Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'll call to order the Albony County Planning Zoning Commission regular meeting for November 12th, 2025. And first we will call rollick present. Here, Frankley here. And uh it's been David. Oh yeah, I'm here also. So we're all here. Very good. Um, may I have a motion to approve the agenda? We approve the agenda. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Um, I have a motion to approve the minutes from October 8th, 2025.

I have no uh comments on them. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'll move their adoption as a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion passes. Can I Can I interrupt for one second? We can't see the commission room. The video is not connected. It was on, but how about now? Perfect. We got it. Okay. Let's see. Uh does anyone have anything to disclose or any conflicts of interest?

Yeah, I have uh I need to uh tell everyone that the uh iron holds variance application. Uh I have potentially a conflict of interest. Uh I live in the Sherman Hill subdivision and that uh Varian's request is in our neighborhood [sighs] and um a road district uh is opposing this uh villian. So, I personally have nothing to gain or lose from this, but uh as a p personal no and I checked with uh Dave and Matt and they claimed that it's not a problem that I participate in a discussion and vote on this, but I wanted to make sure everybody knew about it.

Okay. Well, thank you. So noted. Um, so to my colleagues here, we have a full agenda here. Uh, and I'd like to say as a goal that we try to get through the three sets of amendments we have in front of us and move them forward if we can. Uh, but of course, first we have two public applications and we will begin with our next item application VR-02-5. Joe.

All righty. Um the applicant is Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Holtz. This is located at 2619 Burnerbell Road. The request is for the ability to subdivide into a lot smaller than 35 acres within the APOZ. Their current zoning is ranchet and the current use is residential. Uh there were comments the Larame Rivers Conservation District had comments on soil degradation, erosion, reclamation, minimizing invasive species and wells. Um and Game and Fish commented that the project is within Ponghorn crucial winter range habitat and with that commented on fencing. Um all comments can be seen in the review section. Notice has been provided by posted sign publication and certified mailing as required. Staff analysis. The applicant is asking for a variance from the Alb County zoning resolution in order to be able to subdivide uh their property which is within the APOZ under the required density of 35 acres per lot. Staff believes that granting of this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege which other properties in the APOZ do not enjoy. If the applicant's request for a variance is granted, the applicant will be required to go through the subdivision process which is laid out in the Albony County Platting and subdivision resolution. In order to subdivide a sight specific investigation will be required findings of fact, the applicant has provided an application for the requested variance which includes the information, materials and statements required by the Alb County zoning resolution chapter 5 section 14. The applicant has complied with the notice requirements of the county zoning resolution chapter 5 section five. The applicant and staff 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 and is proceeding in accordance with the requirements of the

Alb County zoning resolution chapter 5 section 14 but has not met the standards required for granting a variance under sub paragraphs 14F2 and 14F4. Uh staff recommendation is to deny the Aaron holds variance request V0225 based upon the applicant's failure to show that the following standards will be met. Chapter 5, section 14F2 says that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on use of other properties in the district. Um staff believes that granting the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties ability to subdivide within the APOZ. And chapter 5 section 14F4 says that the granting of the variance is justifi has to be justified for one or more of the following reasons. A strict interpretation or enforcement of the development standards would result in practical difficulty or an unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the purposes of the resolution. B. exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions, applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same district. And C, strict interpretation or enforcement of the development standards would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same district or variant or the variance will bring the applicant into substantial par with other property owners in the same district. The variance is not justified for the following reasons. Strict enforcement of the APOZ density standard prevents all properties from subdividing smaller than 35 acres per lot in the overlay zone, but does not cause the applicant any difficulty in using his property in any other way allowed under the zoning resolution. The inability to subdivide if minimum lot size cannot be met is a necessary purpose of the minimum lot

size standards. The property being unable to sub smaller loss uh smaller than 35 acres is not an exception or extraordinary within the APOZ and strict enforcement of the density standards would not deprive the applicant of a privilege enjoyed by others in the same district as no other property within the APOZ has the ability to subdivide their lots smaller than 35 acres. The variance would not bring the applicant into substantial parody with other property owners within the APOZ because the applicant's inability to subrise smaller than 35 acres is the same as all other properties within the APOS and staff recommendation is deny

to deny. Uh [clears throat] questions for staff again with Miss Ben David.

I don't have any. Thank you,

Miss Eddie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,

go ahead. He's just looking to see if there's any people. I didn't know if you're resolving a technical. So, as as far as you know, have there ever been variances granted for overlays? Uh, not that I know of. I don't know that we've ever Has anyone ever asked for one from an from an overlay requirement? I'm aware of not in my

um when I read the zoning resolution general provisions of a variance, it sounds like they are intended for um construction or maintenance of a building or structure or for the establishment or maintenance of a use of land which is prohibited by a zoning resolution. So in this case, the use of the land is residential and it's not being prohibited, right? Like it's it so what is the hardship? I had a hard time understanding what the actual hardship.

I guess their hardship is that our regulations say that they can't subdivide smaller than 35 acres per lot. So do you think that the right to subdivide is an establishment or maintenance of a use of land? Uh because when I think of use of land, I think of like residential, commercial, industrial land uses, right? I don't think of subdivision per se as a land use. [clears throat] But I wondered where you guys

Sure. I guess it would be like a more dense use of residential. Um, this is their only process to go through to be able to do this. Um, and I mean I guess with deni my denial recommendation, I would say that they don't meet the standards that uh are required to. So in in this case, they're they're looking to the surrounding already developed properties which have smaller lots, right? But under the current zoning ordinance, those would be um Oh, I always stumble on the right term. Non-conforming.

Yeah, non-conforming. Thanks. I don't know why I can never [laughter] comment on it. Um so, so they're essentially asking to be get permission to be nonconform. Yeah. So if if you as far as you know in the history of of at least going back with David, there's never been an instance where [laughter]

um there's never been an instance where a variance has been granted to to like peel off the overlay kind of and get down to the the the base uh zone. Not that I know of. Thanks. That's that's all. That's good morning. No questions. Um yeah. Um I guess the the first question just just I assume we know the answer, but is there anything more than was in the packet to justify this request because it seemed quite thin.

Okay. And then as far as what was in the packet, um I wasn't clear. All that soils data, there were like 44 pages. Was that a comment from dis conservation district or was that part of the application? That was a comment from the district. So the application itself was the two-page letter in the map. Is that correct? Uh and then the cover sheets. Well, yeah. And the application. Yeah. Okay. Um, [clears throat] so then let me just pick up on a response to Commissioner Henny other recourse. You said they had no other recourse that one could move the boundaries of the overlay and there would be a process for petitioning for that,

right? Or one could remove the 35 acre restriction entirely, right? And how would one go about that? Uh, I mean, it would have to go through like our our rag changes. So, one would petition for a reg change. I guess I'm just looking for if that was a rec avenue that this wanted to pursue, h how would you tell them to proceed? I guess they could come and ask you to facilitate a regulation change. We don't have an application or anything for them to do that but um but if you directed us to do that

that there is petition to do that or something that would just be hey how about it we discuss it decide where to go. Okay. Thank you. Um that's all I had and I don't have anything. Uh so as the applicant for that representative here would you please step forward and stand for questions if you're willing to do that up in here. I'm the applicant along with my husband and we have a representative also. Would he be allowed to speak up? Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you for your time today. I'm Sher Aaron Holtz and this is my husband John Aaron Holtz and we are the reason you are here. We are seeking this variance. Um, we are pursuing a variance on the 35 acre lot size which was just put into place. I believe was it 2.5 years ago when that was was passed through the county commission. So, I'm not surprised there hasn't been an application for variance. It's been a pretty short time that that has been the case. Um, we are looking for this variance for our land in Sherman Hills, which lies east of Burner Mill Road and just south of HappyJack uh Trail. Um my husband John passed out a number of different um plans for this. Uh we believe that members of the community would benefit from being able to build three to five bedroomedroom homes on these ranchets sized parcels which are much larger than those parcels that are sitting to the north that are non-conforming parcels at this time. Um this location is an outstanding location. It's very close to schools. It's close to Walmart um and close to the interstate. It's really a beautiful place to uh live. Uh we're seeking a 12 lot subdivision on these 73 acres as noted by the gentleman. The lots would range from 4 and a half to 9 acres and would include a recreation zone for uh subdivision members to the north side. There are some really awesome sledding hills over there. Ashley, uh we understand of course that our land overlays the Casper aquifer. Uh hence our various variance request but believe data from our geological survey uh demonstrates a high level of safety with the location of septic and building sites. This is where we drink our own water. We don't want to poison our own well in any way nor our neighbors. We care very much about our le our neighbors. Um the zoning and the way that the uh building lots have been set up follows all setback requirements in regards to those vulnerable futures.

And that is something I would like to our representative geologist Ben Jordan can further elaborate on if that's okay with you. That's absolutely fine. All right.

Good evening. As Mrs. Aaron Holtz indicated, I'm Ben Jordan. I work for Associates here in Laramie and I am a geologist. We've done a number of subdivision applications in Albony County and across the state of Wyoming. The Aaron Holtz has retained us to help them prepare chapter 23 application in advance of any additional work. We did investigate the G site specific geologic conditions and there are outcrops of the Casper formation exposed um within the subdivision. We did review the readily available geologic and hydrogeeologic information in the area and did conduct site visits. There is one mapped fault that's a small displacement normal fault uh to the east of the subdivision along the northeast corner and Verpl did map that is passing into one of the lots. Um did walk that viewed the neighboring property and you can see the fault uh very plainly. Other vulnerable features that were identified included the drainage to the north that creates the sledding hill that was just referenced as well as a drainage that is off property on the south. Um we did do um lay potential layouts of the lots to ensure that we met the 50-ft setbacks from the property lines and 100 ft setbacks for each of the the lots to demonstrate that wastewater systems and replacement systems could be installed. The Aaron Holtzes have an on-site water well. Uh the name of the well is herd number one. It has a total depth of 300 feet and the water level in that well is uh 28 ft when it was drilled. It was 140 ft when I ran the 24-hour pump test. The uppermost water notated by the driller uh on the statement of completion was 180 ft and the production zone is 200 to 300 ft. With the water level being above

the production zone, it does exhibit confinement. Um in other words, the production zones are confined. I also more recently prepared an application for a wastewater disposal system in the Mountain West Farm Bureau property for Dry Creek construction. And this is a little bit to the east of or to the west, pardon me, of the Aaron Holtz's property. And they also have a relatively new water supply well there that's 263 feet. The static water level is 134t. The produ first water was 150 ft. So the water levels about uh 16 ft above the uh first indicated water. Uh the depth to their principal water bearing zone is 200 ft and uh the bottom of that zone is 260 ft. With both of these wells, we did collect water quality samples and had those submitted to laboratories. And the Aaron Holtz as well has a total dissolved solids of 233 parts per million, which is pretty typical for a Casper formation. Well, in this area, the chloride concentration was 1 mg per liter. Typically, if you have wastewater influence, that'll be a a higher number. And the nitrate concentration was 1.27 mg per liter. So, very low nitrate concentration. With the Mountain West arm bureau subdivision uh new wastewater system, we also sample water there. And the nitrate concentration uh from that particular well was 1.37 mg per liter. So these wells are not showing influence of septic system wastewater disposal was we did prepare the uh draft chapter 23 in advance of uh further work. We did run the nitrate model that DEEQ DEEQ utilizes and had

the inputs from five bedroomedroom homes on all 12 lots of maximizing the amount of waste water being disposed. the model that they more recently uh uh required that consultants use uh barring some other particular uh model that they might accept has the nitrate concentration locked at 40 mg per liter which is an assumed average value of untreated waste water. Well, on the aqua protection overlay zone and with this uh particular proposed subdivision will utilize enhanced septic. However, the model using the 40 mg per liter. The untreated water, the resulting nitrate concentration at the lower end of the property was 3.38 mg per liter. So there is a slight increase in the estimated um nitrate concentration assuming that effluent would pass through the confining layers and reach the the aquifer itself. So just a brief snapshot of what we found in our investigations uh with this.

Okay. Well, we all take questions. Okay. Very good. Uh moral, do you have any questions? No, I don't. Thank you. Uh Diana, not yet. Um yeah, starting with Miss Erin Holtz, I think you referenced we passed out plans. Did I hear that correctly? And I haven't seen any such things. I gave I gave all the folks here this

and then I have this for for you all. Well, I Okay. I mean, have we seen any of that? I I asked earlier what I think this was submitted on Christine. Can we give them this? All I saw was a simple line drawing with the house on. Okay. Can you grab three more of those? Well, and I'm not I'm not sure I'm asking for it now and that I'm asking Where was this? I never saw it. Is that not correct? Looking to staff. Did you guys have this?

Um, we submitted everything required for the request. I mean of course I have I mean I have a entire folder full that um but I did as per the requirements of u the zoning and planning I did everything just exactly the way the book says. Well I guess I'm just trying to get my arms around what is the application before us and what are the materials on which we make our decision. Mr. Sure.

So to to answer that question, um yeah, Mr. Arnold is not required to show us what he's going to do in the future. What he's asking is from a variance from a specific regulation in our zoning resolution. So that's what you're determining today. Can he or can he not um do something that is that is not, you know, going to follow that 35 acre regulation? That's that's a basic of this question basis of this question. has nothing to do with the future of what he wants to do.

And I totally agree with that. Again, just trying to understand what it is that we've been presented with. Um, Mrs. Holtz also suggested that's why we included geologic information. I did not see a shred of geologic information. What What am I missing? We hired a geologist in advance of even pursuing the variance to make sure that our plan would be safe before we even pursued.

Okay. But but we have not seen any of that. But I I again when I when I went in and asked what I need to give, they gave me what I need to give and I conformed to everything that they had. I mean, obviously, I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars to put in front of you something that I might not even get a shot at. So,

Mr. Chairman, totally agree. That's why the threshold question for us is is the the var the variance, not the details. Um, with all due respect to my colleague, Mr. Jordan, I think everything you've told us is utterly irrelevant at this point. It's a whole different you aren't coming to us with a subdivision plan we're being asked to approve the chapter 23 study is that's another story for a different a different place the only decision before us Mr. chair is what is exceptional sufficiently exceptional about this plot that justifies the variance. Um have you got any additional information on that to present to us the signal? I think my my contention would be that much of what's been established to put the 35 acre deadlock on was done on your hands.

