Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. I'll call to order uh a meeting May 14th, 2025 regular month meeting of the Albany County Planning Design Commission. You'll begin a roll call. Mr. Warick present. Miss Hannik is absent. David is absent. Mr. Hley here. Mr. Plaz present. Uh we will move to approve the agenda. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? So move, Mr. Chair. Second. Any further discussion? Good. All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion carries. We will move to approval of the minutes. I have a motion to approve the minutes. So moved. Second that. Small discussion. Sure, if I may. Um, I thought they were great. Uh, all those links, maybe I'm kind of slow picking up the technology, but I and I would anybody who looks at any of our minutes now, they're dynamically linked not just by the minutes to the audio, but by individual items. So, Mr. Wellms, I assume you're responsible for that. Kudos. It works great. I'm convinced we finally cracked the minutes issue. So, thank you. Good job. And had no comments on the content. You said comment. Yes. All right. And I actually made the same comment to Joe essentially uh in the office the other day. I felt the minister was outstanding. Very great. So uh any further discussion? In that case, all those in favor of approval of the minutes say I. I. I. I. That motion carries. And please note, Miss Henning has arrived. Good to see you. I apologize for my legals. You're not so late. factor in the construction days. Oh yeah. Main thing is you're here

so we all feel better. uh disclosures of conflict of interest. Mr. Court, you have any Miss Henning? None. Mr. Finley, none. And I have not. Uh in that case, uh our first formal piece of business here then pass that is taking off the table the table taking off the table the zoning district amendment ZDA-01-25. I'll move we remove it from the table. Have a second. Second that. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Mr. Williams. Uh, yeah. I have no updates. Um, so I guess ask questions or whatever you guys want to do. Do we have any questions for staff? Well, yeah. Um, so I think the question last month was was there a way to deal with the area of the road to get Mr. Mitchell up to the required 10 acres? No. Uh, this is the only way that to move forward with what he wants to do. Um, now you guys can deny it or approve it, but this is the the way we have to go about it. Okay. The road area just doesn't count. Nope. Any other questions for staff? Sure, Mr. Chair. Thanks. Or you you can go next. Go ahead. Um, yeah, I think we we tabled this uh maybe Hank should have gone first. I think it was her thought of maybe we'll think of something, some creative solution. Um, so as I kind of tried to put my mind to it, um, your answer was within the current zoning. So I mean, if if a person could

create a whole new zoning to allow nine acres or something, but things we have under the current rules in the current rules and and I don't say that as something I would promote us doing. Um, but another question and thought when when I get on the assessor's map, which a lot of us do, it lists that as a 10.3 acre lot. So, not that it's going to solve the immediate problem, but I'm wondering in general, can that be fixed? Because that's part of this gentleman's difficulty was that he was by his representation led to believe by the realtor that he had a 10acre lot and everybody out there thought he had a 10acre lot and and if he had looked at the county's website it would have said you got a 10 acre lot. So I think there's a lot of sympathy for how we came to this. So, I guess I'm asking you why why doesn't it properly identify it? Can it properly identify it or you tell us about that that map? Um, I guess well, first off, we don't work for the assessor's office. We're not the assessors. I'm not sure how they function. Um, but in theory, now that we have a survey that gets recorded and it gets updated. I don't know if that's how it works, but I think that's how it works. Um, so I would like to think that gets fixed in the near future for that for that for that parcel, right? Yeah. I guess I'm another thing we discussed a lot last month was the the the precedent and and if we say, well, 10's, you know, 9.2 is close enough. Um, and everybody out there who finds that they too have 9.8 8 acre lot says oh well then I could go

ahead and subdivide we don't want to do that so trying to to to cut the precedent is the other where my thought was you guys ask the assessor to do that or are you aware of other places where we're likely to run into this and and can we do something to help the public not come to this point this is one of the only subdivisions that I've seen the only one really that um the acreage isn't listed in each lot on the plat Um, and I think that's the big issue here. Um, going forward, I mean, obviously we we know that now. We've learned that. Um, so if someone from Aloqua comes in and talks to us and wants to do something, we'll advise them to make sure that it's the acreage that they need to have it um, you know, get a survey first. Okay. um before you jump into something we don't know about. So in this case, had he come and talked to you guys? Yeah. Yeah. We told him it was 10.33 acres. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um because that's what we have to go by. Um but it's not and so we have to go follow our regulations. Yeah. Yeah. No, and I'm I'm inclined to to approve this one, but my concern, as we discussed last time, was that that we not let it stand for something going forward. So, you've you've modified me considerably by saying if the same thing came up again, you would be in a position to say, "Look carefully whether it's 10 or not." Yeah. Do do a little bit of homework first. Yeah. A little bit. And if there is some way for you guys to have some feedback to the assessor and I don't know maybe they just can't work until the survey is done in the plants there but I just I I have I feel for the guy who looks on the map like I do to see how big things are and it tells him the wrong answer.

So whatever we could do to help folks out going forward. Um then just I guess while I've got the floor on the comment letter that we got just so we're clear. Uh this Sherwood suggested it was a 10acre lot and they could legally split it into five. That's incorrect. Right. The letter Yeah. Right. Okay. And the letter uh referred to the rose roads as easements but but they are not part of the property. Yeah, just clarify that. That was what we discussed last time. So I got that right. Right. Okay. And uh All right. Those are just my my comments on their comments. So I'll give the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um did did you meet with the applicant at all in the intervening table in time? Um I called him yesterday just to let him know what was happening, but other than that, no. So, so there there were no conversations about other other options. There are no other options. So, so I I have heard from a resident of that neighborhood about another option somebody else had to take to do this process. They had to buy 6 in of property from a joining neighbor to come up with the acreage needed to do the lot split. Was that ever pursued or thought about? I should say there's no easy answers. I mean in that case they have to get in his case three land owners that would or I guess one it depending on how much they give but they have he has to work with someone else to get a boundary line adjustment and get more land. I

mean, so I guess that is an option, but it's not an option. Like we have an application in front of us, so that's what we're pursuing, right? No, but I guess that's I guess the reason we tabled it was to provide an opportunity to pursue other ways of doing this, Mr. So I think that a solution like that that is beyond the scope of this commission. You do not dictate ownership. That's a private transaction. What you have is a application in front of you. Okay. So but that is something that the planning staff have ability to Right. Mr. G. Yeah. Um, I don't remember our conversation, but was that something we brought up when we originally talked? I It seems like we would have said like, well, you can bring it up to 10, but I I can't remember our conversation. So, no, I've never Yeah. Okay. Cuz like for the most part, like we're working with some other people and that's what we're telling them. So, if we didn't say it in this case, then it's I guess we didn't. But like for the most part, that's something we bring up. you know, if you want to meet these criteria, these are we usually give the options at the beginning, but it's been a while since we've met, so I I don't recall what our conversation was. So, right, just a different circumstance. We told them to go ahead with the subdivision before we even needed knew it needed to be right, changed, right? And the provision for variances in the zoning resolution don't they don't encapsulate this kind of situation. It's it's for building standards as well we talked about a variance like what what would be

