are very low on precipitation since the beginning of the water year in October. And uh we might need to think about it. Rain dance. Is that what you're thinking? I don't know what I'm thinking, but I'm giving a heads up that I might bring some of that to discussion.

Yes.

Well, I have a I have a pet project that uh I'd like to see happen. uh because we moved here from out of state and no one told us when we moved here that this was a buyer beware state and um I've seen a lot of u I'm going to call them tragedies with construction especially out where we live and we had some of our own that I think um that there needs to be education to people moving into our area about um the county doesn't necessarily require people to be have a contractor's license to build and um one example I gave during my interview was we had a couple out on the ranch that uh from North Carolina that uh and shame on them but they paid a cement contractor to poor the foundation paid $40,000 and he never showed up

and you know there's been a lot of less than quality construction um in in some of the homes um and and people have had to deal with that. And I just think it would be fair to have a pamphlet or something that we give, you know, that real estate people even could give to uh people moving into the area to say here's some things that you need to be aware of. You know, I think it's important. I think we owe it to our consumers.

Well, just for your information, we have talked from time to time about building codes and lack of that uh but the county resource and can't resource. Um I think all the county commissioners are aware of the problem and uh we're generally aware of the problem also. Although I think maybe we have had been fortunate to have not have to go through firsthand experiences. Maybe you have.

We've had firsthand experience. I mean, we were lied to about who built our house. We paid 800,000 over 800,000 for the home that probably wasn't even to that standard of quality. Um, just last year, we had to have our entire septic system redone because we found out afterwards that the owner did it. We had to have our water line redone uh and our well redone because the owner did that, too. and he put any water line from the house to the pump at 3 feet

when it should have been at six. And uh we've spent a lot of money correcting, you know, a lot of the um disasters, I'll call them, that we've had to deal with since we've lived here. And of course, we came from a state that was highly regul regulated, you know, with building codes and building inspectors. And so when we moved here, the real estate people, you know, there was no one there was no transparency about who was building the house. We there was a sign that indicated there was a contractor building it, but we found out afterwards there wasn't wasn't built being built by the contractor. He provided some labor, but a lot of it was the owner. and and I you know I mean that's water under the bridge, but I'd hate to see other people coming into our areas that have to deal with that. And of course, you know, I also recommended that we have a building inspector for the county. I mean, it doesn't have to be highly regulated necessarily, but we could avoid, you know, a lot of those mishaps, I think.

Yeah. Oh, fair enough. I hands um yeah I had an update but could we we've got a minute here. Could we follow up with Brad briefly? I thought we'd had discussion from our council and staff that that the county hasn't got sufficient statutory authority to do much along these lines. Am I remembering that correctly? Yeah. Not without um being delegated code enforcement authority delegated from uh it is the state fire marshal

um who delegates that uh some larger counties do have code enforcement. Um we do not um and that's at least been my take is that uh we are lacking in the uh the resources I mean in the money to really have something like that uh which we could do because there's not there's not really an intermediate step between adopting code um and I guess what we're currently doing now, which is uh you know, I mean, it's kind of it's a shortcoming of uh well, or maybe not a shortcoming, but it's just the nature of zoning certificates is that it's based on plans and you can't, you know, you can't address things that haven't happened yet at that stage. Once you get that zoning certificate, that's what you're entitled to do. If you don't do that, we're probably not going to know. I mean, unless it's glaring, like you can immediately observe it um from, you know, a public road.

So, so as it stands now, to to do this, and it does come up periodically, it would require a delegation agreement with the state for starters, and and then you'd have to decide what your codes were, and then you'd have to hire inspectors. I mean, it's I David can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is it's all the the uniform uh like international building code type stuff. Yeah, that's my understanding there's an international building code. Yeah. Which most everyone follows. Correct. And I don't know I don't know like the parameters of if you're able to like pick out part pieces or parts of it. I'm guessing, you know, not

I think it's like if you're a you can Well, I'm speaking from just conversations with the city, but they they have their codes. Um they adopt the codes, but then they adopt like exemptions and other things that go along with that. So, it's not always have to be exactly what's in the code. Yeah. So, they can make a few changes. That was my understanding, too. Mhm. Um, and I think, you know, looking at however many more full-time employees this time and uh, Wyoming would is Yeah. problematic. I know

may not have Commissioner Jones somewhat surprisingly has expressed sympathy for what you're talking about. So it it's not a it's not a dead letter, but yeah, I think even just a pamphlet to uh you know that that real estate people can give out to say here are some things you need to be aware of. We could I mean we could offer that and make them you can't make it required. I know but

there should be transparency. I know like the county your the planning's web page and seen it in other counties as like the code of the west. Um Sweetwater specifically has one that's just about like living in the red desert and it's a warning like you may buy this partial site unseen. It might not even have access you know um things like or yeah or water or electricity. Um, well, but how many people new to the area know about the code of the west? I didn't know it existed until yesterday. Anyone we talked to, we try anyone you talk to.

Right. Well, I don't talk to us. I don't know. Right. Just a thought. The one update, Mr. Chair, that I was

Yeah, please go ahead. was going to move forward was um gosh what's it been year and a half or two years ago now the Laramie city Larmy uh led a contract to do a monitoring open picking up on one of the recommendations from the Casper protection plan it's funded uh by the city and they hired a consultant but they agreed to coordinate with the county and we had an and I was kind of delegated out of this crew to be the county's representative on this kind of scoping group. We had the one meeting and that was the last I've heard of it. So I would ask Mr. Gurge, have you had any other contact with that project since that meeting we had out at Tri Hydro?

Um I have not met met with them. I'm trying to think if I was sent anything. I may have been sent I thought they were going to send you the copy of the draft. Well, so no. And so what I can say what has happened, I don't think there's been any coordination with the county explicitly. No, no, no, no.

Um the the report was done uh in draft form and I participated in a pure review of that report. Um so it's it's well overdue, but there just reporting that a report in draft form has been done. It's it's been reviewed and it's back in the hands of the consultant of Tri Hydro Corporation here in town. So, we may be seeing the results of that um within the next few months. And it laid out for the city here are some monitoring points that we recommend and here's how what they should be sampled for and how frequent a standard monitoring program. So, that's in the works. Um we'll see what it looks like.

Does it include water level? it it would yes it could and they haven't shared the actual sampling plan in terms of the analytes and things that has been distributed for say a peer review which I participated in were were just the basic skeleton of it and I can share that we the peer reviewers had a lot of comments to how it could should be more comprehensive it was a bit skeal in the version that we saw so to be continued but that did speak to one of the recommendations that came forward to the joint city and county out of the aquifer protection plan. So any hands from anyone? Okay. In that case, our next regular meeting will be February February 11th here five o'clock and this meeting is adjourned. Me too.