Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready to go. Okay. Uh for a calling and here David Um, Mr. Hley is absent and Mr. Platt is here. Um, few housekeeping items. Um, burn is probably having had today uh surgery for a detached retina and that's why he's not here. I don't know for a fact that he had it, but he was probably going to have it today. And and I believe that was discovered yesterday. Might have been the day before. I might be getting it wrong. Uh, so it was emergency surgery. And again, he's not here. Maybe he's gonna be online. I don't know. I don't expect that. And then second, I don't for what? A detached red. Oh, and then second, I don't know if all of you know it or not, uh, but the Mitchell application has been pulled. So, we will not be discussing that tonight. Uh, and for any of you online, if you're here for the Mitchell application, uh, we won't be discussing it tonight. The application has been pulled. Uh, so with that, may I have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Is there a second? I'll second. But I do have a request. Sure. Uh can we make a permanent change to our agenda to include a 10-minut break after the public uh hearing and we go into our personal discussion. That'll make my life easier. Um let's discuss this after agenda and uh

yeah, let's do that. Uh so any further discussion on approval agenda? Okay. All those in favor? I I that motion passes. Um Rob uh I think for all of us anytime anyone needs to be excused, I think we can to take that and I don't think we need an agenda. I'll be happy to to do that. Well, I understand that but I would prefer not to have to ask for a break. I would like it to be a permanent item if possible. Well, I tell you what, let's let's take that up at the end at decisions conference. Let's discuss that. That'll be great. Uh and maybe everyone's happy with that. So, all right. Uh approval of the minutes. Uh I have a motion to approve minutes for May 14th. I move to approve minutes. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? I want to say that I have watched the discussion of the Mitchell uh application that you guys had. Uh, and I want to commend all of you for your thorough discussion. Again, again, it was it was easy. Thank you, Joe. It was easy to find a an appropriate section and then just listen to um to what he had to say. So, um I think this system works. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Disclosures conflict interest. Diane, do you have anything? Nope. No. Rob, I have forwarded the link to the recording of the meeting to uh a neighbor in Pilot Hill. I think that's fine. It's not a conflict of interest, but they uh were curious about the discussion, so I forwarded the recording and I don't have anything to disclose.

Um, so we will move on to our next item. Dunlap zoning district amendment CDA-04-25 Joe. All right. Uh, the applicant and owner is Lance Dunlap. The address is 39 Peak View Road. The request is to change the zoning from agricultural to rural residential. Um, there were some reviews. Uh, most had no comments, but Holly Dyer from the Laram Rivers Conservation District commented on erosion, soil degradation, and reclamation of disturbed areas. Her full comments can be seen in the review section. The applicant has provided a complete application, including all required documentation. The planning department believes that the proposed zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestions of the Alb County comprehensive plan. This property is currently zone act and a change to rural residential is compatible with existing land use of surrounding properties. Uh this property is going through the zoning district amendment process because the planning department has an open enforcement case um for having two principal structures on an a property of 38.85 acres which does not meet the allowed density. The original enforcement case was opened in 2019 but the land owners were not willing to work with the county to fix the issues that are apparent. Um a new enforcement was opened in 2024 with the new land owner who is willing to work with the county to fix the issues. Um this application is the first step moving to moving forward with the fixing the issues on the property. And there are a couple of options for the landowner to continue moving forward um with either a subdivision or a conditional use application. 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 Alway County zoning resolution and staff recommends approval of the Dunlap zoning

district amendment application CDA0425 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings effect and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report. Before we have any questions, one just sort of a question aside. Were any penalties ever actually assessed to the prior owner? No questions for staff. I I don't understand what they're applying for exactly. So they're if you can clarify because we have you can build on agricultural land, right? Do they want to add another house? So currently, if you look at the aerial, there's two um primary dwellings and then two like accessory buildings with each one. Um and so it doesn't meet the density standard in order for that to be legal. For that to be legal, they would have to have 70 acres um to meet the the one dwelling per 35 acre density on a um and they don't have that. So that's where this comes in. um this would allow them to do it. Um and then there would have to be a follow-up application at if this were to be approved. Um and they could either subdivide like split it in half or do a conditional use, which I believe that they plan on doing a conditional use, but obviously nothing is final. So, um Gotcha. I think that's what the plan is so far. and and uh so basically they want to take an illegal situation and turn it legal. Correct. And is there are they part of the uh um area that they can only have 20 acres minimum? Uh they can have 10. That's the Wild Horse Ranch. Okay. Right. Covenants. All right.

