Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Second thinking question. All right. Okay. Uh I will call this meeting to order. It's our regular monthly meeting for August 2025, August 13th. We'll give a calling roll. Cornic is absent. Shannon

here. David here. Mr. Hickley here. I'm here. Did you hear me? We can hear you. Thank you. We can see you too. All right. Well, you're doing better than I am. Uh, next uh, approval agenda. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? I make a motion we approve the agenda. Is there a second? I'll second. Is there any further discussion? In that case, all those in favor say I. I.

I. And motion carries. We'll move to disclosures and conflicts of interest. Bernie, do you have anything? Nothing to report. Um, I did get a a um email from some of the folks out at U Centennial that I'm not sure everybody else got. I received a as a kind of a packet of information from Tony Hulk just for FYI. So, I don't know if anybody else saw that, but I did get a another bit through a slightly different channel. Nothing new. All right, I have nothing to to

and I have nothing either. Uh in that case we'll proceed with our first public application which is the Mitchell variance B-01 to approve the minutes from last meeting. We just did that. Excuse me. Yes. Excuse me. We will go backwards here in time. Uh yes. Uh may I have a motion to approve the minutes from July 9, 2025? I may I move that we approve the minutes. Is there second? July 9th. I'll second. Okay. Any further discussion? In that case, all those in favor of approval of the minutes say I. I.

Okay. That motion carries. My apologies for that. So now we'll proceed with item five, missile variance V-01-25. David,

just one sec. Okay. All right, Mr. Chair, commissioners or commission members. So, um this is an application for a variance. Um, previously you saw a application for uh zoning district amendment for the same property. The applicant for this this application is Jason Mitchell. Um, and the location is 38 West Street in Alquat. Um the request is the ability to subdivide within the ranchet zoning district with a smaller uh lot than 10 acres. Um so basically it's a request the standard for rural residential is you have to have 5 acre average lot size. Um Mr. Mitchell has 9 something acres and so he is requesting a variance from that 5 acre lot size standard um to allow him to subdivide his property into two. Um but we're we're doing a zoning variance here. So just so we're not confused about that, I guess. So um current zoning is ranch yet. Um the current uses residential use. This was submitted to a number of folks for their review. Rivers Conservation District Holly Dyer um provided some comments um as per

usual about soil degradation, erosion, reclamation. Um and then everybody else that received it either didn't didn't respond or they had no issues or comments to provide. So the standards for approval in this situation um is they they have to there there's a number of number of things here. So the granite of variance will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare or materially interest to other properties in the vicinity. Um, another standard is that the the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on use of other properties in the district. The hardship will which is the basis for the variance application was not self-inflicted by the applicant. And then the fourth one is um the the grant of the variance is justified by one or more of the following reasons. So there's three different reasons that it must meet. Um strict interpretation or enforcement of the development standard would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the purposes of this resolution. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not um apply generally to other properties in the same district. Strict interpretation or enforcement of the development standards would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same district or the variance will bring the applicant into substantial parody with other property owners in the same district. Um so the applicant's asking for a variance um from the zoning resolution so that they could subdivide or the their property which is ranch shed into two um um two lots which again would not meet

the that 5acre density requirement. While staff is is sympathetic to the applicant's situation, um staff believes that the granular variance would constitute a gr a grant of special privilege that other properties in the Alquat subdivision or any property throughout the county which is slightly too small to subdivide do not enjoy. Um, and if the applicant's request for the grant or the variance is granted, the applicant will require to go through the major subdivision process which is laid out in the Albany County Platting Subdivision resolution. Um, so the applicant has provided an application for requested variance which includes the information, materials and statements required by the zoning resolution. the applicant has complied with the the notice requirements of the the zoning resolution um and applicant and staff's responses to the variance requirements and staff analysis provided here in are incorporated as findings of fact conclusions of law the applicant is proceeding in accordance with the requirements of the zoning resolution but has not met the standards required for granting a variance um and so um Staff recommendation is to deny this this request based on chapter 5 section 14F2 and chapter 5 section 14F4. Um I'd be happy to answer any questions for you.

Okay, David. Uh a little history here. Joe prepared this, right? He's the one that handled this from from the start. Yes. Do you know if he met with Mr. Mitchell subsequent to our main meeting where we had a tie vote and where Mr. Mr. Mitchell apparently requested a changed his mind, pulled the application and asked for this instead. I'm not sure if he met in person. I mean, maybe if Mr. Mitchell's here, he can answer that. Um, but I know he at least had to submit an application for a variance. So, there was some communication that that went on. It may have been by phone. So,

okay. Well, for my fellow commission members, uh, again, the matter and is a variance, not anything to do with a subsequent um subdivision request should that happen. So with that uh questions for staff beginning with more um don't know if I have questions. Well, okay, I do have a question. Um, I mean this this is a really unusual situation in that the way the county was portraying the property and taxing it, it was as though it was a 10acre lot. Um, and we know there are other ones out in the Alquat subdivision that are in the same similarly situated. Um, and so if another if this were to be granted and other property owners in that in that area were similarly taxed and being treated as though they were a 10acre lot, then this special privilege if you which I is I know how how you guys are interpreting could could be bestowed upon other people who are similarly situated in how they thought their lot was being treated by the county. But if I lived in a whole different subdivision and I am being taxed for nine acres, I'm not similarly situated and it

wouldn't be a special privilege that would transfer over to me where I am in the same zoning district. And so I I don't see that this is a special privilege that would extend beyond any any property owner of of a of a ranchet um zoning district. as much as it would be to extend to similarly situated property owners who have been led to believe and have been treated by the county as having 10 acres and then come to find out that it that it's not a 10 acre lot. So, do I guess the question is, do you agree that this is sort of a carveout example compared to anybody out there with a ranchet um zoning district who knows that their lot size is less than 10? So I mean I guess the position that was taken in the staff report is is that you know 9.9 acres is not 10 acres, right? Um, and you know, the way that this was determined was when the the the surveyor went out in and actually did the survey and determined, okay, this is actually the lot size. It's not what was shown on on a county site, right? Um, so I mean where we're saying 9.9 is 9.9 or whatever, you know, is less than 10, you know, that would be consistent across the board, but um but your point where in this area maybe there is

it would be different. I mean, that's something that you guys can discuss. Um, but that wasn't what was represented in the staff report. I don't know if that makes any sense. I'm just saying you guys can figure that out. I I mean what's what we've presented, I guess, right? Yeah. I I um um Okay, that that is my current question. Thank you, Frank.

Um yeah, I think we're all kind of in the same boat on that. Um, if I remember correctly, the staff when this first came to us, it was as a request for a zoning change from rural residential, small lot residential. Correct. Correct. Yes. And at that point, the staff recommended that that zoning change be approved if I'm remembering right. Yeah. Correct.

So, what what's the difference? Uh, is this just that you're finding this is is makes too free and loose with the with the language? Uh, and I guess where I'm going with this is our I voted for the voting change incidentally as as Mr. Mitch may recall and it was a tie vote and then we ran off in that direction. But it seemed one of our concerns was that if we did the zoning change to smaller residential, we would not just be approving a lot split as in 9.8 acres by two, but rather would be extending to the property the full benefits of small lot zoning, i.e. two acre lots and we were quite reluctant to do that. So cast that way, it seems that the variance that's before us now allows us to to make the halfway step and not go clear down to two acre lots while granting the variance uh from the strict five. So, I wondered if you could comment on the effect of the two different approaches and and why staff feels that this one is more abusive of the the rules or or less compatible with the rules. So, um, from my recollection from the the zoning district amendment, um, the the reason we felt like it was should be approved is because there were other properties in the vicinity that were, you know, of a sim similar situation and a similar size. Um, and we felt like, I mean, this was also in a priority growth area three, so additional lots are are okay. um we felt like development is should be directed to a private growth area 3 as opposed to

being outside in more rural areas. Um with this application and and I understand what you're saying and I understand the thought behind it um and I'm not even going to disagree with it. I mean, this is a variance is another option um that would allow this lot to stay the the zoning that it is today as it's zoned um but then allow them to split the lot um which is basically the end goal of the property owner. Um I believe when when we reviewed this and um went through the the standards, we didn't feel like it met the standards. um for the variance where we felt like we could meet the standards for the zoning district amendment. So I mean that's and that that was our interpretation obviously and and and how we approach this.

Okay, just then one quick followup Mr. Chairman if I may. Um it would seem on its face that a variance is a special privilege. So help me through that. I mean by its nature it's a special circumstance when we do something that we we would not ordinarily do. So what what am I missing in the interpretation of special privilege that of this variance is is not or

well I guess what we're saying is is if we allow one person to do this as a special privilege then it opens it up for for others to you know go against what the rules say. I mean, the rules say 10 acres. Um, now we're saying, "Oh, this guy can do it for, you know, less than 10 acres." Um, and guess just the precedent that it sets. Um, I'm speaking from kind of my understanding of this where I was not the one that that wrote the the report, but this is kind of my understanding of of how um how we we were looking at it.

But but the rules allow a variance. So I I I guess I'm not understanding characterization of our approval of this as breaking the rules. It wouldn't be, would it? It would simply be exercising the option within the rules of granting a variance. If it's approved, then yeah, it's not breaking the rules. I agree. Thank Thank you. It's been David.

Thank you. Um, David, I I wasn't at the previous meeting where the vote was tied, but I did listen very carefully to the discussion online, which is great that we're recording everything and people can go back. Um, my understanding was that there were a limited number of properties in the whole county that encountered this problem. and that the um problem is that the assessor's office does not list that it's not 10 acres because of flatted rock. Is that correct?

Um and Charles says what? Yeah. What I know is that the survey that was provided to us was less than 10 acres. Um how the assessor does their assessment that's up to them. Um that'd be a question probably Chelsea. Yeah. But I think uh our responsibility would be to and and I believe that Joe has looked and came up with a number of nine more people that may request could request this variance in the future because of the uh mischaracterization of the property by the assessor's office.

I don't know. That's what I remember, Joe. I mean, maybe he said that. I don't I don't remember that.

Anyway, I I just wanted to know I I understand from some of the language in the application that this is being addressed by the assessor's office right now. uh including one of the uh people who opposed mentioned that this is in negotiation right now with the assessor's office that any property that is um listed as a chair or big or smaller but has is not really truly um that size will be there will be a notice added to the title. I mean, that's I I believe the assessor is looking into it, but I'm not sure exactly how this is all going to play out.

Okay. Thank you. I don't have any questions. Uh, so is Oh, do we have any further questions? Burn. Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the applicant here? [Music]

Wow. In that case, we will conduct a public hearing. If there are any members of the public here or online who would like to speak to this, uh I'll recognize you one at a time. Please step forward when I recognize you. State your name, where you're from, your comments to three minutes approximately. And again, we're discussing a variance and not a subdivision request. So, is there anyone here would like to speak? Please come forward. Thank you. You're very welcome. Uh Vicki, uh sorry, nervous. That's all right.

Vicki Hinrich. Um 29 West Street out there in the Aloquat division. Um been out there since 1995. Um I don't feel that I approve this variance. I don't think it should be allowed under 10 acres. Um, I understand he's at 9.9 and I just feel that if we allow him to do this then like you suggested then others are going to want to. I moved out to the country to be in the country. I love people but I didn't want to live in town. So, we moved out there to be away from people. We don't want it starting to be uh you know every two acres someone is selling their property. So I just feel that I would not like it approved.

Cool. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Anyone online? Hearing seeing none, I will ask for a motion to close the public hearing. I move we close the public hearing. Okay. Is there a second? Burn. Do you want to turn seconding? Sure. I'll second. I defer to quotes that are that are there, but I'll second. Sure. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I.

That motion carries. So, uh, our discussion. Um, Bern, why don't you go first? Yeah, just a a quick response to something that Commissioner then David said. Um, there may be nine other, but part of what I felt were the special circumstances, whatever the right term is, is that the planning office itself was unaware of this issue until uh, Mr. Mitchell got to the point of hiring a survey to do the individual lots. It is my understanding that that won't happen again, at least as long as Mr. Griff, Mr. rooms are under our employee. So I don't feel like our exposure is the other eight lots saying oh well you let him do it let us do it. I I I don't think there will be any u cooperation from planning office uh if somebody comes forward they will be aware of the issue and will alert any applicant to that issue. So again, I'm still feeling like this is a a oneoff a securely oneoff proposition. Thank you,

Mr. David.