required for a variance and uh this is just like between me and David but we determined that uh it would basically give special permission. That's one of the the uh standards that we can't do in a variance. So basically giving special permission within a zoning district to go, you know, outside of the scope of a zoning district because it it just seems like in this scenario with the um like the the misinformation piece of things that Mr. Mitchell was hanging his hat on, you know, that it was, you know, what rings out to me with the variance provision is that by no fault of his own, right? I think we can all agree with that. But but you you feel but there's more things that they have to meet that that provision outweighs the or is outweighs the other because because I I still feel strongly that uh that this is a precedent setting thing to allow small lot residential zoning in the in a PG3 area that isn't being served by a utility of some sort or so close to the city boundary that it stands a chance of being served by a utility. And and so far the um the staff analysis has been silent on really defending uh that there is no there is no similar zoning designation in this area. You have to go miles to get to a small lot residential zoning designation. And so

the criteria for approval, it seems like it fails on that test more to me like to me the ramifications for doing that and the ramifications countywide for all those areas that are that are zoned uh ranchet. um that that's that's a bigger implication to me than the idea that you're giving special permission to somebody for something that was clearly a a train wreck of information. Um you know that m that Mr. Mitchell is is the vi is the victim of. But I feel like the solution that we've arrived at makes everybody else out in the county who enjoys uh lot sizes that are more protective of groundwater quality because we're all on septic tank leech fields. Um that we're we're sort of jeopardizing that countywide. I mean that we're we're talking about hundreds of households that could be, I think, harmed by uh supporting this decision and not coming up with another another um way to address Mr. Mitchell's problem. Um, and I guess the other thing that I that I'm troubled by, as I said at the previous meeting, is that we're we're looking to smaller lots in this area, but I are they not non-conforming lots? I mean, aren't aren't these small smaller acreage lots which have a zoning designation of Branchette now? Uh they are non-conforming lots and yet we're using that as a explanation for why it's okay to go down to smaller lots.

um were were saying in essence that uh it's okay to to add more non-conforming lots uh kind of and I mean so do you first of all do you agree that the two lots to the south would fall under the category of a non-conforming lot? Yes, they're non-conforming. But that doesn't mean that they can't put a house and all that kind of stuff on it. All that means is that they can't subdivide, right? No, that they can they can they can definitely build a a dwelling on the second lot of of those two small lots. But are but we're we're saying by calling like the whole purpose of the category of a non-conforming lot is you're sort of saying this this isn't the ideal, right? That this this isn't what we're trying to do out there. It's not the ideal in that zoning district in that in that zoning district. But but here here the the staff analysis is saying um it's we're we're sort of justifying this by looking to the non-conforming lots and saying because nonconformance exists it's okay to add more small lots. Dude, I'm No, I'm just looking at the area and seeing smaller lots than what he has, what he's wanting to do even um and and saying that this is the way that he can do what he wants to do. All I'm doing is saying that this is an area of development that has development. what he wants to do that I know of, nothing's changed, um, is add another lot. And we're looking at the area. It makes sense to me to add another lot. Like, it doesn't hurt or, you know, help

the area um, in my opinion. And then this is the way to do it. So, so I I guess we're just agree. It's just it's it's up to you guys. I'm not the decision maker. You guys are the ones that say yes or no. Okay. So, um just doing a quick glance at the comprehensive plan. Um if you look at what's required for small residential, rural residential, urban residential, the only requirement, the only land use in the comprehensive plan that requires water and sewer hookups is urban residential. Okay. So small residential is meant for um properties with a well and a septic. Um the range of lot sizes is two to two to 5 acres according to the comprehensive plan. Um if you look at our zoning, the only required um area or zone that that requires water and sewer hookups is urban residential. Small residential again is allowed to have a well and a septic on there. So that's not a requirement. It doesn't have to be near the city. Um I will also mention that there are um that all those small lots it next Lake Hattie are zone small lot residential. Um we the board of county commissioners also approved um a lot off of Carolyn Lane small lot residential um which has no water or sewer hookups as well. So, so to say that this is setting a precedent, I don't know if it is. It's following the comprehensive plan. It's following the the zoning. Um, this is an option in the zoning to do this. Um, I just, you know, I think that's information that you can you need to consider when you're you're considering

this decision. So, but but we also need to consider that if we change it to that, the minimum lot size becomes two acres. And so, even though Mr. Mitchell doesn't intend to do a bunch of twoacre lots. He could. Absolutely. So minimum the minimum lot size on a ranch head is two acres, right? You just have to average five. Okay. But you can average more if you do small lot residential and that is that we have to be okay with that. And that's could be a problem. Miss Henning, were you done? Well, I guess the the the last thing that I guess I'm repeating from a previous meeting. I'm sorry. I'm No, it's okay to repeat actually because we have on tables as good refresh. Okay. In don't feel bad about that. In the comprehensive plan, it is really oddly silent about the small lot residential. I mean, um, in terms of what the expectation is to to be hooking up to future utilities, I I just can tell you from my my geological environmental background that lots smaller than two acres or pretty much smaller than five acres uh don't have enough groundwater dilution to not result in groundwater contamination from septic tank. leechfields, but I know we don't have a factual thing in front of us to rely on in in making decisions that way. Um, but if you looked at the literature, if you look in our community where small lot residential exists in Sherman Hills and the Laramie plane subdivid division, um, it bears true that these smaller lots will result in people having contaminated wells over time. Um but the

the comprehensive plan talks about PG3s would generally rely on large lots and just in the very name of small lot residential we have the word small and so it's it the comprehensive plan is silent on small lot residential having to have any particular uh future utility uh hope um but the but the PG3 clearly really says large lots and small lot residential is not a large lot. Um, and regarding the Lake Hattie uh properties, I'm I'm imagining all of those predated the zoning that is out there. And so it was like, oh, let's let's call it what it is. It's a bunch of small lots next to each other along a lake. I I doubt that the that the zoning came first and the houses came later. I think it was a matter of the houses were there, the zoning followed, the zoning um acknowledged what existed. Um so I I'm not really heartened to to think of Lake Hattie. Um I I just still feel that uh as as soon as as soon as the numbers increase on the number of small lot residentials that are nowhere near a utility and not any any time going to be near a utility. Um, we're going to tip the we're going to tip the quality of life for the people in the in the um in the extr territorial part of the county towards a a lower quality of life that they that they didn't want. That's not why they bought their land. And I guess I think that's the general welfare that we and the board of county commissioners