Diana Mara, I was going to ask why they didn't just go for a agricultural residential, but now I they don't have quite 40 acres. They don't have 40. So that's the reason, correct? That's why they have to go down to Y. Yeah. And I wasn't clear what the two buildings are, but I think you already clarified that one of them is labeled and one isn't on the site, right? Yep. Okay. Um, how did the lot to the north become Ranchette? Because that's really dense, right? Um, yeah. So, that was changed um in 2021, I want to say. Um, that plan was to that was back when it was called rural residential. Um, and it was the big jump from a to rural residential from 35 to 5 to 35. Um, and that was changed in order to do a conditional use to do kind of the same thing cuz I think they have a cabin. There's like a small cabin, but the land owner didn't want to use that cabin as the primary residence. But the way to do it was to change your zoning, get a conditional use, and build a new um, house, however big you wanted. Um, and then so they went through this zoning change. They did the conditional use, and then they never put the conditional use to use. Oh, okay. Um, so that's now expired. But it's still zoned ranchet, so they can still they can go down to pretty small lots there. They could. Yeah. Excuse me. Well, sharpen my language. Use Burns language since he's not here. They could apply for a They would have to subdivide, right? Okay. But but they're zoned for it. But I'm only saying it because Burn's not here. There won't be need There won't be a need for a zoning J. Yeah. Okay. Well, that's all I was wondering about.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I I just have general questions about uh in enforcement and violation issues that you face. So, because it seems like you uh were trying to address this since 2019, um how how many open enforcement cases do you guys have? Um last year we had uh about 75. Oh wow. Um and when I I took over as the kind of supervisor to enforcement in May and since that time we had like probably 60 to the end of the year. Um and so and then this year we're at about probably 12 so far. So per year or you've reduced it from 70 down to 12? This year we've started 12 new ones. Okay. Uh and we were without an enforcement officer for four months. So So cumulatively you have almost 200 enforcement. Uh well they're not all open. Um, I'd say a majority of the ones last year are closed. There's still a few hanging around, but um, for the most part they're closed and then we have a few that's already been closed this year. So, I don't know. I'd have to look at the database, but um, probably working on like 20 or 25 is your only recourse to apply penalties or can you do things like put leans on a property? No, no. Well, so the the only path for enforcement is filing a complaint in district court and going,

you know, I mean, it's a full lawsuit. Um, and then if you get a judgment from the district court, then you can enforce that judgment in a variety of ways, but you eventually have to, you know, conclude a lawsuit with the district court first. And as Matt will probably say, uh, a resolution is always better than going to court and that kind of stuff. So, yeah. know getting getting voluntary compliance is is for sure preferable resource-wise and we appreciate Mr. Dunlap uh working with you on bringing trying to bring the site into compliance. So so kudos to both of you. Um, okay. That's I just was generally uh wondering what what kind of enforcement issues you you have and I don't have anything. So, is this online or Yeah, he's right there. Uh, so uh are you Mr. Dunlap? I'm Mr. Dunlap. Yep. So, is there anything you'd like to add to your application uh to address the commission with? Um, no. And I just want to thank Joe for his his help and guidance through this process. This is obviously something that we're working through and you know um I appreciate you know every every step of the way that he's been with us and I appreciate you know everybody over there's understanding of us trying to bring this to compliance. Um you know this is a a learning process for me and uh I'm happy to comply and and do every step along the way. So thank you all for your time. Well it certainly sounds like a potential win-win situation and let's hope that's the way it goes. Hopefully. Yeah. So, are there questions for the applicant? None. That was easy then. You know, thank you for being available for questions. Sure. Are we So, do you

want me to stay on here? Well, uh I think we're done with with uh you being here, but uh I mean a question might come up, so that'll be fine. Um discussion. Do you need to have a public hearing? Ah yes. Um are there members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Hearing and seeing none. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move to close the public hearing. I'll second that. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Public hearing is closed. Now we'll move on discussion. Thank you. Um, I'll just say that uh I mean I support this application. Uh, I mean to me I think we should move forward on this and uh and take the advice we've heard from both Joe and council that um matter we can resolve in this matter rather than going to district court is is a thing we want to do. Mr. Chair, I'll move uh to move for approval that we recommend the board of county commissioners approve the Dunlap zoning district amendment ZDA-04-25 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, findings of fact and conclusions of law as each are stated with respect. I'll second that. Any further discussion? We will vote in that case. Diana. Hi, Mara. I and I vote I. That's unanimous. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Yep. Thank you.

We will continue uh with citizen comments. I don't think we have any citizens who are going to be making comments. So, we will go on to amendments to the planning zoning commission bylaws. Um, Matt has prepared a bylaw suggestion for us which was in the packet. Um, go ahead. Did you want to discuss um the break? I know you said you would do it at citizen comments. I don't know. We can do it now. It doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter. I just I that's what it was said. So, I would like us to have a builtin so we don't feel like we're in high school or uh middle school needing to ask to to take a break. Um I think a 10-minute break today. It's not a big deal because we're cruising through. But when we are in a 4hour meeting, it'll be nice to have the break after, you know, as we transition from public hearings and the public involved to our own discussion. That is my reasoning for asking for this. We could just have the chair make that judgment call if it's going to be a long meeting. Just have the chair keep that in mind because we always we do sometimes have breaks. Somebody proposes it. Yeah. Because we ask for it. I I would like it to be ask us if I would like it to be an item in agenda that says break 10 minutes. We can skip it if we don't need it, but that it will be built into the agenda. Okay. So, do you want to move to add uh a