I agree with that. I think um it's much better to have just two lots, even if one is slightly less than five acres, um than going through and reszoning to two acres. I think our goal is to meet the neighborhood um requests and and preference to not allow smaller lots. And this is a good solution given again that the person was misled by how the property was pro portrayed by the assessor's office and now that will be collected for the future. So I think uh that we should approve this. Miss,

I um I I think when I when I weigh the the initial attempt to reszone at Small Lot Residential, I think everybody knows where I where I was on that that I I felt it was um opened the door to that zoning change not only in that neighborhood but count. and I felt it was um a a potential harm to domino effect through throughout the throughout the county. Um and and I think as a commission's, you know, some some of my peers on the commission were were sympathetic to Mr. for Mitchell because of the the misinformation that he was working off of based on the the way the county depicted the the property and that I think everybody had had a certain amount of empathy for him. And I was a proponent of looking at the variance option. I I felt and still feel that that's less harmful countywide as a precedent than turning it into small lot residential. And so I'm I'm I'm in favor of the variance um because I I do think that um things beyond his control were leading to what's turned into sort of a a hardship of of extra expenditures. Well, um, keep in mind that if, uh, Mr. Mitchell were granted this and submitted a subdivision request

along the lines what originally submitted, he was asking for a subdivision in two and a half and as I recall 6.8 lot split and there, you know, under Ranchette, you'd be allowed to go down to two. So this would not guarantee uh if we're granted possibility of a small lot being created small as two acres. Um for myself I have a different stance. I'm looking at at what was written here in the staff report on uh page four and especially I'm focusing on the property being slightly less than 10 acres is not an exception or extraordinary within the ranchet zoning district or the allequat division which we know is true whatever the number is we know there's say roughly 7 8 n 10 12 other properties are probably likely just slightly under 10 acres Um yeah, and there's I mean the other two things that uh were written here uh well I'll just read strict enforcement of the ranchet density standard practically prevents all properties smaller than 10 acres in the district from subdividing but does not cause applicant any difficulty in using the property in any other way allowed under the zoning resolution other than subdividing. the inability to subdivide if minimum lot size cannot be met as the necessary purpose of minimum lot size standards. And the final thing that was mentioned here, these are A, B, and C. See, strict enforcement of the density standard would not deprive the applicant of a privilege enjoyed by others in the same district as no other property smaller than 10 acres in the ranchet district has the ability to subdivide. The variance would not bring the applicant into sub substantial parity with other property owners in the same district particularly within the aloquat subdivision because the applicant's lot size and ability to subdivide is similar to other properties in the aloquat subdivision in my feeling. I mean the applicant's

not here so that's a problem. I'm very curious to why the original application was pulled and this application for variance was initiated because the the original process was not exhausted. You know, we had a tie vote. I would have scheduled as chairman a subsequent vote presumably our next meeting when I would try to have made sure that we're all president so we wouldn't have another tie vote. regardless what the outcome of that subsequent vote if if it happened was it would go forward the county commissioners and they would decide uh whatever our recommendation was um and I don't know why this uh superior way of of handling this and uh again applicant's not here to say why this is done I mean it strikes me as very very unusual and I'm against approving uh this variance and I would if the applicant were here I would tell them you put your original application back in. Let's see what happens. So, those are my thoughts. Anything else? Would someone like to make a motion in that case?

Well, I I guess I um Mr. chair regarding the staff report and whether having a lot slightly less than 10 acres is not an exception or or extraordinary. The the physical existence of a lot that size is not extraordinary. Um, but I think the way the county records were portraying it and leading someone to believe that it was 10 acres is to me the part that's extraordinary. But now we're going to get a legal opinion from Mr.

Well, before Mr. Speaks, I I'll say I agree with that. Go ahead, please. Uh,

the plan itself is not the county's record. that was the initial subdivider for Alquat. Um the county does not file plats on behalf of subdividers. Um and that's really where the confusion lied. So to the extent that I suppose that there there may have been an incorrect interpretation of that plat um the record itself is is not the counties. Go ahead. If a person buys property and pays taxes based on the size of the law for years and then finds out that it's not that size, we should pay them back their taxes.

Uh I will not be discussing anything. Well, I'm just saying this is the these are the the is not part of planning and zoning whatsoever. I understand that is an elected official that you have no connection to. And that pertain to various request here. So I I understand I I was being a devil's advoc advocate here just showing how extraordinary the situation is. I agree. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Um so Mr. Sure. Um, two things. One, um, the map on the assessor's website, I believe, has a disclaimer on it is it's for reference only. Um, so there is that. Um, I can tell you that we've had a subdivision um, come in before and what the assessor had and what or what the the map showed um, and then what was brought in by a surveyor was was significantly different. Um, and we always tell people that this map is for reference only. We we know that. Um, I mean, if you if you wanted to go by the map and and what it shows, I mean, there's property lines that look like they go through houses, right? Um, and they don't. It's just because of we're we're taking a two-dimensional, you know, just bunch of lines and then putting this two-dimensional picture under it. That's, you know, the Earth is not two-dimensional. that's curved and all of that stuff. So, it just doesn't meet up, right? Um, so that's one one comment. Um, also listening to kind of the the thoughts of the commission, um, you know, if you do decide to grant the variance, um, I would suggest, um, that you provide me something to so that we can hit all the boxes that are required. So um the the two boxes that need to be um looked at is the granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on use of other properties in the district. Um you need to provide a sentence or two saying why why it why it will meet that standard. Um the other one is um that for you have to pick one of the following reasons. Um, and maybe it's the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable

to the site of variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. Maybe that's the one you guys want to pick and you want to provide some information backing that up. Um, so whatever you guys decide to do, um, I would appreciate, um, or I guess if you decide to approve it, I'd appreciate you just filling in those blanks and that's what we'll take forward to the planning or to the board of county commissioners, um, with our staff report. So, and I I'll throw in one other note. If you go and look at information in the county assessor's office, there's a lot of stuff there where the numbers just uh and that's I'm not blaming them or saying anything wrong. I mean, but uh it's just not true. Uh without double checking and I I'm presume that's one of the reasons why we have a survey requirement. I'm looking at the subdivision map, a sub map of the subdivision right now at the assist office of Aloquad and the property in question is shown on this map currently still is 10.33 acres uh which is it's a quarter section thing um excuse me I mean it's a quarter quarter section the property immediately to the east is also shown as 10.33 acres in that same quarter quarter section so that makes sense the two pieces below quarter sections also they taken together they're each at 10 acres. So right away 10.3 10.3 10 acres today it should be it's a 40 acre original portable border section. Did that make sense?

If you do the math, in fact, on the Mitchell property, you find out with the measurements giving on on this sub map, it's 9.3 acres, which is what about what the survey showed up. I mean, so there's a lot of discrepancies there. And um you know, it's not our job here to fix fix that. And we're going to fix that today. The issue at hand again is whether or not this meets the standards of the variance and whether we can recommend to approve it or deny it. So once again, I'll ask for a motion.

Okay. Uh I make a motion that we approve the variance. um that we recommend the board of county commissioner approve the mutual variance request V0125 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis finding effect and conclusions of law as each are stated in a staff report except I'm going to change that sorry about that and uh address uh Mr. Virt request that we uh identify this as a an exception because of um mispresentation of the lot size initial and recommend that that the CES office fixes the map as possible and also um uh so that would be the hardship that we recommend and And that um yeah, so the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other properties in the same district.

Is there a second? I'll second it. Are we clear on the motion? We Yeah, we are. I I would like to offer an amendment to the motion. Um I I I don't think we want to get into Well, okay. I need a second, I guess, for my amendment. My amendment would be to strike the the language about the assessor. If I could have a second on that, I'll explain my motion. Well, I'll accept I'll second that.

Okay. Yeah. My my picking up what Mr. said, "I don't think we need to be getting into trying to instruct the assessor in how to how to conduct their business or how to draw their map." And my earlier comments, I did not mean to suggest that the county was complicit in some infraction of the rules. I do think and a part of the motion that I would leave is that these are in fact exceptional circumstances and the justification for granting the barance is because in context all things considered I think this is a situation in which we have exceptional circumstances which justify the variance. So that would be my my only reservation about Miss Ben David's motion is that I would prefer us not attempt to instruct or cajul or cast aspersions on the assessor's office. They run their business as best they can. That would be

I agree. Would you accept as a friendly amendment? I accept this as a friendly amendment. We need to vote on that, Matt. No. Okay. So we clear on on the motion now. I think we're clear. In that case, we will conduct a vote. Uh, Commissioner Ben David, I. Commissioner Penny, I. And I vote against. That motion carries. And, uh, thank you everyone for that.

So, we will move on to our next item. This is the application for the Mars zoning dish amendment ZDA-06-25 David Mr. Sure. Um commission members. Um so the the applicant for this this zoning district amendment um is Keith and Renee Morris. The owner is Mountain Valley Gate Getaway LLC. Address is 100 North Fork Road. The legal description is North Fork 7. So the one they're requesting is to change the zoning from Ranchette to small out residential. Sound familiar? Done this report. Um so the application was um central review by other agencies. Um we got the pretty much the same comments from Larry Rivers Conservation District about erosion, soil, and degradation and reclamation of disturbed areas. Um sorry. Um the the property is going through this process um because of an enforcement case that's open at this point. Um there's two dwellings on the property and um which Ranchet um because because of the size of the property which is 4.0 acres and because it's Ranchette they can't have the the second dwelling. Um the proposal generally follows the suggestions of the Albony County comprehensive plan in that the proposal is within the priority growth area 3 with a reasonable um growth which is a reasonably growth efficient area. The property is

zoned ranchet and a change to small residential is compatible with existing land uses and of the surrounding properties. Um, and then I just wanted to pull up a map um, just to kind of illustrate um, what we're talking about here. I could just I don't know if anybody can see that or not. Yeah.

Yeah. See So, um, so what they're requesting is small lot residential. Small residential is 2 acre lot sizes, right? That's the minimum lot size. If you want to look at this map, you can see that there's a whole slew of lots that are that same size. Um, and it's pretty common in this area. um this area may may may the whole area could probably be reszoned to smaller residential um and it would would fit what's already there basically. Um the other thing that I just want to point out is is the lots. There's three different lots um that you can kind of see. I can't really see this very well, but there's three different lots that that border um whether by across the road or next to that are over five acres in Ranchad. Each of those lots could do could have a second dwelling or an an accessory dwelling on the property. Um so so this lot can't because it's only four acres, but those lots could. Um, the other thing that I would like to point out about small lot residential is that it is

Hold on a second. Would you go back and say that again? Did you say neighboring lots or nearby the lots that were over five acres? Neighbor or near neighboring? Yeah, because I don't see any that are five that were neighboring here. I apologize. That is the wrong I don't I don't I don't know why I got the wrong map. So that what's highlighted is not the right lot. Oh yeah, this is the lot right here. So that will make more sense. Okay. All right. I'm with you now. Yeah. No, no, no, no. I'm with you. These two lots and that lot. It's it's the one that says the yellow lot. That's not the right right above North Fork Road. The lettering North Fork. It's four. It says 4.08 and there's a 5acre lot right by it. Okay. I see.

I must have. Yep. I just Yeah. So, now that we're clear, thank you for correcting that. I'm sure you're all wondering what's going Oh, I thought I was seeing things actually.