are supposed to be protecting. the the general welfare of those hundreds of houses that are in like ranchet type zoning. Um, and that uh I I do see it as a prior a um what's the word I'm thinking of that's yeah precedent starts with a P um to to a to permit this zoning designation change. And so, so I guess back to my question about the the requirements for approval that say um to not only be looking at the land use but the sur the surrounding land the zoning designations. How do you justify going like two miles away um and say that because small lot residential is over there, it's okay to put here when when the whole area is uh not a single small lot um zoning designation anywhere nearby. uh because we're looking at use uh residential with residential um and I guess that's what we're looking at. But it tells you to look at the land use and the zoning district designation. And like we can all agree the land use is residential, but I don't think you can say that the zoning district designations of surrounding properties, those are the terms that we're supposed to be looking at. That test is not met. And and so it's like I I understand the spirit of trying to help Mr. Mitchell, but I just can't help but feel like we're skirting a major part of the approval process and not looking at the zoning

district designations of surrounding properties. So, I'll have you done now. No, I I see I see where you're coming from. I I get it. Um we're looking for a way to, you know, represent the applicant and do what he wants to do. I will also note that while you do bring that up and I know it doesn't matter on this this uh application. Um but that was passed the zoning change uh or the zoning district amendment amendments got passed last Tuesday and the looking at the zoning districts around the property was removed. So that's no longer a finding effect. Um, and like I said, I know that doesn't matter for this application, but I will point that out. Mr. Cornic, is there anything you like to add? Uh, not beyond the thing about he what he could do even though it's not what he intends to do, I think, and and everybody else could do too if they could get this change. Well, we're on staff comments. We'll come back to what we want to do, right? We're sort of engaged in a show discussion now. So we're in Rubix and that's fine. Okay. Um well I agree with Commissioner Hanning and and the idea that we have somehow said a press my interest in supporting this would be as a one-off under very special circumstances and as I have opined with respect to these scattered rural residential zones which all across the county which I see as a stake and a relic. I I hate the idea of of small lot residential sitting there like that but this is becomes quite speculative but might we coax a thought

out of Mr. errors on the issue of precedence and the concern would be someone else comes in and they've got a 9.9 acres and they want to do this and we are all similarly opposed and they say well you did it for this guy does that have any any legal graitas it does not it does not okay yeah um from the secondary sources I have seen um it's pretty clear that ad hoc zoning decision um which this is or case by case um does not give um subsequent applicants uh grounds in an appeal of a zoning decision. Okay, a very crisp answer. Thank you. Was that all for the moment? We got some public comments. Uh, I am pretty sure I didn't say anything about how I feel about this at a prior meeting and I did so deliberately. So, I'll give my thoughts now. Um, I'm in favor of recommending approval of this. Um, whether or not we or the county commissioners ultimately approve this or reject this uh will not change the fact that change will be coming at some point down the road. if not now. Some point someone's going to want to subdivide and at some point that'll be approved. Um I believe Joe has correctly noted that this is an appropriate area for further development. Um, I would expect that if it's approved, uh, well, it doesn't necessarily mean anything will happen at once because we'll have to go through a subdivision and that will also be subjected to a thorough round of scrutiny, probably even a more thorough round of scrutiny. Um, and if that's approved and if Mr. Mitchell does go ahead and subdivide and

sell his property and so builds a house, that would be some change. But I would speculate that change is not likely to happen at a quick pace out there. It will take place over time. Um, and while you thought this did not support the idea of the general welfare of the county, I actually take the other side of that and I think it does. So we'll agree to disagree also. Um, I I think again to me this is an appropriate area for further development. Um I don't think uh this is going to spur off a flurry of activity be uh at any time soon. I think change will will happen slowly to the extent does happen. And then also uh I do take note of the fact uh that in my recollection when applicant stood for us he didn't complain he didn't whine. He didn't say you know why has this happened to me? Why am I being screwed? And um I think of some of the other situations we've seen where we have not had great behavior from applicants and I am inclined to see this favorably uh and try to encourage that kind of behavior. Um so that's really all I have to say about this. We can have further discussion or we can have a motion here. Let's p Are we not having public comment? Do we need to speak at all? We had a public hearing in our prior meeting. Uh so we are not going to have further comment on this agenda item tonight. Do you guys care what anybody thinks that lives out there? We absolutely do. I would not be averse to hearing public comment. I wouldn't neither. I move that we open to public comment. Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. Uh all those in favor say I. I. I. We will have public comment. So, uh, for those who would like to speak, uh, please step forward one at a time, uh, state your

name, where you live, and try to combine your comments to three minutes or less. Uh, so who' like to come first? Go ahead. Here. I come up here. Yeah, absolutely. Uh, name is Joe Wolf. I live in Alequat subdivision. Um, I've got two points for three minutes. I'll do the best I can. Sure. Um the first thing is I am very opposed to changing the the zoning. Uh reason is I moved out of town for a reason. The zoning that's there currently was somewhat of an assurance to me and my family that that we were going to have 5 acre lots and smaller. Um I'd like to keep it that way. Um you guys talked about the precedent. Um it might be a different bunch of people the next time somebody comes in and says, "Well, my neighbor did it. Why why can't I?" Um, I'd rather pull this horse back before he runs off. Uh, that's my concern there. The other one is this, which uh, what was your name? I'm sorry, Joe. My name is Joe, too. Um, so the the paying of taxes, and I'm actually going to bat from Mr. Mitchell on this one. Um, came from somewhere. So, I did a little homework on the GIS map, which you can say is accurate or isn't, but do the acreage tool. If you do not include the roads, it comes out on Mr. Mitchell's lot, 9.6 acres. If you include half the roads, 10.3. That was the first try just doing that. Um, I live in the subdivision on a corner lot, so I thought I'd do the same thing with me. I pay 7 and 12 acres taxes. If I do not include the roads, my lot is 5.6. So, I'd like an explanation from somebody. If this is how it is, why am I paying 30% more land tax on land I don't own, obviously. Otherwise, I think that it