permanent agenda item for a break in between the citizen comments and the current planning projects? Yes. Then I'll I'll move, Mr. share that we add a permanent agenda item. I don't think we have to do this in the bylaws, right? Because that that's just that's like a recommended uh agenda. It's kind of like flipping the agenda like we have in the past, right? Or the Yeah, the agenda is set by um right. So, um, I I move to recommend that we add a a permanent agenda item for a a break between citizen comments so we can let the citizens go before current planning projects. I second the motion. Uh, we will have further discussion and I will begin the further discussion. Um, how about If we put a item along these lines on the agenda where the chairman asks if anyone would like a break and we do it that way. 10 minutes is a long time I think to allocate for every meeting. I mean like this meeting if we I I think that might just how about that? How people feel about that? I don't think we need to be in high school. I think it should be a simple thing. And if if nobody needs a break, we can ask you not to have the break. So if if it's on the agenda, I'm just trying to think how this would practically we citizen comments and that

would would say um next on the agenda is a break. Um, do you want do you need the break or can we pass on the break? Is that essentially what that's what I'm suggesting. I would just say would anyone like a break? Someone makes a signal prepare a break. But if it's on the agenda, then your question is does anybody need a break or can we skip this? Would anyone like a break? That's what I would do. I'm opposed to allocating 10 minutes uh a fixed amount of time for every meeting uh without knowing in advance whether we're going to need it or not. I'm I'm happy to have a break anytime anyone wants to. Um and I don't see it as being in any way demeaning or to use your term high schoolage or whatever. I mean if I needed to go to the bathroom right now I just say hey we need to take a break. You feel comfortable. I do not. And I'm asking that we avoid any incidents where I feel uncomfortable. I mean we can add like a wordage or something to just like ask the question or or make sure that you know if there is a break that need is needed we can have it like just to put it on the on the front like in people's mind that it's there you know why is it so difficult it it doesn't matter to people why is it such a big deal to add the item break you don't need to say 10 minutes you say break. Sure. And that elicits the question, do we need a break? Well, that's fine. That's why I don't understand why this is becoming such a big issue when it's just to make everybody comfortable. And I I don't think we need to take a

vote on that. I mean, we put this together and Joe, let's just do that and all. There there is a motion. So, I don't you can vote or not vote. I don't Well, that's that's correct. There is a motion. I can withdraw my motion if it's already in the chair. Second. Let's have a vote. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Okay, that carries and we'll implement it as Joe will. Um future in the future add that item. Sure. Break after citizen's comments. We can do that and we'll take care of it. And if I should overlook that, forget it. Someone remind me. Very good. Thank you. Uh So, uh, now we'll move on to amendments to the planning commission bylaws. Um, and looking at the redline version that you forwarded in the packet, uh, Matt. Yeah. Um, let me come to that. That was a that was just like the starting point which I came up with during the last meeting. Yeah, I understand. Um, so I just want to clarify that in particular. Let's see what content was. So, uh, I'm going to read it. In the event of a tie vote, on a motion to approve or deny a matter, the matter being voted on will be considered to be denied. So, first of all, we make our decisions by motions. So, when you say matter, did you mean motion or No, matter. The matter would be the item essentially. um because that was already existing language in there was for any matter to be in the preceding sentence. Uh for any matter to be approved I lost it. Yep. Any

Oh yeah. Uh I was looking at the wrong one. Um for any Yeah. So for any matter, a majority of votes shall be required to adopt any matter before the PCC. So the matter would just be the item. And when you say denied, do you just mean that the matter or the motion doesn't pass? No. Okay. Um it would it would be where it is deemed as a negative vote essential or well no it would be deemed as if it's a negative motion has been adopted. Okay that's what I want to clarify. Yeah with that clarification now is is there anything you would like to say to all of us oh recommendations? Um I mean I guess I got some input from Burn sent me an email, right? Um which he is not able to be here. Uh but there's some he has some good points. um is that you know things need to uh findings of fact or um conclusions of law would need to be supplied if denial is counter to a recommendation of the staff report. Um so that could get tricky. I did come up with a proposal um which could address that. Uh but it's also I guess in thinking about it more it is really dependent on what the item is. Um so for example like zoning district amendments or an amendment to the resolution. I mean there's no time

in which planning and zoning has uh supply a decision. Um, but there's a a decent argument that anything for like an amendment to the zoning resolution or zoning district amendment, it has to be an affirmative recommendation to adopt it. Um, coming from planning and zoning. So, that could that may need to be revisited in the past. um if that issue were to be squarely decided. Uh but then like conditional use permit the statutory time frame since it's a zoning certificate uh statute requires it to be acted on promptly. That's not a definitive time frame. Um wind and solar energy permit statute doesn't even mention planning and zoning review recommendation. our zoning resolution has planning and zoning review the application and make a recommendation to us to the board. But then the board has time frames where they have to hold a public hearing within 45 to 60 days of determining an application is complete. Um in which case planning and zoning would pretty much get one meeting to make a decision or recommendation. it would you guys wouldn't be able to table it um because the board has to have that public hearing within a time frame. Uh similarly with subdivision permit it sort of already provides a default under statute if no action is taken within 45 days of the planning and zoning commission receiving a recommendation from DEEQ or the date that DEEQ's recommendation is due. it's