Yeah. So, the the the other thing I'll just point out is um when it comes to land uses, what's allowed on small residential to ranchet um ranchet is actually um more you can do more things on ranchet because of the agricultural nature of ranchet. Um, for instance, I mean, I I kind of made a list. Commercial livestock is allowed on ranchet but conditional on smaller residential equestrian arenas uh feed lots guest ranch uh timber harvesting equipment multifamily dwellings a equipment um feed cells green houses for commercial purposes outfitting business vet clinical facilities um recreational facilities and additional dwelling are all conditional on in rand handet um but prohibited in small outer residential. So by zoning it small outer residential they have less opportunity to do some of these things. Um so ultimately I just wanted to point those things out. The findings necessary for approval and the applicant's response is referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has met the specified impacts and the same are incorporated hearing. Conclusions of law the applicant is proceeding in accordance with and in compliance with the requirements of the Alb County zoning resolution. Um, I'll also notice or note here that there's there's a bunch of um neighbors that have have sent you letters um and comments um and that are here and we'll make comments. Um so that's part of this application process as well. Um so obviously listen to their their thoughts as well on this and if there's any questions for myself, I'd be happy to answer those.

Okay. Won't this sort of set the stage here? Is the applicant present or are the applicants present? Yes. Okay. Uh and then for the benefit of all of us, but especially I'll say the rest of the room, uh I will ask Mr. Mayor to state whether or not the county has any role in enforcing homeowners associated covenants or any power to do so. Are you asking that us? No, I'm asking Mr. to Sorry.

Let the room know whether or not the county has any role in enforcing homeowners association or deed restrictions. Uh so at a zoning district change, no. Um that I mean is is completely private uh contractual provisions between private parties that county government is not um a party to. nor are there any uh requirements that um they be considered in a zoning district uh application. So unless there's something that it could be fit into uh under the required findings um yeah the required findings for a approval of the zoning district amendment. there's not really a place for their consideration absent a specific provision in the regulations themselves. Um however that could be a different story at the subdivision um stage where uh there is essentially a requirement that um the title which will pass under subdivisions be marketable. Um, so there there's an argument that something which is clearly in violation of a uh covenant um or deed restriction might not be marketable. Uh based on preliminary research I have found in Wyoming law that is not a settled issue that that would constitute unmarketable title. But um so I guess long story short at this stage now.

Okay. Thank you Matt. Yeah. Questions for staff. Uh starting with tomorrow.

So well I guess just as a starting point. So these are all pre pre-existing lots and then zoning came along and at that time rural residential which is now ranchet was what was selected by the county as opposed to small lot residential. So there, you might not have been around when that decision was made and know what what the basis was, but it left us with non-conforming lots of businesses for that zoning district.

But a decision was made that calling it a a bigger lot size zoning district was was better for the area than calling it all small lot residential. So, you you have this enforcement case and um I I think it's been been obvious through our work with you and Joe that you're always really trying hard to to bring things into compliance in a non-confrontational way. Um because otherwise you're you're left I guess in this case with having to tell them to dismantle the additional dwelling unit and they built that unit without getting a zoning certificate. I mean so there there's multiple layers of infraction of the county zoning ordinance here. Would would you agree that there's like more than one more than one rule that got broken in doing this

with what's there. Well, like they didn't get a zoning certificate to build the building, correct? And then they Well, well, they No, no, no, no. Sorry. They did get a zoning certificate to build the building. Um, but it was for a garage. Okay. So, so was it first made as a garage and then later adapted as a as a dwelling or do you not know it? I Yeah, I'm not quite sure on that. Um I what I Yeah, I I can't say for certain. So, okay. Um

that I mean that's the applicants are here so you could ask that question to them. Okay. And then so this doesn't qualify for conditional use like the the conditional a conditional use permit wouldn't isn't an option to pull to pull upon for solving the complaints problem. Correct. And a variance is also another um like they they brought the hardship on themselves in this case. It's not it doesn't really lend itself to solving the problem through a variance, right? Yeah.

And so in this case, if it were to be reszoned small lot residential, they they would only be able to break it into two lots based on the current acreage. You couldn't you couldn't fit three there, but it would open the door to um other other lots in that area also coming in for a zoning um a zoning change. And there are not, except for right in the the heart of Centennial, there are not properties that are currently zone small lot residential in this out in this area,

correct? So, so the, so okay, I guess that was you just verified sort of the the take on it that the the options are either to um pursue enforcement through dismantling the accessory dwelling, removing plumbing, removing um the things that make it habitable or granting this this zoning change.

How many years have you been working on this enforcement case? It probably said in the packet and I forgot. Um I'm not sure. We had some enforcement um like in the packet there's some enforcement letters um from someone in the past that worked in our office. Um but I think it was specific to the wastewater. Um, so, oh, that brings up another question. So, because of a five or was it instead of four? So, was it determined then that that it was built it was it was sized appropriately for this?

There's also a letter in your packet from or an email or something um that confirmed that the wastewater engineer looked at it and thought it was appropriate size. So, Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it's been negative. I don't have any more questions for Mr. Burch, Mr. Yeah. I mean, we're going to run this one around a bit. Um, but let me just follow up quickly on what Miss Henning just said when you said it was sized appropriately for what? For two dwelling units, the

I don't know if it's specified in that email. I can read the email if you'd like. Go ahead. Um, the email from Chris Van Aken. I just wanted to follow up and let you know that I talked to Bernie about your septic system. You are in the clear as far as our office is concerned. And I've let the complaint complain complaintant know that as well. And that email is from Friday, November 8th, 2019.

Okay. So now I guess just I'd like to be clear on that. The concern would be that we not have a septic system that is incompatible with two dwelling units rather than one. Is what we just heard about two dwelling units. Is that clear to everyone? Is it clear to you, Mr. G? I guess you're the guy we're asking. Oh, is that that that that's what that said? Yeah. What's your question? The question is the analysis of the septic system system was that it is adequate for two drawing units rather than the one.

Okay. Okay. So, we can retire that issue. Um Does the this is a bit a bit tangential but kind of context and we probably can't pursue it too far. The commercial use of the property where remind us where that stands and we are going to have to come back to this more generally if not on this application. So where are we with respect to the commercial use of properties in either small lot or residential zones? Where are we? What do you mean?

Is Why is this not a commercial use? One of the things that was sent to to me and I don't know if everybody else saw it were the advertisements for please come stay at my place and here's what it costs and here are the parameters of it. It looked, smelled, walked like a commercial enterprise. Is it compatible with its current zoning or with its zoning if we were to change it to small lot?

I mean, if you look at our land use table under residential, it allows for single family. It also allows for um additional dwelling units um or accessory dwelling units um and other things. So, that is the classification that we we use. We do not determine if it's who owns it. It's not based on who owns the property. It's what the structure is being used for. Um, you know, if you go down that same road, you know, and said, well, if somebody's, you know, not living on the property and somebody else is renting from them, I mean, we don't differentiate whether it's the owner is on site or the owner is off-site renting, you know, to to various people. Um, so that's how we view it.

So, so at what point does it become a commercial hostel? I mean obviously if it was a 10 unit motel it would be commercial. What where do we draw those lines? Uh in the land use table if it says it's a commercial use. Um if if it's a store or retail business or professional office space and that's a primary use that becomes commercial. Um if the dwelling is a dwelling it's residential.

Okay. I guess I'm not understanding what what becomes retail. If I'm if I am building a structure for the purpose of renting to people to stay in as which would describe a motel that seems commercial that seems to meet the qualification as a retail establishment. No.

So multif family is also allowed in residential zoning. Um and we don't count that as commercial either. We consider that as residential. And if you're building a building to rent out specifically for apartments, um, and we don't, you know, that's not something we consider as commercial. We consider that residential. However, they can be in zone as well. Believe Burn's asking about Airbnb type use. We don't. Yeah, that's not in our zoning resolution. It's not even mentioned.

Well, but but where it would fit, I mean, it's happening. It has to have a home. would fit under it would be a multi a second dwelling unit. It would be a if if if there were five units for rent, then it would no longer qualify as multif family or a second dwelling unit. That's what would make it commercial is guess what I'm hearing. Am I on the right track there at all? If it's more than five,

I'm still looking for some something that tells me when it ceases to be multif family or additional dwelling unit and becomes a commercial rental operation. What where is that line drawn in your mind today? As for our zoning resolution, as long as it's being used as a dwelling, it's it's a residential use. And a a motel is not being dwelled in. I mean, why isn't a motel a dwelling unit then? Why aren't they all dwelling units and nothing's commercial in that?

The a motel is different. Um there's typically restaurants in a motel. There's um staff that are in there cleaning and doing their thing all the time. Um you know, the nature of the business is it I mean that's a commercial business. A hotel is commercial business. They have pools. They I mean there's there's the amenities that go along with it. Um there's a difference between a hotel and somebody renting a home or an apartment. Um that Yeah. So the size and scope obviously is is bigger in hotel as well.

Well, all right. Maybe we need to come back to that in some other discussion, but I think we need to draw those lines much more clearly in so far as commercial rentals of property insentennial continue to be controversial, but but I'll agree to that somewhat tangential to this. Um, just to emphasize what Mr. Bears said the covenants are if I understood it correctly and equally correct if I'm wrong those are a contractual matter between a homeowner and their their neighbors and they can be sued for breach of that contract in a in an action that would be completely separate from anything to do with the county and and planning and zoning. It it seems to me the relevance then to this would be in the general category of of compatibility and uh it would be a reflection of at least the neighbor's view of compatibility as to what those covenants were. So have have I said anything that would violate Mr. Heir's notions on that subject? Again covenants are not enforceable by us. We cannot act upon them but they would be relevant in the sense of context. Is that fair? Uh I suppose that that you they could be thought of under uh compatibility of surrounding properties. Um

okay. I mean I think that these Oh, go ahead. Let you finish your sentence. Um my apologies. Let me just Well, okay. Let me rephrase. What I'm where I'm going with that is I think that those the covenants and deed restrictions so forth are a legitimate expression of one's neighbors expectations

and therefore compatibility in a in a tangential sense. But I completely agree that if someone has a specific covenant violation, they we're the wrong forum for that. That's I guess I heard you say yes. I mean the the standard for compatibility with surrounding uses in the zoning resolution for zoning district amendments is compatible with the type, intensity, character, and scale of existing land uses surrounding the parcel. Um, so I suppose if this commission was wanting to fit that into the scale of existing land uses, that restriction, it it would be creative, but I don't think it would be facially incorrect. All right, fair enough. So

then I have no further. Well, okay, one more question for staff on this open enforcement case. What does that mean? If if we were to deny this request and let current actions take their course. Describe that course for us if you could, Mr. G. Oh, I'm going continue with the enforcement process, um, which includes, you know, writing letters, um, and notices of violation, um, and then working with the county attorney's office to, um, determine what remedies we have at our disposal. So,

and and what what are the range of remedies? I mean, are there are there fines? Is it a bulldozer? What what do we have a sense of what the range for remedies might be? Yeah, we can do all that. It's pretty easy. No, I'm just joking. No, like um remedies. Maybe Matt wants to talk about I mean we could work with the property owner to convert the building um to a garage is what was permitted it for. Um but then there's um yeah, there are fines available through the zoning statutes. Um, anything else? Uh, abatement.

Uh, the Yeah. Wyoming statute 185 maybe 209 allows for, uh, essentially it requires a civil complaint in district court. um for the enforcement of the zoning resolution, which then can result um in a fine of up to $750 per day uh for a violation um abatement or injunction. Uh but ultimately that is within the court's discretion. Okay.

No, that's fair. Thank you. So I the idea of letting the enforcement case run its course and then coming back to zoning is really not is not feasible. And the recommendation from staff here is to to uh render the enforcement action moot by changing the zoning. My understanding of the staff recommendation correctly. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. That's all I had, Mr. Chair, at this point. Um, right now, mind us, uh, also we're not regulating Airbnb type businesses, are we?

No, we we don't mention short-term rentals or regulations. It doesn't appear anywhere in the design revolution. It does not. So, that's not really an issue here. Correct. Um, how did this matter come to the attention of the planning staff? this issue of non-compliance. Um, I'm not sure. I I mean, Joe would be the one to ask about that. Unfortunately, he's not here. Um, do you know when it surfaced? When did it surface?

Uh, I mean, I can look to see when the the first letter was sent about it. The initial complaint was in July 3rd, 2019. That was Yeah, that was based on the wastewater. Mhm. So, I mean, I guess you could say it started then, but we haven't Yeah. pursued anything with the second dwelling until now. Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. Recently. Okay. Okay. Well, let's hear from the applicant. Is there any further questions for David? Yeah. So with the applicant, our applicants, please step forward.