Absolutely correct. Is that correct? Well, so you as far as data

as far as data, you would be privy to all of that. So maybe you could share why we shouldn't be able to do that. And I do have Mr. uh Jordan here that I believe that he can go toe-to-toe on your answers. And Mr. Chairman, that was the substance of my earlier question which which was if one wanted to challenge the regulation from which you're seeking relief. That is a completely different discussion, different forum, different time, different process. that isn't what we're being presented with. I have no further questions and I don't have any further questions either. Uh so we will conduct a public hearing. Uh is there anyone here in the public who wishes to speak on this matter? If so, please raise your hand. I'll call upon you. Please limit your comments to about three minutes or less and we will start with you. Thank you. Let

us know who you [clears throat] are and where you're from.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my name is George Mson and for the [clears throat] record that's spelled M O N S O N. I live at 2526 Mountain Shadow Lane, which is about uh, you know, 150 yards from the northeast corner of the proposed Eron Holtz property. Um, I I suggest that the planning commission not make a recommendation to the commissioners to approve this variance. And this is for several reasons. First, it does not meet the criteria. Can

I stop for saying you're asking us to deny this request? Yes. Okay. Very good. Keep on going. I'm sorry. uh it does not meet the criteria for a variance because for several reasons. One, any hardship is self-imposed. Variances are generally granted if there are uh some kind of external reason. For example, someone cannot meet a setback requirement because there's a big ravine in the middle of their property and they can't build their house there. That's external. Uh here the only hardship is that the Aaron Holtz are saying, "Well, we can't subdivide this property and make more money by doing this." That is self-imposed. And also, they had a deed restriction. Of course, that's between their people who bought the property from and them. That's private contract, not a public thing. that it should not be shall not be subdivided. So they can't really say, "Oh, we always wanted to do this and then the overlay zone came in and restricted us." So it's they can't have a reasonable expectation of having [clears throat] had the ability eventually to subdivide. Um and it's also contrary to the public health, safety and welfare. Uh first of all, it will impose a significant burden on the roads in the road district in that area. There's going to be uh however many lots they have. Uh construction vehicles coming in both light vehicles for the crews and heavy vehicles such as cement trucks and so forth and large

equipment has a hard time negotiating some of the curbs within the road district. Now there have been a number of incidences where they have tried to make a turn and it's just too tight for a vehicle that large. Uh there's also the uh just the weight impact of vehicles from 10 or 12 more lots using the roads. And the primary access road would be HappyJack Road, which is not the HappyJack Road up on Sherman Hill, but uh uh they're all unpaved, so they don't they wear down pretty fast. Uh, I would say if you had to put this many new homes in, the developer would need to pay a road development fee, a road impact fee, and pave uh HappyJack Road coming in. Um there will uh uh also of course it will have a impact [clears throat] on public health, safety and welfare because of the impact of uh both wells and waste disposal systems on the Casper aquifer. That was, as you know, was greatly discussed a few years ago when the uh uh overlay area was imposed on that. And while the gentleman who just spoke said that there was pretty low nitrates and nitrites in the groundwater in the one well and there holds his own well u several hundred yards away in my well there's actually quite high nitrates in

fact we for drinking we use bottled water because of that it's uh just at the top end of the acceptable range. So it can vary pretty widely over a short distance. Um also there's the presidential value of whether you grant or deny this request for a variance. If you grant the request, what does that do to the meaning of the overlay zone or the lot size for that zone? You know, what's prevent someone buying a 4acre lot in the Aaron Holtz subdivision and dividing into four 1acre lots or 164 acre lots. you know, it uh just makes the zoning regulation and the overlay a dead letter if you can just come in and say, "Oh, we want to subdivide just because for business reasons and we can uh you know what's the criteria for turning that down? If you allow the Aaron Holtz to do it, that's going to be the president in the future." And some future applicant can say, "Well, you granted to them. why are you not granting it to me? So, that's certainly a significant policy decision. Um, also, and I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the materials that have been on, but um, subdivision design in this day and age generally requires two entrances and exits. So that in case of a wildfire or other emergency, people can get out and emergency vehicles can get in without being on a

dead end. Burner Mill is a dead end and the interior road in this proposed subdivision would be a dead end. Um this is uh you know with climate change and wildfires becoming more prevalent, this is becoming a more significant reason to design subdivisions with two entrances and exits. Um, so I suggest that the planning and zoning commission deny this application for a variance and pass that on to the commissioners. Okay. Well, thank you for your comments. Next.

Step four.

I'm Bob Hton and I'm totally against this variance for the reasons we develop Mountain Valley estates and the county forced us regulations on to do it. I agree 100%. John cannot provide an ingress and an egress out of that subdivision. We had to have put two in to get in and out. Secondly, 130 to 160 houses we've been told could be put up in that area. One out coming up Burnler Drive and I don't think he has access on some private property to do it. Come by our house lens or go on a Happy Jack. We got one access out of Sherman Hills and that's Pilot Peak Road on it. Our county commissioners turned around two or three years ago which is in snowy view estates. Um Bill Nye Avenue was both to connect in with Snowy View Road. They vacated it. So we got one access. Now take our house fire. Our house is one that burned out which you probably all know. They gave notice to two of our neighbors to be [clears throat] on the vacate that night. It was that bad. Now, how are they going to provide safety to those people? For one thing, how are they going to provide access to that property with one means of exit out of there? County regulations say 35 acres on the the Casper Rocker. Not necessarily agree with everything, but that's the regulations. Let's follow them on it. You know, I had to follow it. I figured everybody else should follow it on the whole thing. And if you go through a fire like we did, you really start appreciating what the regulations are.

So, I totally and John and I have been friends for years as family. I'm totally against want you deny that variance 100% because it does not meet county regulations. If we can't follow county regulation, why have them? That's the way I look at it. And I was 100% for it. Uh you people don't know it, but county accepted uh Sherman Hills sub number four. They never put the last part of the road in on Navy Jack Trail. Kell Ruka ordered the county to put the road in so that I can meet the regulations in ingress and outgr. The next thing is 130 to 160 homes I've been told can be built out there. How are we going to get on to Grand Avenue? We can highway department would not put any more accesses to Grand Avenue and that I know because of the vet clinic. We tried to get a access on the grand and they wouldn't give it to us. We had to go up from Bob link with an address. So that's a major concern. You know a lot of cars but that's the way I feel about it. And thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Please step forward. this gentleman here in the front.

My name is Dave Xander. I live on Windmill Court just across from the Aaron Bolts property. We're we're ordering their property. We've been circulating a petition through the German Hills area and we've gotten a very good response in opposition to this. So, I'd like to give you a copy of it and then give the originals to the commissioners coming up and we're going to probably get more signatures. So, hand this to you. We got 76 signatures right here. Oh, now is this the Oh, this is your original. No, that's uh it's colorcoded. Okay.

Yeah, it looks like an original, but I I want to give the original to the commissioners. And plus, we're it's ongoing the petition going on. And I just met uh met Mr. Holtz uh this evening. I got nothing personally against him. I understand why he's doing it, but I adamantly disagree with him doing this. So, um I had some notes on there. Um just uh the the reason we moved to this area was we we like the zoning and the regulations as they are. It gives us comfort in knowing that we're not going to get developments going on uh around us. And I think a lot of the people that live around us feel the same way that we'd like to keep keep that in place. and looking through uh the information that was put out on this, they're using parody as a reason, meaning because a 40-year-old subdivision did this, they should be able to do it. And uh without really taking into consideration the larger properties right around them, I've met the good thing about this, I've got to meet my neighbors and get to know them. That's good. But I I've realized they they're living there with on these larger properties around them for the reason that they have strong wording in their deeds that guard against this sort of thing where they got all got to sign off on it. I think four out of the five properties have those type of deeds and one of the Kurs uh don't but they're totally against against doing this. So they they moved out there to not to have the open space, not have this. I I am concerned about the aquifer. And I I know there's two arguments. One geologist will tell you, hey, there's plenty of water and the nitrates aren't

bad. And then another geologist will say, hey, the aquifer's gone down 3 to 5 feet in the last few years and it hasn't come back up. So I'm I'm hearing all these things. I'm a novice at this knowledge, but it makes sense to me that we don't poke more holes in it. You know, it's a precious resource that we all have to we all need. It It's really important. So, I think about those things. Um I had a well guy come by and do some work for me. I had I was having trouble with the filter canister and I asked him about the aes. Oh, yeah. He says, "It's totally dependent on snowpack runoff and it fluctuates every year. I see it go up and down." And he says, "By the way, you got people downstream of you that have six filters and they have to change them frequently because they fill up with sand." So, I get thinking, man, we start poking more holes. What's that going to do to my well? So, the the other thing I want to I want to tell I'm a strong property rights guy. I don't I'm not going to give my neighbor a hard time if he parks a fifth wheel on it or if he doesn't mow his lawn or his weeds are growing, but property rights also involves stewardship and we as property owners got to think about those around us. We don't the par clause, we don't want to cause harm. I was looking at the Wyoming statutes on this and you can't claim par if you cause harm to your neighbors. So, uh, [clears throat] you know, maybe I'm going too far off in the weeds here, but the the gentleman before me, he did, uh, Mr. Hon, he's my neighbor. He did a great job of expressing himself on this issue. He he developed the area that I actually live in. Um, uh, lastly, the last thing I'd like to

say for anybody in the room who hasn't signed a petition, I I'll have the petition here and they can sign it on the way out. And uh I implore you to reject this and send a message to the commissioners that this is not a Thank you for your time. Well, thank you for your comments. Anyone else? [clears throat] Please step forward.

Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Thomas Bian Bz. Live at 6809 Grand View Drive, which is just beyond the proposed subdivision. uh we [clears throat] moved up there, bought that land in 2000. Um just so you know, just from history, well, first I should say I'm opposed to uh the variance. I I would ask that it stayed as it is rather than giving the variance, but um Mr. Paul Etchup of the Pilot Peak Land Company and Warren Livestock is the one who originally developed much of the land up there. And the way [clears throat] Sherman Hills is designed is that there are small lots down near Grand Avenue and then slightly larger lots a little further up and then larger lots than that and then the outer perimeter is made up of primarily of about 40 and 80 acre lots generally speaking. So the concept of parody is really to be taken in consideration when you look at how the entire development was originally built is it's designed to have small lots close in and then bigger lots further away and none of the lots that are out there where the uh proposed development is to be made have actually been subdivided. Um, we own about 79 acres and our [clears throat] deed actually indicates that we are not to subdivide and the deed that was originally granted to the herds uh which is the property that the Aaron holes have now purchased says that subdivision for now and forever more is not permitted. Um, in addition to that we all have to have a easement granted in order to use Burner Mill Road. Uh, that's true of the Hansen's, Miss Vicki, myself and the Aaron Holtzes and the Kurds. Those are all the people who are on this development. That specific uh easement states that there shall be no subdivision uh that you cannot subdivide your property. So that means that if the subdivision occurs and if you were to grant this variance, the use of that road goes away because it's not allowed by virtue of the easement that is granted as written in the law. And that means that not only in order to establish two entrance two entrance and exits for this subdivision, you'd actually have to create two more. And that means you'd have to go somehow

across this ao which is sand and already has like about three or four very large pipes required because of the amount of flow that happens when the storms occur. So I don't even know if that's possible to do. But if if the variance is granted, the easement will not be allowing any subdivision and therefore the easement goes away for that particular property. And uh for that and many other reasons with respect to you know the fact that the deed says it as well as the easement and the covenants um they would be going against all of that plus now they would also be going against your got your own uh restrictive you know statements about the cast protection zone and so I would urge you to not allow the variance based on a variety of things as as well as I agree with the things that have been already said today. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else? Uh let me go with you first and I'll help you. You please go ahead. [clears throat]

Thank you. Uh my name is Sharon Buchino and I am an Albany County resident. I live at 1007 Sheridan in Laramie. I am also a member of the city planning commission. Um, and I support the staff recommendation to deny the variance request. As the staff report documents, the variance request does not meet the applicable legal requirements to grant it. The other thing I'd like to add is that it would undermine the hard work that the city and the county planning commissions did together to update the Casper aquifer protection plan and also to develop a joint growth management plan. I would offer that um that there is an avenue to make if if there's a different policy choice to be made then the avenue to address that is through a reasonzoning type of um action rather than this variance which is about giving an exception uh to one individual. It may be that um and we know that the community uh the county needs more housing but that is a policy choice um and there is a venue um and a mechanism to address that and this variance is not that. Thank you.

Well thank you Mr. Erics. Um, first of all, I mean, with regard to the fact that, um, we're not in compliance with 35 acre, it's obvious. That's why we put sign up. That's why I sent a letter out to uh the gal that did the uh there was there was gal that was opposing, I think, starting this deal, which I'm okay with that. Um, but I understand that's why the sign was put up is because I know that we're not meeting that 35 acre requirement as far as subdividing it. Uh, either you've read my um purchase agreement better than I did because I don't have any restrictions that way. Neither does Mr. Kerr. My property is not under that restriction. Okay, that that's been mentioned by a couple folks. My property is not under that restriction.

Thank you. Is there anyone online who would like to make a comment? Anyone else in the room or online? Please come forward.

My name is Tony Barry Hill. I live at 6407 Windmill Court just across from the Aaron Holtz property. Um I don't want to beat a dead horse. I think the the biggest premise that we have and concerns that we have as a greater Sherman Hills neighborhood is if granted this variance the door that that opens um that I don't think the county would want to crack um because if if that provision is made by with par and we grant the variance based on that par it really opens the door for 56 65 acres. I think that's what Mr. Honk was trying to refer to. Um we have 565 acres surrounding Sherman Hills of property owners with more than 35 acres per lot that would then be able to claim the same um reason for a variance request. And then if you extend that south along the Casper aquifer overlay zone uh with ranchet zoning that's over 3,000 acres if that would open the door for property owners who have 35 acres or more. So, I I think the big thing is it just seems like a a door we don't want to open. And for our own purposes in our neighborhood, that's where that number of 130 additional homes potentially um in that neighborhood if granted this variance. So, I would request um and support a denial of this variance.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online in the room? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved, Mr. Sure. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say I. I. I. We have Mar there. Spanish. [laughter] Yes. All right. We're very good. I'm I'm fizzling away because I have a bad cold, but I'm still with you.