deemed approved by planning and zoning. So, I suppose there may not be a one-sizefits-all procedure for the effect of a tie vote. Um and ultimately I suppose what I my recommendation to planning and zoning which is not so much strictly based in statute but based on sort of some overarching themes that I've seen in the past two years is that application particularly public applications from individual land owners be decided on expeditiously. Um there was I don't remember if it was last uh legislative session or the session before, but there was a bill um that worked it's way decently far through the legislative process where the county counties and cities for any sort of like development permit, zoning certificate, you know, XYZ, they have to like publish a schedule for time making or decision making and if that um is exceeded the go local government uh has to refund all fees associated with the application. Um, so this is sort of it's, you know, being eyed and I guess my recommendation is don't, I suppose, put a target on on the county when there doesn't necessarily need to be one. Um, so I guess you know maybe there's there's a requirement that like an application or a public application such as like for a conditional use permit individual so

adjudicative zoning district amendment those sorts of things. um that it be uh not, you know, tabled and continued for more more than one meeting. I'm not sure if that needs to be explicitly said. Um, and I guess I don't know maybe it doesn't need to be addressed as explicitly, but uh I thought that it was it was at least at the time I felt like something that might want to be considered. Um, and I don't know if that feeling has changed, but would y'all object to my going first on this? [Music] Okay. Well, uh there's obviously a reason why we are five people county commissions three so we don't have tie votes. Um in the time I believe uh strongly uh that we should endeavor to have a vote which decides matter and not rely on a tie vote. And if that means voting again at the next meeting what not so be it. Um, we can schedule special meetings if we arrive at a time vote. And I I I think we ought to provide an affirmative recommendation by voting to the county commission. So I think that's our job and not to not default to a time vote should that occur. And then finally, as a chairman, uh, I vote last on all these things. I can ensure we don't have a tie vote if necessary. So with that your thoughts please all three of you. I have one question for that because Moira's motion was uh to deny

and then there was a tie vote that means if if we follow your wording that means that her motion failed. Is that right? So that's I guess it goes back to the question of a motion versus a matter. Yeah. So um and actually judge or something uh would you be able to throw up that document? Um no so I guess like what what I was trying to say with sort of incorporating like the existing language is that the matter is denied. So that's kind of irrespective of of the motion to deny or a motion to approve it. What I Yeah. If if there's a tie vote either way, um whether it's motion to approve or motion to deny, then it just kicks to the matter is denied. So matter is denied. Yeah. And not tabled. Yeah. And uh I came up with some language this afternoon while thinking about um what Michael and and Burn said a little bit more. And I think that this would be a much more um restrained or like reasonable option because there is potentially a scenario um where it you know a decision has to be made at that meeting and it can't be tabled anymore. Um, in which case, I mean, I would say that if if you can't affirmatively approve something, then the effect is essentially denial. And if an affirmative approval requires a majority vote to approve,

am I looking for a red line or Yeah. So, did I reach full? Oh, darn it. I think I I'm sorry, J. Yeah, sorry, J. I'm sending a different one. Is it the 611? Ah yeah. Yeah, there we go. Okay. So, it would be unless permitted to continue consideration. Scroll up a tiny bit more then it will be easier to see. Thank you. So, just for clarification, when you say denial of the matter, it's we're recommending the recommendation that goes up to the board of county commissioners is to deny the matter because and my

logic is that there couldn't have been a affirmative motion to approve. Um so whether the motion is to approve something and you get a tie or the motion is to deny something and you get a tie or the motion is to table something and you get a tie. Oh, that wouldn't this wouldn't even cover that. This is only a motion to approve or deny a matter. So if it's a tie on a table, that would be something else entirely. I just brought that one in because that's, you know, that's what we get for our options in the packet. Yeah. For for any application is is approved deny table. Um and and in the rare instance when we're not all here and not all reaching consensus, we could tie on any one of those options. And this would say that results in rec recommending a denial. If you tied on the table, well then yeah, you'd probably also then tie on the then it would have to go to approve or deny. you'd have to move to decided then and then that would probably also result in a tie which then I guess kicks you into here. I mean the the whole idea is that you're you're keeping something moving forward to the board of county commissions who are the ultimate deciders and we don't slow down a process for somebody. Yeah. Um, but I did add unless permitted to con uh to continue consideration of a matter to a later meeting. So, this would only kick in if you do have a time frame where it can't be table. You can't