You can tell us your name and where you're from. I'm Renee Morris. Um my husband and I reside at Unionville, Missouri. Okay. We do own the um property at 100 North Fork Road. Okay.

In Centennial. And we did apply for a permit in 2015 to build the garage for storage. And as time progressed, um it was like, well, let's put a small living quarter in this. Completely an oversight on our part to come back to the county for an additional permit. And um here we are. Uh, is there anything you'd like to ask? I assume not ask, but add to your application. Pardon me. Is there anything you'd like to add to your application?

Um, you got our explanation of why I think we're probably pretty clear with that. Do you have any questions for us? I think we do have some questions. Um, before any questions, so let's just go over the history here briefly if you would. Um, when y'all purchased the property, did it was the house already there? Yes. Okay. So, y'all built the garage building, but not the house. Yes. We purchased the property in November of 2013. And the timing was you applied for a building certificate in 2015? 2015. And you completed the building in 2016 or so?

Yes, we were working on it in 2016. By 2017, we had living quarters in it. Okay. And have you by any chance seen the photo that the assessor's office has of that building? The photo uh there. Yeah, it sounds like not the assessor's office has a photo of your building dated as I recall May 16th, 2016. Okay. Something like that. It shows the exterior of the building and it looks completed exterior still like the photos you have up today. Mhm. Um, and then the assessor's office also shows that there is an 800T living space downstairs on the ground floor and an 800t living space in the attic. Is that correct? That is incorrect.

Okay. And and what is correct? Um, roughly,00 square ftish. Um, the upstairs is not lived in because of the peak on the on the on the building. So, and did y'all bring this to planning department's attention or I mean, Joe, again, Mr. Wellness isn't here to answer, but I'm still curious to know how this came to our attention, how it came to to this attention here today.

We received a letter in June from zoning. We do have the property up for sale and um that's you know what what what sparked this that it had an additional dwelling on it and we were not in compliance with that with our um acreage size for an additional dwelling which is the reason we're asking for the ver the reszoning for to the small lot residential. Okay. So with that we'll go on to questions from there starting with um any

I I just guess I got a little confused. So, in terms of of making it available available through a VRBO, could you have more than one renter in in this accessory dwelling at one time for people who don't mind crouching down over No. So, there's only one one rental in in inside that accessory dwelling. Okay. Correct. Um, but it could be seven PE. Correct. Okay.

Have you had any problems with the septic system with surfacing septic out? No, we have not. We we installed a grinder pump on the outside of the accessory dwelling that is connected to our mound system. And in 2019 when this came to light, we got together with the county wastewater. Yes. And you have the emails that we were in compliance with that.

Okay. Thank you very much, M. I don't have any questions, Mr. No questions. Thank you. Well, I do have some questions. Um, along with property owner rights, um, come property owner responsibilities. And do you believe it's your responsibility to be familiar with the voting resolution for the county? Yes. Yes. And you were aware you need to apply and get a building certificate in order to build a garage? Yes. At any point were you ever contact by your neighbors? No. pointing out that you weren't allowed to have this second dwelling, accessory dwelling? No. Never happened.

No. Do you know of any of your neighbors that might have accessory dwellings? Um, not right off hand, but you know, we've been told there are a few out there in the North Fork area. I can't give you exact addresses. At what point did you become aware that y'all were not in compliance with the Sunny Resolution? in June of this year when we received the letter. I don't have a date on that in front of me. You all have that letter. You've been out of compliance for nine years roughly. No, June of this year. No, but you've been out of compliance since the building was was outfitted with living space.

I guess you can say that. And that was an oversight. It was an oversight. It was an oversight on our part once we decided to put the living space in it. Right. So, you're agreeing. Yes. Okay. And um over that time you all have acrewed personal benefit, financial benefit by renting out this living space. Is that correct? And if you're in our shoes, what would you do? How would you handle an issue of non-compliance?

I guess I don't know. That's why that's why we're here to come into compliance. We didn't realize that we were out of compliance with the county. That's why we, you know, we got the letter in in June of 2025 here and we immediately started. I got a hold of the county. I spoke with Joe. Um, we've done all the necessary things to get us to this point. um certified letters to adjoining property owners

and do you agree in general that um with the idea that ignorance of the law is no excuse for a violation of the law? I agree with that. All right. Thank you. I appreciate you saying the questions. Um, any further questions from the commission? Mr. Chair, I guess I have a couple more questions to ask Mr. Gersch. Let's do that. He looks like he'd be happy to answer some more questions. Questions. Well, Joe had to cover for you last one of the two meetings ago and and now I guess it's your turn to have to

kind of make up for it. Um, so it is it is has been something that this commission has heard complaints from from the area of Centennial about um short-term rentals.

Um, but we don't really have it's not a category in the zoning ordinance as a strict definition. Mr. Hinckley's been talking about motel. I'm I'm looking at the land use table and seeing, you know, that a bed and breakfast is something that can be conditionally permitted. I don't know if there's a strict definition for bed and breakfast in the zoning ordinance. I I didn't see one. Probably not. I mean, there's a lot of things that aren't defined in there. So, right. It's just plain an ordinary definition. Yeah.

Okay. So look at you know Webster's international um Oxford dictionary. That's what would be used for this.

Okay. because I I think that um you know I I understand like I said earlier that um sort of the um the philosophy in your department is often to try to figure out how to bring someone into compliance and a and avoid enforcement. you have limited resources to pursue strict enforcement and so you're often looking for other solutions but you know and and just like with the Mitchell property I I I feel like zoning reszoning something to small lot residential in the way that can open up the door in a area is is like an extreme an extreme solution you having to make them dismantle their their um building is another sort of extreme solution at the other end. And somehow I'm just casting about for those in between solutions. Um but it sounds like I'm coming up empty with the bed and breakfast one. Um okay, thanks. Anything else? In that case, we will conduct a public hearing. Uh, how many people are there here who would like to speak? Please raise your hand. Oh, not that many. Okay. Um, yeah, you're everyone who here wants to speak. We'll absolutely be allowed to speak. We'll ask that you limit your comments to about three minutes or so. And, uh, I'll call you forward 1% time. Step forward, tell your name, where you're from, and have your say. So, please Good evening, commissioners. I'm Michelle Tilly. I live at 180 North Fork

in Centennial. Um, I put this packet together for you and I wanted to just clarify a couple of things and I know I only have three minutes so I'm going to go very quickly. We might be able to pull out some lane here.

Oh, you're so sweet. Thank you. Okay. Well, first of all, um, if you go to the page, I think it's page 14. Yes, this was the response to the nuisance fall up in 2019 and I highlighted that which said we confirmed the property at 100 North Fork is being used in a way which is not permitted. We're contacting the owner via email letting them know that they'll either have to upgrade the existing septic and get the detached garage permitted as a residential structure or cease and desist operations. So clearly since 2019 they knew they were out of compliance. um June this year, the sign went up for sale for this property. And I'm pretty sure that that is what sparked this, but I can't say for the owner and I don't want to. Um I will tell you that in the application, which I also the original application from 2015, which I did include, and it's on page 11, and I highlighted this for you. It says it's a garage to store snowmobiles, which it is. It's a big garage and there are other big garages in our neighborhood. However, if you look at the VBO, and the reason I included the VBO stuff is to give um a timeline for you. So, if you look at page four, sorry, I'm not going in a more sequential order.

Doing them all. Um, you can see in January 16th, 2017, there's a review of the BM the the new Airbnb for the Barnaminium. They already have been at Airbnb in the other house, but this is specifically for the Barnaminium, which means it was advertised in 2016 and they had already stayed there in January 16, 2017. So when they built the barn dominium, they had to pour the floors for the bathroom and the kitchen and the drain. And as you can also see on this VBO information, there's three bedrooms. It's upstairs, not one, three. And they sleep seven. So it is a fully fleshed out dwelling. And it has been since they built it. And at least that's what this evidence points for me. Okay. So, um I really want to talk more about the character of our neighborhood. We all are single family residences. And I know that I included the quick lang deed and warranty deed and the covenants and all of that stuff, but there is just one residence per property for all of those properties that you see on page one. So if you change the zoning for this one little guy, that's spud zone. You're changing the zoning to allow these people who haven't been in compliance for nine years. You're rewarding them for their bad behavior. In essence, I'm not saying I want their house to be bulldozed or I want the plumbing to be ripped out. I'm not I'm not sure that's I'm not sure it's fair. On the other hand, this wasn't a gradual we're gonna add this. You know, they haven't complied with anything and they haven't really cared about their neighbors. So,

what I want to say about our neighborhood is in 1963, it was split up from a ranch and everybody signed their deeds that said they would have a single residence with a detached dwelling if or detached garage if they wanted. That's everybody. There are there other VBOs, yes, but not in a separate building. No one else is renting out a bu two buildings on their property. This is an anomaly and it's not great for a neighborhood. Now, that stated, there is precedence for not doing this, for not resoning. And that is from 2019 in Woods Landing, which is a sister city, a sister town. If you split this up, it opens the door to start reszoning things as commercial, as small residential, whatever. It's it undermines the fabric of our community and it undermines our small town. So, I beg you to vote against this because it's not I do want to ask um how many people are here from Centennial and how many people here are against this

from North. How many people from North Fork are against this? So, this is there are 91 or 92 residences in Northorg. This is 10% you guys and that's people who could show up. Nobody wants this change. Okay, now I'm done. Thank you. I'm done with my impassion plea.

But I have I can answer any questions about any of this stuff. This was this has been out of compliance and they've known it's been out of compliance since they didn't didn't check the box. Also, we talked to county assessor yesterday who was not aware of all of these changes and she said that um they did send out people twice to inspect but weren't able to access. So, they were never aware of what was going on upstairs or a full kitchen bath etc. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh who's next?

Very good. You're next. Ken Costello, 127 North Fork Road. She did a great job covering almost everything. I just like to iterate on the 2015 building application. It did indicate that they would be be using water in the building. Uh and and she brought up a really good point that if you pour a foundation and you're going to have water, toilet, sinks, you you have to provide for that when you pour the foundation. It's it's not an an afterthought that you just add on. uh as to whether or not this is consistent with surrounding properties. There are a few that are over the size limit that you could put two buildings on, but most of the lots are not. And so they they would not be able to do this. So it's really inconsistent with almost all of the lots in the about 91 lots in North. Anything else?

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. very quickly. So, Brad Wilson also from Centennial. Um, it it was made clear, I guess, earlier that the county does not have a role in enforcing deed restrictions, but I believe that they do have a responsibility to maintain that neighborhood value, that expectation, the tenor of the neighborhood. And that's what we're kind of really upset against here is is the fact that two rental properties on one property, it opens the door for anyone else to do this. And so we're I I personally am very against this change. Thanks. Thank you.

Anyone else? Anyone online? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move to close the public hearing. Second. Any further discussion? In that case, all in favor say I. I. Okay, that motion carries. Uh so we will conduct our discussion and um Mr. Inkley, why don't you go first?

