Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, when it's five o'clock, uh, I will call to order planning and zoning commission regular meeting for February. And we will begin with roll call. Bark here. Greg here. Ros here. Burn here. I'm here. We're all here. Very good. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? I move that we approve the agenda. Second that. All those in favor of approving agenda say I. I. I. I. Motion carries.

Um, do you have a motion to approve the minutes for January 14th, 2026? I move that we approve the minutes. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion carries. Disclosures and conflicts of interest. Anything Barb? Nope. No.

Ralph, no. Burn. Nope. Nor do I. Uh, in that case, uh, we will proceed with the election of the chair. Is there any nomination for someone to be chairman for the coming year? I would be happy to nominate Mr. Plat to serve. Go ahead, Barb. Go I nominate I nominate our current chair. Is there a second? I'll second. Is there any further discussion? In that case, all those in favor of uh you nominating me for be carefully here say I. That motion carries. We're not nominating. We were electing you.

Maybe y'all won't take that back now. These things happen. Uh, and then we also need to elect a vice chair uh as our nomination for vice chair. I'm nominated. I nominate Craig O'Brien. I nominated myself, but

I'm kind of the new kid on the block here. I don't know if that's a great idea, but I would welcome my partner here next to me that somebody with a little bit more knowledge starting out at the beginning. I may not be the best vice chair. So given we have kind of competing motions, I'll second the first one I heard, which was Morav's nomination of herself. Okay. Uh in that case, we do have a second. Any further discussion? In that case, all in favor of electing RA to be the vice chairman say I. I. I. I.

Okay, that motion carries. Very good. Uh we'll proceed with our first public application. Is this Ciselli if I'm pronouncing that correctly? Yes, you did. Zoning district amendment ZDA-12-25. Joe, you're the presenter.

Yes. All right. The applicant and owner is John and Susan Ciserelli. Uh the address is 126 Lakeside Drive. The request is to change the zoning to agricultural residential from agricultural. There were some reviews. Um Rob Fischer had no issues. Tracy Fletcher had no issues. Conservation District commented on the soils erosion and reclamation. Their full comments can be seen in the review section. Wot had no issues and game and fish had no issues. Um the applicable sections of the Alb County zoning resolution is chapter 3 section 5C. Pursuant to the Alb County zoning resolution chapter 3 section 5C6 of the board the board of county commissioners must make the following findings that the applicant has provided a site plan required by the planning department. that the zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestions of the Albany County comprehensive plan, including but not limited to long-range growth plan and the priority growth areas uh in chapter 3 of the Albany County comprehensive plan and other applicable land use plans of Albony County. Um and that the applicant has demonstrated that the adjudicated zoning district amendment meets all the following impacts. Um and that pursuant to chapter 3 section 5 C3 of the Obn County zoning resolution the applicant has provided the required notice posted by sign publication and certified mailing. Uh this is located in priority growth area 4 staff analysis. The planning department believes that the proposed zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestions of the Alb County comprehensive plan. This property is currently zoned agricultural and a change to agricultural residential is compatible with existing land uses of surrounding properties. Findings necessary for approval and 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 the law. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in

compliance with the requirements of the Alb County zoning resolution. And the staff recommendation is to approve the Ciceroelli zoning district amendment ZDA 1225 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report. Questions for staff again? Yeah. What does it mean to have agricultural residential? Can you have agricultural and rural residential? They're the same thing. So rural residential in the comp plan was anything from basically five acres to 35 acres. Okay.

Uh and then we did that that split up a few years ago which added um ranchet rural residential and a residential. So if they were to do a subdivision um their average lot size would have to be 20 acres. Um so yeah. Okay. So basically the 35 acre is the is okay. All right. Thank you. Anything else? Do you have anything? No, I don't. Barb, do you have any questions? No.

Um, just maybe my confusion, why is it why can't they just do an additional building or why do we need a zoning change to do what they want to do? uh because the um the structure that they want to build um is larger than what the accessory dwelling uh standards allow for. Um, and under another way to get another dwelling is to change your zoning and go through the conditional use and then you don't have to if that gets approved then you have no limits on your dwelling size like you would for an accessory dwelling. Okay. So that's why we have two

Yeah. proposals for the same thing. Okay. I just clarification there. Um, no. And I thought the staff report was was quite complete. appreciated the maps and showing the flood planes and so forth. So, this was a a very complete staff report. There was just that one bit of confusion why it was necessary and I was guessing it was something like that. So, so thank you for that. Um I have no other questions for staff and now I have questions. Is the applicant here? I am. Well, please step forward. Uh if you'd like to say anything, uh go ahead. Otherwise, we may have some questions for you. Questions first. All right. Uh well um let me start with you Vern. Um I think I'm clear.

Thanks sir. Uh um my question is I looked at the conditional use which I guess we're going to discuss later but uh um is this for uh family dwelling or are you going to use it for short-term rentals or No short-term rentals? No rentals at all. It is for family. I have a family of 11 in total. extended family as well. So when they come out to visit, I don't want to put them at a hotel. I want them to all be able to locate on our parcel. Gotcha. I have question about the conditional years, but that's full. Okay. Anything, Greg? No, I don't. Thank you. Barb, do you have any questions?

No. Well, I've got a question. What company were we in? Company H2 and then A3. How about that? I was like G2. What year? Uh, graduating 80. 80. Yeah. So, we have 77 year. You You were there when you were under my fourth class system. I was bri brigade commander and look how I turned out. I'm proud. I don't have any questions. Okay. Um, anything else? No, that'll take care of it. Okay. Thank you.

So, we will conduct a public hearing. Uh, is there any member of the public who wish to speak on this application? I see one person online who's not signaling intent of comment or anything. All right. In that case, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. I see. All right. That motion carries. I discussion or a motion.

I had a a question just for Barb. how we have somebody that lives out there um and it's not for or against the the holes in front of us. But I just wondered is there a sentiment in in Wild Horse um for or against dividing these 40 acres into smaller pieces? Um in the past we've had some push back from neighbors saying we we bought 40, we wanted to stay 40s. Again, I'm just looking for kind of a sense of the community if perhaps you could offer one. uh it's not favorable but u people have the right to do it

and and there are covenants that address this again it's not our department and minimum 10 acres and those are 10 acres is that correct yes so after after county approval you know he'll have to submit his plans to the HOA for approval as well. Yeah, uh as you guys have discussed the subdivision covenants, I believe that short-term rentals are also against their covenants, correct? So, yes, there's that as well.

Yeah, I mean, we we can't count on those covenants in what we're doing, but I I think that's useful to just have a context for that. As I say, we have in the past gotten public feedback on expectations uh as I would characterize it, which would be covered both by our zoning and then the covenants into which people have have bought. Um sorry, I just that was kind of just a background question I was interested in. I have no objections to the to the application. Well, and I think it's okay as well. Uh so, may we have a motion?

One question. This is independent of the conditional use that we'll discuss later, right? So, we can uh approve this one and um reject the other. That's correct.

Okay. Just making sure. Okay. So, um, I move that, uh, we recommend to the board of county commissioners to approve of the Cicero zoning district amendment ZDA 1225 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, findings, of fact, and conclusions of law as each are stated in a staff report. Is there a second? I second. Okay, we will vote. Uh, Ralph I, Greg I, Barb. Hi,

B. I vote I also that motion carries. So, we will move on to the Ciselli mission use application CU-Z5-25. Do you want me to go through the full thing?

Uh, you can summarize it. Uh so same location, it's now zoned as agricultural residential. Uh and they're looking to um have a conditional use for a second dwelling um on an agricultural residential zoned property. Um the staff analysis is that the applicant has met the impacts associated with the proposed use and the planning department believes that their responses meet the requirements of the application. Findings of fact. The information provided as part of the findings necessary for approval and staff analysis in this report are adopted as findings as the necessary findings for approval of the conditional use application. Conclusions of law. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the Albany County zoning resolution and the staff recommendation is to approve the Cicerelli's conditional use application CU0525 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report.

Anyone have any questions for staff? I do about the maps. Uh on the maps it doesn't delineate where the structure is going to go. Yes, he hasn't filled out his zoning certificate. So, that'll be like the next step. That'll be an in um in our office. That'll be taken care of at a different time. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Question. Go ahead. Um Okay. So, just to get to follow up on my question. So he could subdivide breaking the law into two quantities. No, it's not quite big enough for that, right?

45.9. Okay. So you can do that or but but remind me of additional dwelling units versus accessory dwelling units versus why why do we need this as opposed to other ways to get to the city? Uh, so it's not this is to create a full-size dwelling instead of an accessory dwelling which has limits on size and that kind of stuff. And so we need a conditional use for a second dwelling unit and that was not available to us under the previous zoning. Correct. Okay. He would have needed 70 acres to do that under a.

Yeah. Right. because the second dwelling unit has to maintain the densities of the direct. Okay, thank you for letting me walk through that carefully. Okay, I think I see where we are and that makes good sense. He could subdivide if he wanted to. Um I mean he's asking for a conditional use for a second dwelling, right? Um I suppose he could in the future if he wants to. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Future possibilities. What we here is doesn't affect that at all. What we just did affect, right? Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions for that? Okay. I I don't think I need to take any questions for any answers for John. May I amplify one thing for her concern? Oh, sure. Yeah, absolutely. The location of the dwelling that we wish to build is colllocated with the existing bar. So they would be within 75 or 80 feet of each other. So it's not intended to put a second dwelling in another portion of the parcel for any future subdivision or whatnot. We don't intend to subdivide.

So maybe senatorial comment. The the narrative says we are requesting a zoning change. So maybe you guys can drop a note in at that point uh to explain what this applicant really is for because as it's as it's written, it says you're requesting a zoning change adopted from the previous petition in the the conditional use app or Yeah, in the conditional use app. Maybe just as a little background or something. It just was slightly jarring on on mine or the one that he Well, I guess it's probably I'm quoting from him rather than than you, but it wouldn't hurt to maybe

Well, I the proposal that I see from him in the first sentence, it says we are requesting a conditional use permit. So, if it's somewhere else, please let me know.

Well, then where did I read that? Um, all right. Maybe I maybe I was carrying forward from the previous one. All right. Maybe maybe that was it. I thought I had read that it it said there was a zoning change. All right, I'll withdraw that comment. Thank you. We're in good order. Uh in that case, I believe we'll proceed again to a public hearing. Is there any member of the public who wish to speak on this application? Hearing seeing none, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Make a motion to close. Is there a second? I second. All those in favor say I.

I. I. That motion carries. Um, any further discussion on this conditional use permit. Okay. I'm finding what I read earlier, Mr. Chair. On the proposal summary is where it says to do both, we are requesting a zoning change to go from agricultural agricultural residential. But that's the referring to the previous application. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, that's where I read that in this application, but he was referring to his previous application. All right. Make that clear on that and any sensible reader can sort that out. No further comments, Mr. Chair. Anyone else? No. Well, let's have a motion then.

Make a motion that we approve the recommendation to the county, county commissioners. We have text. Do you have the I have the text. We recommend recommend the board of county commissioners approve the CIO conditional use application CU-05-25.