makes sense that the easement goes through my property, the road goes through my property. If you guys want to see see these, I can sure hand them up to you. Um, but it seems like someone's got to own that property where the road is. And it only makes sense to me that it goes down the the property lines, the original property lines. Um, and it adds up with the uh county assessor's office. So, doesn't someone have to own the property to even have an easement? Otherwise, it's something else, isn't it? Isn't an easement uh through somebody that owns the property? I mean, my question would be, okay, so if the roads aren't owned by anybody, what if it can't hardly be an easement, can it? I mean, you're the maybe you could tell me about that, but this has been the discussion the whole time. I mean, well, there's there's a definite problem with I mean, this just now I'm talking about me, but that's 30% more property I'm paying tax on. I get it. So, it came from somewhere and it sure looks like it's a pretty simple answer that the roads are included. So if the roads are included, it kind of fixed the whole entire problem here at my opinion. That's not what the plat says. Platin. That's what we have to go by. What's the platin? The original plat. It's not what the plat says. It's the map that was used to create the subdivisions and then the the surveyor went out and used that and the information they had to determine the actual boundaries for surveying purposes. And that's where the Well, he's way far off at 30% on land, I'd say. It sure looks to me anyway. That's just and I'm just I'm obviously not into this, but it sure looks to me like you go in the center of the roads and and do the math and it adds up to what you're paying taxes on. So, if the I just would like to say if the roads were included, which it sure looks like to me they are, there's really not a problem with Mr. Mitchell dividing in the two fives and then everything's laid out that way. So, that's my my two cents on that. Thank

you for your comment. Appreciate it. Next. Please go forward. Hi, I'm Sylvia Bagdonus. I live at 28 East Street in Alquat subdivision and I too do not support uh the zoning request before you. I think it sets a precedent and you will see a lot of small lots developed within the Aloquat subdivision. And when I moved out there in 1982, there were five homes. Now there are 62, but they are on large lots. So I think what was mentioned before is when you increase the in uh density of dwellings in an area and have more septic tanks and leech fields, I think there's uh the potential to have some uh problems with the water quality and we're trying to prevent that. So again, I do not support the zoning request. Thank you. Thank you. Please confirm. I'm George Hood. I live at 36 South Street in the Alquart subdivision. And I guess my concern primarily is an environmental concern, which probably isn't very important. Um, I've lived here for about 50 years and I'm somewhat acquainted with the situation out in Sherman Hills. And I know Bern Hankley knows more about that than probably all of us in this room put together because he's been studying it for almost 50 years. And the problem out there basically boils down to you have a lot

of septic systems and nitrates are building up in the water and from talking to Vern Burn earlier said those wells are about 200 feet deep. Now there are three aquifers out in Alakoquat. The Chugwat Satanka and uh of course the the big one down deep the Casper. And I guess my problem is if you if you approve cutting the size of lots out there from five to two 2 and 1/2 whatever it is you are going to in effect double the amount of effluent coming from septic systems going into the system. Now, the people that have wells in that top aquafer are going to be the people going to be hurt because all those nitrates and other chemicals are going to work their way through the soil and get into that water. Anyone's downgradient is going to be affected by it. And that seems to me to be a big problem that doesn't no one seems to really want to think about or address here. Um I I have a problem. I I would not personally I'll be honest with you. I personally would not be probably affected by it because my well is down in the Casper. It's 1,000 ft deep. But the people who are in the chug water and the Satanka, and there are some of those out there, there's quite a few of them in fact, who will definitely be affected for it over time. And that is going to

make it very difficult for them to sell their homes if the water is contaminated. And I think these are the type of things you should really be looking at, not over whether someone owns 10.2 2 acres or 9.6 acres. Okay, that's immaterial if you're polluting the water. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Please go forth. My name is Jerry End. I live at 60 West Street and I also am opposed to the amendment. Um, and not just for Mr. Mitchell's particular situation, but the president and maybe we don't have a legal precedent, but the precedent is set in in the public's mind. As Joe said, you know, if you support his appeal, how can you not support the next guy's appeal in the same situation? That that doesn't even make sense. [Music] Um the current situation with the lot size now there's only one lot that's less than one less than five acres. Um everything else is between 5 acres and 25 acres. Um, and the possibility of there being four lots on Mr. Mitchell's property doesn't fit with that overall um scheme of of rural living.

Um, the other the other thing is the road the roads throughout the subdivision. If this breaking up of of larger lots into smaller lots continues, this could raise havoc with the roads. Um currently about 30% of the people pay for all the road maintenance. Um and with that we can do usually we can grade the roads twice a year and maybe add a couple hundred feet of base where it's needed the most. But you start adding that many more vehicles out there, that road's going to be untenable. Um, if this happens, we won't have enough money to support maintenance of the roads. and you're not going to help us as the county and the state's not going to help us and that puts us in a really bad situation. So, I am totally opposed to this. That's all I got. Thanks. Well, thank you. Anyone else? Going once. Going twice. Okay. Well, you've had your chance to say and thank you for your comments and thank you for being here as well and now it is up to us to make a decision.

Um, one more question for staff just for trying to understand the context here and I and to some of the earlier discussion I think that this all is all about context and and I've been a big proponent of when we make these zoning changes we need to look at the the whole picture. Um, specifically with respect to the issue of septic systems, Mr. Gurge, remind us what is it that triggers a septic tank suitability study when one goes to subdivide and is that at all applicable to this situation? Um, so are you asking whether it goes to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality? Would we need such a study under our current rules? Correct. Yeah, we would. Yes, we in this situation, it's in a platted subdivision. So that kicks it up to you you're not using the the minor sub you couldn't use the minor subdivision process. You'll have to use the major subdivision process which will include um the studies that will go to DEQ and and to you guys even though it'll just be a two lot subdivision estimation. Okay. Thank you. That's exactly what I was wondering. Thank you. And I I will add for all of us the reminder what we do have before us is a zoning super amendment not a subdivision request even though we're contemplating what might be happening in the future. Any further discussion? So like to make a motion. I'll I'll be a contrarian like I've been all along. It is absolutely right. Um

you're not here to be uniform all the time. So I'll I'll move to deny the application. And I recommend the board of county commissioners deny the Mitchell zoning district amendment CDA-01-25 based upon the applicant's failure to adequately address the impacts specified in ACZR chapter 3 section 5 subsection subsection 3.5.3 regarding priority growth area three in the comprehensive plan and section Um section sorry section I guess it's a.3 point little a the compatibility with surrounding properties in that uh it does not meet the test of the zoning district designation of the surrounding properties. And is there anything else I'm supposed to say in my denial? Uh, I guess I said it. Period. Is there a second? I'll second it. Is there any further discussion? Um, point of clarification, I'll get looked to staff. Um, a a tie vote defeats the motion, which case no action is taken. Are we required to take action or will that leave us? I mean, typically you would you would do a motion to approve and then if that was denied or if you didn't get that motion and the failure to approve a motion to approve is not be a denial. That isn't a denial. It's a failure to take action. I think that we've heard this discussion. I'm not a you need an affirmative