Yeah. Well, I think we're all quite torn on this. So, let me just share a little bit of that. The expectation business that I've heard so many things about. I I don't I don't have a lot of truck with when I look at the zoning and the map that Mr. G brought up at the beginning is one that I printed for myself. Um, no one buying into the Northpore had any realistic expectation expectation that there would be large lot developments. The thing is platted for just a blizzard of little bitty lots. I I agree with Mr. Gersch that basically it is small lot residential. It's designation for rural residential notwithstanding. So, I'm I'm just register a a lack of of sympathy with the expectation that we would not see a lot of development. Uh if all of the people who own current lots put houses on them, it would vastly increase the population all well within current ownership patterns and and subdivision regulations. Um I'm I'm unconvinced on the commercial issue. Um, like Commissioner Hanning, I see bed and breakfasts list as a listed as a conditional use in residential areas and motel are specifically prohibited and I I I seems to me as as Mr. said a plain ordinary definition would suggest that that these are commercial ventures. Now, that doesn't bear directly on the the properties from before us, but it does bear on how this property and other properties out out there are used. And I think we need to to sharpen our pencil on what counts as commercial. Uh this is not a grandma house or a what is a guest houses and and in-laws are specifically mentioned under additional dwelling

units. Um, but I'll confess my my biggest reservation about this is the one that you expressed, uh, Chairman Platt. It is so unsatisfactory to find ourselves treating zoning like an inventory where we go out and see what everybody already did and then we say, well, what should we call that? And there it is. It's small lot or it's large lot. that there should be some opportunity to not continue to simply shrug and say, "Well, it's already done now. Guess we're stuck with it. Let's make this zoning fit." Uh, again, I'm not sure where that leads me as far as a vote on this particular application, but I I would just like to express my dissatisfaction with this idea of of it's our obligation to make the zoning fit a fat to complete. Uh, so I'm I'm remaining on the fence for the moment. That's my only two bits worth, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your forbearance.

Okay. Well, thank you. Um, Mr. should be there. I shall Commissioner Hinckley's uh indecision on this. This is a very difficult uh situation uh especially given that the property is for sale and we don't know if we do the subdivision what the new owners will do. I mean, they can We're not talking about subdivision.

I know. I know. I'm just saying that this opens the door for um you know, even if the current owners are trying to get in compliance, we don't know what the next owner might be. So yeah, I I shall uh burn concerns. Well, I I think that um similar to how I felt about the Mitchell zoning change that I'm I'm I'm against putting small lot um small lot residential in planning growth area threes. The definition of the PGA3 is to generally have large lots and the name of the zoning district is by the very definition small. Um because it creates I'm still I have to admit I'm a little perplexed about whether the septic is sized properly if it if you can fit that many people in uh in in it. But I guess we have to trust the previous engine county engineer that he that he he looked at that properly. But um I I I I' I'd rather see a different solution if I know that it's hard to find some middle ground on this, but I I would have um it would kind of go against my previous philosophy about small residential and PGA3s to to support this um when when it's clearly been um you know not not following the county rules.

So, I I I won't be able to support the the the staff's recommendation on this. Anything else? Okay. Well, I'll have my say. I would actually be in favor of recommending approval or this a land owner coming forward to us with a 4 acre lot and seeking permission to split it or just to change the zoning, excuse me, not split small residential in order to build a accessory dwelling. But that's not the case here. And this may have been an innocent mistake, but this has gone on for nine years. And if we approve this, it sends a signal and good people will continue to adhere to our zoning resolution, but unscrupulous will take advantage of it sooner or later. And I absolutely believe that if you punish good behavior and reward bad behavior, in the long term, that will lead to disastrous outcomes. And so I strongly favor denying this recommendation and seeing what the county commissioners do with it. I I believe that this demands some sort of solution for which we are processed. And if the property owners were willing to come forward and pay some sort of penalty or fine of some amount, that might be enough to change my mind. But that's that's not going to happen right now. And again, we don't have that process. So, I'm in favor of denying recommending denial of this. Uh, any other discussion, Mr. Chair?

Yeah. Anticipating Mr. practicing law without a license here. Um, what is the basis for denial that is encompassed by the rules before us? And I guess I'm I'm asking Oh, that's that's your decision.

Well, I guess I'm asking that of Mr. Plaid who who's most voiced what many of us are thinking most strongly is that we should deny this and and I'm certainly sympathetic to that but I'm also sympathetic to needing to base our decisions in identifiable legal principles. So I'm struggling wonder if anybody can help me out here. I I have a suggestion and I I I think it doesn't comply with number two, the general generally following the suggestions of the Albony County Comprehensive Plan. Um, okay.

And I don't think it follows 3A combat compatibility with surrounding properties in that we're we're not aware of other properties in this area that have um accessory dwellings on on the lot. So, it's not like a it's not a normal part of this this subdivision. Well, I thank you for that, but I disagree.

There are some other properties out there that could seek permission to put on an accessory dwelling unit. And I don't think that focus in my opinion your opinion is as well as my moral. To me, what the crooks issue is the issue of non-compliance signal we're sending to the residents of the county. Um, and if you want to go to generalities, you can go to the very beginning of the zoning resolution, see what talks about moral. Uh, and it's hard to say exactly what moral is, but this to me kind of gets a morality and the kind of examples we want to set and have lived by in the county. And um you know within the past year uh I think we've had counting this three different instances where we've had the same sort of thing where some someone has gone ahead done something maybe willingly knowingly maybe not. I'm not judging and at least one very serious and extremely egregious example that went directly to the county commissioners which we did not see. And at some point you got to draw a line. And I think this is the place to do it. It's just we have to fit it within the the the findings have to be based on chapter 3 section 5C6 as as opposed to the the broader

mission of of um public welfare and morals um which is the pinning foundation for all of this. But but it's that we we have to find we have to make our findings within this kind of narrow list of well uh things. Mr. Harris has uh said that we have world latitude to make our decisions as we see fit and I am the chairman but I'm prepared to make a motion if you allow me. C can I ask a question?

Sure. Mr. Groo, sorry I should have asked this before. What can the county do? The dwelling is there. Are we going to dismantle it? Is that what can we do? Um, at this point it's not appropriate apparently.

It's that's well beyond uh the consideration before the commission. This is a zoning amendment change request. I'll make a motion. I recommend uh that we recommend to deny uh recommend to the board of county commissioners deny the Morris zoning district amendment ZDA-06-25 based upon the applicant's failure to comply with Albony County resolution for a period of approximately nine years. Is there a second? Can we ask our our attorney about this?

I'll second it just to bring it up for discussion, Mr. Chair. Very good. Uh, so we have a second and we will have further discussion. Mar, you have a question for that?

I guess Miss Mr. Errors, um, can you can you deny based on other other parts of the zoning resolution that aren't specific to this chapter. There is in section five zoning district amendment A. The purpose of a zoning district amendment is to promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of Balden County by allowing amendments uh to boundaries of zoning districts. Um then there are explicit findings necessary for approval. um which I mean the very name of this is an adjudicative zoning district. So while it may be a legislative decision on the whole of whether to change the zoning designation or not, by putting forth these findings necessary for approval, it's bumping it a little more towards an adjudicative decision where there are standards. So it does need to be tied to that standard um in some capacity. So my advice would be to uh many reasons can be offered but a reason based in the uh findings necessary for approval needs to be offered.

M Mr. Chair, please go ahead, Mr. England.

Yeah, again, I it's not inappropriate that we tinker with these motions, try to get them right. I would offer an amendment combining the the thoughts that I'm hearing and and I'm sympathetic to Commissioner Hanning's point u arguing against some of the observations I made earlier. It's true that this subdivision has a gazillion little tiny lots, but in fairness, were it to have come to us for zoning, say coming out of agricultural land into a subdivision, we would not have approved small lot uh residential for this because it is not compatible with the with the comp plan in my opinion and the priority growth areas that are outlined in the comp plan. Um many many of these lots have not been built on which to me uh justifies a finding that it is not compatible with its surroundings even though those surroundings would have a legal right to develop at a much higher density. They have not. and the fact that it's zoned rural residential and is in prior to growth three suggests that the position of the county has been to maintain as low a residential density as we can. So I would offer an amendment to your motion, Mr. chair, including as part of our findings that the proposal is not does not generally follow the comp plan and is not compatible with the surrounding land use.

That sounds like a friendly amendment and I'll accept it. Uh, do we need to vote on that, Matt? Since since I seconded it, I can second I can have the second joint in accepting as a friendly amendment. So, I think we're good to go. So it's another further discussion in that case we'll vote. So we're voting on denial denial. I Yes. Miss David I shankley. Yes. Vote to deny.

And my vote also is to deny. That motion carries. Uh thank you for the public to attend. Uh you may leave or stay as you wish. We will have a 10-minute break. Thank you. And reconvene in 10 minutes. Bernie, do whatever you want to do. Thank you. I'll take as well. So you're staying in town, right? Yes. I I hope that's okay. really

I guess we've got to Yeah. I guess what the biggest link up top there are. It's a strip of David. Are we offline? I think I think it was offline. Recording still.

You got to hit the the mute button. Oh crap. at the front.

Yeah. So there's a small park and some small lot already space and when it was surveyed prior to you know maybe whatot

and I'm going to do anything about public you 12 and said,

there. There you go. Bern, can you hear us? You may still be. Yes, I can. I'm back online. Go ahead and get started again, then. Uh, I think we're all done with our break. Yep. Uh, so I will apologize to you, J. I'm sure you're from Pier Lee now and I had meant to have a break after you guys. It's no excuse, but my notebook for this meeting is at home when I got here. It really happened. So, I'm embarrassed about it, but I'm admitting what happened. So, anyway, um Mr. G, would you please uh present our next item? Sure.

You can't tell by mortifying. All right. So, this next application is zoning zoning district amendment um for Pete Lean and Suns. Um the applicant's Rich Marsh, which is is in the back there. So, we have the applicants here if you have any questions um later on. Um the address for the property is 792 Jonathan Quarry Hall Road. Um they requested a change of a portion of the property from agricultural to industrial. Um the application was sent for review to other county departments and agencies. Larry rivers conservation district made their comments about erosion soil degragation and reclamation of disturbed areas. White dot also commented on that if there's any work that goes on in the white dot rightway. It requires permitting and licensing. Um, which pretty sure White Dots's been pretty involved already because they're moving the road and stuff. So, so they kind of know what's going on.

Um, so, um, we believe the planning department believes the proposed zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestions of the Alb County comprehensive plan. This property is zoned agricultural and the change to industrial is compatible with existing land uses and sur of the surrounding properties. Um and we recommend approval of the Pete Lean and Suns zoning district amendment adopting and incorporating the staff analysis finance facts and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report. Um, I'll just add if you didn't, you probably read it in there, but this is they're changing this portion because they will have a um an onloading offloading um building where um they're building a rail spur out there um that'll that'll eventually go all the way to the plant, but right now it goes to a um to this location where they'll they'll load their materials and unload materials um which is what's requiring the zone change. Um, so yeah, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those and the applicants here also to answer questions.

Bern, do you have any questions? Um, yes, thank you. Um, I guess the first one is a background question. How did we get here? Um, this is all zoned egg. Um, rail terminals and mineral processing are not allowed uses under egg zoning. So, again. Is this another one of these that's already done and we're trying to catch up? What tell us about that?

Uh, no. Um, so they actually there's that whole property is not zoned all a um a piece of the property is already zoned industrial and that's where their plant is. That's where they do their processing. Um, the mining is done up on the hill which I believe is on

state or BLM land. Is it BLM? reclamation bureau of reclamation. So um so it's federal land um that they have permitting for. Um so what this is is this is just a different part of that big chunk of land that they already own that they're zoning specifically for um the the the loading of and unloading of materials on a rail from the the rail line there. Well, I'm looking at the map and I I see an industrial piece off to the east and then I see some industrial on the west side of 287, but all of the there's a huge excavation out there and I'm not objecting to it, but why isn't that industrial? That would seem to be on that egg land between 287 and this piece that we're talking about now. What am I missing here? the current the current the current rail spur is is that not on agricultural land?

Yes. And so what are you asking? So the the railspur w is not required to be industrial. It's the it's the the onloading and offloading area that um where they're building a building there. That's what's required to be industrial. So, so there was no I mean the again the land disturbance the the huge cut and all it's been going on for some time that is compatible with egg zoning

there is it's not described in the zoning at all. It doesn't say rail spurs typically roads uh rail lines they're they're not they don't they're allowed in any type of zoning typically. Oh, okay. I just that just seemed curious to me on a on its face that something of such large scale disturbance um was was compatible with the uh the agricultural zoning. Um might be referring to the quarry itself. Yeah. Well, the quarry is on federal land. It's it's exempt. It's exempt. Yeah. Well, it's exempt, but the rest of it's on a land. All right. Well, I guess I was just right.

So, building a railroad across a a a piece of agricultural land is not considered an incompatible use is what you're telling me. Yes. Yes.