Okay. Very good. Excellent. We've all been there. [clears throat] Um I'll make one comment uh before we initiate our discussion which is uh substantially for all these matters we hear on this commission uh our council has advised us and Matt you can correct me if I'm wrong that our decisions are ad hoc generally and we are not establishing precedent when we make a decision. Is that about right? Yes. Okay. So with that, um, we will have discussion. Yes.

I move that we recommend that the board of county commissioners deny the Aaron Holtz variance request V225 based on the applicant's failure to provide evidence to justify granting of a variance under the standards specified in Albony County Zoning Resolution Chapter 5, section 14F, paragraphs 1, 2, and 4. I'll second. Is there any further discussion, Rob? No, I believe we heard everything we needed to. Okay. In that case, we'll conduct a roll call vote. Uh, Miss David, uh, I to deny. Sorry. [laughter]

Please go ahead. I'm sorry. I vote to deny the variance application. Miss Gorno, I also vote to deny. Uh, Mr. Hinckley, I, Miss Hanning, I,

and I vote I also. So, that motion carries. Uh, for those of you who were only here for this matter, feel free to leave. If your interest continues forward, well, that's fine. You're welcome to stay as long as you like. U, so, moving on to our next item, the new life subdivision preliminary final cut application SD-02-25. change just one second. Also for all you folks, thank you for taking your time to come here and uh and being here making comments. [laughter] One thing you should get.

Okay, you're back there. Oh, was all right. Well, you know, they redid this. I'm in a position. I'm sorry. I tried to motion back. That's what you said. You couldn't hear nothing. Yeah, I know what I went through with my subdivision. Yeah, I'm pretty strict. Okay.

All right. Uh the applicant is Matt Bumarnner. Uh the owner is New Life Church. This is located at 32 296 Highway 30. Um the request is for approval of a preliminary plat, final plat, and subdivision permit. and the zoning is ranchet. Uh summary of the project. Uh the applicant is proposing to create a two lot subdivision within their approximately 31 12acre parcel. This subdivision falls under the minor subdivision standards. Water is proposed to be provided by individual wells. Uh sewer is proposed to be provided by individual small wastewater systems.

Proposed lot two already has an approved wastewater system. Proposed lot one will require a new system. Uh a storm drainage report was complete for this proposal and reviewed by Jake Schneider, county engineer. Power is provided by carbon power and currently uh services proposed lot 2. Postal service can establish uh delivery. No new roads are proposed. Access is available from Highway 30. Uh no road maintenance is required and fire is fire protection for this area is provided by Aln County Fire Department 1. There were some reviews. Uh Jake Schneider Schneider County Engineer made comments on the final platin engineering reports. This this issue has been taken care of. Um Larry Rivers Conservation District commented on the high water table, soil degradation, erosion, reclamation, minimization of invasive species and wells. Her full comments can be seen in the review section. W Dot uh commented on work within the rightway drainage corridors and access. Full comments can be seen in the review section and Game of Fish uh commented on the flood plane fencing noxious weeds and invasive grasses uh and the river uh and their full comments can be seen in the review section. Um the applicable sections of the Alb County subdivision regulations are chapter 3 section 1, chapter 4 section 5 through 8, chapter 5 section 1, 2 and 4, chapter 6 section 3 and four. Um all notice has been provided as required. Um they are ask for a variance from chapter 5 section 2B4 of the Albby County Planning and subdivision resolution. The regulation requires a subdivider create written and reported covenant um or other instruments creating an entity binding on subsequent owners of

land within the subdivision. Um the variance request is based um on absence of common features, lack of need for covenants, avoidance of undue partnership, no un no adverse impact, minimal deviation, consistency with the intent and public interest, and compliance with other regulations. Staff recommends approval of the variance from the covenants or binding entity standards in the Albby County Platting and subdivision resolution chapter 5 section 2B4 as there are no common or shared facilities, roads or areas within the proposed subdivision. Staff analysis. Uh the applicant has provided a complete preliminary and final flat application including all required documentation and reports. The proposal for a two lot subdivision is consistent with the surrounding area. Findings of fact. The findings necessary for approval applicant responses and staff analysis of inclusion of required information as referenced in this report are affirmatively adopted as findings that the applicant has provided the board with adequate information that the requested and required findings documentation notice and notations have been satisfied by the applicant and the same are incorporated herein. Conclusions of law. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the county planning and subdivision regulations. If the variance is granted with this application uh and the staff recommendation is to approve the new live subdivision preliminary and final plan application SD0225 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings fact and conclusions law as each are stated in the staff report.

Okay. So to be clear we need to make a decision and act on both the variance request and the application itself. Correct. All right. So with that uh Mr. Frankly, have any questions for staff?

Yeah, I'm not opposed to this application in any way, but just a few questions on the staff report. Applicable sections though of the county planning and zoning. You referenced chapter six, sections three and four are isn't all of section nine relevant here? And and of course one that's going to come up is the fences which I think are section 9. But what what was the why that selection of applicable standards or was that just a incomplete list? Uh I couldn't tell you what each specific section is. So uh I'm not sure on that answer.

Okay. Just in general, wouldn't all of the design standards of chapter six apply to this? Uh unless they're um not required because they're a small sub because it's too small. Okay. Um then uh similarly just a question for our information. I'm down here on see if I can find it. Um the part about the board shall consider the city or towns comments that are received. Um let's see if I can tell you what what page that's on. page three of the staff report.

Okay. So, my question as I'm as I'm reading that, and it's kind of a stock paragraph, but maybe I read it more carefully this time than we usually do. The first part of it talks about obligations to uh talk to the city if it's within a certain distance, which this was not. But then the last couple of maybe it's just one sentence. No subdivision shall be required to be consistent with the land use plan unless the applicable provisions of the land use plan have been incorporated into this resolution and so forth. Now that is not in any way tied to the city distance is it? Uh I believe that's a statute for well I mean it seems like they declared a statement that would be true in any case and so it's

it should be should be for everything. Yes.

Okay. So, you know, just those should be two different paragraphs and and what it bears on then is the staff comment which says the proposed seller is not within a mile and so you didn't send that to them. That's fine. But second piece also needs a staff response. Is it correct that it's consistent with the land use plan? So, so just it looks like there's two thoughts there that should be separated. And then of course I'm we have the issue of the sentence says no subdivision shall be required to be consistent and yet number one of the application meets the following is consistent. So I'm missing something in the logic there as well. Those two seem to be completely at odds with each other. And and again this is kind of generic stuff but but can you help me out here?

What are you asking?

Okay. I'm reading two sentences. one that says the subdivision shall not be required to be consistent with land use plans. And then the very first numbered item is it shall ensure the plat meets the following is consistent with any applicable city and land use plan. Aren't those saying opposite things? Well, I guess yes. Um like the first point is saying that it's not required to be consistent with the land use plan unless it's in regulation. Um [clears throat] and then I guess one contradicts it a little bit but all right I guess I'm suggesting that probably should be stricken if in fact that's maybe we can take that up with Mr. But I know these are kind of standard formats, but it sounds like as we've continued to get quite strong advice that we are not to make decisions based on consistency with land use plans. Um [clears throat] why is this here? Uh so there's 98301 which says that no development shall be denied based upon the provisions of a local land use plan um unless it has been incorporated into regulation. Uh but then we still have this um this title 34 I think title yeah title 34 chapter 11 I don't remember the exact uh section number um but it says that [clears throat] uh for that intergovernmental review um when it's within it In essence, the statutes are

the statutes. [laughter] It's it's going to go in this instance. Um I think the the more specific prohibition and newer prohibition 98301 is is going to control um where you cannot uh deny something just based off of the uh provisions of a comprehensive plan or local land use plan. Okay. So that was to address that. Um perhaps it wasn't the most artfully done. Um,

may I suggest in future versions of these reports you strike that one if it's your council says that's no longer up? Well, it's still statute that it's to generally be consistent with any jointly adopted um plans between the city and county. Okay. Well, it isn't relevant to this particular case, but that does is a bit jarring as what one reads through. We can look at it some care. Um the second one, there's a staff comment about South District, I think is also Yeah, Michael emailed me about that. That was just a left over. Y um and it's already been changed for the next time.

Good. Um then, uh game fish recommendations and fencing is something that I would expect Mr. Ben would probably bring up if I don't. Uh they are required to meet state statute with respect to fencing. Correct. Yep. And and did they then provide a fencing? I believe their entire parcel is already fenced and is it fenced to our standards was my question. That's not a requirement if there's already fencing. Oh, okay. Okay. So, our wildlife friendly fencing only applies to new new fence. Yes. Oh, good answer. Thank you. Right. That's all I had. Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions.

Um, so question. Oh, I'm sorry. [laughter] My apologies, please. So, the variance request is because there are no shared facilities, but it does say that the fence is going to be maintained half by the church and half by the new resident, right? So, is that not a shared responsibility? Uh, I don't know if it's worth the whole covenant, but yeah, there's got to be some it's got to be written down some like a contractor, like a handshake agreement. Sure. But it does have to be maintained, right? So yeah, and if it's going to be half and half, seems like that should be written down somewhere. [laughter]

I just said that there were no shared facility and that is a shared facility, right? Mr. Chair, um just Yeah, I apologize. One one question. So, so right now this is um zone ranchet and it's being split roughly into two equal parcels. Um in in the future, can these lots be subdivided further or is this the end of the the road? Uh depends on the zoning uh and how big the parcels are and you know math. Uh, I don't remember how big each parcel is supposed to be.

There's 13 something. So, this ranch, it's got to be they could in theory be subdivided again, but So, even though you're doing a minor, they'd have to go through the major subdivision process no matter what. Like the the northern the more northern lot, it's 12. So you could only do two um into that. So technic that would be a minor subdivision, but it's already gone through the subdivision process. So it would have to go through the major. Okay. Thank you. Can I can I add something?

Absolutely. Uh so I read the uh um game and fish comments and they also were concerned about the integrity of the river not just the fencing for ponghorn. Um is there any uh specific uh recommendation regulations that uh that we have for that? Are you asking me that question? Yes, Joe. So,

um, I don't believe so. That's something that that we should think about in the future because I know that Yeah, because I know there was a proposal for subdivision within city limits that was uh um proposed within the flood plains of the river and the city planning commission declined that because of uh concerns for the integrity of the river. Maybe we should uh check with them what what they have and see if we should include some of that in our regulations.

And as far as the fencing, I'll just ask again if we can share the uh our amendments to the fencing regulations of the county with the game and fish. That will save them time in writing the responses and us reading the responses. Yes. Thank you.

One one thought following up on that. Uh I understand that generically uh wildlife friendly fencing is not required. Can could we make that a condition of this approval if we chose? We don't have anything in the subdivision um regulation or dairy. Well, wouldn't it fall under protection of wildlife? And

there's general findings about the subdivision plat is consistent with I don't have those in front of me, but I thought we had a kind of a catchall finding respect to wildlife. So that's in that's a for conditional use permit not subdivision. Uh we don't have no I mean it's it's more set standards uh with sub there's no impacts that they have to address. There there aren't even required findings. Okay. I guess that's why I didn't see them. That makes sense. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So, the the furthest we could go with that would be simply to pass along the game and fish recommendation to the applicant. That that would be an accommodating thing to do. Okay. Thank you. Uh may I interfere again? Sorry. Uh what the game and fish what the game and fish recommendations are are not as u uh strict as our law or county regulations. So I would recommend that we just uh a give the game and fish hour what we have come up with and forward that to the applicants. Sure.

Okay. Well, thank you Joe. Uh is the applicant here? Please stand for questions. And is there anything you'd like to add to your application?

Yeah, absolutely. When we initially made uh presence before you for our initial construction of the church property, it was brought to our attention at that time regarding the wildlife friendly fencing and uh those recommendations were passed along at that time and we definitely took those into consideration with all the fences that we have uh built on the property. And so the immediate fence surrounding the church property, you'll notice, is a a wooden fence and uh has no no negative impact on wildlife. Uh and then the barb wire fences surrounding the entire property. While it does need to be, you know, good enough to to prevent the cattle from escaping onto our property, we did take into account the uh the measurements that were given by to us by Game and Fish at that time. So I want to let you know we did take those considerations into account a couple years ago when we appeared before you guys. And so appreciate your consideration of this uh subdivision for us. 33 acres is a lot of property for uh church and we'd love to see that property go to to good use. We don't anticipate the need for 33 acres in the near future and think that the property that we have will be sufficient for the church. There any questions that you guys have that I could answer for you additionally to that?

I am. So when you say you considered the wildlife friendly, does that mean you built it wildlife friendly? We did. We built that wooden fence as opposed to the other formal fencing and then we took into account on the barb wire fence the the spacing for the we built it to the game of fish. That's excellent. Thank you. And thank you Mara. I hope you have any questions. Thank you I don't either. And don't surprise me to took care of the fences. [laughter] So good job.

Appreciate all that you do and your consideration. So we will conduct a public hearing on this. Is there anyone online or in the room who would like to make a comment about this application hearing and seeing none? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say I. I get our eyes all done. Uh so uh what anyone like what was a motion here?

Does the variance have to be approved separately from the subdivision preliminary and final plight application and I don't I don't see anything in the in the options that weave that in. uh is essentially part of the proposal. So if you're recommending approval for the proposal then claim the wording as presented.

Let me uh let me just make sure [clears throat] Um I would yeah it says that uh request for Baron shall be submitted in writing. Planning and zoning commission will provide a recommendation for the request which is the request for bays um prior uh to consideration decision by the board. So I I would um have that as a separate motion. [clears throat] Okay. So we will need two motions. one to prove the variance and one to prove the basic application and less BM with the variance.

Does the variance have a you can just say the variance [laughter] it's not like B-02-2 less form subdivision. Well, then I I will move to recommend approval of the variance from chapter 5 section 2B.4 of the Albany County Platting and Subdivision resolution. And I'll second that. Is there any further discussion? Well, what about the fence, the maintenance of the fence? Are we concerned about that? Well, so isn't the the fence is existing, right?

It says that they're going to split the maintenance of it and offenses don't last forever, right? That's true. But, uh, generally that statute is for the establishment of a fence. Um, so it doesn't have to be maintained. Let's see. Is there any just the way statements get put on deeds about like you know water water [clears throat] services not come with this plot. Is there a way to just put something on the deed that uh maintenance of the

So there there are there is a statutory default for just maintenance of fence between adjoining property owners. um where you can essentially force each other to go 50/50. Uh but it's

yeah under statute 319 isn't applicable uh in this in this case because there is an existing uh perimeter fence and it isn't [clears throat] a constru or it isn't a construction of a perimeter fence which is being um completed. So, so am I hearing you correctly that there's statute that exists about that that the land owners can look to if they run into difficulty in uh sharing the maintenance of the the shared fence in between the two fences. would you like to say something?