Oh, adopting and incorporating staff analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions of law as each are stated in this staff report. Is there a second? Second any second. In that case, we'll proceed to the vote. Burn. I Rob I. Greg I. And I vote I also that motion carries. Good luck with the county commissioners. You're not required to stay for the rest of our meeting, but you're certainly welcome to if you want to, especially since we have in common here. Very good. All right. Well, thank you for your time. Yeah,

I just saw something about H2 is the most fit company in the in the core by some physical testing this fall. Well, uh that would be beyond where I was. We we were pretty good shape. I wouldn't say we were in the best shape. Yeah. Well, good luck. Thanks, sir. Next item on the agenda. just curious so that I might say citizen comments regarding any uh non-aggenda related topics. Oh, so do you have anything to say?

Well, very good then. Um we will move on to item nine short-term rental survey report directives discussion. Hi Mr. Chair, members of the commission. So um as you're aware put out a survey um I think it was December um and collected approximately well it was 147 responses to that survey. Um, we posted the survey on our website, Facebook, um, and we sent out a number of emails to the fire, you know, the volunteer fire departments, recruitment districts, the Centennial community members, and other groups that we could think of to send send it out to. Um, and we got the responses back. Um the this I will note that the results that we received um it was possible for someone to go in and do the survey more than one time. There wasn't a way for us to eliminate that. Um but I think this gives a pretty good perspective. I mean it's nothing that we haven't already discussed and thought and and kind of know where people are are are sitting with this. Um but I'll go through through this real quick. Um so Alb County residents were about 86% of the um responses of those that own property in the county were 93% of the responses and then most of the responses were from outside city and town boundaries. So 82% were were in the rural area. Um and then so the view of the short-term of short-term rentals um responds were more supportive I guess. So 49% strongly support or

supported short-term rentals. 34% were opposed and 17% were neutral. We didn't have a majority but 49% were were okay with with these. Um the majority of the responses believe that um short-term rental impacts are positive or insignificant. So 30% were positive and then 2% were not no significant impact. Um and then 46% were negative. Um and then 2% were unsure. Um so although the majority of the responses found impacts to be insignificant or positive um a majority believe that the short-term rental should be regulated. So 51% of all responses said yes to regulations. 44% were no and then 4% were we don't know. Um, respondents also supported for the prohibition or limitation on the short-term rentals in some districts. 52% yes to prohibition or limitations in certain zoning districts, 44% no to prohibition limitations in certain zoning districts, and then 4% unsure. Most respondents either didn't want any regulations um which was was 40% of the the folks or they or they wanted um extensive regulations. So 39% wanted extensive. So you none or a lot and then you had like kind of the middle area 10% were basic and 12% were intermediate. Um and then so I split it out just did a little analysis on zip codes. Um as we know 82055 is the Centennial zip code. We received 68% of the respon or 68 responses from from the Centennial area

which was approximately 46% of the of the survey. Um and then 82070 44 responses 30 30% and then 82072 were 14 responses which is 10%. So they could have been in the city or outside of the city because both those those zip codes go both. Um and then all other zip codes combined 21% were or there was 21 responses approximately 14%. Um, basically what you see in the there's a little chart that was that was in there is that in the Centennial or A2055, um, they're mostly negative and they wanted strict regulations which we kind of gathered from the participants in our meetings in the past. Um and then like the 8207082072 neutral or positive that are okay. We don't really care too much. Um we're okay with some regulations or maybe not or just a limited amount of regulations. Um then other zip codes which we can assume were were e well they're either out of the county or for the most part or they could be out of the state. um they were strongly supportive of short-term rentals and um saw no impact or positive impact and um they're basically opposed to regulations which you know if you own property from outside of the county, you know, you you may be interested in short-term rentals because you own one, you know, so that kind of makes sense.

Um so so really like I don't know. I'm just looking at this. It's like the survey basically just kind of validates kind of what we've heard and what we already know. Um, nothing too crazy came out of it. Um, and then we did have a com comment section of other comments and just a really brief summary of the comments we received back and these were typed in comments. They there was some that po focused on the potential negative impacts on housing availability, nuisances, degradation of neighborhoods, um impacts of streets, unfairest tax advantage. Others asserted that short-term rentals provided an economic boost to the communities. Um comments on regulations supported standards for health and safety with caps on the number of um short-term rentals allowed. And then there was also those that believed additional regulations should not be considered. the market or the neighborhood covenant should be left to regulate short-term rentals. So, so that's that's kind of an overview of what we got back. Um, if I had more time, I would have done a fancy PowerPoint, but unfortunately I'm working a lot of stuff out, so I got it.

We don't need a fancy PowerPoint. And is there any questions on the survey or the survey results? And then we can move on to the next part of this. Well, in some there is really nothing so surprising, right? Yeah. Um, yeah. Anyone have any questions for Dave? Um, I have one comment that made sense of the responses that made sense to me was that we should limit or prohibit it from certain um um categories, zoning categories. Mhm.

And that makes sense to me that, you know, it's not a big deal if if it's, you know, in more remote area like over residential, but might be a huge problem in neighborhood and and densely populated areas. Okay. So, it will be interesting to um look at the map of the county and identify areas where we should maybe have more and areas that we don't. That struck me as something informative as a possibility of us doing something as a commission. Cool. Thank you. So, you'll go over the options now. Did anybody else have anything they wanted to comment on?

I think Okay. I just

Yeah. Okay. Um Yeah. So, and what I put together, again, this was thrown together fairly quickly. Um for discussion purposes only. I'm not don't I really don't want to go forward with anything tonight. um but at least have a discussion and see um where there's there's holes in these, you know, what's been provided and where we can beef those up or or we decide we just don't even want to deal with this and we could be done with it tonight. So, I mean, it's really up to you. I just don't want to move forward with anything. Um if that's okay, let's have just a discussion. But, um so I provided some options. um basically created some some really minimal regulations um that would require um you know basically this is zoning certificate to operate as a um a short-term rental. So that's uh just comes to us in the planning department. They fill out the zoning certification. we pretty much give it to them as long as they meet any any of the zoning standards. Um the second would be create more moderate regulations that provide um both and and I've I provided some um some a couple of um definitions as part of both of these these suggestions or all these suggestions I guess. Um but but the rest of it would be like so the ne the moderate regulations would be require a conditional use permit in residential zone. Um so any of the residential zones we just require a conditional use permit that that takes it from just come to the planning office, get my zoning certificate to now fill out an application and come to planning and zoning and hear from the neighbors and then go to the board hear from the neighbors and the board makes a

decision. So, um that's that's the more stringent um and then also you could we could create specific standards if there was standards that we wanted to put in there that met with that were zoning standards that were land use standards and not like you know safety standards and things that would be covered in building code if we had it because we can't we don't have building codes so we don't want to deal with that. Um and then third option, do not allow this the residential zones. Um and then fourth option, do nothing or do not Yeah, do not allow um any of the short-term rentals in the res residential zones or or do nothing. So those are the four that I kind of outlined. Um like I said, I provided some definitions which um they need to be honed. there's some duplicate information and like the bed and breakfast one and again these were thrown together pretty quickly. Um and then we may want to add more definitions. So um so that's what I've got. Um I'll open you can run the discussion how you

first of all good job on putting this together and providing this information back to us. Well done. Um why don't we go around those five commissioners and each person can state where they sort of stand or what they might like to see not have to be these options but could be these options as well. We'll start with you Barb. Well, one thought that comes to me because I live out on Wild Horse Ranch is that covenants would take precedence um over any other um regulations or whatever because we've had issues out here with and it's against our covenants to have uh Aaron B uh bees uh bed breakfast uh those kinds of things. We've had people try to do that and and it's against uh our covenants. And so I'd like to see something that would give uh covenants precedence uh with whatever um amendments, regulations, whatever we come up with.

Okay. Anything else? Just I can make a comment. Yeah, go ahead. So, so just just for the I don't know edification of everybody. So, covenants are one thing and zoning is another. So, neither one of them really take precedence necessarily over each other. But covenants, they're legal binding document. They, you know, people that are within those have to follow those. They also have to follow zoning as well. So, we don't enforce.

So, we but we don't deal with covenants, right? So, so to I guess to ask if if we can make give them precedence. Well, they already have their own authority, right? So, we don't have to give them authority. You guys have authority to enforce a covenant. So, but I could be wrong. Correct me, but I don't know. Well, just follow very briefly. I I think it would you can't give them precedence. I don't think that the county did delegate its authority to a home owners association for example. Is that correct Mr. No, I couldn't delegate it. Okay.

I mean covenants are private contracts between um those who are subject to them. Well, yeah, just those who are subject to them, which you know are basically people with sort of horizontal privity um in terms of like a state. So, it's usually passed down through deed uh or subdivision, but um the county can't enforce covenants. Um only the other people that are subject to them can. Um, and that I think David is correct that that is really not not in the realm of zoning. Um, the only way zoning can be done in Wyoming is comprehensive zoning, which means standards apply to a zone. So the closest we could come to what was envisioned here is the county could create say an overlay and require no short-term rentals within that overlay. I mean that would be a way to bring that particular covenant into our regulatory framework. Is that is that right?

Yeah. That's essentially my understanding of Teton County. Well, but basically in the inverse, they have certain little overlay zones that allow them to exist uh so long as they were pre-existing a certain date like 19 and then it's just blanket prohibited um in the rest of the county. Craig, how about yourself? And and you live out in Alquar, is that right? No, I live out in an Oakidge loop. Okay. Well, in my mind it's all together, but first I realize the difference, but you live out there. So, yeah. Yes. So, well, where do you stand on this?

Um, from previous life living back in the Midwest, um, short-term rentals, a lot of the time short-term rentals turn on spouse. People disrespect them. They don't have anything invested in staying there. And the people who who do live there end up with the heartache of I'm it's not my place. I'm not mowing the grass. I'm not pulling the weeds. I'm not painting. I'm not doing anything. And short-term rentals usually create, at least in my opinion, heartache for the full-time owners of properties in the area. And I I've seen very very seldom that the short has turned out to be good for the community. I again this is my personal feeling and it's also how I would vote on this. I don't think it's a good idea. I think there should be restrictions on heavy restrictions. Are there any short-term rentals out in the way?

No. Not not any rough.