hold something back. Um, I think so far this is a solution in search of a problem. This only come up once. Well, so it's a it is a problem. If if it were the case that we had something that could not be postponed again, another meeting and that could be identified and we could we could deal with it. Like I said, if I vote last, I'm prepared to make sure which is fine. Yeah, I like that. I don't think you should change your vote to avoid casting, but but you would your vote would depend. But they're saying like if you were going to tie it, they don't want you to feel bad and and vote with two mothers just to avoid a tie. No, I don't feel bad at all. And then we could have pinned a note. You know, you know, in a case where there was a recommendation, but if I was going another way, then I felt I we could append my comments that I was actually in favor, but that I cast my vote in order to move the matter forward. But I think that you know the county commissioners would be aware that there was a tie and they would do they would you know they would watch our discussion and they would figure so they would they would hear my points of view. They would you know I would be able to make my points and still vote the other way. So even if we did did let a tie be a negative resolution of the matter. They would know that. Yeah. That that's how we got to that and they would realize there was stuff to look at there because uh yeah it's it's under I don't think it would be the worst thing to do that. Well, it's not the worst thing, but I mean, it's it's simpler. We don't have to change our bylaws. Well, I'm I'm in favor of just making the change to the bylaws because that outlives our participation on on this commission and it's it's there for maybe a future chair doesn't want to want to

take your approach. It just makes it clearifies it. Yeah. how how it would go. I don't see it because our bylaw change stops with us or has to go to the county commission. It stops with you. So, we could just like resolve it tonight and be well, but it would need to No, it need to go through administrative procedure act. So, notice of consideration and 45 days of public review period. Um because this would affect um Yeah. the public. Right. Right. Okay. Um and it's essential like with zoning district amendments particularly since we are treating that as a recommendation to change the zoning based upon the comprehensive plan under 185202. Um there has to be a recommendation from planning and zoning. a lack of recommendation one way or another because of a tie. Um that would get overturned if I guess whatever the commissioner's ultimate decision was if that were to get appealed to the courts that would get overturned probably 95 out of 100 times. Again, I will point out the other alternative to not changing the bylaws is again to just have another vote at the next meeting or schedule a special meeting. And and I again I well if we want to go this route and change by laws, you know, I certainly I don't have problem with that. I I think this is a simpler solution though. Uh and if we schedule a special meeting, have one vote on one matter, uh you know, we can that can be done very expeditely. I don't have to spend five hours doing what could it be. So I mean just in term

planning and zoning meets once a month um be that a special meeting is to be scheduled prior to the next regular meeting. Well, yeah. I would say I mean, but there could be a case where there's a vacancy on this mission, right? And then Yes. And then that you wouldn't that would because until the vacancy is filled. Technically, the vacancy doesn't occur until your uh successor is appointed. So, if you have ex or if you're over your term, you're technically until I guess the commissioners have appointed someone, you're still serving. Yeah. But you can have a medical emergency. No, I know. I mean, I like the idea as Mora suggested codifying it in of codifying this into the bylaws because we are not permanent members of the PN uh planning and zoning commission. We serve a term uh we have certain interactions, certain personalities, certain whatever. This can change like this. Okay. It may be totally different people in 5 months. If this is not codified, you'll have to go through this again. I if we identify a problem with our procedures, it's nice to identify them, find a solution for them, and codify that. That's my I agree. It it seems like if you if you if you take the choice of having special meetings, I mean either either we get the public notice over now for a one-time thing and we have a way to dispense with these in the future or you're going to be potentially like repetitively having to schedule in public notice special meetings.

Well, which which is the greater burden on the administrative staff? You don't actually have to give any particularized public notice for a special meeting um unless someone has requested prior notice of it. The notice required under under statute for a special meeting is the chair to the members. because it seems when we were doing all the special meetings I thought we had Well, that's because that's because there were uh statuto required public hearings. So, we were noticing the hearing, not the meeting itself. Oh, okay. I know it's that's always something. Yeah. But let's learn from what is happening in the courts right now. Well, you know, we didn't have a deadline of submission of comments. We, you know, that we fixed later and that now we have to when things are set in stone and written like this, whatever version, then you don't have these bas. Yeah. And I mean, it it hasn't happened on a subdivision permit, but I think that this is a more are like less disingenuous than to say because a tie vote which nothing could go forward that's no action under statute that's deemed approved. this would essentially create an action, but it's not necessarily. I mean, I don't know. I guess it was asked whether the bylaws addressed that issue and I was like, "Oh, I they should." And then I saw that they didn't. So, I thought they can and offered this and

asked if he wanted to consider it. I'm not married to anything. I think it should be in a balance. That's my opinion. Yeah, I agree. Because we are transients. I mean, and I strongly oppose, but I do think that if we have a tie vote, it's because there's a member absent. Yeah. And uh I think our job is to provide an affirmative decision. And if that means waiting a meeting before we have or all of us sit together, um that's what I would favor. Uh Mr. chair. Yeah. I guess like my latter language is still going to allow the special special any special meeting or even tableabling to the next public meeting or regular meeting. Um this would only kick in if he were to have to make an action one way or another right then. So, uh y'all y'all seem generally in favor of this. Uh, so how about some specific language we can vote on? I'm going let y'all do it since I want to do something else. How about that? I move we amend the it would well the mo sorry uh Commissioner Hanning. The motion right now would be move to uh publish and set public hearing on this for August 13th. Yeah. And you can put a deadline of August 6th on public comment. Okay,