Yeah, if I could just speak to something maybe to shed a little bit of light on there's not a common fence between the two properties. Um there's just the perimeter fence and so our understanding would be that the fence on on each individual piece of property that that would be maintained by the the new property owner and since there's not a common fence kind of between those two properties. I don't know if that would make sense. I mean that's that would normally if you were splitting it 50/50 that would normally be in the covenants, right? Sure. Absolutely. You don't want to have covenants. So yeah. Um so presumably the new land owner would take responsibility for his perimeter. Yes. And that would be how would that be communicated or understood?

State statute would Okay. So it's not anything we need to be I don't think so. Yeah. Because we just care about the plans for a perimeter fence if none exists. Okay. That's yeah the thrust of our regulations. All right. So that's nonpol but still good. [laughter] But we need a second here on on Mar's motion. Oh, I'll second. Any further discussion? All those in favor the motion here. We're going to recommend approval of the variance. All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Do we did we hear from Rob?

Yes, I said I. So uh then moving on to uh the application itself. Is there a motion to do something with it?

Okay. I I'll recommend the board of county commissioners approve the new life subdivision preliminary and final plat application SD-02-25 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in this staff report. Second. Second. Any further discussion? Well, another little detail. Sure. Go ahead. So, the game of fish was concerned about sediment going into the river. Um, is that just a suggestion or is that something that needs to be incorporated because it's sediment in the river is a big deal, right?

Um, does that need to be uh I mean that was during the construction phase. Yes. Well, and also use really. I mean, if they take out a bunch of vegetation next to the river, that be thing. We don't have anything in in the subdivision regulations which would or could address that um that I'm seeing. So, we just pass that recommendation along and hope that they Yeah. Okay. I I would just say that and based on how the applicant has presented himself at both our meetings, I think things we probably handle well. Well, but he's not the one doing the building.

Yeah. Still be open. We can say a prayer. [laughter] Okay. In that case, uh, any further discussion? All right. We'll conduct a roll call vote here. Mr. Cornet, I. Mr. Hickley, I. Miss Hanning. I. Miss McDavid. I. And I vote I also. That motion carries. So, thank you so much. Good luck going forward. Um, all right. What was that? Can I can I be excused? I am barely awake. Yes, you may be [laughter]

between between between my cold and the fire that burned my neighbor's barn last night. I am uh struggling right now. We'll see you at our next meeting. Okay, how's that? Okay, that sounds good. Thank you guys. Have a good night. So, uh, is there anyone here who would like to express a citizen comment? Very good. [laughter] [clears throat]

Hello, commissioners. Um, I've been here before on this. you guys know this is about the 100 um North Fork the Morris house and um I know they're still trying to sell it. I just uh I'm want to talk to you about the compliance because the compliance is it's not yet compliant. All that's happened so far is that the dishwasher and the stove have been pulled out and put into a back room. So really, it's still what it was. And if somebody buys it, we're going to be here again doing the same thing again. And I know you guys are getting sick of seeing me.

No, we're not. [laughter] No, we absolutely are not. So, I just I just um I'm here to strongly urge you to do more than just pull out a couple of the appliances, but to permanently disable the kitchen. And that could be um let's see, it would be removing plumbing. It would be removing the electrical hookups so that it can't be a kitchen anymore. And so that's what um I'm here to ask you during public comment. That's it. And are you also planning to make these same comments to the county commissioners?

I did. All right. and I will again. But they I I talked to them about it last week and I said, "What are the next steps? Do I need to go back to planning and zoning?" I think what they meant to say was uh planning department. Oh, well, hi. You're right. [laughter] So, well, I did say planning and zoning and they did say come back. Yeah, they did. So, that's why I'm standing here during public comment. Well, that's good that you're here. Thank you. We take note and our staff takes note. Uh but I guess this is something you should address with staff. Okay. We'll talk later. Okay. Okay. Thank you for your time.

Yeah. No, I mean it's good for us to know this uh because I mean this has been a significant matter and we don't always get information flowing back and closing the loop and that's helpful to everyone. So good to you. Well, thank you and you'll see me again shortly. Okay. [laughter] Might we ask staff to absolutely comment on this public comment? Yeah. Is that appropriate or not? Or I'm saying it's appropriate. We can do it. Where are we? Yeah, we'll we'll decline to comment at this time. [laughter] We always ask and they fine. All right. Anyone else make like to make a comment here?

I don't see anyone online offer anything. So, may I have a motion to close the public comment period if we even need to do that? Might as well. I move we close the public comment period. Very good. Second. I'll second. All right. All those in favor say I. Hi. Okay. Um, would you all like to take a break? A brief five minute break. Well, what I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, and I should have thought about this back when we were approving the agenda, whether is it too late to amend the agenda at this point in the meeting to What are you suggesting we do? Just to move the short-term rental discussion forward on behalf of the people who have to drive back to center. Well,

I we need to start taking action on subdivision. Yeah, I would that's a great thought, but uh you know, right now we have no structure to our discussion on this short-term rentals, right? And we do need to get this other stuff done and so I'm sorry about that for you guys. Um and but we'll do the best we can. Okay. So again, I'll offer the chance for anyone who wants to take a brief break or not. I'm okay. Okay. Okay. Good. We'll drive forward then. Um David, uh I believe our next item is amendments to the planning and subdivision resolution drill updates.

Mr. Chair, commissioners, um commission members. So you've re you've seen these amendments previously. Was it last meeting that we bring? I think so. Um the the focus is on basically chapters 6 through 14 but it includes most of the chapters just with some um changes that were made to terminology and things to make it consistent throughout the whole document. Um the big things are we [clears throat] looked at um like chapter 5 we included some standards for delination of hazardous fire areas. um which is the big one that we put in the preliminary and final plot areas there. Um and then chapter six is our design standards um with the help of county attorney Jake Schneider. Um obviously Matt did a lot of the most of the heavy lifting on this stuff. We went through all of the standards and um updated the road standards. Um, we had some some better standards for the major street plan that weren't there. Amended some of the fire safety standards. We eliminated the landscaping standards. Um, and just yeah, some of that um, we did look at the chap chapter 8. But we removed chapter seven which is the mountain subdivision standards just because we looked at the standards and I mean a lot of the mountain subdivision standards were more difficult than the regular standards. So um weren't quite sure how that really was fitting in with everything. It just made more sense to take that out. Um and then chapter 8 is the as the improve it's the improvements chapter. Um how do you deal with

financial assurance? um release of financial insurance um homeowners association stuff. I think we removed some of that. Um yeah, so um I know we we reviewed this, we looked it over. I think there wasn't a whole lot of changes. We did add some a notice standard that was removed that is actually in statute that should still be in there, but we just it wasn't then. I don't I don't know where it went. So, but it's back now. So, um, and then, yeah, anything Matt will like to add since he's like really the the guy on this one, kind of the project lead on on on all these revisions. But I I think we kind of went through most of them previously. So, but

again, for the benefit of everyone here, you think we're in good shape here now? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, no. I mean, everything that I've heard from county engineer is that this these will actually be like meaningful and uh having [clears throat] engineers like design subdivisions um because they're a little there's a lot of words but not really hard standards in there right now.

Okay. And the original standards for designs of roads and all of that stuff was from 1997. And from my understanding, it was a quick response to um some court cases that ruled the way we were doing it to be the wrong way to do it. So, I think they were put together pretty quickly and we've just kind of relied on them for all these years, but now we've had with Jake's help really kind of review those things and and so now they mean something. He knows what they mean and that's most important. It's all integrated throughout the doc which is exciting.

Yeah. And so this will be the last the last big change we'll make. So um yeah, I should oh I should note that 9 through 14 will be removed too. I think you already knew that those are the mobile home park standards, RV standards, and they'll be one of your next items. But okay, let's see where we stand. Do any of y'all have any substantial issues to raise? U just just questions, but nothing. Okay. And so about how many points might you have told to bring up? Three. A couple. And Diana, I I thought it looked good. Okay, Mara. Yeah, just a couple questions. All right. Very good. Well, uh, Mara, why don't you ask your questions first?

Okay. Um, just regarding the notice of intent to apply that came back in. Um, I just wanted to make sure that the use of the word adjacent, you know, the adjacent property owners. Oh gosh, that's on page 4-4. Um or page 29 of your packet. It's section nine. Um so or well I guess it's section 10 too. Um or is it anyway the adjacent property owner? Can you remind me? We had two different uh definitions previously about what property owners would get um would get notified whether there was like an intervening road. And I just wanted to make sure we were using the correct word that got the property across the road

very near next to touching. Oh gosh. Um yeah, you think I have this memorized exactly by now. [laughter] uh having common endpoint or border because there's a what was the other word I can't remember continuous or or and some of the I mean it might it might be the not a buddy not uh yeah I would have been contiguous which is being an actual contact yeah I think I think we changed it so contiguous is is the more strict of those too. Okay. So, adjacent is the right word and I think

well it might be from statute [clears throat] because that is a statutory requirement. Um [clears throat] if you look at the red line, contiguous was taken out and adjacent. Okay. Oh, okay. Um Okay, cool. Thanks on that one. the other. So, the removal of the mountain subdivision, we've never used it.

Well, I can remember when we did use it for some somebody was doing a lot split up in the like the W colo area or something was going on and that that that came up. Um because remember the the turnaround that they needed to have. Yeah. Uh was an issue. And so is that is so you're saying we didn't use it. So coming up it didn't come up. Are you sure? We didn't use the mountain subdivision standards for it.

And then with our new like because it was mostly focused on roads like just being like you can have these kind of roads in a mountain subdivision. It didn't really have to do with like lot design. Um it had like some turnout provisions. Uh but when we came up with the standards with the county engineer um for roads generally uh in some instances then the mountain stand subdivision standards were more stringent um than what the county engineer wanted to require. Um, and there's enough flexibility in in the road standards that, you know, it it's responsive to topography and and local conditions, but it's also going to make sure that it's actually a well- engineered road. Um, so when we took that out, really the only thing that was left, which kind of made any sense, was the uh fire safety stuff,

right? So then we carried that forward into all subdivisions. Okay. And so you you sort of created like this um an option to impose more stringent requirements if if if the planning department decided it was necessary for for fire hazard purposes. Really all I'm I'm trying to remember we're we're making we're making sure that like people are are considering. Okay. So, um, [clears throat]

so then is like the turnaround did did the turnaround radius get run by the our fire people are like do would they say you can turn a fire truck around in in this design because they're I mean they're they're the ones who are at risk if they respond to a fire in a mountain subdivision. I want to say that we asked Jake about that, the county engineer, when he thought that a a fire truck could be turned around because our it's essentially nothing can dead end without having a turnaround area that is um also it's it'll be sent to the county firework Gordon and fire district number one. Um, and if they had comments on the on the turnaround, they can make them at that time as well, but I'm pretty sure that was considered. And we did let Chad look at some of the stuff.

Chad looked at Well, but not one. Um, sure. So, 60 ft is the minimum uh radius for turnounds uh for culde-sacs or other deadend roads. Um, so that's the general standard and I if we let me look at the red line. Um, let me just make sure before we had

Where was which shant was that subdivision? was what? Non subdivision. Subdivision. Okay. Um,

so culde-sac turnaround pads shove a minimum right away of 40 feet. That was in Mountain. So 60 ft is so 60 ft is better. Yeah. Okay. you know, a turnaround would be designed to accommodate large trucks as well as fire trucks.

Um, okay. If you if you feel like you covered that base, then then that that's what my concern was. The the fire hazards themsel is is this did this get cut out of a different section and just moved or is it brand new and new new wording? Uh it it was it came primarily from the mountain subdivision uh standards and we did we ran this by the county fire warden.

So you feel like it's well enough defined like I just I just thought the language was like I just want to make sure that the planning department has what they need to we Yeah. Yeah. Ultimately, we will rely on the expertise of the the fire people, right? We're going to send it to them. Um, I think that's the biggest thing. And when we ran it by the fire warden, he seemed, you know, fine with what we proposed. He's like, really just like, let us look at it and, you know, if there's any because we were asking him about fire chimneys and some of the other terminology and he's like, [laughter]

right, like so, okay. Um, yeah. And I think it's just it's that slope. Um, because I I looked around to like see how other jurisdictions handle it and like Oregon has a like a statewide like sort of rating system. Uhhuh. For fire hazard. Like they have everything, but that's like done by a state agency and it's for like every piece of land throughout the entire state. So, it's like a flood map but for fire hazards. Yeah, we don't we don't have anything that all close to that. Um

Oh, okay. Here's another question for you regarding the fire stuff. So, so you're making the subdivider keep a fund of money for maintenance of the fire the safety facilities unless another entity gets created to take over that responsibility. Am I interpreting what is it? So that's the section seven fire safety standards in uh chapter six. David chapter six

um I don't know when I was working on this David told me that this was um actually vetted between oh County Fire Warden and Alb County Fire District and planning and zoning um a number of years ago.

Yeah. So, what'll happen is um a subdivider comes in um specifically if it's in fire district number one, which is the southern I don't know twothirds of the county basically, um they they'll they'll either have to do one of two things. They can pay into a um hauled water program. It's not really hauled water. That's what it's called.

Is that what it's called? Water program. or they can put in a sistern of a certain size. Um the fire district would rather have them pay into this this fund because then they can use that to buy equipment such as tenders, tinkers, those types of things and it would be I guess more beneficial and easier for them to to keep track of to have their own equipment with ready to go, you know, than to try to find um you know, a sister. Um the problem we found with the sistns was they're planted all over the county and the fire district doesn't know where they're at. So right they would rather have you know

just buy the equipment and have the equipment available throughout the county. Um they could quickly go out and and you know get to the fires or whatever. Um there may still be places where it is an option or maybe they want to maybe like in the higher elevations they may want to have a sister just to if there's not another viable source of of water. But um but yeah, this was was something we came up with years ago. We we actually I remember talking to like the city fire department and um the the different folks from the fire district and um the fire warden at the time and and this this was kind of the plan that we came up with and that they they wanted the fire district really wanted to have this option for some for them to pay into that so that they could use those funds to to buy equipment. So,

so with the do you feel like this language gives you that though? Because it to me it leaves it just says the subdivider shall be responsible for maintaining and keeping the fire safety facility filled at all times.