So given the interest of the community and what we see from you know people in Centennial that have a lot of um short-term rentals. Um uh I think we should listen to our constituents and come up with at least something that will help uh protect those rural smaller communities that uh likely to have um problems in town or you know neighboring county areas. It probably is not a big deal because um you know we we have a lot of rentals in town anyway. So people in you know just outside of Wesler I mean probably wouldn't be as badly impacted by short-term rentals as would people in Centennial for example. So, I like the idea of putting some prohibition in some zoning categories. As I said before, I saw you I must have missed it when I looked through the document. Um, but make it conditional because we don't like to close the door and have no flexibility. That's been our uh approach to things throughout. So I think the the the second option sounds pretty good to me and we can discuss well though which exact categories I mean uh Dave may have gone a little lenient on on approval but maybe not. I mean I I haven't spent too much time on

Um yeah, so I I have spent some time on this as you may be aware. Um so with your indulgence, I I I kind of broke my thoughts into a couple of places. One start is where are we now? I think that's useful for us to move forward from that particular we have a couple new commissioners. Yeah. And

proceeds to go from there. Um just just a quick thought again for our new members uh ought to look at the uh November 12, 2025 uh meeting and the packet with that. Um and if we if we do go forward, it sounds like they're set up for doing that. It would be useful for Mr. Girch to redistribute some of the things you've sent around before where you looked at other counties and so forth. And then in that November meeting, we got an extensive uh document in terms of the folks centennial. So just by way of reference, that that would be handy. Um, okay. So to to to kind of uh codify the the do nothing option for our purposes as well as for our new members um the spectrum of short-term rentals runs from anything of you know renting out the spare room for the football weekend and then through the verbos and the and the Airbnbs and four or five rooms in a in a bed and conventional bed and breakfast with an on-site host. and maybe those go for eight rooms and then in my mind that it kind of merges on into what we might even call a small motel if somebody decides to to call their their old big old house a little motel. Um so what we what we currently have and and certainly correction from staff, we only allow something that we call motel in commercial zones. uh and they're forbidden in all the other zones. We allow something we call bed and breakfasts. Uh they are regulated by virtue of requiring conditional use permit in all of the agricultural zoning or all the residential zonings, not in agricultural or commercial or neighborhood business zones. Um, interestingly that Vbar

operation, I don't know if it's considered a bed and breakfast, uh, but it's in an egg area, so I'm assuming it enters the land use table as a as a guest ranch. Do you guys know anything about that operation? Yeah, it's been out there forever. So, I mean, we think of it as a it advertised itself as a bed and breakfast. Sure. But I assume it's probably as regulated in barb regulations as a guest ranch in an egg zone.

Just Yeah. But the problem I have expressed before is neither bed and breakfast nor motel is defined clearly in the sense of distinguishing run for the other or either one from these other short-term rentals things that that are managed through Airbnb or or VBO when you you don't have to belong to one of those. Those aren't things those are brokerage services. Um, so my reaction is that we at least need not not the do nothing alternative, but we at least need to to bring some definition to what those various things are. Um, short-term rentals is defined in state statute for purpose of lodging tax. So where I would turn to look for definitions and things would be if we have some established definitions out there, we don't have to adopt those. Interestingly, those are defined in terms of application of lodging taxes. Um, then I was looking around for where other jurisdictions might draw those lines. Uh, and and just today as I was talking before the meeting, I talked to the guys in the health department and I talked to Mr. discouraged about the vote. If you are serving food to the public, then you are required to get licenses and and they have a definition in their rules and regulations of a bed and breakfast and it's uh how many meals you serve and how many people and how often. It was kind of interesting. I didn't get all the details. I was just talking about this afternoon. Um, the other thing we heard about from Ocean Centennial is the the fire marshals then also apply themselves differently to what they consider bed and breakfast versus motel. So again, I think there are places that we could look to tighten up our our

definitions. Um, so as far as how we currently regulate short-term rentals in residential zones, short-term rental is not defined anywhere in our in our current zoning. Bed and breakfast is explicitly addressed as a conditional use without any definition. Um, so what I'm wondering, this be a question for staff. How how does this interface with residential zoning one dwelling unit? So um say a conventional bed breakfast with I don't know six bedrooms that are regulated is that how how is that how is that compliant with residential or redet zoning? Yeah.

So I mean by definition we don't have a definition. Ben breakfast is typically a dwelling unit that is dwelling unit or huh just one whole dwelling unit. Yeah. One dwelling six.

Yes. One whole dwelling unit that is you know basically renting rooms within that dwelling. Um so so first we see it as a dwelling and then the conditional use is you if you have this dwelling and it's usually a conversion to rooms for people to to stay in um on a temporary basis then they would come in with a conditional or get a conditional use I guess before you do do that. So it's kind of like the use of the dwelling is now allowed through a conditional use permit. So we still see it as a dwelling but the use can be a bed and breakfast with that additional permit.

There's a dwelling definition. So the the dwelling unit is defined as one or more rooms providing complete living facilities for a person, family or equivalent group of persons including kitchen facilities or equipment for cooking and provisions for sing. So, and including

and including a room or multiple rooms for living, sleeping, bathing, and eating. Um, that obviously that contemplates a family. But if they're providing those extra rooms for higher, then it becomes a bed and breakfast that is still considered to meet the zoning requirement of one dwelling unit. Correct. Because like each room, each unit is not doesn't have everything they need to use there. There's usually there could be shared bathrooms. There's sharing the

the kitchen area or whatever. So, it's just a room that the one I've stayed in, it was just a room. That's all it was. It was a room with a bed in it. You stayed. They have you could lock it and then you went downstairs and that was where all the the amenities were, the breakfast that you had. A small motel is not a dwelling unit because it has microwave in every room or

so a motel by definition is a motor hotel which means it's a small hotel for motor motor vehicles to stay short-term. Usually the room is is accessed from the outside and not from the inside like in like obviously in a house you go in one door and then all the rooms are in there, right? So, a motel by definition is you you have a door to your room and it doesn't have a kitchen typically. It's usually you may have a microwave but it doesn't have a full kitchen. Um,

yeah, microwave plus mini fridge probably not equipment for cooking. Now, microwave, mini fridge, hot plate, maybe a dwelling motel is also good. And the number of units is different usually too. So, okay. I'm sorry. I guess what I'm we all have a sense in our minds of the difference, but I guess I'm not hearing it in terms of here's a building. It's got a hallway and there's bedrooms off that hallway and there's a common area where people get together and have breakfast. That could as easily describe a small motel as a conventional.

Motel typically don't have that. They don't have amenities. A hotel would have amenities like a restaurant, uh facilities, you know, other facilities, pools, all those things. But a motel is typically they have an office then they have rooms and there's not place to stay. Um every motel I've stayed in the last 20 years has breakfast area common area and and facilities for serving food. But it's more a a breakfast bar oatmeal bars cereal maybe some stuff. It's not a walk in order still breakfast more than a house and more than a bed and breakfast. Right. But and I'm not bringing up because we need to settle that right now. But my suggestion is that we could stand some definition of that other than

absolutely how we put that planning office feels about it for sure and I'll just say one would say it again hotels motel clearly fall underneath the definition of commercial real estate as opposed to well but but that's where this gets fuzziest is people would say that is a commercial endeavor this guy's renting out six rooms there may be and this guy across the street I guess there could be you know lots for brave zones but again If Nick talking about a motel or hotel, you're talking about commercial real estate and not a private dwelling. And the nature of the structure is still residential dwelling.

Go ahead. No, no, no. I understand all that, but what I'm lobbying for here obviously is is write that down in a way that it isn't

I go in and describe it to the planning staff and they go, "That sounds kind of bed breakfasty to me." Or they say, "It sounds kind of motely to me." I mean, I'm thinking that we have so populated that spectrum from renting the back bedroom out to grandpa for the football game to a small motel that that we need because because it matters. The motel is absolutely prohibited in any residential zone. But a a dwelling unit, including an additional an accessory dwelling unit, I could get pretty expansive in how much real estate I was inviting people to to pay me to to stay in for the evening. I mean, in a motel pretty much never looks like a single family home. They look like a big box with a bunch of things in it, right? As a writing exercise to define that, oh, looks like a house versus looks like a motel,

right? Again, and bed and breakfast are usually owner. The owner is there and they're they're your host where a motel most most likely is not unless it's like But no, that that gets at another critical part of this argument is one of the complaints about bread and breakfast versus other short-term rentals is that the owner is not there.

So we we find ourselves in a rather odd situation right now of requiring unconditional use for a bed and breakfast, which we could define as requiring the owner on site. Some people have suggested that and not regulating the other short-term rentals where the owner is not outside and those across the boards are more objectionable. So I think we we're backwards right now in our regulations with respect to other short-term rentals versus bed and breakfast.

So again, we would it would be useful to to draw those lines in in a more consistent way. Uh, and if the bed and breakfast, if we wanted to to ban short-term rentals except for bed and breakfast and then bed and breakfast acquired owner occupancy, for example, that would seem to me to be congruent with the kinds of things that we're talking about. All right, so that's my that pitch for for let's if we're if we're all in agreement, let's let's work on definitions so that we know where those lines are drawn in a way that isn't I know it when I see it. Uh, and as I had a discussion with Mr. Gers the other day, he's he's constantly giving us the pitch for I would like people to come in and say, "Here's what I want to do." And you would say, "Okay, the rule is 1,200 f feet. 1250 is more than 1300. You're out of your head." Rather than

Yeah, we like to know where the lines are. We'd like to know where the lines are. Like speed limit. We can say the speed limit. Don't drive too fast. But it works a lot better if we say don't drive 165.

Okay. So now then I ask myself all right short-term rentals a relevant issue and that speaks to the survey. Um and it depends on who you ask where you are. Um there are those who will say uh if it ain't broke don't fix it which I think is totally inappropriate for a planning department. I mean planning is all about anticipating uh issues. A far better cliche would be would be bounce prevention worth pound of car. So I do think that there there's enough concern um that we should move forward. When I asked Mr. Girch how many of these conditional use permits are out there, I think you were struggling to think of

I found two in our database. Yeah. Interestingly that our friends from Centennial brought us a list of 28. Uh so there's obviously some some serious mismatches here and what's called what and who has a permit and so forth. Again, that might be improved by by some clear lines, but but quite a stark difference of opinion of of how many are out there and whether people are not getting these conditional uses or not. Um, wait just a second. I ask a question. Are those conditional uses for B&Bs or better than we're talking about short-term rentals in in Centennial? Yeah. Yeah. So, no, this is all kind of

good. Yeah. Fair enough. Um, but the other thing Mr. shared with me is that that that line about breakfast requiring a conditional use permit has been in uh Albony County zoning for a very long time. You were guessing 25 30 years. Yeah. Since the adoption of the zoning. I I I I'm guessing I haven't really looked, but I'm I know that it was in there before we did the 2015 updates,

which could have kind of surprised me that they had been in there that long. Uh now and that speaks to whether the ones that are there now have been grandfathered. There may not have been that many. I mean they've been breakfast or kind of a thing of the last I' said 20 30 years. Um so another way to get a handle on them those who haven't come forward looking for conditional use permit as a bed and breakfast is through the tax roles and they are all all short-term roles are required to pay lodging tax. So just as a another avenue that perhaps we could explore would be to go through the tax people and they would be able to tell us who all is at least stepping up to the plate and do what we're supposed to and I know that the uh those who list through Airbnb pay the lodging tax how many others there might be out there how many of that 28 don't know but that would give us a better feel for for what this universe is that we're talking about potentially regulating just

yeah uh Is your position that Airbnbs should have been getting conditional use permits as bed and breakfasts? Not as bed and breakfast. No, but but my position is that what I'm hearing from from our own research and and my colleagues and the folks from Centennial is that they find non bed and breakfast short-term rentals to be a larger problem than conventional bed and breakfast. which is why I'm pointing out the what I see is the the kind of backwards aspect of our regulation. Okay, I understand that. What then? What about what about the Department of Revenue?