we have that room to do it. Okay, then then I move we set a public hearing and public notice uh with comments due by August August 6th. Yeah. um to incorporate the the second round of language that you prepared for the bylaws. Second. Okay, we're clear what we're voting on. All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion carries. Thank you, Matt. Um does that commission have comments afterwards? Yeah. No, go ahead. Yeah. So, there's not a whole lot of staff updates. Uh David just wanted me to pass on that we are still working on me and David and Matt and Jake are still working on the subdivision resolution. Um hopefully have that to you soon. But is anyone like good at road engineering? You asked us that before. Okay. Now, we don't have any uh Michael, weren't you Army Corps of Engineers? I have some past engineering. It's a long time ago. Okay. If you have some specific questions, you can always ask. Okay. And Jake isn't able to roads are not his. No, they are. No, they I mean, they very much so are. It's just, you know, it's more more hands, right? And are you allowed to seek input from like vol volunteer people out there?

I can ask around because it's just to review specs that would go in the subdivision rags like standards for road construction and design. Yeah. I can sort of look at anything y'all you're about to come up with and give you what I think. Okay. And if I don't know something then I'll just say I'm sorry I don't know that. Yeah. Sounds like a deal. Why not necessarily steal your idea? Would Y dot would Mr. McCort weigh in on any of that? I think it's potentially it's I think it's that like why dot standards would be overkill because those are those are always going to be highways. But maybe he just has a good grasp of roads. I don't know. Maybe. So it's Taylor McCord's Yeah. I don't know. just throwing throwing. I'm assum I'm assuming that he's busy too and you know like everyone is I don't know and I don't think that for like a county road which is not because if it's a if it's a county highway then that gets taken over by road and bridge and it's not an issue. Uh but if it's a subdivision road that's privately maintained, right? A different story. Well, I bet and you can look all around the county at unhappy homeowner associations dealing with dealing with poorly designed roads that then they're nickel and dimming to maintain year after year after year. So, yeah, it matters and um seems like a reasonable burden to put on a subdivider instead of leaving it for the community to have to clean up constantly. I'll be happy to take a look at anything you have. Okay,

comments. Um, can I Okay, Matt, it's a question for you. Uh, largely stemming from my ignorance. Can you prepare for next meeting a summary of what is the legal status of platted roads? Um, and what is an easement compared, you know, what are the differences between the two? Um, I mean, I can tell you off the top of my head right now. Okay, perfect. Is it? Go ahead. Okay. Okay. So there um it's a very like actually old body of law. Um well okay let's go back very far common law. So prior to statutes judicially created law lotto is barred from England. Um and there are courts of equity uh at common law a dedication of a road. So like when you platted something um that unless anything was said otherwise you know by the language of the plat or by sort of corollary evidence uh it was dedic or deemed to be dedicated for public use. Uh but ownership of the road and the surface estate still sort of was retained by like the underlying land owners or adjacent land owners and um it was essentially just a public easement. Then we had in mo in most states I don't know I guess any that don't uh just what's called statutory dedication. So,

dedication of a plat pursuant to statute which in our um in for Wyoming is 34103 number could be wrong but it's in 34. It's under like property conveyances um subdivision platting and recording. Uh there it says essentially that a well I can find this very quickly. Uh it says that. Um the acknowledgement recording of such plat for a subdivision of more than three or more lots uh is equivalent to a deed and feast simple of such portions of the premises platted as is on such plat set apart for streets or other public use or is thereon dedicated to charitable, religious or educational purposes. So in the sort of like scant lines of uh Wyoming Supreme Court considering that over the decades I mean I think this was like 1880 when that statute was adopted probably borrowed from Iowa. We borrowed like a lot of our early statutes from Iowa. I don't know why. Um well I guess I was kind of on the trail. Um they uh initially said that there was a

transfer of a fee simple determinable uh title interest which is it's a little something a little less than a fee simple absolute but it's still an interest in title of those portions which are public dedicated for public use. Um, and that was to like the local municipality. So, the county if it's unincorporated, the municipality or the city or town if it's within incorporated limits. Um, that got lessened a little bit. Um, because Yeah. C can you translate that into simple English for me? Yeah. So, essentially it was a title vested in the county or town or city. uh when when a uh a road was dedicated or was platted um and it wasn't expressly reserved for private use only um because there so so who has the title for that? Yeah, that's what I was trying to get to. Um so that under some like old 6070 cases the county or the municipality did the local government did. Then they local governments actually the city of Larame started to try to sell those as if they like had full ownership of them. Courts didn't like that because it's kind of it's a little bogus. Um and the court softened that uh those holdings a little bit and said essentially the local government is holding title in trust for public usage. So who has title?