So if if they Yes. I mean that they'll have to to when they create covenants um and a homeowners association then if they have a sister they're required to maintain that that's their responsibility that the subdivider or the future homeowners of that that subdivision will be required to maintain it. Um I mean is it sufficient? Um, that's something that that's kind of outside the planning office. What we can do, you know, if if the fire district wanted to come up with a plan, a maintenance plan, an inspection plan to do that, that would be totally on them, but that's not something that we're qualified or wanting to do. All we could do is help them get the infrastructure in in place basically. So, so for us, this this is the best we could do, I think. So, [laughter]

right. I know a lot of subdivisions that wish there was something like this for road maintenance, [laughter] like you had a fund for future road maintenance from bad roads that get put in. But by the way, the road the road uh requirements are are really great and good job on getting that done because I know you were looking for some some assistance on that. But I I thought all that was really well done. Um, okay. So, I guess I'm trying to think if there was anything else. I guess some of the fire stuff just sort of caught my attention. Um, okay. I the very last thing I have is the fire hydrants um requirement. Is that currently required? So like out in South Laramie and out 9 mile um 7 mile where people are getting water from the city. Is there hydrant systems out in those subdivisions currently

in South Larammy? Yeah. Yes. And I've heard they actually like to go to South Larammy because there's a lot more pressure than in the city quadrants or whatever. Right. Right. But it does kind of cause problems for the the residents out there because all of a sudden their water pressure is changes really quickly when they're filling up. But anyways, that's what I've heard at least. So are there hydrants out in 9 mile and seven mile reservoir areas? I am not sure about 9 mile or seven mile. We had that subdivision cottonwood. Didn't they have

as hydrants? That's at seven mile. The problem with some of them though is is I think even like in Centennial if somebody hooked up to one of those they could like bust up their system by pulling that much water into their their tanks from what I've heard. But I don't don't quote me on that. Engineering wise it might not be like feasible.

Right. So, if somebody wanted to subdivide and get permission, like I'm thinking about that Harmony subdivision where um she thought she'd be able to get get a a pump in place that could allow her to tap into the city water. Now, that kind of thing, I don't know if that's ever gone anywhere. um she did the zoning change um to the preliminary plan.

Oh, the preliminary plan. So, but if something else like that came along, they'd have to put in hydrants and they'd have to engineer it that the hydrants would work and not implode the water pipeline [gasps] um for if they're on a water system. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if looking at looking at the section seven about if you're if you're on district or or municipal water, you're going to put in hydrates. So, so this is a new requirement, I guess, right? This is urban standards.

Uh, it's on page 75 of the packet, page 6-15 of the red line strikeout version of the Um, that's a standard that exists today. The only thing that is different that was added is that red line that says fired iron shelby city of Laramie specifications. Actually, it looks like that was there. That was there. It just moved up. Okay. Oh, I see. Yeah, it's just right there. Yeah. So, that's that's been there and existed. So, all right. Yeah.

Thank you. That is all I had. Okay. Um yeah, page 61 of the of the uh red line. It's general design standards goes back to this thing about game and fish. And I guess I'm just looking for some feedback. Says comments from Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Fish and Wildlife Service and Conservation District shall be considered in the design of the subdivision. Um, does that mean that the county will has authority to condition a subdivision permit on those? I mean, it's kind of this would

say that the county has the authority to say you didn't consider their comments well enough. It leaves a little bit of flexibility. um was was our goal in in putting that in there because there there are sometimes where it might not be congruent with like our own regulations. Um well, right

what their comments or suggestions are. Um but with this we would we would be able to say you need to consider those better. Well, I just we've had this discussion kind of going on of consider and think about so to to try to put point on my question. Were we to get a subdivision application and comments from game and fish would this give us authority to say I want you to do that because to consider something is yeah I thought about it as a dumb idea I rejected it that that would meet the criteria for considered. So, what I'm looking for is language in our regs that say not you have to do it, but that the county retains the option. Make that a condition of your approval. Does does this language do that?

I think it very well could, but it it could do that better. Um, I think our our goal was to not just make a blanket statement that you shall abide by exactly those recommendations. Um but to sort of give the county the authority, David, do you have I mean would the first sentence of that part A would that provide the authority? Yeah, it it it would certainly well preserve in so far as possible. Um,

right. I mean, and what we would do is like we would get an application, we we send this out to be vetted by these different entities, and we if we got some comments back that were like, okay, well, this is really not consistent with what the comments are. Um, we would probably reach out to the applicant and say, "Hey, we need to discuss this." and maybe even facilitate a meeting between some of these folks to, you know, come up with a plan or whatever. So, so I guess in in actuality or the way we want it to happen is like we kind of take care of this and then we bring it to you. But, um, you know, I guess if we got it to you and then you're like, well, we don't feel like it really consider you, you know, this doesn't consider this like this is a major corridor. We've got all the density right in this major corridor. you know, there's no I don't know, mitigation for for wildlife getting through the the subdivision or something like that, then um I mean, I think that's that's that's a good discussion to have, especially if we have a like a preliminary plat that you have. And um I don't know. I I think that they could you guys can discuss that and figure out if there's changes you want to have made and and recommend those and um work with the subdivision. I don't Well, I mean, we know we have some developers that that are quite uh pugnacious um who would say nice idea, pound sand. I'm looking for ultimately authority [laughter] to say we think that you are not adequately considering wildlife considerations. Those are important to us and we want to make that a condition of this.

I mean, it shall be considered. So, like if we don't feel like it has been considered, I don't know. So I mean consideration I think is a little more than like well I thought about it but you know we also continuous and careful thought um a matter weighed or taken into account when formulating an opinion or plan. We we used the word accommodated in one version of these which is just a little more.

So I think what we what we could change that to is shall be shall be considered uh and may be required by the board. That would that would satisfy at the recommendation of the plan. Exactly. That that would quite satisfy my concern. Okay. And then we also need to put in somewhere, which I think I forgot to do, that we're actually going to be sending these to these other agencies because statute requires um conservation district, but it doesn't require any of the other ones. Are you all okay with burn suggestion? [clears throat]

Um, okay. This is one we just talked about earlier. It's a editorial one, but it's that business of not consistency. So, I'm on page 3-1. Um, I'd like to see the a paragraph break between the requirements to talk to the city and the no subdivision shall be required to be consistent. Uh yeah, it just seems to me that if someone's trying to read our maybe it's maybe it's embarrassing to expose that inconsistency in state law, but in the spirit of coherent regulation, I think that would be appropriate. Again, if council thinks otherwise, but that's a rather garble paragraph as it stands. So I mean essentially it's it's stating both requirements from state statute because uh 3412103 already said to the extent practical the board shall ensure the plat application meets the following. Essentially 98301 kind of limits or puts a hard stop on what's not practical. Um, so what would you you just want that broken up into?

I just put a paragraph break in before no subdivisions will be required to be consistent. It's a purely editorial comment. Now, if there's legal reasons not to do that, I I'll defer to to council, but I'm just reading the paragraph as a simple English, and there's two very different statements there. Uh, in statute, it's all under one paragraph. So, I think that's why I I left it. But dark boat for you. We we could I mean if that

I I appreciate the the tremendous effort that's gone in to make these as coherent as possible. So anyway, I'll just throw leave that at at there and and you guys as lead authors, if if you're comfortable with that, then I'll stand down. But it uh it's not great. Um the other thought I had well we can we could come to that under the next discussion. Um covenants uh you've left that pretty much alone Mr. G and I've had some discussion of what is our relationship with covenants and it bears on our friends from Centennial's problems that we'll talk about in a bit. So I'm not I'm not wasting your time. Um am I correct that we didn't do anything with covenants?

No. Okay. And and actually looking at that statute, that's a that's a uh something the county may require. It's not a shall require for subdivisions covenants like Yeah, that's it's a completely elective to have counties require covenants or or a binding entity. Did

did Well, I guess maybe you've answered my question. You know, you didn't discuss that much, but I my concern about covenants was we have typically taken the hard line of covenants go somewhere else. We don't have anything to do with them. There are no criteria for approving or disapproving anything. I so I was somewhat surprised to see that we actually require covenants in certain cases. Um [clears throat] without any criteria for what's acceptable or not acceptable covenants statute puts none. I mean it's that's just essentially prompting subdividers to to think about, you know, longer term matters. [laughter] Yeah.

Yeah. So, it falls in that category of here's some nice ideas and then and we're looking for what's enforceable. Well, you can put you can put a lot in covenants. Um Oh, yeah. And I don't know if if the county wants to be in the business of that, but but we are to some extent a surprising extent. When I read through this looking at the covenants issue, I didn't realize we required anything in covenants. Isn't it just pertaining to roads though? I thought that was the one the one piece that we had authority was like everything about your covenants. We can't incorporate into our decision making except as it relates to roads. I thought

that's the [clears throat] focus of the language that's in here. Yeah. Well, and look, this has been a discussion we've had with the board of county commissioners in the past, too, is like what can we do to, you know, make sure that roads are built right and that they're maintained properly. And and honestly, I mean, the only way to really do that is if the county took on all those roads, which is not feasible for the county. There's so many roads we have to maintain already. But the second best option is require some kind of road maintenance um agreement or covenants and some kind of an entity to to make sure that's happening and all that stuff could be created and I think we've discussed this but then it can all be they can either ignore that or you know just dissolve it after the subdivision but

but we I guess the county feels like well we've done our due diligence and that's kind of the reason why that's there and it is roadbased basically that's why we do this. So, okay. Well, maybe that's just a marker for down the road. One other thing I had was just in your introductory piece, I think it would be useful to point out that we purged the the the landscaping requirements. That was a I think a significant change. So, just it's in there. I didn't see there right up front. No, we did. I know. We did that. We got rid of landscaping. No, I I put it in my my narrative. I think it's under What chapter is that in? I was just in the summary of amendments. I was looking for that. It's at the very bottom of six.

Oh, there it is. Okay. Yeah, if I see it. Okay. My oversight. You're fine. Good job. Thank you. Okay. That's all I got, Mr. Chair. Well, uh, in that case, um, based on the comments we've had and my question is directly to Mr. Mr. I think we're ready to move this one along. So, I would seek a motion that we direct staff to publish this and schedule it for a meeting. Is that right? What we want to do, David? Yes, sir.

All right. I move that we post the amendments to the zoning resolution, uh, amendments to the platting and subdivision resolution rather, or public comment, schedule public hearing. Is there a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. We have to have a specific date. Reminder, we just publish it when it's the next meeting then we can make the 30-day notice. I did the what it is. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Uh so amendments to zoning resolution edition of mobile homes and RV park standards. All right. So, all of this kind of bears on what we just did there. Um, so with the removal of the mobile home park and campground standards, um, we put those into zoning, which we feel is the more appropriate set of regulations and standard or, you know, I guess regulatory sideboards that we can put them in. Um so what we did was chapter two we included definitions for the mobile home park and campground standards. Chapter four we amended the land use table for mobile home park and campground uses. Um chapter five we included a section for conditional use mobile home vehicle parks. Um including the permit requirements and standards there. And then chapter five is also the conditional use uh campgrounds including permitted standards requirements and standards. So um so yeah, that's kind of where everything is. Um hopefully everybody looked it over. Um and I'd be happy to answer questions um if you [laughter] ask the same questions. Dave, you're satisfied. We're in good shape with you. now.

Yes, Matt. Mhm. All right. Uh, so for y'all, do you all have any substantial issues that you'd like to raise or does then some comments? One question. Yeah. All right. We'll always start with you tomorrow.

Okay. Well, I appreciate that you've been working on these. I know it's been a long on on your to-do list for a long time and not easy to deal with. Um, so the the concern that I have is on the land use table in that, you know, I I'm just thinking about some of the some of the situations we've ended up with down in the South Laramie area where it's a real mismatch of residential and commercial and mobile homes of three or more on a lot and that when we when we say it's a conditional conditional use on commercial then we're almost continuing to drive the mobile home parks to be adjacent to commercial business that might not be like a good mix of human health and and a business if if you follow me. So, I I guess I was hoping to see that mobile home parks could be conditionally permitted in other residential areas. You know that to me getting getting residential use in residential use areas seems more um compatible than continuing to drive residential use uh with commercial properties adjacent. So right now that's the only zoning district in which uh dwelling densities can be met.

That's the issue. So without creating a new zoning district, which is probably what we should do, but that's we're working on this first, I guess. Um yeah, because this is this is how it is right now. The only place that you can have a mobile park is commercial. So, we can't The only way to fix this problem then because of the density issue is a new zoning district. Yes. Every everybody loves a new zoning district. [laughter] Yeah. In fact, if you examine other counties, it's pretty common. It's really common to see another zoning district or

Oh, yes. [laughter] Okay. I mean, it's not inconsistent with what you see in the city, though. You see where the mobile phone parks are and where the commercial is, and it's But I I I see what you're saying and and I get it. You know, I But we we just put it into our our the framework that we have right now. This is the only place it works. So,

okay. as as opposed to a conditional use or a variance. I guess maybe I'm not would leave it as a conditional use in a residential zoning district with a variance. Is that how that would work then? I don't think that's because every time they're granting a variance for something like that, it's always going to be a special privilege that is is not really due to a hardship other than I want to do this, but you say I can't. Yeah. I mean, to me, if we want to do something about this, we should carve out a new zoning district. Handle it cleanly. Yeah.

At least this is essentially the the status quo. um gets a and then we could and it gets it gets all those standards into the right spot, right? Y Okay, then I guess I am at a loss. I mean, you're good. [laughter] They're good comments. No, we we hear what you're saying for sure. So, without a without a new zoning district, which is not what we're teed up to do right now. So, step one, get it in the right regulatory right bucket thing. Okay, that's [clears throat] that's all I have. Thanks.