I'm saying that the at from the lodging tax point of view, they don't recognize anything called B&B is they recognize short-term rentals full stop and have a definition of that. Okay. And that's the

So, what would we be using their records for? So, if we want a definition, a potentially workable definition of short-term rentals and we wanted to know how many people we were applying that to, that's where it might be instructive to know how many are out there. Again, that's not critical to us, but I I would have a way of context. Are you regulating two people or 20 or 200? And that's available that's public record if one was interested in exploring that. I I think it's the kind of cessor tells. So that was the that was the point of of the watching jacks. Um now are so is this a problem? I s I think it's pretty clear that it's not a problem now, but we know nationwide that short-term rentals have been problematic. As we discussed before that is everything from Little Centennial to to Manhattan Island. The convention the reasons that people object to them as as our newest colleague pointed out are that the transients have no investment in the neighborhood. Nobody's in traffic and trash and so forth. They're setting up rental properties that could been prevented to they could be used for for residents. People are buying properties for the purposes of short-term rentals, whether they're on-site or not. lack of an on-site or local supervisor um in competition with other lodging businesses that that are subject to regulations. Um now all of those issues apply to to short-term rentals in general, but even more to the others than to the conventional B&Bs. So again, I think it's we should extend whatever regulation we're doing to bed and breakfast should surely extend to the rest of the short-term rules if not more. Um, now just to to to share a couple thoughts in my research that I've run

across in responding to this. Do they get do they get a free pass whereas their their more explicitly commercial partners do not as we heard from the gentleman centennial and and discussion with Mr. Gurge uh health issues uh are regulated by the state health department and they have their definitions indicate ready to go of of bed and breakfast um and anybody that serves food to the public is regulated. So, yes, any short-term rental bed and breakfast call that you will that serves food does have to put up with licensing and inspections through the state food safety. Um, interestingly, including ice machines. That was kind of a surprise to me. Makes sense if you think about it, but but that's really going to throw that net quite wide. Then the other the other place where the state rolls in are fire inspections. And I and I'm not sure exactly where they draw lines who has to have a license, who gets inspected every every year, but my suspicion is it's not as dire as it was represented to us that the commercial the small motel has to put up with so much more regulation in the short term. and the fire the statutes for um like fire code, electrical code, that kind of inspections, it explicitly stated residential short-term rentals or not.

Oh, it does say okay. So that's I didn't understand that considered commercial buildings for purposes of of code.

So then do they offer us a definition of short-term rentals or do they adopt the lodging tax definition? That's again what I was kind of sifting around for some for some clear definitions that have stood the test of time statally. Again, that's not something we have to know right now, but that would that would be a place to look for that. Um, so the conclusion of that, I think, is is that certain rentals are a legitimate issue and one that is appropriately addressed through zoning. um that we by requiring to get some kind of a license um that would be useful. Uh one could replace bed and breakfast in our land use table with short-term rentals be something that I would would favor minimally uh along with definition of short-term rentals in a manner that excludes the motel at the top. Other counties have waited into this. Teton County, which is a a poor representative Wyoming as we all know. But when I find the the sublet and Park County, which are that's those are just straight up Wyoming counties, regular folks, regular problems, uh have moved into the regulation short-term rental business, not through prohibitions like in Tucson County, but through defining them for one. and and either conditional use permits or permitting in certain areas.

I think they're doing by certificates, not not CUPs. And that is telling us that we can't do that. No, wait a second. No. Okay, back up. CUPs, conditions. They are doing it through condition use permits and you're suggesting we cannot do that. I mean, we're doing it right now with Ben Re. Well, they're doing it on like a permitted basis where he's saying it's like a yearly permit. Yeah. Yeah. And not a permanent use like we're talking about on resolution. Okay. The distinction you're drawing is whether you regulate them at the at the outset through their zoning certificates versus a license after renew every year. Are we understanding? Yeah. And we we can't license.

Okay. We are allowed a zyling certificate. Okay. Okay. To be issued based upon the plans and then that lasts in perpetuity until it's abandoned. And I don't know what these other if these other counties are are stirring that margin or not. That's my sting here. They're going but those who are saying you need to get a conditional use permit to establish a bed and breakfast in this zone. That's I think the level that is accessible to us. And that's my that's my legal advice.

Okay. and and I I got no problem with that particularly in that we we we don't want to get too far down the road of of requiring big inspectors and following up on that. Um so so then uh let me let me go back to planning staff here. We know that it's within our authority. It's a nice definition put together to require conditional use permits for short-term rentals, which is where my mind is and I wouldn't distinguish breakfast any other short-term rental. Um, how far can we go into what we might call development standards? Um, and the kinds of things that people talk about is that that you would have in order to get that that conditional use permit, you would have to agree to say an on-site representative or certain amount of parking or how far into the kind of the physical what's there can we go and those wouldn't be licensing things that would require annual renewal, but just what I might call development standards like we apply to subs. We do that parking.

We do parking. Yeah, we could do landscaping. Um, onsite. That's the kicker. Yeah. I don't know because I don't know how we would owner occupied is a term that you see in other counties. Is that something? Um,

I the enforcement is a different story. Well, let's set a enforcement aside. I mean, I'm a believer in if you set up the rules, then people who follow the rules will will follow them, and then you're always going to have people who will refuse to follow them, and they'll be subject to enforcement. The the rule itself is legal and appropriate. The fact that you can't rigorously enforce it every day is is not a fatal flaw in my mind. I Yeah, I think that makes it a bad rule. that that it's enforceable that yeah if it's not enforceable then what's the point of having it

but enforcements are subject to budgets and and now that's that's subject to evidence and a whole lot of other things I mean how how is the county going to prove that are we going to have someone monitoring the whereabouts of we have to go through two years of litigation to but isn't that true of any of our development standards if I if we put the subdivision in and we require the crown on the road to be XYZ and that crowned interior variants. Um, yeah, that's immediately observable in in one instance.

Okay. Well, maybe that's that's the discussion. I guess I'm trying to get some feedback. How many development standards can you can you legally set up in the first place? Well, generally development standards are for development, not not a not conditions upon a certain aspect of a usage. Those are those are conditions which are part of a condition like this, right? Um as opposed to like development standards or what is the building, how many parking spaces because it's concerned with the physical development. But where this discussion is going is towards conditional uses. That's why I'm here. So,

right. So, then call them call them conditions on a use, not development standard. So, okay. Yeah, I won't I don't mean to get stuck in the taxonomy, but all right. How far can one go with conditions of the conditional use permit in things like you have to provide trash pickup? You've got to provide parking. Yeah, you can absolutely say you have to have trash pickup. Um I mean like with our our we have that yeah we've required that you know folks to like what's your parking plan? You have to provide a plan. This is what you're going to do. What's your like I mean guess in subdivision regulations we require like what is your plan to dispose of trash. I

mean maybe that's something that you could add to zoning. Is that I mean but it all be in plan form right? you know, we have that. Well, we're going to have it soon as far as the campground and mobile, right? So, I mean, those types of things I think we can do. Yeah. Um, and we can enforce, right? So, I mean, all those seem to be exposed to the same issue of, well, can you enforce it? You shouldn't apply it. You shouldn't have it in there if you can't enforce it. I mean, all of those things require somebody paying attention and enforcing it if it's enforceable, right? And the owner thing, it's like I guess whatever Matt says if we can do that or not owner occupied. I just think that's a bad bad thing if we win that way because like short-term rentals in this county

don't have owner occupied, you know, and why does that need to be a thing? Why does I'll tell you why. Because your survey had more respondent from other zip codes than 82072. So, what you're seeing is people buying property in Albany County for commercial purposes, for short-term rentals. So, that tells me that a lot of outside uh uh involvement in this or so we don't want to have people from outside the community having businesses or No, no. what I'm saying.

So that's our stated purpose is to prevent certain people from owning it. That is is highly problematic. That's not what I meant. What I meant is that a lot of properties are being purchased by people who don't live here and don't take care of them and leave the problem to the neighbors. If we make everything our priority conditional,

if we make everything our priority conditional use, then we have a standing to say to them, hey guys, you're not following the conditional use. Your neighbors are complaining. If we don't have any regulations, they don't care. Okay. Well, let's now are you about wrapped up?

Oh, yeah. So, so my wrap up of all that is my recommendation going for would be one we we get rid of bed and breakfast in our land use table. We make short-term rentals. We provide definitions short-term rentals versus motel and we establish what we think are appropriate conditions for those conditions. That that's that's what I like to see. Okay, that's that's where I and obviously that was that's a long way from that concept implementation, but that's where I'd like to see this go.

Well, that's fine. Thank you. And I'll finish the circle by saying I favor adding definitions. Absolutely. And looking at at this point in time perhaps light regulation. Um, and then, uh, one thing I'll say about what you're saying is, um, it was a lady that we saw from Sil who is the Michelle Tilly. Yeah. Michelle Tilly.

I took a look at the ownership list they provided and about, as I recall, three quarters of the short-term rentals were either owned by people living in Centennial, Larry, Cheyenne, Fors. So yes, they were all obviously in some but they weren't amorphous people living in California, Florida or wherever. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just want to say that I'm glad we don't have the zip codes for the 21 respondents that came uh via the survey. My point is I am completely in agreement with murder. We need definitions and we need to decide what we require under conditional use and also then decide what zoning should uh what categories of zones we should apply that too because it may not be necessary to do it in one chat or in uh agricultural but maybe rural residential when you have lots of one acre maybe we need to worry about that. So look at at the table you created

and and and apply that accordingly. That's that's what I have. I would note that most of the properties that are in like the North Fork area or Ranchette. So they are if if we we just allowed them there. That's not helping them, I guess. But no, we definitely need to look at those things and discuss it. Sure. Barb, I'll come back to you. Is there anything else you'd like to add on this? No, I agree with uh the most recent discussion. I agree that we should have definitions and some parameters. Correct. I agree. We need to have a specific set of parameters, rules, however you want to word it. But yeah,

otherwise nobody's going to get anything done and people are going to do whatever they want and that's going to be a problem for the Okay, David. So, um, have we given you some feedback that you're happy with or Yeah, absolutely. We can continue to discuss this. I'm not I'm not going to cut this off right now. If you all areime, go ahead. I guess what are the perimeters? Why prohibited in industrial sense? Why prohibit it?

Um, because I don't know. I mean, typically we don't have a house or I don't know. I guess there could be because there's conditional uses. Yeah, we can. I mean, all this is up for discussion. Okay. If there was a reason behind your your suggestion that we typically you don't want I'm not sure maybe I looked at what the bed and breakfast one said. I I don't know. I don't know why it's like that. It makes sense that you wouldn't want residential in a heavy in in an industrial zone just because of the way things are set up.