Who owns the land? The public owns the land sort of. So the land owner basically it's like you con confiscated the land from the land owner. It's not confiscation though. It's not at all. They voluntarily gave it. They dedicated it to public use by platting and that's not a requirement. They could have said which they could have said no. They could have reserved it for private ingress and aggress. So didn't the Alquat subdivision do that? No. No. Sunset Acres. It all says private roads when you enter the subdivision. Oh, well, what does the flat say? Yes. So, Oh, that and then that's another thing throughout the county which is is an issue. I don't know exactly who is responsible for it, but there are signs where it says private road and it was very clearly dedicated for public use on the plan. Yeah, Diana, those are definitely public roads even though those signs are there. What was the subdivision? Sunset Acres and well Aloqua I would assume before I went out there you know prior I was looking at Mitchell the first thing just to bike out there I was going to go in I saw private signs I thought well I better not go in there now yeah I went back home I checked the land ownership yeah public land it's maintained by the it's maintained privately yep so privately maintained public roads privately all the responsibility and none of the privileges of owning it yeah so there there's essentially there's a one case from the 80s where the Supreme Court justice was dissenting and he was advocating that um unless the government actually takes responsibility for maintenance they shouldn't have any interest in it whatsoever and it should

be private right but that has not been authoritatively adopted by the majority of the Wyoming Supreme for I would guess that if this issue came up squarely again, it would probably go that way. Yeah. Uh but that's I'm telling you what it is right now from the best of my research. Um, and what uh yeah, the that Supreme Court justice said that all of the uh case law in Wyoming uh offers something less than a pictorial jigsaw puzzle of what like is the status of these. But for like this moment in time, they pretty much most of the subdivision roads throughout the entire county are publicly dedicated. So they're dedicated to public use. They can't exclude the public from using them, but they are privately maintained and that's regardless of whether it's a easement versus a right of way. So yeah, because the effect is you can say whatever you want. It is on a map on a plat. You could call it an ement, you could call it a rideway. Um I think it's it's a all rightways are easements, but not all easements are rightways. Kind of like square verse rectangle. Um like all e all all rightways are easements, but not all easements are rightways. So an easement can be private. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Um and in the plat what's that? So maybe that's what it is in Sun City. It could be. I don't know. I don't know the plat. Um I know of like a few north where it says like all all uh roads shown on are uh private easements for the

uh ingress and eress of the property are owners of lots shown on this plat. that makes it a completely private road and then they would have the right to exclude people from using them. But it's unless the county actually accepts and dedic and establishes those roads as county highways because any road maintained by the county under statute is called a county highway. um then it's not publicly maintained, but it still has been dedicated for public usage and the county is essentially holding those um the title for those roads which is a little lesser of a title interest. It's a fee simple absolute determinable or not a fee simple absolute fee simple determinable. Um county is like holding those in trust for public usage. So, okay, I understand. I have a question, a legal question. Now, Moira comes into town. She wants to buy a parcel of land. She looks at one. She likes it. It says on the county of Ceil that it is 20 acres in size and she buys it as 20 acres and she pays taxes on it is 20 acres. Okay. It is a you know it part of it is a plaqueed road. Can she sue the county assessor's office for overcharging her taxes? So, Commissioner Ben David, with all respect, I'm not going to entertain this topic. Um, that is

uh well outside the purview of planning and zoning and essentially interferes with my representation of uh the assessor. Gotcha. a wellcrafted answer. Thank you. Any further comments? In that case, I Mr. Chair, I I have Oh, you do have a further comment. I have a comment. Thanks. Um just I've been wondering if um if I made took a stab at uh adding to the definition of small lot residential of of all our land use or or our zoning district sizes. That's the only one that is lacking more definition to it. you know, in terms of like uh urban residential is tied to utilities. Yeah. And small lot residential is just sort of hanging out there with with with any expectation for the eventuality of utilities. It's like it's it's it's a density that we have in our county where where it exists, we see groundwater contamination from the density of septic tank leech fields. So, it's not it's not a desired density in places where you will never have hope of running utilities out out to it. Um, and so I I was wondering if there would be support for adding to the definition of small lot residential such that it's within some radius of existing utilities because then there's a greater hope that you know as growth happens that that

could eventually be added to a utility as opposed to finding a small lot residential areas that are far far away from utility and will just be in an endless uh endless process of just contaminating their own water supply and people having to drill deeper wells and uh all all that that results in. So, I just wondered if um if there'd be support for just adding something to that definition that is like based on uh that they're appropriately located x distance from uh an incorporated area or an area that has a utility because I guess Centennial isn't incorporated but they have they have a utility. Um, and we have utilities going down totally seven, right? Right. The what's the smaller? So is that what's what smaller smaller residential? Yeah, they both have two lot to acre of minimum lot sizes. But small lot has to average two ranch average, right? Yeah. With minimum lot size is the same for both, right? But I mean it's with that average you're not going to get it's the average I mean the lot sizes are going to be a lot closer to five than two. Well it depends on or the or the ranchet. No for small lot rural residential unless they're setting apart like a major chunk of land. Small lot has the average two. Wait small lots averages two. Yeah, two average two and Ranchett is average five. Oh, okay. Never mind. Um,