motion. That is correct. So I guess that would be the there would be no recommendation from this board. That' be correct. Matt, let me check one thing. Are we are we required to make a decision? Are you supposed to make a recommendation? Okay. Um, so yeah, then like the it' be proper for someone to offer a motion to deny. It a motion to deny is what's on the floor. Yeah. If that motion is defeated. Oh, then we've done nothing. Yeah. Oh, sorry. I got that inversion. And if a motion a motion to approve and if that were if if that were defeated, right, then there you'd be. We don't have anything in the bylaws. Can it go to the board without a recommendation as well? Is another way to ask my question perhaps. So I think you have two options. Um you can either table further uh to have a a full quorum of five members in which case a tied vote would be impossible or it can you could move to proceed the application to the county commissioners noting that there was no I guess dispositive motion for approval. or

denial uh and it resulted in a tie. Okay. Whichever you would feel is appropriate. So, Mr. Chair, um it would seem the options before us are to let it go forward to the board without recommendation or to table it uh pending a a more fully populated commission would be my sense of where we are. Well, we're going to take a vote after I understand. We will have to take a vote if this is appropriate to understanding how that vote proceeds. Well, I agree. Okay. Any other further discussion? In that case, we'll proceed the vote. Commissioner Hanning. So, if I vote I in favor of my denial. That's correct. Okay. I Commissioner Kuadic. I. Commissioner Hinkley. No. And I also vote no. So, in fact, we do have a tie vote. Um, and how do we feel about send forward as a tie versus tab? Do they need to formally do the other to formally do the other one? I don't know. Yeah. I think can we how can we table maybe this procedural question again? We've done that once or we I would recommend not at this point. Um just for the the practical facts that whatever this commission votes the county commissioners are going to vote on it and ultimately decide. I think so. So okay fair advice but let's let's talk about that for a second. If I mean we are not under a timeline I guess where I'm fishing around for some of our decisions are made. You have to decide within next days or else it goes forward with no because there's no there's no statutory well there's no statutory procedures for zoning district amendment

other than the general procedures for voting which are outlined in 18520. Okay. Um, so it's Oh, actually that's interesting. Certify recommendation. Um, and because of that language, certify a recommendation to the board of county commissioners on zoning. So it would actually I apologize for my earlier statement um remembering that exact language in statute. There should be a affirmative recommendation one way or another coming from this commission. Then Mr. Chair, I move we table this until our next meeting when we will have the ability to provide a non-tie vote. There second. I'll second that. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. So we will table us to our June meeting and hopefully we'll have either quorum. So that's what we do. In that case we have taken care of that matter from this meeting. As a concerned citizen, the acoustics are terrible in here. I don't know anything that's going on and I doubt whether anybody else is. If you could simply clarify what you just did. We took a vote. It's a tie. So, we are going to table this matter to our next meeting when we hopefully we'll have a full quantum of five people. So, it will not be a tie and we'll make a decision then. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Sorry. and they're all uh and uh if unless you want to stay around for the rest of our meeting, you're free to leave. There's there's no discourtesy to leaving at the end of your item. Will you accept public comment next week to get the the one that's missing? Hopefully one we can certainly discuss that amongst ourselves and based on what happened here I would guess there's likely that we would want to do that but we'll see. She'll watch the recording she'll probably watch the recording. Okay. Uh the zoning district amendment ZDA-03-25 is our next item. Joe All right. Shut the door. All right. Uh, the applicant is Nathan Willis. The address is 83 Little Work Lane. His request is to change zoning from a to residential. There were some reviews. Jake Schneider, county engineer, had comments on potential subdivision, but no comments on this application. Holly Dyer, Larie Rivers conservation district resource specialist, commented on erosion, soil, degradation, and irrigation, and her full comments can be seen in the review section. And Taylor McCor, District 1 traffic engineer for YOT had no comments on this application, but mentioned that Little Worth Lane may require additional improvements if a subdivision comes forward. The applicant has provided a complete application including all required documentation. The planning department believes this proposed zoning district amendment generally follows suggesting the open

county comprehensive plan. This property is currently zoned agricultural and change to rural residential is compatible with the existing land use of surrounding properties. The findings necessary for approval and applicant responses referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has adequately addressed the specified impacts and the same are incorporated herein. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the Albany County zoning resolution and staff recommends approval of the Williston district amendment application ZDA0325 adopting and incorporating staff analysis findings effect and conclusions of law as each are stated in the questions for staff beginning with uh um I wish we'd heard from game and fish when we went on the comments. They didn't they didn't comment. No. Is there um Can you just remind me the new fencing regulations for wildlife friendly fencing? Would that apply here or that come during the Well, for the subdivision. Yeah. In the subdivision phase. That would correct. Okay. Yeah. Um that was my only question. Commissioner Haley. Um yeah, of looking at staff report um the applicant described this as being under rural agricultural zoning. That is not correct. Yeah, I pointed it out a couple times saying um that this is a and he's requesting to go to rural residential and that the surrounding properties are ranchet not uh rural a I believe is what he says. Yeah, we don't we created that zone, but we don't really have any of those so far. Is that correct? Um, yeah. Well, it's not even called that. It's a residential is what it's called. Yeah, I guess. Um, so yeah. Um, the applicant

describes the the uh comparison to where this irrigated, but it is not irrigated at present is my understanding. So, yeah, I don't think so. I thought that was a little bit of a stretch. not that it's directly relevant to us. Um, then I just had a a suggested edit. As you know, I continue to chew on the the uh precise wording of staff reports and so forth. So, I'll just throw this in as an editorial comment. uh under the proposal to deny if we were to make that the suggested language is recommend the board of county commissioners and so forth based upon the applicant's failure to adequately address the impacts as I've commented in many previous meetings that address seems like a to meet the phone yeah I believe it's so I would like that to my suggestion would be again with Mr. er's approval and you guys that we would change our default motion to be failure to support the findings required in I think the actual wording is comply with. So if you plan to deny it, it needs to say comply with that is the wording for uh chapter 3 section 5G 3. Okay. That so it would just be failure to comply with. So you would suggest that be changed. Correct. But then we Well, okay. If that's what the rules require, it's like the let's get all those words exactly lined up correctly in that adequately addressed seem a little Yeah. a little weak to me. Did Mr. You act like you might wanted to add something to that? Uh well, we're I was just ensuring that this is still under