Yeah, we do allow dwell a dwelling in commercial zones with a conditional use permit. So, it is allowed. So, if there is a house there and they want to, you know, and honestly commercial is the only place to put multifamily in our Yeah. I'm not saying industrial. I'm saying commercial allows for multif family which you can rent out apartments too but industrial yes we probably shouldn't have that stuff industrial not a problem

yeah then just more question of some of the words in sure Mr. Here's memo. I asked you this earlier. Uh the bed and breakfast reading of the the draft definition bed and breakfast. A bed and breakfast is a private owner occupied dwelling that would seem to run counter to what we were just talking. Do you some reason that do you think we would want to define it as private? Either as private, I'm not sure what that means, or as owner occupied. I mean, if it's a bed and breakfast, yes. If it's a short-term rental, I don't think that's necessary.

Okay. So, can you explain why why does a bed and breakfast need to be owner occupied?

Well, bed and breakfast is different than obviously short-term rental. Short-term rental is somebody I mean, the owner is not going to be there and occupy it while somebody's living there for a few days or whatever. Um, but Ben breakfast is the owner is there. The traditionally this is how it's done. They they have they cook the breakfast or whatever. Um, they're there to like oversee things. Um, they're they're there to show people the rooms and all of those things to clean, do all that stuff. That's just kind of what a be bed of breakfast is. Short-term rental is just here's your house, you you stay there for few days

and you leave and make sure you clean it and you pay your deposit or whatever. Would do we care? Maybe that's where my question. Do we care? Yeah. Why? Why would we bother to include anything about owner in our regulations? I don't know. I mean like honestly like I'm just throwing these general proposition for used to be regulated based on whether the owner is present or not. That's where we are now. I guess kind of

that's what I've been. Yeah. So I Okay. I think like before we can even get to I mean where planning department and then probably myself can draft something. I mean we need like what is it that you guys want to do? I think that that might have to to come before the proposed language because This is moving wildly. Is Is there consensus that we don't want to distinguish bed and breakfast for really short-term rentals? That's why I said yes, that's exactly my question. It's like if we want to say they're bed and breakfast, they're the same then we just can go obviously they're the same. Okay. Shortterm rental.

Yeah. And to me they're not. To me they're totally different. So you would like to see us move forward with a discrete definition? I think it's absolutely fine to do that. That hurt. We can always remove later if we decide what. No, but to me they're absolutely different. Short-term rental and bed breakfast are if you go over to Europe and more say the B&B, you know, you're going to get one thing and if you're in a short-term rental, there's not going to be anyone there. There's not going to be any food there. You're going to get a room or maybe a whole house. Quite different. Granted, conceptually these these kind of archetypes are different. The question here is, is it worth our time, the staff's time, Mr. question in trying to define that difference because you're going to regulate them differently.

Uh well, we can have a definition. I don't think costs at all to have it there. Well, well, except that something like owner occupied is arguably illegal. I mean, what I would say is No, no, no. You can classify it. Wait, what do you mean? Can we can we regulate something differently whether it's owner occupied or not? Or are we creating definitions with no no legal distinction? No, you can't. I'm saying that if if if the if the entire goal though of like making that distinction is to exclude certain people from ownership, that's where you run into trouble. Like if if the goal is that you want um somebody to live in you want no

like doesn't live in a community to own property in that community. Goals made in furtherance of that are illegal because property is freely alienable. Um and you there's there's no inherent requirement. It is um freely alienable and there is is no provision which the county um could create under its zoning regulations um which would be for the purpose of dictating who owns that property. I mean

can I can I can I interject? I've stayed in bed breakfasts that the person who took care of the place didn't own it. They were hired hand and they cooked the breakfast. So, I don't think we need to to worry about uh ownership and and all that stuff. All I say is that if it is a short-term rental, whether they give you food or not, it's a short-term rental. And there are clear definitions of what that is. So we can, you know, get them from other places, other counties, and just go with that. I mean, even if they're in our mind different,

they're not really different. Yeah. As a practical matter, doesn't matter if we only have two in the whole county. So, well, no, we have a lot more than that. There's two permitted in the county. There's a difference. Oh, I just said that. I I said correctly. and some of them as have existed prior to regulations. I tell you what though, uh why don't we leave it here because this is just a discussion. We'll obviously come back to this. We can discuss it as much as we want to in depth. Thank you. And you'll certainly have your opportunity. No, I think we buried the thing out. All right. Very good. Brought our new colleagues kind of into the discussion. Yeah. Sorry. We don't

So, so you know my opinion on bed of breakfast. I think they're different. But bottom line, if we're going to put two different things in the land use table and they're exactly the same going across conditional condition, then we need one definition like I'm fine with that. Let's not make it more. So, all right. So, we're okay with that. So, we'll move on. All right. In that case, we will uh to zoning resolution amendments up. And I don't know why you stayed this long, but but thank you. I was I was I was one of the ones that responded. I don't think they survey. I was interested. Good luck to you. Well, I guess he's left probably.

Yeah. Should have asked how many.

All right. Outdoor lighting. All right. So, things I could say but I shouldn't. Um, so lighting. So, um, lighting has came up as I don't know, we we have complaints. We have probably two or three complaints a year. Really, we don't have a ton of complaints about lighting. Um, however, um, we have had a few complaints. We usually have certain people call us every year around Christmas because the Christmas lights are too bright and they're on too long. Um, so we get that phone call and yeah, just those types of things. Anyways, long story short is we have had some complaints um and it is really difficult to enforce our our regulations the way they're written. Um, currently we require two standards basically um to mitigate light trespass. So the first is we require shilling of light fixtures which we have no definition of shielding. what that means anywhere. Um and then the second one is a maximum allowable brightness of four or a quarter foot candles property line. Um which we have a candle meter and we we've used that and apparently you can put it under a street light and it still doesn't break that that threshold. So either the machine's not working, we don't know how to use it or

anyways. So, so it makes it very difficult when we have um people complain about lighting. Um so what is being proposed is just a set of standards to um make things more clear and enforceable. Um and it would ba basically be to um focus on the shielding aspect of lighting. Um if you look through through the the proposed regulations um I think we added some some information or added some to the definitions. Um then we got rid of the standard for the quarter foot candle or whatever it is 10 foot. Anyways, um we got rid of that and we just focus on the shielding. Um the light trespass mitigation would be require of shielding. Um for full cutoff and we we kind of define what full cut off is considered. Basically the the tops and the sides are all opaque. No light can go out the sides or the top. Um and yeah, we that's basically the standard of this. That's how we changed it. And that's something that we can see. I mean, well, if it's like from the road and we can see that that has that shielding, we can tell that it's fine and or if not, then we can say, well, you need to do that. The kicker is is is everything that out there today is non-conform would be non-conforming when this is adopted. So, we couldn't do anything for anything previous to that. But if they wanted to change it, um they they could go forward um or or they would have to. So if they wanted to change out their lighting, then they would have to to comply, which is all difficult still, but at least we can look at it and say yes, it is or no, it doesn't meet these standards. Um

and then I think I did ask add a exemption for motion detector lighting just that's kind of a safety type thing. as long as it goes off after five minutes after motion, I think we'd be fine with that, too. But, um, so that that's kind of what I'm putting together. This is for discussion. I'm not sure if this is legal yet because I don't think Matt's looked at it, but um, this is our idea. So, um, Greg, you have any questions? No. Um, go off.

Okay. I have a couple of things. Uh the light fixture definition number three you say including the bulb and any housing shooting uh whole mounting components uh many new age uh lighting devices fixtures don't have bulbs. So so is we should reword that then just use a word that you know now people are using. Okay. So it will be more you know include bulbs but not just limited to bulbs. The illumination source illumination source. Sure. Uh thank you.

You're welcome. Um then I have uh by the way I really like this even for uh wildlife because a lot of birds migrate at night and if the light is facing down it doesn't affect the migration. So this is great. I'm happy with it. I should have said started with this, but um um um one thing I had that actually is not part of the uh um changes that you made in uh the variances. So H1A maybe someone can read it for me because when I tried to read it for myself I got confused with the so many light fixture in those sentences. I Anyway, if anybody can read that just cuz I couldn't figure out what it says.

H1A uh H1E. Okay. I think the the part that confused me was the that says which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land building or outdoor light fixtures and do not generally apply. So I mean to those in the neighborhood

so it's saying that there are peculiar circumstances or conditions to the specific locality which are not present uh in the surrounding area. Can you say that instead of the character because I well no because this is defining what what exactly we're talking about. It's not just the locality, it's the land buildings or the fixtures themselves.

You have in one sentence outdoor light fixtures three times and so I mean I I read it three times and I couldn't figure out what what are the special circumstances. Well, I don't know. I have to remember that. Well, one quite this is existing language we're looking at. Yeah, I know. I know. I know. But we can look at the whole thing. I mean, I don't think this actually specific variances and I don't think that there should be a purpose statement where it says the lights should be pointed downward and not up. What about people who fly their American flag 247? That's an exemption.

That is one of the Yeah. terite exemption. How is there where's our exemption? G5. G5. We'll get to that one. Well, I admit it's a tough thing to read, but I think it's fine the way it is. I just don't understand what it says. Yeah. And it's even tougher when everyone's talking to try to read, but I think it's okay. I'm not sure what the special circumstances would be either. I mean, I just don't understand the sentence. If we can make it simple, just a variance for a special circumstance that has yet to be defined. I guess we don't handle varian.

Maybe it's a bed and breakfast and it needs a special to go there. Current. I'm not done. Oh, you're not done. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize. I had another one. She did her homework, guys. Come on. Hey, I missed the conditional use tables he made because I was at the bottom, but I did go through all of this. So, uh there was something about uh uh lighting for um uh advertisement or entertainment. Why only that?

Oh, yeah. That's actually dramatic. Yeah, first amendment. I'll find it.

Was that the one about Oh, yeah. Uh D1 laser lasers. Yeah. Something. Yeah. I Oh, yeah. Prohibited D prohibition source lights or similar high intensity like use. But I would just I would strike outdoor advertising. for advertising or on or and so I can put a laser source in my house. So I'm not using it for advertising. I mean is that it? It's not anything you looked at recently but it's something that I think we should given that we're changing the document take a look at. Would you repeat that please?

So you have prohibitions Uhhuh. on laser source lights or similar highintensity light used for outdoor advertising or entertainment. Yes. So if I want to put a laser light that will make a huge display just for me for fun. It's not entertainment or advertising. Yeah, I can do that.

Yeah. And we would probably so you can regulate commercial speech um you know like more strictly but it gets you into like a hybridized it gets you into a higher level of like scrutiny under constitutional processes and there's really not like a compelling enough differentiation between those two uses. Um, so I think enough of Yeah, my suggestion would just be get rid of for advertising or entertainment. That's what I That's what I would Yeah, we can do that and then because Yeah.