Okay. So, because it isn't a terminal, nor is it again I'm just looking at table of uses. uh terminal is certainly explicitly prohibited on egg land as our mineral processing, but okay, that's where we're where we're drawing those lines. Um, and so this is this is going to be zoned industrial if this goes forward. And then the other question I had as I was looking at the map, what are the exempt properties that I'm seeing that are just across 287 from this? Like what are they? Who are I mean, what do you mean?

Yeah. Who are they? What are why are those exempt? What's it's either state or federal land? It looks like a state land burn. Okay. Those two partial sections there on the west side of 287. Yeah. Okay. All right. again that my questions were just just it was a little confusing to me why we hadn't seen some previous notice of this by virtue of the the agricultural zoning. I have no objections to it. It seems like an obvious adjunct to what they're doing out there. So those are the only questions I had. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. All right.

Um thank you Mr. Chair. Um so Mr. G, what how how do you categorize this this loading area? Is it what is it part of mineral processing? Uh no. What what category of industrial use do you put it under? Sorry, let me let me look that. Um uh rail tournamental I think is what it is. Is that in the Oh. Oh wait, that's on industrial in the on the I'm just looking at the land use table. Yeah. Yes, that's where to find it. You're not seeing

under public and quasi public uses. Oh, okay. Public and Okay. We never look there. I didn't go far. Oh, I see. Yeah, that's one that would be prohibited were it agricultural. Correct.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, because I just was wondering if um you know when you put in your staff report to always take into consideration all the different land uses a certain zoning designation opens the door to and you're thinking I don't I guess I don't know what the permitted lifetime of this facility is. I imagine it's decades. Um, but sometime down the road when it when it's exhausted its mineral resources, what happens to that little industrial swath? And I I didn't know if it could be a conditional permit that just ran with this use, but sounds like not

No. And and honestly um and you may ask that question like what what are they going to do with it to the um you know the applicants because I mean what they portrayed to me is is they they don't want that to be it's not going to be a permanent facility. They want the rail line all the way to their facility but it's cost prohibited at this time but got stop putting words in their mouth and you can correct everything I just said. So say yeah don't listen to that guy but anyways so it's a tempor it's a temporary yes okay thank you David one quick question is that um it's outside of the aqua protection

yeah correct yeah okay okay any further questions for staff that case let's hear from the applicants Yes. Tell us all about this project. We want to know everything. Uh well, not me, but they do. Okay. Good evening. My name is Rich Marsh. I'm representing Ping and Sons.

Um appreciate the opportunity here. I um have read through the the questions that had come forth. Um, I have already been in contact with Holly Dyer um, prior to this uh, with uh, to get a seed mix recommended. Um, and so I know that that was one of the questions that came up. Um, but to answer the the question, yeah, I mean our our goal is is to continue the rail all the way to the facility. That'll be the the best thing for us. This is a this is a we're we're planning on just uh loading and unloading just loading basically cars at at this point um at this location. Um and this was this was needed in order to do that. Um and was a result of us asking for uh a building permit, you know, to put on one of the the tracks. So,

and and I'm just out of curiosity, how long has this been project been in planning? So, um good question. Um, I'm going to say uh several years it took with Union Pacific.

Um, I I think to answer uh Commissioner Hinckley's question, um, we had called early on um because normally we we would require in my mind it would have required some sort of construction permit. Um, when we when we called um the county and and so the um when we explained that there there was there's really no construction permit. So if you disturb a bunch of soil or dirt, you know, get a construction permit, but it's my understanding that that that wasn't there. And so I think to answer Mr. Hinckley's question, I think that that's how we ultimately got here. Um when that question was asked early on, um we we have agreements with Union Pacific Railroad, we have agreements with with WOT, we um you know, did did a lot of investigative work early on to do this, but um this is how we're we're we're here today. So B, would you like to ask some questions?

No, no, thank you for that. I appreciate the fact that you came to the county and asked u what this what the situation was, particular reference to our last couple of applicants. So no, thank you for moving forward responsibly. Appreciate it. Yeah, Rob, quick question. How do you get your materials from the query to this uh spur?

Great question. Um so from the quarry um it comes down the hill and it gets processed at the plant. Um and then this location is about two and a half or three miles down the the Corey Hall Road um towards 287. We're roughly uh don't quote me on this, but roughly a mile off of the road with this this location. Um, and so things get processed at the plant and currently they get loaded onto trucks and they actually get brought into town um and get transferred at at LEDC. And so um us doing this on our own property um would ultimately would reduce you know the truck traffic from our facility. I want to be clear about that. you know, um, into town, but it would it would simply get loaded onto a truck at our at our plant, driven three miles down the road, unloaded at this location, and and then the truck would go back to our our facility.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I h I have some questions that are just out of curiosity about the So, we can we from where our house is, we we see your plant. We refer to it affectionately as the Christmas tree plant. personal street

from the distance. It kind of looks like a Christmas tree and it's been really important for figuring out the weather outside because you like when you can't see the Christmas tree plant, we know it's a pretty good blizzard going on. So, it's been an interesting landmark to us. Um, but I I was just curious if there's a commercial use for the the overburden that you that that is acrewing on the hillside or is that all product that you're able to process? Um, I I could maybe answer that out outside of the outside of the meeting. Okay.

Um, I'm I'm happy to answer that outside of the meeting. I want to make sure I understand what your question though is is that that there's some material um up up top at the quarry and then there's some excavation material as a result of this project. Right. Um I want to make sure I I get that answer correct. Sure. Yeah, I'll I'll just can follow up with you. Well, I'm sure you don't want to stay to the bitter end of our meeting. I'm happy to do that as well. Okay. Yeah. Um, so the the goal is to eventually continue this rail line all the way over to to the plant. And are they going to have to come in and get an industrial It's just for the terminal, not for the rail line itself.

Correct. Okay. So the it's already industrial zoning for the processing plant. So that's already in place. Okay. That's that's all I that I had. Thanks. Great. I just have one question. Is the material still for pharmaceutical use? Is that what the limestone's been acquired for? That's what I remember originally hearing a long time ago. It just sound bizarre to me, but I'm just curious.

So, I don't want to misspeak, but when when you when you remove materials from um a claim on federal property, um it has to be used for a higher use than than aggregate. And so the the limestone materials do get processed in into various other subsequent materials. Um and they're used for a variety of of of uses. U dozens, hundreds of uses. Yeah. Well, very good. Any further questions, applicant? All right. Well, thank you. We will conduct a public hearing and I don't see any member of the public here. So, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move that we close the public hearing. Is there a second?

I'll second. Any further discussion? In that case, all in favor of closing the public hearing say I. I. I. That motion carries. Uh any further discussion or do we have a motion? on my part.

Mr. Chair, I move that we recommend the board of county commissioners approved the Pete Lean and Sun zoning district amendment ZDA-07-25 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, findings of fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report. Bern, would you like to second that? I second. Oh, how about that? Any further discussion hearing? Seeing none, we will conduct a vote. Miss Hanning I. Mr. Hankley. Hi. It's been David. And I vote I. That motion carries. Congratulations. We're recommending approval. Thank you.

Ultimately, the county commissioners have final say. Of course, if they they decide, we recommend. Well, thank you for your time. Thank you. You can leave or stay. I'm gonna answer questions after. All right. Should we take a brief Can we take a brief Sure, we can take a brief break so you can answer our question right now. Um, stop the recording, please.

Oh, okay. That would be a violation. So, um I suppose yeah, the uh commission as an agency cannot Right. Um, perceive information collectively outside of a public meeting. Yep. Okay. All right. It's okay. It's okay. You're allowed to leave and I I can just remain curious and watch from a distance is and I probably could find your permit online to know the answer to the question, too. So,

well, again, thank you. Thank you. Um, I do not see any citizens here who wish to comment, unless you folks want to comment about something. You want to say whether we've done a good job there meeting or not, now's your chance. Okay. Um, okay. Uh, we'll move on to current planning projects. Item eight, rules of practice and procedure of the Albony County Planning and Zoning Commission. David, currently at a meeting I wasn't here. you guys were messing around with the rules of practicing procedure. So,

um, yeah. So, there were some amendments made. They were published in a public hearing was scheduled for tonight. Um, so this amendment addresses how to deal with a tie vote if that were to occur. Not that it would ever happen. Um, but yeah, so um, yeah, I really don't have anything else. Um, if you have questions for probably Matt on this or um, we can take questions. Um, and then if not, we can do the public hearing and and you guys can do your discussion and do what you want with it. So, are there questions for staff? None.

Yeah, I Yeah, I have a amendment to offer, but we can wait till after the public hearing. All right. I got a question. Uh, and you've been in planning for 14 years, 15 years now. 17. Is that right? 17. How many times have have we had this commission in your memory? I know one for sure. Right. But then before then, I don't I don't remember honestly. Do you has any other you believe or do you I I don't remember another one honestly. So it may be we've only had one and

that's that's a possibility. So that's my one question. So uh Matt, do you have anything you want to add to this?

No, I guess no. I mean hypothetically there is like one situation pretty much be limited to uh subdivision applications and um commercial wind energy conversion system applications um where if you don't make a decision within a certain timeline it's deemed approval. So, and and those are also really the only two situations and actually I may I think I misspoke. I don't know for I don't remember off the top of my head if that's the case for uh wind energy conversion system but it is for subdivision. Um

there are specific timelines in there. I just don't remember what happens. Yeah. doesn't you don't meet those but right I remember for sure if planning and zoning doesn't make one make a a recommendation on a subdivision permit application it's deemed approved by planning and zoning so yeah I mean it could could very well be that this is unnecessary but yeah I suppose that's That's really your decision. I just wanted to offer this at the time as something that could be considered.

Oh, sure. Doing your job. Uh, we'll conduct a public hearing. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this? I don't see anyone anywhere. So, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move to close the public hearing. Second. I'll second. Sorry, I didn't have a mic off. Seconded. Any further discussion? That case, we will conduct a vote. All those in favor of closing public hearing, say I. I. I. I. Okay. So, our discussion. Um, Bren, why don't you go first?

Yeah. No, it's a it's a small matter. I think this covers it nicely, but it's a comment I made earlier and perhaps Mr. ERS would would uh speak to it. Uh what I appreciate the fact that we have recrafted this small change to be affirmative motion so we don't have a situation where a tie vote on a motion to approve becomes a motion to deny. So I appreciate the fact that we rewarded this slightly to require an affirmative motion either to approve or deny. My amendment would be to strike uh I'm looking up the red line language in the handout. I'd strike everything after the word matter specifically striking the words and the PEZC members favoring denial shall provide necessary findings fact conclusions to law supporting their denial and the reason for that is something that Mr. pointed out to me that that is covered quite adequately in the very last sentence of the bylaws where it says motion shall clearly state the proposed recommendation on the item of the board including any proposed conditions and identify explicit findings as fact of law sufficient to support the proposed recommendation. So it strikes me that it's redundant to have that same admonition here and in fact slightly confusing in that it suggests maybe that admonition does not apply everywhere else. So, I guess I would I would invite Mr. Ays to comment on whether it would be more elegant rulemaking to simply strike the the last half of the proposed amendment.

Yeah. Um it certainly would be if it was a tie on a motion to deny because then those findings would have been supplied. Um, but I suppose if it's a tie to approve and the result is denial, then you would still need a second like then no motion containing the findings has been put forth uh at that point.

No, but the the previous sentence does not say that a motion a failure of a motion to approve is accepted as motion to deny it. It requires an affirmative motion. A tied vote on a motion to approve or deny on a matter will be considered denial of the matter. So this requires if if we had an affirmative motion to approve something and it was denied, we would be nowhere and then we would require whoever was opposed to it to bring forward a motion to deny. Now that motion uncharacteristically would would be approved on a tie vote. That's what this that's what this says. So I think we're covered.

I I guess I was thinking more of the matter as not the motion but like the matter before because in in that way then it creates if if the matter is the motion then we're in a a circular loop of of tying. And I read it the same way Matt's talking about Yeah. Well, there would be vote on a motion to deny. Yeah, you would motion to deny. You would get the same result though if if you tied on a motion to approve and it was tie then you'd be stuck in the same situation.