Well, that one [laughter] totally sympathetic to we should think of of home parks as a secondass residential, right? Okay. Uh my question was on the idea of modulars and and maybe just reassure me when I read the definition of mobile homes about two or more u structures that are towable separately but are made to be joined to a single unit that sounds like the description of what we would call a bond home. So because you can put two double ads together,

right? And what distinguishes that from the two halves of a modular home? What word? Um, are they built on a chassis and designed to be used with or without a No. Well, so then it doesn't fit that. Okay. I just just flag that. So you you're comfortable that that would not cover modular homes looking in two pieces on a trailer,

correct? Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, that was the only one that that caught my eye after all the other stuff we've done. And again, good good job. This is great to to have someone with the the diligence and patience of yourselves and Mr. go through all of these. What a what a step forward for the county. Thank you. I just have a real quick one. So why was so you used to say the land use table used to say campground RV park and RV park is crossed out so where did RV park go and because we are putting them in the same category right

so we split out so we have a mobile home park standard or line and then there's also the campground line the RV park is included in the campground um the campground includes different we also include food. Isn't Isn't that how we do it or is it just the RVs where I think we have the RVs that are allowed in the campgrounds and RVs that are also allowed allowed in the mobile homes. No park. No. Is that not what we did? I can't remember. [laughter]

Did we do that, Matt? We just thought we called them. Yeah. I just It just seems clear to me to leave RV park there, even though I guess it is in the definition. So, yeah. Yeah. Because a camp an RV is a camping unit. Okay. Campground. So we're just assuming that's understood. Okay. That was my question. What we would do is they'd have to do both permits, right? If they had RV park and the humble home park. Yeah. Yeah. Because the RV park that's RV is a camping ground like you or [clears throat]

Yeah. Or a spot like with a a water and sewer hookup for Yeah. an RV. In that case, everyone satisfied with this. Let's have a motion. All right. I move we approving these. I move we direct staff to publish these for public comment and set them for hearing. Is there a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion carries. All right, our final one. We're making progress. [laughter] Yes. Yes, we are,

David. Uh, amendments to zoning certificate standards. All right, so this next one um was amendments to the zoning certificate chapter and some definitions. I think this also stemmed from what we've been doing. Um, we just wanted to make some consistency with terminology. Is that correct? Is that what we did? And there was some stuff that we wanted to change, but I'll tell you what we did.

Yeah. So, this is kind of like setting it up for we're going to at some point come up with like a pretty comprehensive like restructuring of the zoning resolution like we've just done with the subdivision resolution. And there's only one type of uh only one type of permit that you can require on your zoning and it's not a permit, it's a zoning certificate. So conditional use permit is just a different zoning certificate. Um, so in order to do that and then also sort of issues that we've had with enforcement is well you need you need a zoning certificate for the construction and use reconstruction whatever of a building or structure but then you also need a zoning certificate just for the use of land which is independent from a building or structure. So they're not necessarily tied to one another. Um so this sort of allows the planning department a broader broader scope in order to meet that um sort of statutory directive. So, in to give you an example, um like previously we had there was the whites was it whites motors or whatever. They had a bunch of of automobiles up off of Grand on that vacant that vacant piece of property up there. They put in some gravel and stuff. We had nothing that in our regulations to allow us for that use to get a zoning certificate. But now with this, the way we're rewarding this and and kind of splitting it up into these different categories, if something like that were to happen, we would look and then we would say, "Okay, where's this in the land use table? They need a zoning certificate even though there's not a building." I mean, that's how

we've we have traditionally done it. Like since I've been here is like if it's a building, it gets a zoning certificate. If it's anything else, then they don't need it necessarily unless it requires a conditional use and then it has to go through that. So, this just like tightens it up to make sure that we're looking at all the uses whether they have buildings or not to make sure that they're complying with all the zoning requirements that was one part of it. But yeah, a question on that point. Okay, I'm out of questions tonight. So, wait till first. So, you're you're satisfied with this as we're looking at it? Yes.

And Matt? Yeah. Okay. With with knowing that we'll be making more changes. [laughter] This is like a little bit of a band-aid. Well, everything is evolving. So that's that's not Yeah. So well, it's on that point of use. Uh what what is a use? Um does is that something that's in the table? I mean, is it is it a change of use if I go from grazing to perfect cars? Is it a change is it a change of use if I go from a pharmacy to a vegetable stand? Yeah. Yes. Because the of the commodity that I'm selling. I mean I guess [laughter]

Yeah. It could be that. Um could be something like they have a building, they're using it for a home and now they it's it's commercial property. They own a home but now they want to sell it want to be a retail business. That would be a change. Or even one of the things we've dealt with is like, okay, we've got this this building that's a dwelling, but we want to put another dwelling, but the zoning is not allow us to, but we'd be happy to change this dwelling into an accessory building so that we can have this other building that's I I mean, there's a lot of different scenarios that we're that have came up so that we can kind of like know what's out there a little bit better than we we do now. I I guess I'm just looking as always for some some lines that we can cleave to and sometimes they're not. They're just fuzzy. But right, if I'm a store and I change what I'm selling, that's a different use and I need a somebody's permission or

if it's a store, it's a retail business. So it would be in the confines of the what's in the land use table. If we have a retail operation, I don't care what you're selling. It's going to be retail. Like as long as you're just selling something. That was why I asked if I went from a grocery store to a pharmacy. But it's a cuz you have retail uses and then you have pharmacy is a different Well, see that's a different that's that's that's another a use that's outlined in the land use table. So we would use land use table saying oh this is an actual use that's there. Yeah. I mean whether they're selling you know soda pops or they're selling hamburgers or I guess hamburgers is more fast food but Okay.

Yeah. We would use we would use the land use table basically to determine if it's changing use. And that was I guess that was the answer I kind of was was suggesting that if I want to know what's a different use, it's a different line in the land use table. Yes. Okay. Just for the most part somewhere I would find a home for that. When do I have to come and get this? Yes, that's what we would look at. Yeah. Okay. No, that's a a coherent answer. Thank you. I don't know if I gave it coherently, but I [laughter] appreciate No, I was looking where would I look to see I would say if it's retail sales then I could sell it or own. Of course it's coherent. [laughter] Anything else? Nope.

That's all that was the only question I had just in terms of to try to figure out what the because a use is just a much fuzzier concept than a building as you say. That's that's why we're now kind of going out into this. Are you raising cows instead of sheep? That's a different use. Maybe not. So, well, it just depends on how it's stated. And so, that's kind of the tricky part with uh just land use tables is you have to like I mean, they have to be pretty exacting. Um [clears throat] a bakery is different than a butcher shop. [laughter] Yeah. At my use table. So that would say yes, you're changing the use and I need

certificate. But if you just said like retail food sales, well then no, it's not. Okay. And we're going to need to to do a hard look at the land table in the near. Yes. So I think that's exactly right. So yeah, those are the definitions. So Diana, is that correct that you come to us as a technical writer professionally? Used to be. Yeah. Are we in good shape here? [laughter] Yeah, it looks okay to me, but I do not. This is regulation writing. This is Yeah, this is a lot different. Yeah, you guys always declined to comment. You could take the same refuge. [laughter] Yeah,

in that case, I have a motion to move this forward. Also, can I just ask this is you can ask a question. So, like the changes to the campgrounds at RV Park are not in here. That's deliberate because they haven't been for public comment yet or um in this specific that's why it's going to be changed again or oh like you table still says all the same about the old stuff about the campgrounds right so these are separate issues and we brought you them to you separately and so they'll be I don't know how we'll change them going forward I mean could you do that just like have them all approved and then yeah it all shadows what what is being changed.

Yeah. So, it'll be just the changes that we're making that will be approved, not like the the document, if that makes sense. Like a new document. It's it's basically it's the red line that's being approved. Like, yeah, in you know, in a legislative bill, there is no context. They just say like add to this statutory section this paragraph and you don't see what's around it. And I mean this is essentially that that this would have that same effect where it's like so this is going to be published for public comment and also yes all this they're going to be separate and the fact that the campground stuff is not in this one is not anybody I mean

I hope not is there but is there an efficiency there to combine them into one public notice one public hearing is the same you're opening up the zoning part of the But then but then it's also um I mean we we're we're we're dealing with specific you know themes and issues in each of them. So we've kind of separated them for that purpose. Um and conceptually I think it's yeah it just it's easier to say okay this is kind of what we're working on here and this is what we're working on here. I mean we did them all at the same time at different times also. Right. So, right. That's I mean I think conceptually this makes sense.

Yeah. And maybe I can clear things up a little bit too. It's easier to follow, but it's just a little confusing. I think that put out the campground thing and then we put out this without that in it. And I'm sure at our meetings we can uh clear up any confusion as it arises. Okay. I just wanted to No, that's that's a valid comment. Of course, we don't try to create confusion, but we may It's there's a lot of stuff here. There's a lot of stuff. There's a lot of stuff. Agree. I go back to the design standards and thank God, Jake. Yeah. We still be struggling. We did make that road diagram though. So,

did we have a motion to move this forward? Um, I move that we direct the planning committee to publish this for public comment. The schedule meeting. Schedule meeting. Yes. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion carries.

All right. We accomplished the goals that we set out and accomplished. So, uh, now we will have some kind of a discussion on short-term earnal in the county. And this is actually the kind of thing which I tell people we should never do. There is no structure in advance here. We have no goal or agenda. So this is all falling on me. Uh and no set time limit either. But we will we will have discussion and at some point we'll end the discussion. [laughter] Um we take a short break. We have Yes, we can take a short break. We'll start with that. We'll have a fivem minute break and then we'll come back and do short-term rentals. And

can I just can I just outline what I've given you before we go forward? Well, we don't have to do that now. We could do that after. No, we're Yeah, you will outline. Okay. I just Yeah. So, five minute break.

our meeting here. So, you say Canada will be used against you. We're live again. David, your comments. Yeah. So, I really didn't have a whole lot of comments. I just wanted to outline what's in the packet. Um I took all the public comments that we received before the packet went out um and put those together um for so you have them all one place. Um, I did take all the emails that I had and I threw them into chat GBT and it gave me a summary of the key issues. So, I don't know if you saw that, but it's like an outline of of some things. I was like, "Huh, wonder how that I mean, it's just fun to play with some of the stuff, but it did a pretty good summary for me." So, um, that wasn't me. I was chat GBT. I give all the credit.

Um, and then but it was just training on you. So, it was just doing what you would have done. That's how the AI works, right? Right. Exactly. It was all your work. Absolutely. Yeah.

Um and then there's a staff memo from November 8th, 2023. Um the last time this issue came in. I think this is the third time that this came before the board in my tenure here. So, um just I mean I kind of agree with my comments that I made back then and um so yeah. So, I know that we have some folks here um and would like to make some public comments and I and I think you're you're meaningable to that. So, um we can listen to them and have a discussion and in whatever way you would like to as um you said um Chair Platt um there's no sideboards to this discussion. We can just have some fun with this. So, yeah, whatever you want to do.

Well, let me start with Matt. Matt, right now, what sort of regulatory authority does the county have to regulate short-term rentals? Yeah. Um so we can we can regulate it as a land use um where we can prescribe by zoning district whether it is allowed conditionally allowed or prohibited. Um we can't it is it is my uh legal opinion that we do not have licensing authority through zoning. can't license your certificate

like how um Sublet County uh did theirs um where it's an ongoing thing in statute. It's very clear that a zoning certificate is a one-off thing and it lasts uh in duration so long as the use doesn't change. Um [clears throat] it can have conditions uh but those conditions are perpetual um throughout the life of the zoning certificate. Uh so yeah that's so can a can a condition be that you must annually pay money to the county to Nope. Um because uh statute

I like that one statute. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Uh now statute does not authorize um that sort of renewal of of any kind um for a zoning certificate. So, another Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I'm like Well, yeah, let's just hold up a second there. Uh, so you have no doubts about this. Uh, we can do it through zoning, but not a licensing or certificate type process. That's off the board. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, just just licensing. Okay. Or I guess like Yeah.

Yeah. And David, do you have any general thoughts about how we ought to perhaps go at this these days? You're the one that's been looking at it the longest. Yeah, Mr.

I mean, obviously, we've had a lot of comments in the last um few weeks. I guess we've been receiving them. Um, I don't particularly have any advice or recommendations other than if if you do decide to go forward with something, it would be nice to take a look at um, you know, come up with maybe some options to do this. Um, I'm not sure if it's it's something that's got to the point where we need to do this. um from from just some the information was provided. There's approximately 28 properties in um in Centennial that may have those um short-term rentals. I was looking at some of them. Some of them are commercial and they've had cabins on the properties since I've been here. So, I don't know if they're actually if you want to count those or not, but but there's I mean I I just took some I took a quick look at those things. So, you know, if there's around 600 properties in that vicinity that I counted, um 20 28 um you know, rentals, it's it's it's not like an overwhelming, you know, amount of those properties are being used for short-term rentals. Um I think it's like 4% of the properties in that area. So, um yeah. Um, so and and and honestly, if we did regulate them, probably be through zoning, if we did a conditional use, you know, permit, I'm not quite sure how that would would be helpful because the use of a of a property for a rental um for, you know, 3 or 4 days, still a residence. They're still using that for to sleep and to do their things there and a place to stay. just like if if

they rented it for 30 days or if a home on a homeowner, you know, lived there all throughout the year, the impacts are basically the same. The traffic's not going to change.

Um, you know, whether there's nuisances or those types of things, those can be regulated in different ways. You know, if people are not staying on the roads or on other people's property, that's a trespassing issue. Whether, you know, they own property up there or they don't. Um, yeah. So, but that being said, I'm I'm happy to hear the discussion, hear the comments from from members of the public. Um, review this. If there needs to be something that needs to be done, then we'd be happy to to help come up with something that that that's reasonable. Um, so, a few more things then.

Okay. um for the kind of nuisance complaints that we have seen made uh in these comments we've received, do you have any sense of how responsive the sheriff's office is uh you know when a complaint comes in or how responsive they can be? I can't speak to the sheriff's office. I have no clue. Is it right that generally you can sort of break down short-term rentals in three sort of basic categories where one category would be you have a residence that's being used strictly for short-term rentals year round. Second category would be where someone has maybe bought a property and is using for a vacation home and when they're not using it for vacation then they're using short-term rentals.

And then maybe a third category where you're actually living in the place you know more or less you're around but occasionally you're going and then you might use a short-term rental. Is that a sort of a fair characterization of three basic categories or is there some more? I believe so. I think that's in my memo from 20. Okay, that's my thought. I just want to make sure. Um, so are you all okay having sort of a free range discussion? 30 minutes be okay. I mean, we're at 7:30 now. Go to 8. Would that be okay? Let's see where we are. Well, I mean, I'm just saying you want to cut it short that maybe or No, I might want to go longer. I would leave it open if we [clears throat] end up feel like we're being productive. And then just finally uh so we know why don't you three citizens tell us who you are again and just put on the record you you sir

I'm Kelly Cole Kelly Cole and I'm Bri Arre Arre and Michelle Philly. All right. Very good. And we have BJ. We have BJ Penny on this book. Okay. Very good. And and are are they the authors of the I mean we have a specific thing in front of us. I am the author. Okay.