the the old regulations which were not adopted last Tuesday. Yeah. And how will those didn't we change? We I believe the verbiage was changed. We'll have two more. I believe it says meets the following criteria now. Okay. Um and we'll have two more applications under the old one. All right. That that was my concern again is just let's get these as lined up as closely as we possibly can and perhaps Mr. and his followers will appreciate that as they get to arguing. Um second question was uh public comments. Have we heard any got any that you've aware of? I didn't. They would have been passed on yet. Okay. Thank you. That's the only questions I have for staff. And I don't have anything. Is applicant here? I believe so. Yeah. Would you like to please step forward and if you have anything you like to add to your application can otherwise if you want to take questions from us. I don't not that I had planned. I guess the only thing I've heard so far with is if it's currently irrigated or not, which it is not, but to make it a more fitting a property, it would be to make it more beneficial to the use of the property. I would have to use what my well has already been permitted to do, which is irrigate the property. Um, so that's where that comparison is that's in that application. Um, other than that, I didn't have anything else I plan to talk about. So, please replace just a quick question. Is the well is up to the task? I mean, you've got yourself a Yes. mult well out there. Well, it was approved for 60 gallons a minute, which at the moment is only has a pump large enough for 13. So, that's

all that's out right now. But I am I have talked to the state engineers office and the um natural resource analysis at the state engineers office and she has looked through the different options and like I said that's where that other option would be to upgrade the the pump and pull the full 60 out that I'm permitted to pull in in which case I would actually irrigate the property and that would be a larger pull off of the property or off off that water table which I believe is jug water. I'm not sure but um that'd be a much larger poll than other options. Yeah. No, I see. Thank you. And that good explanation for what I read there was okay. Wasn't quite sure where that was going but so thank you for that. It's all I have. Mr. Chair D. That's all clear. I don't have any questions. Well, I just want to I say I'd like to say I appreciate that you've come in with a subdivision that's proposing larger lots than the surrounding lots. Um I I think that's more in keeping with the existing properties out there. So, I appreciate that you that you came in with a with a size that uh respects what I think people moved out there to to live around. Thanks. Okay. I don't have anything either, so thank you. Okay, perfect. Thanks. So discussion. Are you looking for a motion, Mr. Chair? I'd be happy to take a motion. I'll move we approve the board of county commissioners. We recommend the board of county commissioners approve the public zoning district amendment CDA 03 public hearing. Sorry. Excuse my fault. Yes, we're supposed to have Thank you. We are supposed to have a public

hearing. Is there any mayor of the public like to speak on his application? Please step forward. I got to go forward. Uh my name my apologies. That's okay. My name is Dennis Sullivan. I'm in the uh that little subdivision 10 10 houses right off 287. We call it High Plain Subdivision there. And yeah, we're all just five acre lots. All kidding me. But uh it's a nice little community. our our one point of address and I think I got another uh neighbor here tonight is really uh with the way our little group is set up that we really maintain uh all of the road that comes into that area right now. We manage that as far as uh addressing it, grading it, keeping up the speed how it has to be and such like that. And that's probably a real concern that we're looking at is how that cooperative is going to happen and work out because technically uh a little worth and you know it is a gravel road for our for our part of it. It's probably about uh quarter mile a third of a mile long total that every quarter mile a third of a mile long total that everybody would be addressing. Some of us others are up off of Phantom Road there that really aren't impacted by it, but there's there's a lot more traffic that comes into there now. And uh some of it's a little high speed in nature as far as how it's traveled and uh you know, how we can manage it. I mean, we we just like make sure it stays as a really nice community and how it's worked out and uh you know, we know there's going to be development out there. we we you know we're going to grow. We we got to admit that. But uh we just want to make sure

it's managed properly and uh addressed you know in the correct way as far as to be able to taken care of. So that's my thoughts on Thank you for your comment. Okay. Thank you. David, uh how are situations like that handled or typically handled or or these are unique situations? Uh it's not unique. um the I mean that that doesn't apply to the zoning district amendment we're talking about but when a subdivision if a subdivision is proposed um one of the requirements is to um come up with a solution to make sure the roads are maintained with basically working with those that maintain the roads. Um, so if if they have a a road maintenance agreement or or something on that road that they will, you know, another property owner will be using as part of their subdivision, um, there would need to be some type of an agreement or or talking or or some there are some options in our our regulations, but that situation will need to be addressed as part of the subdivision process. Okay. Well, thank you for your comment. That was a valuable comment. Um, any other members of the public who wish to speak? Either present or please come in. Hi. Uh, my name is Tom Burket. B KT. I live at 78 Animal Bridge Loop. Um, so our property is on the west side of the property that you're talking about. And I guess I don't really have any objection or anything, especially if they're larger lots. It's just we lived there for 26 years and you look out there and it's all wide open and I am little disappointed now that there is something but I figured we made us 26 years. So I'm happy for that. So I um if I guess one question is if they are like 10 acres or larger lots in the future would that ever have a chance of being

like half to five acres the way the zoning is now? They'd have to come in and change the zoning but yeah. Okay. Okay. That's Well, anyway, I'm getting old, so maybe it won't matter. Anyway, you're good for another 40 years. Anyone else? Please come forward. Name's Travis Price. I live at 22 Phantom Road. I'm new to all this, so I apologize on proper quorum and all that. Um, I have some of my concerns like the, you know, later on subdividing it. What's that going to do to our park in the future? What's that going to do uh to our scenery? Uh, wildlife. I already know I haven't lived out there as long as they have, but in the short time that I've been out there, wildlife is gone. It's I mean, at least cut in half and we do this and it's going to be gone. uh what what does that do to future land value? What does that do? You know, you take away the the uh scenery, does that affect land value? I I don't know. Um and then I don't know either. What are we doing? 10 acre lots, 5 acre lots, what's the proposal on that? Um and then do we have guarantees if groundwater we we don't have groundwater anymore? Is there any guarantees to us uh you know for for what happens to our values? Um and then my understanding is the the it's not proper here if I

understand right on talking about the HOA stuff things like that. Um, but that would be probably my biggest concerns. Our land value, our future water. Does it get subdivided again in the future? Um, those would be my main main concerns. Travis, I would encourage you to ask those questions to that man right there at your convenience. Okay. Anytime you like. That's what his job is, answer questions like that. All right. Thank you. I refer to Mr. G. I was joking. But yeah, but but so we're clear what we're voting on. It is not It's 10 acres. Yes. Average 10 acres. Five acre average 10. So with the possibility of doubling houses, so that could end up being 25 at some point in the future, right? They'd have to go through this process. Oh, okay. The application before us is to go to 10 acre lots. Gotcha. And cluster them and average them out, but 10 acres. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move we close the public hearing. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Thanks. So now we will continue on to a motion for sure. How do I get you? I think this may be the first one of these I made the motion up. Mr. Chair, I recommend I move that the planning and zoning commission recommended the board of county commissioners approval of the Willis zoning district amendment CDA 0325 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, findings, facts, conclusions of law as each are stated in this staff report. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any further discussion?