Well, no. Then you would simply have no you would have done nothing which is exactly correct. So then you would require an affirmative motion to deny and someone would have to bring that forward. So we don't have that ambiguity of only defeating a motion to approve. Under these words, it says a tied vote on a motion to approve or deny. Tied vote to approve or deny a matter will be considered a denial of the matter. Oh, well, all right. I would say deny a motion. All right. I would guess I would change matter to motion to to make it completely clear. But but then that just gets us in a circular loop where

there's no this wouldn't accomplish anything. No, what it would say is okay, let's let's walk through this and maybe I got this wrong. I move to approve XYZ. The vote is a tie. That motion fails as per normal procedure. Now we've done nothing. somebody else brings forth a motion to deny, that motion receives a tie vote. What this says is that would that motion would succeed on a tie vote. That's the only thing we're adding to the bylaws is the notion that a affirmative motion to deny passes on a tie vote. That that's all we're doing with this correction to the bylaws and that's all we need to do.

As I read this, this says a tie vote on it either way results in denial. Yeah. Unless it can be That's the way I read it. Unless permitted. Yeah, that was that was your intent, right? Yeah. Yeah. Um, so that would have to be was permitted to a tied vote on a motion to approve or deny. Strike the words a matter.

Okay. Well, I'm I want to interrupt here for a second. Before we parse this language any further, I'd like to see if we have other general comments about change there bylaws because I do have some general comments like to offer. Uh so more you either I was questioning the uh that the deniers have to provide, but I guess we're going to probably strike that off anyway. So, no basically.

Okay. Well, I like to also general comments and you can cut me off at any time since I'm the chairman. So, again, I I'm opposed to doing this. Uh I believe that tied votes are so rare that we don't need to amend the bylaws for this. In the worst case, we have a tie vote, we can schedule another vote for our next meeting four weeks, five weeks later and have a decisive vote. We can make sure we've got five people either president online. one way or another, we can make that happen. And the likelihood given the the past historical record that we're going to have two dimes in a row has to be extremely small. So I don't think we should do this. That's my first point. But secondly, I think if we were going to have a way to decide a tie vote, my recommendation would be altogether different. What I would use to decide a tie vote would be the staff recommendation. And I think we could do that. That would be my preference. But the third thing is if we were going to arrive at a decided recommendation by a tie vote, my the way I would go is rather than take that as a denial, I would take that as an approval. I think unless there's clear-cut grounds for denying an application, then property owners should have their rights recognized. And if we can't find their clear undeniable reasons to deny an application then we should go forward on it. Uh so those are my general comments. You certainly don't have to agree.

Can can I and now we can talk about language. Can right can we respond to your last point? Absolutely.

Your last point is that we should approve right but the last the one case of tie vote we had today we actually voted against that so to automatically approve or automatically adopt the staff um recommendation is not what happened with the one tie vote we did have. So, I would say I don't know that we need this language in a bylaws, but I don't want us to automatically either accept staff recommendation or automatically prove.

No. Yeah. No, that's a difference of opinion. That's fine. That's absolutely fair. I just want to express my opinion and and with that, we can go on and further craft Burn's language. Burn's got his hand raised.

Well, Mr. chair, you're opening us to a broader philosophical discussion which I'm it's is appropriate for us to have from time to time. Um, and I agree with Christian van David. No, the default should be denial. The if you the the the whole tenor of all of our zoning and subdivision laws are you have to make an affirmative finding of LA to pass something. And and I think we've perhaps been a bit fast and loose with that. But but every one of those it doesn't say if you can't find that it has has no economic impact you'll pass it. It says you have to find that it has no economic impact. So throughout our regulations the default is denial. The burden of proof of each of those findings is clearly on the applicant. So there should be no no sense of uh nice try gets you across the finish line. If if we fail to affirmatively find any of those things then we should deny I think on the face of regulations.

I think that's a great point and I disagree but that's fine. No that's fair enough. Have something to say.

Um uh I guess Bernie are correct. um that that is certainly like the tenor of uh zoning regulations or at least ours um I mean it's also just a a fundamental principle of administrative law is that agencies have to supply sufficient findings and conclusions um in order to pass any muster in court. Um, and honestly, I I think that this commission does a better job than most agencies um in supplying rationale for its decisions. Uh, I mean, there's always room for improvement just like it, you know, anything. But um I guess the maybe sort of like the impetus from my perspective was uh you know to ensure that things are efficiently passed along to the uh board of county commissioners which ultimately makes uh the decisions in this matter. Um particularly with with past bills that have been introduced uh putting strict timelines or wanting to put strict timelines upon a uh local government agency decisionm and providing fines to applicants if those um timelines are uh exceeded um in a particular application. Um, so I suppose with that, you know, seeing that as a possibility, something that could come, um, I guess just to maintain that that internal haste.

Um, and I this would certainly do so, but I think it's also to recognize that while planning and zoning's review is uh uh very important and and probably more detailed than the uh commissioners um are able to do just as as a function of their significantly broader scope of responsibilities. um the decision ultimately is is theirs. So guess those are my philosophical thoughts.

Yeah. Well, that's great. Look, uh you know, I just want to express my views and whatever yall decide with I'm absolutely fine with. We can craft the language now and vote on it and be done with. It's a practical matter. Don't matter much since this doesn't happen very often. I mean, I would I would probably just think like to see if Yeah. to see the monster like go forward before drafting language because well we can have a quick show of hands. Do y'all feel like we ought to do this in general? Burn, you think so? Yay nay.

I'm okay with not doing anything. If we do do something, I would just like to to do our best work in terms of just again efficiency and elegance of the pros. So either way, I I think that it's worthwhile to have the language in the bylaws. We're off. I agree. Yeah. All right. So, let's do it. Okay. And I also support uh Burn's uh change of language because I think it does make it a little clearer. Okay. Burn, you want to do it again and let us know what we're going to do here?

I I I just guess I just want to ask about that. Go ahead. So, I think I I think I essentially understand. Uh, you'd say a tied vote on a motion to approve a matter um will result in a uh will result in a deny or a a defeat of the motion at which point a motion to deny uh is required to be provided. Which will um which if resulting in a tie vote will be adopted. Well, that

sounds because there's there's kind of like a missing part where it's like if you get a t on an approval then it has to go to a denial. Oh, but what if you get a tied vote on the denial then that's just automatic? Let me let me read it the way I would I would offer it. Okay. Unless permitted to continue consideration of a matter to a later meeting, a tied vote on a motion to deny will be considered a denial of the matter. Period. That I think is the simplest way to say what we want to do.

But I I think we're saying that if if we had a tie on an approval, then it's denial. It's it's how how it gets dispensed with is as a denial. No. And I don't think that's what we want to do what you just said. I think a if you have an affirmative if there's a motion to approve a tie vote that motion fails as any other motion would and you're and that's the end of that. Now if someone wants to deny it they bring forward an affirmative motion to deny. That very special motion would pass on a tie vote, but we would not.

Well, now I see what Matt's saying because that doesn't leave us an out. If we have a repeated tie vote on it does, but you're sort of you're not I think that that would be like confusing for later like when all of us are gone. Yeah. Without knowing the the context of that language. Uh there's a sort of like blank logical step missing on a tie. Something very simple like a tied vote will result in recommendation to deny. Yeah. And that takes care of I think that's

denied application. Denied application. I I personally think the way Matt has it worded makes makes a lot of sense in that. Okay. In the case where we had our tie, it just so happened that it was put forward as a motion to deny. Like that's really pretty rare. It seems like a lot of people their go-to is going to be to approve it and watch it die. And so if you if you really want to be fair to a tie situation and make it really clear to the next decision makers up the up the food chain that there was a lot of dissent about whether this was approvable that both both cases should end in in a denial going forward. And that um if if the people who were on the side of denying it have to then make another motion in in the affirmative of denial and provide their

their their basis for that conclusion in law or their their findings of fact. then then they they need to state that for the record to go forward as as a denial to the board of county commissioners. So I I think the way it's worded right now is is a fair way to treat all ties and that he was just adding on that additional part that you're talking about striking because for the record you you're going to have to provide a basis in your findings for for denial and it's up to the board of county commissioners then to what what they're going to do with it.

Yeah. And and the findings shall be provided that was to specify like in a situation where if it's a tie on a motion to approve then there you know hasn't but I guess if you if you wanted to say that you know a tied vote on a motion to approve um yeah shall resile in denial of the medal or the application. The thing is that it doesn't matter if the motion is to approve or to deny. The minute you have a tie, you default to denial. And if we already have to give a reason for what we vote on, whether approve or deny, we don't need to include it twice. That's what Burn was saying.

That was my point. All right. But I'll I'll yield the point. If it if what I was suggesting was a a simpler way through it, obviously it's not test of simplicity. I will just withdraw. No, Matt's language is perfectly good as it is. I just thought it was a little redundant. If we're going to if we're going to deny things without having a motion to deny, then we need to have the reasons called out and and that's Matt's language does. So, yeah, I'll I'll uh I'll fold my tent, Mr. Chair. If everyone else is agreeable with that, we can move forward to vote. And I would vote in favor of the language before us. I think we should have a motion.

I move that we accept the amendment as distributed for public comment. Is there a second? Oh, go ahead. I second. Is there any further discussion? We will vote. Miss Vent, I tanning I. Mr. Frank Lake I and I vote I also slap motion carries. Congratulations Matt. [Music] You tried to deny it. That's fine.

All right. No, that that was a good discussion. So, thank you all for that. Let's see. Staff updates. David, what do you have for us? Hi, Mr. Chair. Um, so a previous meeting we worked on changes to the subdivision regulations and part of those changes were to move the mobile home park and campground standards out of there. Um we have been working diligently uh Matt doing a lot of work on this um to move those into the zoning um resolution and as always seems to occur there's there's other things to look at and discuss and and figure out. Um so we're working through that process and we will bring those to you when we have it all done. But we are we are making progress on that. Um, what else? Do you have anything you want to talk about, man? No. Okay. Any other updates that I should have? No. Not that you should. Um, have you thought about um talking to each of the commissioners and just see where they stand on the the growth plan and see if they want to move forward, how they might want to move forward. Uh, just some sort of informal discussion. um the informal discussions I have had with those that I've had.

No. Have you thought about doing that again or what are you talking about? I've talked to people. I've talked to our commissioners. I know where where some of them stand and they're not um yeah, they don't necessarily want to move forward with some of that. I mean, there may be some things, but I mean, there'd have had to be specific items in the plan that that I'd have to address, I guess, but And how recent have you done that? Um, one of them I haven't discussed anything recently with, but I know where they stand, if that makes sense.

Yeah. Um, the other one I Yeah. I don't know. I mean, if you want me to do something like that, I can reach out to them individually and and in public meeting probably. Probably in a public meeting. Yeah. And have you had any contacts with the city in the past month or so about the growth plan? No. Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Uh y'all have any questions for projects? No. Okay. Thank you. It was Sher.

Go ahead. Yeah, I I guess I'm still chewing on the commercial thing and as I'm looking at the land use tables and and your response, Mr. Girch, was sort of trying to find your way through a a forest of of language, none of which is particularly on point. When I look at what a dwelling is defined as, it talks about guest houses and in-law suites or the words that are used, which doesn't sound to me like bed and breakfasts, which are explicitly defined in a under a commercial heading. Um, so I I guess I'm just feeling like maybe we need to chew a little more on this whole business that comes up periodically and Centennial is the nexus for it, but it's happening all over the country of how do you handle these these short-term rentals, whatever the right term is. So, it seems like we left that last time that you guys were going to look into that a little bit, what other jurisdictions are doing. I' I'd like to see some brighter lines, I think, in that. What any any thoughts on that, Mr. Girch? Um, we can look more into it if you would like. Um, I know the city of Laram stance is they're hard to enforce and not worth their time. Um, I know that other jurisdictions are like that. Um, I know that the Teton County just doesn't allow them. I think there's one area that they're allowed. Um, but it's kind of a maybe but it's like a non-conforming type situation, I think. Um,

and they define theirs as a short-term rental. Yeah, short-term rental is the kind of the standard for the planning is the thing. Yeah.