You know, if you're going to put a it's your birthday or your grandkid's birthday or whatever and you've got a laser display in the front yard to make everything great, you're not going to do that more than one night. Maybe two. We do have a a time here. But

a business that's, you know, a bar or something along those lines are going to have bright lights and maybe they've got lasers and maybe they're on every night till 2 in the morning. You know, I I think there's got to be some reasonable limitations if they're close enough that it's to a to a home or residential area where it is disturbing. And I'm I'm not really good on the migration of birds, but you know, we flash lasers on them. If people are doing a laser display and there are birds flying over that, everybody's going to see that or they're going to see it, I should say. Um, I think there there's got to be some kind of reasonable, you know, with the with the entertain entertainment or advertising, you can tell you can't do that till 2:00 every morning because your lights are shining in three different houses windows and it it is disturbing. I think that would be the difference between private use and advertising use. Advertising is probably going to be every day of the week, four months at a time. Your birthday party for your grandchildren or your parents, whatever your celebration is probably going to be a one night thing. And again, free speech for doing somebody celebrating a birthday is different from somebody, you know, we got great drink specials. Come on in and have a good time. I It's two different things, at least in my opinion. Well, I think you'd be because there's a temporary lighting exemption.

So, if you just say that across the the board, well, that Yeah, it would mean that that broke it. Well, no. Honestly, if they did it for one or two nights, Yeah. then it's just temporary. We're not going to be doing anything about it. So, we might get a complaint, but by the time we got it there, they'll be not doing anything.

Somebody will always complain about anything. Um, no. I'm just I'm it was more of the I was supporting that with it's your birthday party or your kids or you're celebrating some a wedding, whatever. It's a one time one night thing versus you're regulating a business that is going or an event that's going to be doing it every night for weeks or loads at a time.

We actually have a pretty lenient length of time of 30 days. So I think we're pretty lenient on all this. I think just removing the uh advertising and uh whatever will solve the problem and entertainment and that means that you know if you do want to have a party Mhm. for your wedding or whatever then you fall under the temporary category. And so that should be cake and killed. And just as an FYI, at the World Trade Center

uh uh memorial site, they have laser displays all the time. Right. Except when uh uh bird migration people who monitor the migration say we're going to have a huge migration, they turn them off. So, just as an FYI, anything else? Thank you. Um, yeah, I guess let's I can start right there. Um, what does just regular nuisance uh regulation have to say about this? How much of this is just covered? Don't we have just blanket can't be

So, at common law, uh, light trespass is usually not nuisance because it's not one quarter. It's not enough to constitute physical invasion. It is but so so that's why it's appropriate to have lighting discreetly. Yeah. Actually, I don't know

cuz like I mean essentially our what our nuisance regulations which are in the zoning resolution are to cover um those are I mean essentially those are rising to the level of like public nuisances like this is not just causing a harm to your one neighbor but this is this is causing harm to like you know an indeterminate number of members of the public. Okay. Um which is why a lot of it is like you know improper disposal of waste uh things that you know may uh encourage like vermin or

uh disease curing critters. Okay. Um so this is definitely getting a little more into the world of of private nuisance. Okay. No, I just I was just that what the distinction was. Um then speaking to the language here, um why do we care the source of the light? And I'm looking at the thing we're just talking about in prohibitions. Um if a laser light source doesn't trespass on the neighbors, do we care? Yeah, it can be redundant. I mean,

I don't the source of light would not seem to be a relevant part of the regulation. If it's already shielded. Yeah, if it's shielded. So, I got it down to change it right now. But I would invite you to consider whether we need prohibitions given that we have been also trespassing. I mean, we allow illuminated signs. Put it down. It has to be pointed down, does it? Yep. It's all right. Oh, because you have never gotcha. Sorry. Gets a little weird if I have search light. It's on my house. The house you can see from 30 miles away cuz it's got a search light on it. Well,

it isn't. House isn't the light fixture. I handle that in general. I would just think that we we handle trespasses. Trespass. Um, and as I'm reading down through it, um, we have a thing under F about low pressure sodium. I just suggest that may be out of date. Might just check on that. I'm guessing that's probably a leftover from some some previous time. I think we talked to somebody about it at one point. They're like, what like an electrician or something? And it's not a I don't know. Yeah, I think most people regulate by lumens if they're like going to do the yeah,

the regulation of the brightness or or the the fixture or the light bulb itself. It's like it can't be more than this many lumens or whatever. But they do it by like the it's the light candle per foot because it has to have a function of distance um to like really cuz like the brightness varies at what point you're right you're measuring it from like the source. So there has to be a but that was the old standard of at the property line. I mean that was an incoherent standard was it not? Wasn't it? It was one and x lumens at the property line.

Yeah. One quarter candle lumen or candle power at the property line. I thought it was like where you put like a candle like per foot and then you still say at a certain distance. I remember it from the signs. Yeah. Just to correct my staff report said a quarter foot. It's actually a tenth of a foot. Okay. Tenth of a foot. So, do we even measure? Do we What? Is this really a measurement we use? It's a real measurement. Yeah, you can you can get candle foot meters. We have one. Yeah, that's how watering ways are measuring light. Yeah,

that really does seem to me like that kind of goes to what we want to do here is to say you aren't allowed to project light beyond some intensity on your name. And that that comes in the enforcement horribleness because we don't know one our our meter I don't know if it works. I don't know if we know how to make it work. We don't have any technical expertise in you know doing that. I don't know if the if you have to measure ambient light before you do that. Like when we were looking at the if it's like sound, you have to whole do a whole study on it, you know, like when we were looking at the the sign standards, I mean, that was how every single like city government defined it

was what the candle light per meter foot. Okay. The luminous standards actually um where Park City is in Utah, their county, they just they do it by the lumens of the the light bulb or whatever, but they have like a different intensity or a different you can have a thousand lumens. If it's this high off the ground, if it's this high off the ground, it's 2,000 lumens or something like that or whatever. So, they do it by like how high the fixture is. But I don't I don't know. Yeah. Well, if we want to do something like that, I'm going to have to do some more research. Your your suggestion here would be you'd control all that by shielding. Yes. And that's easy to enforce.

Yeah. Is it shielded or is it not? Is Yeah. Is it shielded or not? But then I mean, is it going to if it's a bright enough light, is that still going to be enough to even if it's pointed like directly downward, if it's high enough? And

that would depend on the environment. I mean, in your in a grassy yard, you have a 5,000 candle power bulb and a fixture 6 feet off the ground. If it's directed right down, you are probably 25, 30 feet away, it's not going to be nearly as blinding unless you're staring at it. But it's not going to reflect. You know, that's I think why the candle foot candles and the lumens start getting confusing. It's how much light is actually reflected onto the complainant or the neighbor. And again, if it's a if you've got a porch light that's can light pointing down, you could put a 250 lm bulb or a 500 lm bulb and it's only shining in this little spot on your wood porch that doesn't reflect or do anything anyway. It's

Yeah. I mean I mean guess in theory it's like if it's shielded like if you're in a house next door and your windows here and the shielding's right here it's not going to be directly in your eyes right or right into your correct there there will be you'll still see the light but it just not the the the brightass we use knits in the sign regulations with a knit being equals one candela which is a foot candle per square meter. I mean, I guess we could do this. We could see

I mean, then maybe it's like, well, then do we need to get rid of that, too? Is is this something worth investing time, resource, money in? Are we do we have a lot of complaints on this? I we've got a standard in place. Do we want to invest your department's time and people going out if there's not an issue with the public endings? I'm going to plead the fifth on that. probably directly to our lawyer. But I I'm just looking at it from a if you say that you guys don't want to deal with it and we just want to get rid of lighting regulations, we will do that. That's fine. So, but that's not

Well, I think the suggestion was we leave this home and not get rid of it. Right. Yeah. David, have there have there been complaints from members of that specific recently? Yes. So, yeah. They're out. So, okay, Bernie. Well, yeah. Here's one that I suspect I'll have concurrence for Mr. Arizona. Whether I'm illuminating an American flag or a Nazi flag shouldn't make any difference. Well, well, uh, the American flag is covered under No, come on. It's not

not law. What do we do for signs on that? We We made them content neutral on the flag. We made them content neutral, right? Um, so it's not just the American flag, it's a Wyoming flag. Yeah, I would I would make it flagged. Yeah, I think you're I think you have to. And then I customary agricultural practices that um extreme customary agricultural practices. Do you want to leave that in?

I don't know. Wouldn't a cving operation by definition be less than 30 days? Sure. Well, I mean, we could take it out. I don't really care. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. Anything else for Okay. No, this my general approach to these would be make it as it isn't specific to a type of illumination. It isn't specific to what it is you're illuminating. You make it as as simple and generic as as possible. Okay. How about you, Barb? I'm fine with it the way

I don't want to regulate it. Don't want to regulate it too much. Want to regulate it at all, but that's Yeah. Well, I'm fine with this also. I think the general idea at least with shielding is is good and that is easy and uh that takes care of most of the problems. So what do you offer us at this point? I have one question. Um yes so there is a date here. Do you want to leave that date? Uh, existing non-conforming light fixture may be continued until the light fixture is replaced or until September 2nd, 2010. Yeah, we can't do that. Huh?

We can't do that under our non-conforming statute. So that is a you can do um oh what is the word in other states zoning authorities can say all non-conforming uses have to be made conforming by this period in the future. We can't do that in Wyoming. So that needs to go out. Yeah. Deleted. That's under the university authority. And that's also with the low pressure sodium lights. So, should we just strike all of that?

So, back to my question. Do we need to talk to those things? I think these might need some work. All right. Uh, so y'all got enough from us on this? I think we've got Yeah. got your your thoughts. All right. that we can look at this and hack out when it needs to be taken out.

In that case, let's move on to information technology facility standards. All right. So, so there's an ever growing demand for large data centers in our society apparently because we have all these data needs with AI and everything. I don't know what they store everything. Talk about, huh? Talk about Cheyenne. Oh, they're getting a data center. Well, or the biggest one in the country.

Yeah. So, they're getting I don't know a whole lot about it. So, do you want to say Yeah, I guess the uh the county commissioners in Larman County um just issued whatever permits uh I guess were needed for what is planned to be the largest um data center like AI data center in the country. And I mean it's gonna have I guess like as planned uh its own like power yeah power plant and um like cool Yeah. recycled cooling system which recycled water millions of gallons of water that have to go use these gallons of water. Yes.

Yeah. and the estimates uh that the data center would require the energy production of 10 nuclear power plants. I thought they were planning on natural gas. Was that not?

Yeah. So, but the natural gas that they are planning will not be enough and therefore they have asked Alburn County to build another one of those power plants natural gas which also will not be enough. They did not ask Albany County because then you would say no. Uh but there is one huge one going right on our uh western line B the WA or no I don't know more than that but the claim was even with these power plants they will not have enough energy to power the center

they'll be yeah the data centers are supposed to use more power than the current state of Wyoming uses now yes and Yeah, it's entire I used to work for the power I work for Rocky Mountain Power in the power industry and there is a finite limit. There are c there's a cross country distribution line set up from east to west coast east to west boundaries of uh Wyoming that allow a lot of power transmission but there is still limited generation. They're talking about the uh Natrium plant in Kemer.