In that case, we will proceed to a vote. Mr. Hankley, I Mr. Cornic, I. Mr. Hanny, I. And I vote I that motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all for attending. Are there uh any citizen comments online? Nope. Not anymore. Um staff updates chair commissioner commission members I provided just a brief summary of what's been going on with things we've been working on um at the May 6th meeting the zoning resolution Chapter 5 and the other zoning resolution amendments to the district amendment process were approved. So what you sent on to them was was approved. So that's now part of our regulations and they've been updated online. So everything should be up to up to par. Um the zoning resolution major street plan standards. Um, so we we created a first draft in the planning office and um, we're discussing things with the county attorney. At this point, we're we're trying to to see how to do this or if we can do this and not cause us legal problems. Um, so we're still in the process of discussing that and and coming up with a draft. Um, we may just have to to do it in the subdivision

regulations, which is in what we're working on now. Um, but but yeah, that that's being talked about and discussed. Um, hopefully we'll have something to at least tell you here in the next month or so on that. Um, also been doing some research in the plant department on the battery energy storage system standards. Um we're we're drafting some regulations and just collecting information. Um this is one of those things where nobody has any regulations in the state of Wyoming. Um there are some some regulations but they're kind of here in the southwest and here over you know in the east. Um but there's not a whole lot um of information. Um there is information actually the planning association which the national American planning association which me and Joe belong to um there's some research they've done got some information from them on those. Um so so hopefully we'll we'll pull something together for you guys to start looking at. Um then the Mappy environmental justice grant that um we had submitted um is gone. Federal government to terminated that so it's no longer in existence. So um we're we'll continue to um seek funding opportunities for this project. I mean, I think it's an opportunity to hone what the project looks like and so the next time this comes around or we have an opportunity, we'll have a little bit better put together project. So, um, one of the things we don't have on have on here is we are working on the subdivision um, update to chapter 6 and beyond basically in the subdivisions um,

regulations. So, these are like the road standards um some of the engineering things. We've worked with Jake Schneider, the county engineer, um to help us with some of those and we're trying to piece that all together. We we're I think we had a couple questions for the county engineer and hopefully we'll have something to get to to read by next month. We'll see if that how that works out. But, um but yeah, that's kind of what we're working on. If you have any questions on any of these things, happy to try to answer the questions. Or if you understand road engineering, that would be incredibly not on this part. You got the sub base, you got the base and you got the surf the wearing surface talking about like uh curve radius. Yeah. Um fill slope. Fill slope. That's the don't quite know what fill is. So that's a good place to start. Um, but yeah, like those the I mean the true like engineering, you know, parts of a road profile. Um, yeah, I can't just come up with those. Well, if you talked to me 40 years ago when I was an engineer in the army, now engineer a time machine, I guess now. Um, Go ahead. Um, of those of us with limited mental capacity, could you just remind us conceptually what the amendments were in those first two categories? Okay. So, the the chapter 5 amendments, those are to zoning certificate standards. We we've basically taken what we have on our applications and put them in there. So, like the site plan, we have specific site plan standards that we have. Um, and then some more stuff in the zoning certificate and the conditioning. I think we made some tweaks to that and

who it's sent to. And who it's sent to. Yeah. Yeah. some of that. Um the the zoning district amendments that was where we we created a legislative process for big you know zoning changes and then adjudicative process which is for the lot by lot like we keep seeing. So um we added that we we we redid the standards a little bit for that. Um yeah so that ring a bell so what caught my ear was Mr. earlier statement that we had uh changed the criteria to not take into account surrounding use. What what was that about? Uh I think he took I think he was referring to and I'm not sure but zoning like we don't refer to zoning. It's it's we refer to the surrounding land uses and not to the the zoning or something like that. Uh is that what it says in there? I don't know. That's what I took from what he said. I I didn't remember us in any conceptual way, but maybe we could be reminded. It's like by the time things leave this commission, you almost or by the time they actually get voted on, it's like what was that? Well, no, I'm totally with you there. But I think I saw some eyes raised down the desk from me. So, it's a compatibility with surrounding uses. the adjudicative zoning district amendment is compatible with the type, intensity, character, and scale of existing land uses. So yeah, it's not truly on a zoning district. It's like it's actually looking at intensity, character, and scale. I mean, I would say that that's like, you know, actual lot sizes as opposed to um surrounding zoning districts. Okay. And and now that Mr. Williams is back with this. The question was your earlier

comment about the new rules didn't look at adjacent zoning, but they do look at adjacent uses. Yeah. Compatibility. So, it sounds like the revision which would be compatible. Well, I thought we were doing was was more expansive in that sense and less tied to the president we were talking earlier. If the guy right next to you zoned small lot residential, but we find you to be utterly incompatible with what's actually going on, that latter is a reason for us to make our decisions. Okay. Just know where that came from. Um then I was just wondering uh what the the street program is is a flows from the learning growth plan. That correct? Uh well the major street plan is a separate document. It's approved by USA county and the city. But I mean the principle of of reserving right away and through you know permits and those types of things that is is supported by the growth plan. So they're they're kind of tied together in my opinion. But okay. So so remind me what and maybe the answer is we're all on hold. What are we doing in the realm of the of the growth plan? Understand the coop the LGA has been tabled indefinitely by the county commissioners. IGA. IGA. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. LGAS and the IG. Anyway, that one. Uh but is your staff, your office proceeding with other aspects of the growth plan? I mean the connection part um you know transportation connections make sure that we reserve that. that's what we're kind of looking at and that's one of the things that it supports in the growth plan. So that's that's an area that we're looking at. Um we haven't delved into like you know