With Vicky. Um, but to let's just hold that last thought just momentarily. So, [clears throat] if we could define short-term rentals in a sensible way, we could they're susceptible to zoning. That's what that was what Mr. Mr. Gish just told us. And that zoning could be prohibited here or conditional use here or allowed by right there. Um, but the structure that we're hearing here is it would not be something that could have continuing inspections any anything beyond that initial approval. That's the point.

Yeah, I mean it it would have whatever standards are prescribed in the zoning resolution. Um Okay. But but those would only be enforced upon uh I mean complaint or knowledge of violation.

Yeah. All right. But but they would they would have a life if it said you can't put more than five people in. Then that be that's the rule forever and if you violate it then you're out of compliance and we have an enforcement action. [snorts] So So maybe I'm not hearing the distinction that you're making between a one-time permitting versus something that has a continuing monitoring obligation or enforcement. Um it's it's that uh annual renewal and annual inspection inspect that part the county does not have authority for from the zone statutes or from any other statutes. So so you could say this is how it's going to be operated. We can't demand that every year we go in and see if it's operating that way

to an extent. Um, I mean, I think that there, and I've discussed this with you before, there is a very fine and fuzzy line between zoning and something else regulatory. Um, and I think [clears throat] that need we need to be mindful of of that things like, you know, a fire extinguisher. How are we ever that's essentially empty words on a piece of paper?

Okay, let's stop what [laughter] and do one more thing. Let's just uh at least for the purpose of this discussion, of course, we change it. just assume we're talking about short-term rentals meaning something's been ran off for 30 days or less. And I think that's probably generally okay. I mean, we don't have to hear that, but that's kind of what we're talking about. We're not talking about six months or year and a half and but a day, 30 days. That's what we're kind of talking about. And we understand this to be like Airbnbs and V bureaus, that kind of thing. Um, and then finally, if it's okay with my colleagues, why don't we give our citizens here a chance to speak a little bit first and say whatever they might want to say and we'll listen. What was that? And I have some questions. Is that okay with you all?

Sure. Here. Yeah, we can ask questions. Of course. You got to answer them though. [laughter] All right, Michelle. Hi, I'm Michelle Tilly. See you, we're not tired. I'm seeing you. Um, and I I live in North Fork. um in Centennial. I have a bunch of stuff to say. So, do you guys want to let me get through it and then ask questions or um Okay, let's do it that way.

All right. Um first of all, I'm gonna I'm gonna beg to differ with David's numbers. um two years ago when he did a cursory search over 600 properties he came up with um in the Centennial Valley, not just Centennial proper, he came up with 21 Airbnbs or or STR, short-term rentals. Now, we went to the county assessor and we got we just did four quadrants of Centennial Proper, which you can see on the map on page 16. And with that with that small area, not the entire valley, not all the way to Albany, we have 48, not 28. We have 28. We may have 28 owners that we found, but there are 48 Airbnbs. And um again on that map on page 16 um somebody from Rainbow Valley, somebody from Twin Rivers and a person from Centennial Proper and me from North Fork went through and marked all of the Airbnbs that we knew that were either listed on the RBO Airbnb or that were rented separately as a vacation home. And 48 is I think we're still low. So now if you think about it, we have less than 300 people that live in Centennial, including including my area, including Aspen country. There's one in ASP, there's two in Aspen country now, too. And that's a huge amount. We have taken pretty much everything off the market for people who need to rent, uh, people in the service industry, but I'm I'm going past. Um, okay. So, Dude,

can we put a few little quick questions? Oh, yeah. Yeah, bring it on. That's right. No, no, that's this is free arranging. Okay. You said you said you're assessor. That's what caught my ear. What? How does the assessor

Well, because we're trying to because because before and David I I want to praise you for what you did before and I want to bounce off of that because I think you set the stage for some movement here. But, okay. with the we said David said there were 600 properties and there were 21 um 21 Airbnbs two years ago in 2023 and so we're like geez that just doesn't sound right because we live there and so we went to the county assessor and we drew parameters around and yes there are 446 properties but as you can see by the map a lot of them are idle you know or there are two pe two properties together that make up one um page 16 in case you want missed it.

That beautiful nap, right? And the little blocked in things um are the ones for our known Airbnbs. And so the assessor didn't tell you who was a B&B. They just gave you all the plaques. That that was the

Yes. No, they did not know. And um and they don't know about all of them. I mean they have you know they're they're uh the way the taxes work it's um it comes to from the the state in bulk too you know so they don't know who is paying if so so the Airbnbs pay through I'm sorry I know so much about this [laughter] Airbnbs pay through and then it all goes to the state and then state divies out and I think it's 2% from the state and 2% from the county or something like that I can't remember exactly Um, and I don't mean to go down that rabbit hole. Um, okay, back to So, now we counted 48, right? Some of those aren't listed on VRBO. Some of them aren't listed on Airbnb, but they exist. I guarantee it. And that's a huge amount that comes off the market for people who need housing in our area. And for the numbers, 21 in Centennial Valley two years ago and now just in those four quadrants of Centennial proper, we have 48. Not even excluding the ones that are outside like Kelly Cole has one in Dearwood. There's some in Albany, there's some on Sheep Mountain. just in Centennial, that's 125% in two years growth in in in real estate that comes off the market for people who want to live there. So, I think we're at a tipping point in our community. And I know we're not the only ones. I mean, we know that we know that Saratoga is having this problem. We know that I think Douglas is having this problem. In fact, just a cursory search on, you know, Airbnb problems and communities will [sighs and gasps] it it will fill up your entire pages and

pages on your browser. Um, okay. So blah blah sheriff is a minimum 40 miles away and even if the response is 40 minutes which it isn't um that means that if somebody has a big bonfire during a red flag warning what's our recourse now if it's a local I want to I do want to state this emphatically we have local owners like family or um a neighbor of ours um who's had uh Airbnb now for I don't know a decade. She does a great job. And somebody else local who has um they live in six bar and they have a Airbnb up in Centennial proper. They're right there. They can answer any problems and you can call them up and you can say, "Hey, there's an issue." But guess what? There's no issues because they're local. So where we're having a problem is where people who don't have any connection to the community and then they have an Airbnb and it's just [clears throat] it just go through now before uh I know I saw a couple of the letters from the Airbnb owners um unsigned I might add and they were saying don't regulate us out. We're not here to regulate anybody out, but we are here to get a handle on stuff because our community is starting to suffer. They said they don't that they pay all this money in the community, but one of them charges 350 a night for one place and $400 a night for the other. So, it's not a matter of not gaining money and paying your mortgage. They're making quite a bit of a profit. And up in Centennial proper, there's one property that has three yards, three hot tubs

right on the road. You know, I mean, it's insane. And there's another four being that were being built on the ridge of of Centennial Valley that are going to that were be used as um as Airbnbs. They are they haven't the construction is hasn't happened a couple years, so I don't know what's going on with that. Um all right. blah blah licency and inspection. So, coming back to our friend David, hi David. Um, two years ago, he came forward with you guys and he said, "Here are some examples of other places that do this or who are having challenges and one was Jackson, Teton County, one was Lurmer, which [clears throat] is um not really analogous, and then the other was Sublet. So, we took a look at Sublet and it actually works. it works for the unincorporated parts of our county. So, we took the sublet and um and kind of punched around a little bit. Didn't change anything in the ordinance, but just changed, you know, um stuff that would be more specific to Alb County. And we'd really like you to take a look at that.

Just a second here. I mean, you heard what Matt said, right? Uh that sublet wouldn't work for us. No, that we can't do that. And why can't we do that, Matt? Uh, I explained that to planning and zoning. Well, I'm here. So, can you explain to me? I'm gonna confine my uh legal advice to the county. So, so Matt has advised us that we're not going to be able to go down that route. That route? What do you What do you mean that route? Licensing and certificating, you know, administering through a licensing and certificate process. So, could I ask So, are you saying Sublet County is on thin ice legally in doing that or why could they do it and we can't?

Well, they haven't been challenged on it, I'm assuming. Um, okay. So, that's generally how you uh do things, but no, I I'm saying that we the county can't require a renewing license or certificate. zoning certificate is a one-off deal which you know lasts in a perpetuity until it's violated or or changed. Um the county can put conditions on it through a conditional use permit or just do a condition like there has to be a local agent. Would that be an acceptable condition? It sounds like that would help a lot. It would help tons

that might address a lot. So who's going to coordinate that? Well, it I mean it's there there are some things which you as a commission will need to think about just logistically. Okay. And I have to you interrupted you but please

but I mean I I hear what you're saying and I know you advise them but you know I am part of the county and so I do appreciate an answer you know when I when I ask something. Um, okay. So, coming back to I haven't even gotten to the licing licensing stuff yet, but um, health and safety is an issue and that issue isn't isn't just a licensing and the the safety check every year, but frankly, the hotels have to do that every year. They pay a license fee every year. They pay they pay a safety inspection every year, which BJ is a hotel owner. He can address that himself. He's um on the screen.

So, who regulates that? Yeah. Who does who regulates that? Who regulates those hotels? I mean, Department of Health. Hey, BJ. The state. So, is this a place for the state to

maybe I mean, maybe, but we're starting here. We're starting here with this discussion. But the one thing um All right. So, blah blah. Uh okay. So, yes, to a local a local agent or owner, it does make a difference. And knowing that you can call somebody when you're so far away from any sort of enforce enforcement opportunity is important. Um, and uh and they should be local, 15 minutes away so that you know, you know. Um, okay. So, aside from Sublet County, uh, which we like and I think it could still be explored, um, is a commission is a commission or a committee to explore this further and do listening sessions. David re Mr. Gersh recommended this two years ago and it hasn't gone any further. So, I will make a strong recommendation for that now so that we can start to move forward instead of just kicking the can down the road when we have 75 or 100 Airbnbs in our tiny little town of 300 people, you know? I mean, we're we are at a tipping point.

Well, [clears throat] one question. Uh I mean, you just referred to Centennial's little town. I mean, have you all started talking about a corporation? Have you been to Centennial? I [laughter] have been to Centennial. Sorry, that was uh rhetorical. Um I I just don't see a path forward on that. It's um it's it's that's just not where it's going to go. Well, well, my question was actually serious about I mean, have people talked about it at all? Have you ever heard anything? Immediately if there's a discussion, it gets shut down. Yeah. Immediately. If not even sooner. If you just say, it just gets shut down. So, are you through with your Please. Okay. Well, I'll just I got I got pages of comments.

Oh my god, I've got pages of answers. But but let's follow that thread for a minute in in terms of what can you do for yourselves um as opposed to coming to the county looking for zoning. So, talk to us about um homeowners associations, covenants, deed restrictions. Okay. Where do those fit into this?

I can I can totally answer that. Um, out of the four quadrants that I gave you guys, um, there is, I think, one, maybe two neighborhoods that have covenants with teeth or, uh, actual homeowners associations that can tackle this. One is six bar, which is um I I put on my map they've already banned Airbnbs in that area. And then uh, the other does Aspen country have covenants?

Mhm. So, Aspen Country is the second one. Nobody else. So, North Fork does have a owners association, but it's only for the roads. That's it. No teeth. There's it's uh it has been proven by the attorneys that we hired, you know, that all we can do is is uh charge money and fix the roads and that's it. Um but and there's a road district in Rainbow Valley, but they don't I don't think they have cutings. Do they? Rainbow Valley. No.

Yeah. So, the only ones are those two that I mentioned. Centennial, no. Rainbow Valley, no. Twin Rivers, no. North Fork, no. they they don't have homeowners associations at all or they don't have homeowners associations that have the only one that has a homeowner association aside from the two that um is uh we Northfork has an owners association but the covenants the way they were put together are so uh scrambled there's 19 different type you know types of covenants and um it was just sort of proven that all we really can do is collect money for the roads and fix them so we have no teeth anywhere else

and things like deed restrictions like you may have heard about in the holst discussion. Is there any ground out there because uh they did talk about because yes we do have deed restrictions on um on uh on North. Uh so how would that how would you go forward with that in north you know for a deed restriction? I mean, could I as a neighbor do something or is that something that the former owner has to do for a violation of that? I I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer either. I mean, asked our attorney to to perhaps give us a primer on just how those kinds of things declined, but Matt didn't have anything to say at all.

He's going to decline. Okay. Um, but the man over there, he did say that deed restrictions were very narrowly subjected to, you know, the law. The guy that got up uh for the very first uh whatever that was. And um and that's something that we could check into, but again, we have five in North Fork out of 90 houses. It's it's Centennial, Rainbow Valley, it's everything together. It's not just us. So we're here as a group, not as a neighborhood. So there's nobody from six barre here because yeah, they don't they don't have any skin in this game.

Well, I guess I mean what what I find myself wondering is is everybody would like someone else to come in, be the heavy, and tell the neighbors how to behave themselves. And the question is, well, what what what options are available short of that? Um, and then perhaps if there are people who have bought properties that you understand have de restrictions against short-term rentals, um, you ought to you collectively ought to explore your the legal options. I don't because I don't know anything about it. It doesn't there's no STR stuff in um in in in anybody's stuff. This is I mean this is a new thing, you know, those those those covenants those messy covenants that were put out for North Fork and I can only speak to that. Um, they were put out in 1963, 1964. I mean, STRs were were just not a thing,

you know. This is a decade, 15 years old at this point. Is there in those covenants, messy as they are, is there a way to amend them? Uh, no, because first of all, you'd have to get I I think it's like twothirds of the property owners. But well, first you have to change the covenants and then you'd have to get Yeah. of the property owners would have to agree or I'd have to check the bylaws. I don't really have that because I'm not on the board. If you could do that then you then you could put them in right short term. Yeah. And if enough people are being bothered by it, maybe that would work.