But, um, other, you know, other communities in the state um, have looked into it. I think it's I'm trying to think of which community like Park County, they've looked into to doing these. Um, I guess you know we can regulate at least through our zoning. I mean, if we wanted to just require a conditional use or allowed use or whatever depending on the zoning type or or do it that way. A lot of the issues that surround these um are not our issue, right? um when it comes to like um you know whether they got commercial kitchens or how they're dealing with that or how they're dealing with um taxation or there's there's a lot of issues that come up that are surrounding this the short-term rental arena. Yeah.

Alleged allegedly criminal activity. Yeah. I mean I mean there's a lot of issues, but I mean there are certain things that we can do. Um, we could put them in our in our, you know, the easiest thing would be is to put them in our land use table and and say when they're where they're allowed and where they're not. Um, I mean, it's like the structure. It's a it's a single family dwelling, you know, if it's just like a typical Airbnb.

Yeah. I mean, what's the difference with Ben Breakfast? Well, Ben breakfast is uh the the common definition is that it actually provides breakfast like that is a required component. Um, so I mean it's like yeah they're serving food to t you know guests whereas like think about a host be yeah I was going to say that typically there's a host there may maybe not living there but they will be on the presence I've been in one and there's a host there but I've never stayed in one where the host was like on the property. Oh really? Oh yeah they like were there for breakfast but

that's where practice is today. I mean, it started out as a host, you know, yeah, like an extra bedroom, right? It has definitely changed more into like it's a investment. B, we've mentioned it before, but I mean, enforcement is just a huge problem. Whatever you Okay. What is the David mentioned that the city they have they drawn some lines? Have they wrapped some language around this? She said they'd never enforce it, but have they established some sign boards? No, not that I'm aware of.

So, they just talked about it and concluded that it was a lost cause. Um, yeah, that now my conversations with them has been a few years ago, but that was their like we looked in their comments were we looked into them, enforcement was a nightmare. they had actually reached out to some other communities um and just yeah they concluded it wasn't worth it but okay do we even that doesn't mean we have to follow them either like I'm just I'm just saying what what was told because like I said there's other communities this is always a topic in like the planning you know emails that I see you know oh how are you doing this what are you doing here and you know

well and I'm even if it was they weren't regulating them I'd Well, I don't see a bright line between these kinds of things and a and a motel. So maybe maybe we would just define what we aren't regulating. Is it is it a certain number of rental units? Is it a certain period of time? It seems like to have our current regulations make sense. We still need a line between commercial and all this other stuff. You know, letting your buddy give you 10 bucks to spend the night. Can we I mean you were talking about swimming pools and all kinds of elaborate things but certainly we would recognize something as a motel that didn't have full scale amenities.

Would it be useful for us to at least have a a definition that ended commercial and granting on the other side of that line? The the problem is that if there wasn't a a lack of compliance with this property, for example, we would never have any jurisdiction or potential to have one. They violated one dwelling rule, right? And so we had something to discuss. But if you have a home and um in Arizona and you know in the winter in the summer you you rent it out. Who can tell you no you can't have nobody in that?

You have to keep it locked. Okay. So maybe maybe you've answered my question for me. Thanks for that. So it is in the dwelling and we allow multifamily dwellings but if but I couldn't have a 10 family dwelling. Is that right? Um then it would be it would be outlawed in the zoning because families whether they're paying or not. Is that correct? If there's 10 units, right? Multi. That's multifamily dwelling.

Okay. And so now maybe I'm looking for when does multif family dwelling become motel? Well, um, motel provides lodging and parking in which rooms are usually accessible from an outdoor parking. So, those are rooms, not dwellings, right? I mean, I guess it Yeah. I mean, multif family to us is like three plus dwellings in the same building or whatever. I mean, that's all it means. and and a dwelling is defined by having uh you know bathroom living areas and a kitchen basically.

So motel wouldn't necessarily have a kitchen. Um but I guess they could have if it has a sink microwave and a hot pot. I guess that's a great line. Yeah, a lot of them do. I'm thinking if you take a driver out and look at a 100 buildings and they're either motel or or homes, you can get it right 100% of the time. Easy to look at a hotel and say that's what it is and pretty look easy to look at a home and say that's a home,

right? I mean, I know you wanted to draw some lines, but if we're looking at just like the commercial aspect of it. So, so if somebody buys, you know, three or four different houses, which happens especially in Laramie, and they rent out each of those houses, um, you know, now are we trying to look for for people that are renting out houses that that don't own them? Is it I mean, well,

I don't know. I just don't want to get like into this whole I don't know. I I mean, we we can define short-term rentals and if I guess we want to define short-term rentals as a commercial use. We I we could say that, you know, I mean, I guess that's how you clarify that, but I I don't know exactly how you're trying to get to what we're trying to get to. So, I don't know how to answer it. Maybe I need to think about it. Well, that's why we want tax. What's that?

Okay. Centennial kind of becomes is a place where this happens a lot. And I'm not saying that people who come to us and say, "Oh, I don't like strangers driving down my road." That's not health, safety, and welfare of the county. That's just that's just nimism. But when I hear the people in Centennial, as we have as part of this last little discussion, talking about the influx of of snowmoilers dragging in their 15 snowmobile trailers to to rent a place and it does affect the health, safety, and welfare of the community and just the the character of neighborhoods that we try to preserve through zoning. So, I have some sympathy for the folks who argue that when a neighborhood is turned into short-term rentals, that has that that's a different neighborhood and and it's different in the same way that going from R1 to R2 to to R3 in the city would be. And that is something that perhaps is worthy of of zoning address protection, if you will. You think it's just it's just a can of worms. Don't go there. I know.

Well, and and that can happen in a regular neighborhood, too. Like with somebody that owns it, they could have all of their their friends and stuff. Like I have people next to me that like for the first few years they lived there, there was a party every Saturday, they had like their own portaotty outside and there was like people everywhere. And it's like and these guys weren't into short-term rental, you know? Right. All right.

I mean, honestly, I think that in the discussions that I've had with other uh people in in county government like some of these representations uh about particularly like the history of Centennial um may not be wholly wellounded Um, I mean it's there really hasn't been much there historically other than what logic. Um, so I suppose that if you if if this commission really wants to explore that issue, there needs to be I think more study and survey of just Centennial and its residents. Yeah. What I think is interesting too is like a lot of times when these folks will talk to us um I have actually have a letter somewhere from an attorney who said in their letter they have these short-term rentals and there's a lot of out ofate plates that are going up and down these roads and I think 50% or more of the properties are owned by someone from out of state in that area. I'm not saying we don't like greenies, but this is

if this is something we're interested in studying, I'd be happy to pull together what I can find and bring them to you guys. So, I mean, this is an issue in New York City. That's that's what kind of also sticks in my mind. This this goes from from the biggest to the smallest. So, I bring up Centennial just because it was impressed on us here in this this this last few weeks. But but no, it's a it's a much bigger issue than that. Um, so I don't know. What do my fellow commissioners think is worth having David spend some time on?

I don't think so because we'll come to the conclusion that a, you know, we can't draw a really clear line between, you know, my mom came and stayed in my house or I was on vacation in France or I rented this place to someone offline. So the line between commercial and non-commercial short-term use of a place is really murky and uh I don't know that it's our responsibility if people if the residents of Centennial have a problem with this they should draft covenants they should have their own internal I don't know that

they could incorporate they should be a town they can incorporate exactly I I don't understand why we should I'll vote for it. H incorporation. Yeah. Yeah. Most of our problems are in that areas. Not not most, a lot of them.

So I just this issue comes up enough that we know there are people in the county who are concerned about it. And it just it strikes me that we you know why what's the difference between having a bed and breakfast in your neighborhood which is on our land use table and having a short-term rental in your in your neighborhood? I mean, aren't they kind of equivalent in terms service food? It's going to have more units. It it have it have more units potentially, I guess. I mean,

yeah, like an Airbnb. I mean, it's one unit like I But is it like like I'm okay like think of the Mad Carpenter. I don't know how many rooms they have there, right? Um it's a bed and breakfast like a block away. It's gorgeous little house.

Lots of nice people. So, like I don't know if you counted up all the rooms and how many people you could put in there and how that equates to like some of these VRBOs and how many people they they can provide service to, you know, I don't know. So, I guess it's the question is is does it rise to the level of impact on a neighborhood to merit having in the land use table We we hear from people that say it does and but then you get into the well how do you actually regulate it? I mean

well and how representative is is that of the majority of BRBOS? No. Of of people that live in Santeni, right? Yeah. No. Well, I think when this came up in the past, we got mixed. Some people were very for them. They feel like it brings visitorship and helps the economy locally. And so there there were seem to be kind of equal equal yays and nays. And Centennial is sort of a gateway to outdoor recreation in Albany County. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, and I guess you have to think too, it's like, do we want to limit them in this area? Do we want them to go away? I mean I don't know like are they not good for community and for the economy you know like in that area more political issue than a planning issue and I think it's something the county commissioners all take up if it's important enough to be taken up they can provide some direction

right the the other thing is is like you know even if we did do some type of regulations I believe everything that exists today would be non-conforming So, and and I've had I've had a lot of complaints about these the short-term rentals, but it's really about one property in Centennial. So, and there are there's there are others in that that neighborhood that I've heard, but I I've not heard complaints about these other properties. People say the only way is, which is interesting. So, yeah.

Yeah. But I mean, and maybe that's something that um you know, maybe we do. I I think what Matt said to really like survey the the Centennial area and and you know, if we did something, maybe we just want to do it in the Centennial area because I we don't hear complaints anywhere else. It's just that area. Well, usually just that property.

Yeah. There was Airbnb that I stayed in off of 130 like Lazy Yeah. Link. Yeah. the Lazy Dog Chalet, something like that. Um, it's right by that uh a Meridian Road. Um, but anyway, I mean, you know, it's like that's on four or five acres and it's an entire house. I mean, right, you can't see neighbors. So we make the centennial short-term rental overlay

or is it dependent on like the size of the parcel because like yeah an entire house on you know five plus acres it's totally different story than right a guest in like a accessory structure on two acres right yeah the the impact to the neighborhood you know is different. Yeah, sure. And it usually probably is because David said it's it's the people operating rather than the size of football. Yeah. But I think somebody said it this is or maybe as Burns like this is an issue that communities across the the nation are are tackling, you know.

Yeah. And I I honestly don't think we have the issues like some other places. I mean, some places they really do like, you know, a huge portion of their housing stock is is that's what they're using it for. Also, I mean, I've I've also read articles that the Airbnb bubble is is kind of bursting. like especially early pandemic, there was a huge rush uh of people buying up single family dwellings um to rent it out as an investment. Um and that got a little oversaturated.

So, well, it's a lot of times you could go to the Airbnb and get a a cheaper room than a motel or whatever hotel and

Well, that's not the case. I mean, that's not the case. like the everybody's prices of are you know kind of stabilizing so more equal but I don't know it's an interesting topic for sure is that leave you at all satisfied completely something to think about and all I guess if one of us gets a wild hair but no thanks for the discussion it's not going to go away but but it's not ripe for our address right now perhaps Uh, how about some general commissioners comments? Mara, what would you like to say?

Just that the next regular meeting on our agenda has this date on it. So, you need to update it to September 10th. That we'll do something about that. But no, I don't I don't have any. That was your problem. I was going to make the same comment, Bern. Nope. Thank you very much. Okay, I got one comment and uh I want to thank Burn for taking the time to be here. Uh even though you're involved in set up a house and it looks like you got sort of a fuzzy eye glass. Oh yeah, I'm still fighting. One of your eyes. So So thank you for being here, Bern. Um you have to if I was counting there'd be six of you. What the heck?

And and David, do we know when the next meeting will take place? Yeah, September. We'll just say September. Just a second. I can tell you. September 10th. So far. Yeah, I think it's September 10th also. So, our next regular meeting will be September 10th at 5:00 PM in this room. And with that, I will adjourn our meeting. Thank you. Thank you. In recording.