potential zoning. I mean we have we've we've started before everything I mean everything changed where we started and and we're making a map based on the map in like a zoning map based on the land use map in the growth plan but I haven't done much on that um recently um maybe the street was related because it is related that will possibly come but within this periphery we want to have reservations of rightways and yeses. Okay. Um and then Mr. Chair, I might just add one thing to your last point. Um the city council had a kind of a general meeting here a couple weeks ago and the question of their monitoring well program came up and and we were told by the um city manager that they were going to hear a presentation on that later this month and then they were going to put that out for peer review. So just FYI that program is proceeding and there will be opportunity for anyone who's interested to look that over. So thank you Mr. Mr. Chair, just um I I don't know if uh the Teton County Conservation District at one time, I don't know if it came from federal funding forces, uh federal funding sources, but they did um they funded a test your own well program where they would give people like a well testing kit and and people could take their well samples to a designated lab and get get results back. and then the Teton County Conservation District sort of, you know, tallied up the data or kept kept track of the data. So, I don't know if the Laram River Conservation District has any money or interest in

doing anything like that for rural wells. And like I said, I don't know if the ultimate source of the funding was from the federal government kind of through um but that they may be someone you could partner with on trying to see if there's any other options. Oh, sure. The well monitoring program that you you guys um put effort into applying for and then had it for now disappear. Yeah. Yeah, it's a good thought. Yeah, they do have quite a few programs, so I I don't I haven't looked into all of them or whatever, but something we can look into for sure. Right. Right. Yeah. Thank you for that suggestion. Any communications from the city with regards to the LGA? Uh, okay. I was just gonna um the the Laramie River Conservation District at least has a cost sharing program for people to sample their own wells. Okay. And then maybe share that data. Um they'll split the price until they run out of money for it. Gotcha. I know they do a lot of cost shares. That's Yeah. We do our um our landfill or dump day tire refrigerator vouchers every year for for everybody. And basically we pay a dollar, they pay a dollar. We we we split the the cost basically. Yeah. And they do cost shares for land owners to do projects. So, and I I believe well sampling is one of them. Gotcha. So, um people would still have to pay half of it, but I mean we check our well once in a while anyway and you should. So, yeah, if we could add what relevant parameters that we're looking for the well monitoring program, that could be really good idea. Absolutely. Anything

else? Okay. Thank you, David. Commissioner comments. I will thank you all for going along seems to the request from the public tonight to offer public comments. Uh that was a good decision. Um especially when people unhappy. uh at least they can be heard. So I think that's the right thing to do. Yeah. Accommodating our schedule and uh and procedures, but we ought to try to accommodate folks as best we can. Yeah. No, that was good. Um yeah, I think it's mouth burning issues in your I mean I guess I'll just say one thing about president. I talked with Matt briefly about that in advance of the meeting and um I mean it's an interesting thing about I mean if if we should end up proving in a sing a small lot residential lot there obviously it does make it easier to prove the succeeding lots there's really no way to get away from that yet Matt has said quite clearly that each of these is basically a one-off decision it does not in any legal sense we just have to apply east thing. There's a psychological precedent to that. That's is what it is. And you can't control that. Just like we're supposed to be looking at zoning ament, not the follow on subdivision. You really can't really separate the two entirely. We just have to do the best we can. That's what we're here for. Yeah. And I I think we do have a precedent of looking at the worst case for a specific Oh, it should. And so we had to be okay with four lots on that spot and and I'm not. So, well, you do have to you you have to separate subdivision and and the zoning district if you want to use uh land use plans,

right? But but we're making this the zoning change. Um everything's on the table. I mean, we're we're trying to move in the direction of best thing for the welfare of the county and its morals, I think, even in the statute. So, yeah, that that was my problem with that is the president that we already have of looking at that and That did not seem okay to me. I guess I'll Is there any interest in addressing um the effect of a tie vote? Sure. Uh I already drafted an amendment. And send it to Michael. So yeah, the million for bylaws or Yeah. Um I mean should it well it's just a starting point but it would be that in the event of a tie vote um on it on a motion uh to accept or deny um it shall be considered that the matter is denied. That's that's the thing. I mean, and that can be played with, but so if there were a motion to approve and it failed, that would be accepted as a denial rather than a failure to approve. That's the subtlety that we're talking. It would be considered to be a full-on denial. If it only if it was Yeah. because of a tie vote because there would be no affirmative motion to deny. That would just be the No. Well, not it depends. It depends on the vote. If it fail, if the motion to deny ve uh failed uh three votes against, then you would have to go back with a motion to deny because you would have that motion. If that I didn't follow that. Okay. So if if the if you if there's a motion to deny and that uh there are two

or sorry a motion to approve and there are two votes for three votes against then it fails. Then it fails and then there has to be an affirmative motion to deny because there was not a tie vote. Although whether the vote was 32 against or tied that's parliamentarily the same. It's the motion fails on a tie. That's standard. Correct. But then fails because it was five to zip or fails because it was two to two. That's that's simply motion denied. Correct. But then when you can't make a motion when there can be no motion that will carry either way, that's when it's treated affirmatively as a denial. Okay. Under your suggestion recommendation under my draft. Yeah. You know, it's okay. It's up to you, but Okay. I mean that's we're now augmenting Robert's rules kinds of procedures. Robert's rules is for parliamentary bodies. Um which guidines hundreds people. Yeah. Personally, I think that they have um that they're way too complicated for small governmental bodies. I I agree. But a place to start to look for thoughtful president. Yeah. Well, I I mean I was looking like how Robert's rules treats that and I couldn't find anything beyond it's denied if there's a tie. That's correct. And then it requires an affirmative motion. That's this has come before the county commissioners before where they treated it like the defeat of a motion to approve or deny is taken as the opposite and and it isn't. Yeah. So it needs to be an affirmative vote. Um, and in that particular case, I guess now we're having this freeranging discussion. Um, I think it's an important topic and would like to see all five of us weigh

in on it. I mean, my my sense why I made my motion to table it is because I want to have a larger discussion including our our full membership because I was trying to kick the can dollar. Yeah. I know it could be um it could be where like so so long as there um you know is still time within which to make a decision uh then it's not treated as a then it it should be tabled you know you could have something like that. Yeah. Okay. So, we can talk about that when you bring that bylaw forward, but that would be the counterargument is that no, we should resolve tie votes rather than having them mean something that they didn't really say on their face. Yeah. Because I mean, it was like once I actually thought about the language of 18520 where for zoning, you know, there there has to be a certified recommendation from planning and zoning. I mean, I can't say that the the absence of a recommendation is a recommendation there, but that just kind of weird. That's that's fine. Interesting. And uh I suppose we can have this as a JID line item next time also. Sure. By make someone happy here. The next regular meeting will be June 11th at 5:00 p.m. in this room. This meeting's adjourned. Thank you, sir.