Um that's a 2030 before they even get the chance to fire it up. The last thing I read and again I I keep in touch with the people over in that area. It's I'm not sure where we're going to get all the power from. I know during the day they want to put it in some massive solar fields. That's great, but and I've got solar at my house. It's a great thing. I don't pay electric bills. Me neither. But today and the other day that it was nice and cloudy, I made a whopping 3 kilowatts of power. So on a cloudy day, they're going to have a square mile of solar cells that does not a whole lot more than a 250 watt generator you buy at Walmart. Yeah.

So I think there's going to be some issues. I don't This is not going to be a smooth transition. Yeah, we'll see. Let's let Okay. Thank you. So, yeah, that's all right.

So, we've talked about like, okay, the data centers, they use a lot of power, use a lot of water for cooling. Um, and let's get to the problem. Our regulations allow these in just allowed. Somebody comes into my office, they have commercial property today or industrial property today, they get a zoning certificate, they're they get a permit in in two weeks without any standards. Um, so there's problem, you know, I don't think that there's a data center eminent for our county, but it would be nice to I guess. So what I'm proposing is a two-step process. One, let's get it on the books and create make sure that they're conditional uses um in commercial or industrial or just one of those zones or whatever we want to do. Um and then two, we can do some more research um and create some standards for these things. Um but that's a bigger project. Um I I did I'm going to a conference in Denver and that's actually going um in a few weeks. They actually have a session on data centers. Um so I hope we'll be able to bring back some some information on on what people are doing to regulate these things. Um, but but that's kind of where I'm at and what I'm I'm hoping to do is to get something on the books quickly and then move to, you know, potentially um providing some better better sideboards on what what needs to happen for these. So,

well, now that we've just told the whole world as you come to Al County and get a prepared, we probably need to do something. Have you received any direction from the county commissioners? I have not. Okay. Well, let's just have some free discussion now for whoever you guys want to talk about then in no particular order. What do you mean by get something on the books? You want just require a conditional use? So, you got to define the thing first. And there's a definition in there too. Yeah. That we can look at.

My reaction is chair is it's an industrial facility and any industrial facility is going to have associated issues with power and water and everything else. So, I'm being consistent here. I don't know that we care what goes on inside the box. Now, if we want to have some special standards for industrial facilities that use more than x amount of water, use x amount of power, that would seem to me to be appropriate. Whether what they're doing is processing data or slaughtering ags or whatever, I don't think that should matter. So, that's where I would come at this. I don't think any nothing special about the fact that they're processing data inside their box.

No, I don't care. Well, I mean it's the the impacts is what we're trying to address. But then let's define it in terms of the impacts, not not the activities. Well, and that would be if there is a a activity that requires over this much power or over this much water, then that's something that you want to whatever conditions do or eliminate. But just because it happens to be a data processing center, I don't see why that's relevant. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I will say this is an order of magnitude different in terms of the things we're talking about. Some of them are a data center that has megabytes of and I'm not disagreeing with this data center. It was

you're right. Any business is going to come in and say we're going to need a billion billion gallons of water to cool them this year.

We are not this is not we're not regulated data centers. We are regulating information technology facility. That's the actual term and it has a definition to go with it. I understand what you're saying, but like we could say that for about you know 75% of the uses that are in our our our table. That's I mean this is typically how you do it. you find a general enough term which is information technology center that includes data data centers and it could be other computing centers um that are going to use these types of

yeah the large facilities. I don't see there's any problem with with using this um and this is what's done throughout the country. It's not like we're we're making up anything here. So well well the problem wouldn't be it's again drawing lines if if if another facility came in that used the same amount of water and power that wasn't a information processing facility they wouldn't have to get a conditionally use permit that's that's my problem depends on what it is and where it falls in the in the depend on where it is why does that depend on what it is that's how we regulate zoning well I don't think so we can I say something. Go ahead.

Yeah, I I agree. I think we should be proactive rather than end up being reactive down the road. Um I like this proposal. It may need a little bit more uh work and definition, but um I agree with um the planning director. Thank you for that.

I don't disagree with your premise. I don't disagree. I'm I'm just pointing out that this is how it's done throughout the country. We we have uses in a land use table. If if you could give us give me some more information. I I don't know how to measure like water like how much water you're going to use. How much how much is too much? How much power is too much? I know what a data center is. I know what an information technology facility is. And I know that they use these things and that they, you know, those are impacts for that type of facility. But I don't know like the specifics on on how to define that. And how would you what would that be? Just a facility that uses this much stuff. I don't know what that is. I don't know where to put that. But I know what an I know what this is.

That makes sense. No, I don't think it does. I mean, I could have an information processing center that was one guy sitting at a computer uh helping people with Google searches. This definition there's a definition here. So it but does not include smaller scale businesses such as retail shelves, customerf facing services or general offices using as a a principal use. Typically, the facilities require dedicated unruptable power blah blah blah.

I think I could find some pretty lowkey facilities that would meet that definition. And and so if if the reason you're having definition is because you're afraid it's to be used because 30,000 acre feet of water, why can't we say if you use 30,000 acret of water, we got a problem? Because I don't know what that is. Well, but but I don't know this definition helps. What What other things uses uses that much water? What and power? What what are you thinking of I guess that are they're different from this? Okay. There are there are ways to cool data centers that don't require any water at all. They're power plants. They're air cooled. So, you shouldn't assume that just because it's processing data, it's going to use up all the water. And you didn't answer my question, though. What other centers are you talking about?

Other businesses use that type of water and that type of power. What What are you talking about? I don't know that I need to have an example. What about a power plant? What are we doing? It's in the land table. Power plants in the land use table and it has other other things. It's a power plant often is putting off emissions and things. So, it's going to have a different different zoning. It probably have to be industrial only with the conditional. Well, it just seems to me what you're painting is a picture where we would identify everything we could possibly think of that would use over a certain amount of water and then we put that in the table instead of just saying if you use over this much water this is how we regulate you. Or we could use this definition. It would be the same thing.

Well, we must be slaughter house or something. We defined by slaughter house is also in it's in the table and it has different different and if there's something that's not in the land use table then we we the planning director says which use it fits in and then that's what we go by. That's how it works. There's a note under the land use table that says that.

All right. I I just assume that that's objectionable and that it's you're attempting to list every every possible thing that that that could cover when what you really mean is a big water power user. That's the thing that you're trying to charge around and make a conditional use in industrial or commercial. So why can't we just say what we mean?

Okay. I mean you guys can decide what you want me to do. I said David I like your definition. uh we can potentially get a value of the power production in other counties and say a quarter of using more. So to your last line, give it uh you know anything that is using more than a quarter of the of all production something you know that might uh make burn happy

and I'll say I'm fine with this as it is and I think we need to move fast on this and make it conditional so at least we can say we can actually look at something and say, "Hey, you can't get a permanent." Right. I think maybe it's being confused, maybe it's not. I don't know. But this is to make it a conditional use. We can come back after it's conditional use and put together standards for all of this stuff. We just want to get it to where it has to at least come through the board of county commissioners and make it a public process if this were to happen. Absolutely. This is already in the table. We're not adding anything to the table.

No, it's already in the table. We just need to make it conditional. Conditional use define it. Yeah, I agree. Let's get started. I'll go I'll go that far. I think that's that's very important.

So, I guess what do you want us to do to do this? Go forward. Go forward. Kevin, we'll need to Okay. Right. You want to vote? Uh let's have a motion. I move that we uh adopt document as is amending the uh uh you stable as suggested by the staff at the first. We can't adopt it today. We need to set a public hearing set a public hearing for 30 days. 30 days 45 days 30 days here 45 at commissioners.

Okay. So I'm I'm rephrasing my motion. I move that we uh we that we accept a proposal the staff proposal on changing the um um data centers from approved to conditional use and send it out to uh public court for and we'll for a hearing on in the April April April regular meeting. Yes. I second. Are we clear on the motion? We are. I'd like to offer an amendment to the motion. Yeah. Yeah. Well, are we clear on the motion? Yes.

All right. Please go ahead. Uh and that would be to make these a conditioned use in industrial rather than industrial and commercial. Are do you want it prohibited in commercial or allowed? we uh we you can address that um in between uh what is provided as part of the public notice and what is ultimately recommended. Okay. Not I'm not following you. The suggestion from staff was to make it conditional in commercial as well as industrial. I'm suggesting we just make it conditional and industrial and and prohibit

no prohibits. That's an amendment to the motion to accept this. I'd be okay with that. Okay. I'm calling a friendly. Okay. Yeah, it's called a friendly amendment. All right. Simple second. So once again, we're clear on the motion. It has been seconded. I second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Okay, that motion. Very good. Okay. Uh, item 12, commission training discussion. Can we have a break? We can have a break. Yeah, we'll take a five minute break.

All right. Uh, we're on item 12 commission train discussion. Oh. Uh, you guys want to do training? I think that's what we're talking about, right? That's right. Okay. That's not report. um burn put together that's a list of trading topics

and when I took a look at that I thought that pretty much covers the waterfront. So I'm happy to put Bird put together if uh you other commissioners have things you'd like to typed into that list. Uh now's the time to speak up. Uh I don't know if that was distributed. I don't know. I think you're the only one uh in that case you as chair but okay. So it was just sent to like staff and you I think that's right. So I was I mean there's wow surprise like what has prepared a comprehensive list of topics for contemplating

I have it in front of me or how about we distribute that and everybody can give their feedback on it. That works. Sounds good. Yeah. Do you want to Is that a date? Yes. Yes, sir. Uh, I'm open to suggestions. I think we tendly talked about April last time, but maybe I'm not remembering correctly. April. Yeah, I have a I have a question. I have a question. How long how long uh do you foresee the training to be? Well, four hours. What are you looking I think last time it was three hours. I think it was three hours last

three hours. I'm going to say threeish hours also. Who knows? Is that what we want this? We can only guess. Okay. Well, well, our our preparers can prepare around something. We don't we don't want the three-day version. We want the three-hour version. Yeah. Well, uh, I mean, it will depend on on how much David and and Matt want to give us in response to what we asked for. I mean, the requirement is not that we have a three-hour meeting or a five-hour meeting. The idea is that we get training that's useful to, you know, keep us on track and get our new members up to speed also on the things that you know about. If we do that, then we've accomplished our mission. Perfect.

Bern, what are you doing here? I was just looking at my calendar. Oh, okay. Good. I'm playing games. Just a second. I didn't know the topics that you had or whatnot. Um, yeah. So, again, I'm open for suggestions for dates. We do have a regular month of meeting in April, of course. Um, well, first of all, does April sound okay to everyone here? Sometime in April. Yeah. So, maybe sometime in the second half of April. Um, I think we're probably looking to M Girch and Mr. Ays. So, I

about like the the the third Wednesday. We could do the second Wednesday for the regular meeting, the third Wednesday for the 15th. You're thinking? Yeah, that sounds good to me. Texted the 15th of our special about being an executive. No, you said it. You just said it was a special meeting and then the agenda it just says okay executive session pursuant to whichever one is the uh to receive confidential or information which is confidential under law. Okay. I mean in case anyone's worried about taxes then we could move back a day. No smart.