and I would say work with staff if you have proposition I developed. Yeah, I guess I can just It sounds like a an attempt to do something positive. Try try something and see what what happens or not. So like I should just reach out to you guys with potential language. And are you talking for the purpose statement? I'm assuming are like how urban residential has like density. Yeah, it Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Like let me share it. Thanks. You're talking this right here. Well, so the like when you go to urban residential, there's more to the purpose. And then and when you go to ranchet, there's more to the purpose, right? Um but small lot residential isn't very well defined. Um, and it's to me based on what we see in the county with lots that size that are served by septic tank leech fields and private wells, it's not an appropriate density if there's no hope of ever having utility come your way. um in in the eventuality that you contaminate the aquifer that you're also pulling water out of with your private well like it it's not a density that I think belongs in as you all know in uh the growth PG PG3s PG growth area I guess PGA I'm losing my acronyms it it's not appropriate for PGA3s in my view because they're all far away from

utilities far where would you draw the line just um I I guess I'd put it somewhere in maybe the Laram Growth area. No, I'm talking neighbor. Well, I what what you see is likely prevent contaminating your neighbors with your with your septic is there. Um do you have there isn't there isn't like some some explicit study. Uh yeah there's like tons of studies where you can say oh look look look at the density in this subdivision here here here all over the country in the world and you'll see contamination but nobody has then said definitively like well well and what's the contamination is that like exceeding the EPA yeah exceeding the the 10 milligrams per liter. Yep. I mean, that's what we see in Sherman Hills and Laramie Plains subdivision. Those things are quite sight specific, aren't they? Depending on how much underground water flow you have. Yeah. Well, I mean it can it can matter like if you're in the Jackson Hole area where they their level of rainfall and flux of water is so high that you you might not see that problem as much but then you go to Hobach Junction and lo and behold you got groundwater contamination from septic more at the county but oh in the county I was just thinking there are places where there's a lot of water flowing underground and other places where there's very That's why deep well I think because you could you know like I mean wild horse could hit like a decent well water they would just have to drill really really far right. Well no I'm just talking about where Yeah. You know you're you're right that

your your chance of infiltrating down if you're if you're going to 500 feet to find water your chance of infiltration all the way down to 500 feet would take a a long time. it would take decades to to to get there. Um, so I guess you're right. There are situations where where you might not see that, but um but still, I mean, are there are there other reasons to not want to see that density out at some place like Wild Horse Ranch? I mean, not not just the Oh, yeah. No, I was just using them as an because like they don't have good groundwater, right, that is is easily tapable is my understanding. Yeah. No, you're you're correct about that. So I'm maybe I'm focused on one aspect one one of the uh downsides of that density of housing but there could be somebody might look at it also from like the the noise and the visual and all the things that come with um higher higher density housing out in more rural areas. Um light pollution Well, yeah. I mean, there's like Lincoln County has a it's part of their subdivision resolution, interestingly. Um, but when I looked at it probably like two years ago, they had uh explicit standards like they were saying if you're going to this zoning district, if you're creating a subdivision that's going to this zoning district, here is your requirement for wastewater. Um, so like for something like small R residential, it might say you have to have enhanced.

Um, I mean, I guess like the the authority behind that is not firmly is unanswered still in Wyoming, but so they have specific zoning regulations for part of the county. Uh, no. So, it's it's a function of subdivision depended on the number of lots and how small they they're saying. Yeah. They're saying if your subdivision is in this zoning district, this is the system that we're going to require for your subdivision. So, like, you know, urban residential or something very small, they're going to say like you need centralized. Um there's a little more like kind of intermediate or well smaller but still you know couple acres they say enhanced and then as you get bigger it can be septic and or conventional. Sorry. Okay. Well, I'll see what I can I mean, yeah. And I think similar to my advice with you know APOZ is that like it should be more of a function of either the um uh wastewater rags and then there is I think a decent argument of going like the uh Lincoln County route and making it a function of new subdivision

as opposed to making it a function of zone zoning district amendment. Uh well, it would it would I mean likely fall in line with zoning district amendment, I guess, because you know that usually precedes a subdivision, but if you put it just on subdivision, then it it hits that any I guess regardless. Um unless you also make it a function of you could kind of take uh urban residential as a model where it's like if you want to get down to two acres you know then it requires enhanced or something I guess like more of an incentivized system rather than an imposed I don't know. I guess I I'd recommend that you planning and I talk about any idea you might have could be done there. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. All right. Well, in that case, uh, our next record meeting is July 9th, 5:00 pm