No it's actually a valid point. You could be the one to time. Uh five o'clock still seems as good as any. Silent the meeting again. All right. Five o'clock on the 15th. Do we need a vote on that? Good. Yes, please. The only thing that is required for a special meeting is uh for the chair to issue um a agenda to the members of the agency. I think within actually. Yeah, that's pretty much just that.

Okay. Um, are the materials subject to that executive session privilege? What uh what what can you tell us about that? That's a really good question. Um, I do think about that.

I No, I they're probably not just the way that they're the way that they're structured. Okay. If that's the case, um uh as you reminded us, the the PowerPoint that was put together in 2023 was excellent. Um, is that something that could be distributed sensitive or what was your thinking on that whole

um distributed? I mean, in what regard? Like just meeting prior? Well, uh, like right now and let people respond to it and see if they have any questions or do we distribute it at the meeting or is it just for use at the meeting or Well, you didn't distribute it? No. No. I didn't you send it out last month? Yes. No, I sent out the wrong one last month. That was a different one. That was uh that was two trainings ago. Okay. Um, yeah. I mean, I could send that out to everyone right now. So, I just

The 2043 one was was a huge improvement on the previous ones is why it flagged in my mind. I thought it was it was excellent. Yeah. Here's new PowerPoint feed. It's pretty exciting.

So, um we definitely do that. Again, if unless there was some sensitivity to it, that would that would be great. And then everybody could look ahead of time and come with questions. If you wanted to look through it and see if there was something concern Yeah, I'll send it out to everyone right now.

Okay, Matt. So, to be clear, I need to put together an agenda for that meeting and that's requirement. Um, no, you don't. Okay, you guys can. I mean, if you guys are talking about it, so you're you're agreeing to it, we're just going to send you out the information. So, it's I mean, we're go and I'll I'll send some stuff something to the papers. Yeah. April 15th. April 15 to 5. Okay. Uh staff updates item 13. Hope you can read it.

All right. So, from your last meeting, you guys approved um Skate Laramie zone district amendment. Um that went to the board and it was approved. Then um so for we we received directives to publish for the subdivision mobile home park zoning certificate applications and an update to our fee schedule at the last um board of county commissioners meeting. What I directed to publish is is we have to go to them to ask to publish a public hearing and post the materials. Um and so we did that. Um, April 7th is the day that all of that information will be going to the board of county commissioners for a public hearing. Um, and we'll see if they approve those things. Hopefully, they will. Um, and right now when it comes to enforcements, we have around 100 cases, which I think is about what we had last time. So,

we're slowly checking a few boxes, but as we check those boxes, we find more. So, every What what are those enforcements? All kinds of things are people that build without a permit. People that

have junk junk junky properties, tires stuff. Um, yeah. A lot a lot of like like what we've been finding lately is like somebody calls about something and they have an address or something and then we look up the address and it doesn't exist and but there's a building there that shouldn't exist and then we contact them about making that right or um yeah news it could be lighting um somebody calls about right lights. So, we have an active Clay Kates to go out to see if the lights are in violation. Um, yeah, that's just what Joe said.

And after these next two zoning resolution amendments, what kind of things are you looking at next? Um, we still have the battery energy storage systems that I want to look more into. Um, those are the the big battery storage for fields facilities that are kind of companions now to um, renewable energy. Um, so that is on my list. Um, we're still working on wastewater regulations, which you guys don't necessarily see, whatever. Um, what else is coming up, Jim?

Um, we do want to dive into the the land use table and and add definitions and do some of that. Joe's done some work on that, but we need to circle back on that. Dust it off. Um, dust it off. Yeah. Um, so yeah. And obviously we'll be working on what we just worked on tonight. That's probably where the focus will be before we get to some of those other things. But you got a question. Um, yeah, I I attended a the other evening from the housing authority and asked them Fred Schmeckle to follow is Fred Schmeckle I think is heading that for this.

Oh, I've seen his name in the paper. Yeah. Very complicf affordable housing. I'd ask him if there was a county component into Padal and so just wondering if that come up on you guys radar at all it would it would kind of affect the Lar Armorary growth plan and are you involved in those discussions of the affordable housing and the they've established a trust to buy land and so forth. Is there any county bit of that that's you guys are playing?

The only thing I've been reached out to about is if we wanted any information on their website. So, um, you know, we do have county repres representatives on that the little board they have. Um, Bailey Wick, our grants manager, she's participating in and um, and get do doing that. Um, I would honestly be happy to be more involved with that. I think it's interesting. I think it's important, but we weren't on the invite. So, Okay. So Bailey was there at the meeting.

Yeah. So Bailey Yeah, Bailey, you should know kind of going on, but the city is moving towards changing zoning regulations and trying to to increase the density and changing some of their zoning and their development standards to encourage that kind of thing, which has echoes of what we've been trying to do with immediately adjacent to the county city zoning, which is why I bring it up. So, I mean, I guess that would where be where we would be involved is just that rural urban interface

because everywhere else we're trying to keep it large basically. I mean, our our philosophy in the county is is is keep keep open spaces and, you know, um and and keep, you know, less dense less density. That's which is opposite of city who wants density density density. um density in the city as affordability. I mean those those are the two that that Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yep. So thinking trans do you have any is there any talk on the uh additional uh uh overpass on the interstate another exit from the interstate or no one is talking about that. So there's there is actually people talking about that. Um there's a couple of grants that are that are out there right now. Yeah. You're talking like 30th Street.

Yeah. So the county is pursuing a grant um and I think it's more of a planning grant that would include um Skyline and 30th um and some of that. It kind of includes this area. So that the county is doing that. The city is pursuing a grant um that includes a lot of that same area, but I think it's I think it's more the city side, but it would include the overpass. Okay.

Um as well. Um so, it's being discussed. There are plans to try to get money and funding for some of these things, but nothing's been decided. like I think we have a grant in to the federal government for for that area for their planning and things but with just the way things are right now um we haven't heard back um from from them. So to refine my question is anyone that is involved in planning and uh you know another exit from the interstate itself uh have been including the wildlife overpasses as something that we would like to include. So, the transportation study plan that we're well I think I'm getting things I don't know is the answer to the question. I'm not close enough to any of these projects to know exactly what's in them.

Um but but yeah, so I'm not sure if that's included. I know that there we did get a grant for some kind of connectivity thing um which includes connections for pedestrians, bikers, you know, automobiles, but I'm not sure if it included wildlife. So, I don't I doubt that it did, but maybe I don't know. If anybody's interested, I'll be happy to um lend my expertise. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. I'll I'll let people know. I don't like I said I don't know if that's something they're

I mean if we are going to build another overpass it makes more sense to include it in it rather and make the whole you know development conducive to this then come back 10 years later and say hey you know I missed an opportunity. Sure. Sure. Cool. Thank you. Yeah. Anything else we do have anything? No. Barb, do you have any commissioner comments you'd like to make? Nope. Nope. No. No. I'm good. Ralph, I do. Go ahead.

So, I read an article. I think it was a uh city or or a city news that the uh water commission, do we have a water commission in the state has sent an uh a notice to all the mun municipalities and industries along the North Plat River asking them to review the water rights documentation. because they predict that they will have to shut down water access to secondary water life holders. That was the whole article. I couldn't find any more information. I don't know if the lame river is considered part of that splat water. I mean, we are part of the water that wershed. Have you guys seen anything like that?

No. I think you're talking about the allocation. Sorry. Go ahead. I saw that article. I saw that article, too. I saw that article, too. Yeah. I I just couldn't find any more information. Brand new. Yeah. Under the terms of the modified north plat decree, the north plat drainage in Wyoming, if an allocation is what they call it, is predicted, which means there's not enough water to meet all the irrigation demands come summer. Yeah. Then starting February 1, they go under regulation for the 1904 reservoir, Pathfinder reservoir filling. That's what knocks all those secondaries out.

Gotcha. So this is Yeah. This is the thing that happens oh it's been quite a number of years but the all the models are predicting a low runoff year in the north flat basin and specifically triggered by the expected inflow to Pathfinder reservoir. The bureau declares it to likely be an allocation year and then the agreement is that Wyoming will regulate off a certain trunch of water rights and that would be below pathfinder. No, everything above path might feed into it is the point because they're trying to fill that reservoir. So, u should not be affected by that.

Now, Rollins is some of those communities are being forced to reduce their their water rights to pre904 priorities or buy supplemental water which is available to them out of an enlargement of the capacity pathfinder reservoir. Again, I just I spent 20 years working on that lawsuit, so I kind of have a general idea of what they're going on and worked with the state engineers off of a daily basis. And then they were all in dizzy about the fact they're going to have to to send out all these notices and and a lot of nashing of teeth and and that all ends May one.

So, yeah, there's the there's the thumbnail version. What's going on? Okay. Anything else? Anything else? No, that was mine. Do you have any comments? Uh, I just have one comment. Uh, well, two comments. Uh, there is another I don't know if I have the term right. USAC meeting USA. I'm the representative. I think I'll be make that meeting for Barb and Craig. This is an annual meeting takes place with represent from the city and the county. I think all

Why not? uh why not uh to discuss allocation and priorities of roads uh around and every year a sum comes from I guess the federal government

and it's get sucked away according to this priority list and I mean there's there's typically meeting I've been to just a a vote and some discussion before that if anyone here would like to take my place more than welcome to uh but I plan on being available and being there. And then the other comment I had was uh I started going through counties in Wyoming and got through first quarter of counties just to see what other counties were doing as far as planning and I quickly came across several counties which really don't have much of a planning function at all. Uh and I was surprised to see that that if y'all didn't know that that's true. We're actually pretty well staffed between the eight of us. if you count those as five commissioners. Uh anyway, uh so that was all I had.

So, so on that on that new sect, did did we appoint you for a period or are you in I I have no clue. I just knew I was I think it was done annually. It was if I remember correctly. It was like someone has to go. Is that going to be I'm perfectly happy that they kind of you know because it was Mark you were like didn't you fill in for Mar. Oh okay. And she voted correctly by the way. He would not have.

That's kind of cool. I suppose we need to officially reappoint somebody. No. I mean he already got the invite. So, all right. All right. I read until it's it's not in bylaws. Um, it's actually not a big deal either. No. So, it's really handsome. If you want to depose him though, I guess it might be. Yeah, it might be in USA. I don't know. And for all it could be that I have to travel that day, in which case I'll be getting contact with someone here. When is the meeting?

It is. It's actually in April, I believe, and I don't remember. 24th at 1 p.m. Uhhuh. Okay. Well, there you go. If you get stuck, I'll put this on you. All right. Well, just one thing that I uh need to say that I may not be uh able to attend the March meeting in person and I'll make uh myself available via Zoom. Okay. I'm going to be in Pineville. Okay. Um so, uh with that uh our next regular month regular meeting is March 11th, 5:00 pm here and this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Juna