Well, again, I'm not here just to represent North Fork. I'm here to talk about the four quadrants of Centennial that we've been discussing. I I see what you have. I I understand what you're saying, though. Yeah. Is it hard with no law enforcement in town though? Well, that's we do have a county sheriff, you know, and we have a county commission right there, right? So, I mean, that's why we're here, you know, because you guys still represent us, all of you, you know, and and so we need some guidance here and we need to figure out a path forward instead of saying, "Oh, well, there's nothing you can do and come back in two or three years when you're angry again." You know, I mean, go ahead. Fine. Mr. Chair, just can I just throw out

No, this you don't need aspiration. Where brief flow? Um, so just

I just want to throw out ideas that I'm aware of in other states and Mr. Ays can say like no. [laughter] Um, in one state, I'm aware that the way they've addressed it in on the county level is through the the zoning ordinance would describe a short-term rental as not being a dwelling. Like, so in the definition of a dwelling, it puts in what a dwelling is not. And what a dwelling is not is a short-term rental or anything that's lived in fewer than 30 days. And then the county came in and applied a whole different tax structure to those properties. So if if you can't get a uh a fee, but you're charging a whole lot of taxes on it, then you are bringing money in the county to be able to over oversee the properties. you you can't keep doing inspections. You could just do an initial inspection to make sure that you know it's ADA compliant. It's got smoke detectors, carbon monoxides, fire extinguishers, right? So, but then you know how that gets maintained after that. It sounds like we're we're the county's done. um in in another state I know that um they came up with their their planning and zoning ordinance or equivalent requires that the property owner live in the community. So you like you they were trying to I think avoid having some of these large companies buy up all these parcels, turn them into short-term rentals, and so they they required

that um you there's certain residency requirements you have to meet to be given the the permit. For us, I guess we'd call that a conditional use permit. Um th those are just two other ways that I'm aware of that other communities in other states have tried to to deal with it. So just just throwing that out as yet and I guess the last thing available to you is going to the state legislature and saying these these places are providing lodging. they should be held to the same requirements of motel and lodges and pay whatever fees and um you know I don't know what kind of uphill battle that is but but I mean getting getting a statutory statewide change and getting the other counties that are having this problem to try to do that is the only other thing I can I can think of which is a a big hill to climb.

Yes, it is a big hill. Um I I think uh yes. Um Kelly wanted to say something. I think uh well when I when I when I have a short moment for Well, you got a short moment right now. You raise your hand. I know. [laughter] Well, this is a free-for-all. And don't forget that BJ Finny is on. I haven't seen anything yet over there, but I've got my own little I'm feeding to the guy who's going to talk against me. [laughter] Talking about rather than forgetting. My name My name is Kelly Cole. I live on Highway 11. And Michelle referred to me as having Airbnbs, which I don't. Oh, with your family.

Well, but I have no association. I don't even like them, but I am 100% opposed to trying to regulate them. I think that is something that should be done at the subdivision level. And the way, you know, the way I look at it, there's like 20 people that have written letters. They're opposed to Airbnbs. They get irritated because, you know, people are parking where they shouldn't be. They get stuck in the roads. They are probably having bonfires. All those things are an irritant. But I do not see why it should be handled at the county level. And I I think it's important to, you know, to try to if for one thing they all live in subdivisions. All those there are covenants. Those covenants can be amended. And if there are enough other people that felt strongly enough about that potential problem, then that could be handled through the subdivision covenants. But if there's not enough people that feel as strongly as Michelle does, it goes nowhere. So there's obviously not a problem in my opinion. Not that big of a problem that it's got to be addressed. There was a subdivision that went through that. They did change their covenants and, you know, they they banned Airbnbs or short-term rentals. And so it's possible So I don't think the other thing too is we're talking what's a perceived problem and applying that to the entire county which you know there's ranches that you know there supplemental income. I mean, everybody thinks these Airbnbs are, you

know, where snow machiners and four-wheelers and rip up the roads and Well, there's ranchers that rely heavily on what you would classify as short-term rentals. You know, they have especially ranches that have maybe fishing properties or hunting properties or something. I mean, if you're going to start grouping short-term rentals into these classifications, you know, then you're you're messing with people's livelihoods, too. And so, there's, you know, it's kind of like, how do you start to define one, you know, that the irritants versus, you know, the guy that's trying to supplement a an agricultural income by doing something like that. And we talk about houses being taken off the market. Well, that's true. But the thing is is that housing has just gone up. It's ridiculously high now. And I don't attribute that to Airbnbs. I think there's a lot of other things. Airbnbs. The the people that could afford the Airbnbs are the ones that are buying them, which unfortunately has a lot of the local people. They can't afford that price range anymore. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's caused by people purchasing Airbnbs. I I think the relationship is more about Centennial has become more of a desirable place. Uh we got found unfortunately you know that recreation's big. People are wanting to get away from other people so it's become desirable and that's more of a factor in what has driven up pricing in my opinion than the fact that people are buying them as

Airbnbs. you bring up something like that. We own businesses around Centennial and in Centennial and so I've I've approached other business owners. I haven't approached BJ yet, but that's coming. But uh I've approached other business owners about trying collectively as business owners to provide a a housing for employees and it it dies. It goes nowhere. I mean, it's easy to whine about not having employees and not being able to do anything, but when the reality of of trying to do something and costing a business some money to do it, it it dies. Same thing with incorporating Centennial. I've brought that up and I've um you know and it's like when something like this comes up I'll say well maybe maybe we ought to incorporate the town of Centennial you know then you can have your own rules and regulations you can do whatever you want. No, we don't want rules and regulations until an irritant pops up and then they want a single rule and regulation. And that's that's basically what's been happening. So te tell us about the HOA that that changed its covenants to exclude certain

I'm not exactly sure how they did that but I know I'm surprised it didn't get contested because that was at the time when people were investing in property to do short-term rentals and two or three people did that and then it became apparent that more might who knows. But anyway, they decided to I don't know how they changed cuz I'm not on that that board or in that subdivision, but it was changed. I I can I can answer that is there was an Airbnb um that somebody bought a house to and made it into an Airbnb and they were the ministry up on up on the mountain and the the board of six got together and they there's not a lot of people that live in six bar and they voted to out to oust any Airbnb. the ministry sold the house and uh Allison Chuck bought it and that's how it happened. It's only like what 12 houses out on six bar. It's not very big

but it's possible. Okay. And it's a relatively new area, so their covenants are solid. And and coming back to what Kelly said, there are only two subdivisions, Aspen country, which is also quite small, and six barre, which is small, who have covenants, and the rest of us are just out there. Bri, do you have something you'd like to say? There's so many things and I'm nervous because I've never The first time I was here, I was nervous and after about five seconds, you're not nervous anymore. So, don't be nervous. Cry. I did.

No, I don't want to cry. I just um Is it okay that I stand here? Sorry, everybody.

Um I can appreciate what you're saying, Kelly. Uh when you say an irritant pops up, that's me. I know that I'm one of them. But like I'm like the young generation. Well, no, because I, you know, I bartended. I talk to people. People talk about this and I complain. I'm like, man, it really sucks cuz I love this community. I've tried to give back to this community. I definitely will never be able to afford anything here. I mean, and I work I'm a traveling camp cook making good money. I work for the university. I bartend. And I still know I'm never going to get that. And so then I look around and I've gotten kicked out of two places because the owners decided they were going to make it into an Airbnb. We have only a handful of rentals and honestly some of them shouldn't be rented but that's fine because we're not regulated, right? We don't want to teeter on that unincorporated thing. Um, and so for me just personally, like I want to be able to continue to stay in the county, stay in Centennial, but I'm up against a wall and I get that there's a lot of um fuzzy lines and I don't know how all that's going to work, but it just feels like it always is like on death for years, I guess. And unincorporated, it's really funny because I have people like Bob Cook that tell me all the time, "Oh, this place, nope, it's never going to incorporate. Nobody's ever going to want that." And so I did find your comic kind of interesting that you support that. And I will say as they

I didn't say I support it. I brought it up. Well, no. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm not saying it. That's usually done to make a point. Yeah. But um and I actually have started to talk to some of the younger people in Centennial. There is still a push back of course, but like there's not many young people in Centennial. So that's like another little side factor of like if there's no place for us to even rent and like start a life in Centennial being having a through rental like we can't add more young people to then maybe support it down the line or not support it, you know. Um so that's kind of my thoughts right now. I just

I get that it's a very sensitive and like you you would have to balance it perfectly to make it work and not get sued or like contested or whatever. Um, but something has to give and I feel like because we won't incorporate that's putting the blame on us and yet we don't have then maybe the support of the county like we all thought we might because we're part of the county if that makes sense. So yeah I mean it's it's quite a problem.

Yeah. So what this is questions for us gir as much why I ask about the assessor these guy these folks have to pay lodging t tax is my understanding that right if I rent my place out then I pay lodging tax both to the state and county no I don't think so not according to the assessor well the last time I talked to her in 2003 I can show you my emails she said that The state regul or does the taxing of lodging tax, but we do not. The county does not. The county has its own lodging tax.

No, the the county receives the fees, but it doesn't administer um the tax or or is involved in the collection whatsoever. Okay. But we we the county voted on budgeting tax uh for states above the right and then the state allows us to pick the increase. Well, in the in the state, yeah, the state doesn't get that entire 5%. It gets split like three and two or half and half. It's actually 7% five to the county, two to the state. Okay. But I guess my point is that somebody has a list of everybody who's paying logic tax,

the department of revenue. And it's it's not uh abundantly clear from I talked to the assessor or not to the assessor. I talked to the treasurer this afternoon and it's not abundantly clear because when it is Airbnb or VBO, the company itself collects the lodging tax and remits it to the state bulk. In bulk. Well, that as I talked to an Airbnb owner that was that one of the services Airbnb isn't a thing. It's a it's a brokerage. It's a it's a management, but it's not split out about we can't look up what 100 North but somebody can. [laughter] We probably have to

Okay, that my point is not we have it. In fact, I had a question the treasurer in that very point, but it seems to me that somewhere there must be a list of who's paying lodging tax. Right now, the county does not have evidence that that people are not paying lodging taxes. They're supposed to not.

And and I'm not questioning whether they're paying it or not. I'm just trying to get a handle on who is out there to your point of making the count. and why can't we count the number of people who are renting lodgings the state statute they define what they mean by lodging and it's basically sleeping overnight um and they are all required know they're we don't know if they're doing it or not they're all required to pay lodging tax because of how it's uh remitted to the state by these companies you said but he's saying why can't we go to the company can I add in something real quick please go ahead Yes, I'm I'm BJ Finny. I'm the owner of the Old Corral.

Uh a way that these properties are getting around this is they are not regulated as a commercial uh operation. So, they do not have to track the nights that are rented out. They don't have to track uh like they do track Airbnb and VBO taxes if it is booked through that engine. A lot of properties, because I've done it myself before owning this hotel, will contact the owners individually if they're a repeat customer, and those bookings don't show up. So, there is a margin of error there that is substantial in the non-colcting of taxes. There's no way to regulate this because these are not um they're not viewed upon as a commercial operation. Uh but that's exactly what they are. They are supplemental income. They are generating revenue using this property. And if you're generating revenue, you are a commercial entity.

Well, so is a landlord then by that definition. And they pay taxes. And they pay taxes on it. But they don't pay lodging tax. No. But we the county has no we're talking short-term, not long-term. There's your difference. We don't regulate taxes. So,

okay. I'm not Again, I'm not trying to say what the county is or is not doing. I'm just saying there is a structure out there to identify short-term rentals the under the state statute and they define lodging services to apply to and I'm quoting from the state statute transient guests. Then they go on and define transient guests. It means that guest remains less than 30 continuous days. So we have a structure that distinguishes short-term rentals from long-term rentals at the state level. what that looks like at the county level and everyone who is it doesn't exist at the county level because what the the county knows no part of the county

law exists at this county level in uh yeah it does but the county has no involvement in it whatsoever the Albany county neither the assessor nor the treasurer elect or enforce logic understand okay

my point is is Not that, it's that there is a structure for identifying short-term rentals under state statute. And how that money is collected, you're informing us credibly that is collected through the state and they remit it to the county. That that seems like that's a off on the side here. All I'm saying is that we have a state statute, if someone chooses to enforce it, that would tag all of these people that are involved in short-term rentals. Is that correct? It could be. I don't Okay. So, where are you?

Why is that? I don't understand how that's relevant to the county then because we're not involved in that system whatsoever and we don't have access to what Department of Revenue are or you know maintains on No, no, no. We're just we'reing around in this conversation for drawing some lines and making some definitions. And I'm simply trying to add to that discussion that there are existing definitions under state statute that define short-term rentals. And that I'm thinking is is well it defines lodging. Okay. Because we we already have things like hotels and motel in the zoning resolution which

would fall under the definition of lodging. Well, we we the county don't have a definition of lodging that I'm do we not lodging, but we have things that touch on to lodging.

Okay. And so this is where I'm going with this more general one and I I say it's a G's question. What why aren't these commercial ventures? And I'm seeming seemings to me that one of the things that would add to this whole discussion is some some more tightly drawn lines and definitions. Um, if I read what I what says in our regulations, it talks about commercial being offering goods and services for compensation. Um, now what I'm exploring here is can we well let's let's start with that one. Why aren't these commercial ventures requiring

as dwellings? So um that's what we're using on the land use table. I'm not sure where you're going with the commercial for what your employer wants to get at. Well, all right. A commercial a commercial use under our zone having qualities of a business. That's you have to go read business a lawful endeavor for the engagement or purchase [clears throat] la. Um see also home businesses. So then you go over to home businesses and it it says home businesses are clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the structure. So so these are not home businesses

that we're talking about. They seem to match the definition of business in that they're selling goods and services to the public. So why are these not commercial? When I look at the land use table, okay, this is a dwelling which is under residential use and that's what I use to determine whether it's allowed or not allowed in the zoning district and and bed and breakfast is listed under commercial use. Correct.

That's different than dwelling. So I guess that's that's where my example in another state of how they cut out they cut out anything rented for fewer than 30 days and they said if you're using it for this it is not a dwelling. You wouldn't you wouldn't have to define dwelling in that way. I mean it is a dwelling. uh dwellings allowed, but then you prohibit um short-term rental as a specific thing in the land use table. And honestly, the the categorization of things as commercial or industrial or whatever it is, that isn't controlling. It's the specific entry.

So So why are bed and breakfasts a conditional use and Airbnbs aren't? They're different. How is how are

bed and breakfast? There's a person on site. Um, they're advertised to be a bed and breakfast like a hotel. They provide a meal. They're under different rules and regulations when it comes to like health and safety because they are h having food on the property. Um, where a short-term rental um like I think um Commissioner or Chair Platt um they look all different ways, right? Like it could be somebody's house that they're renting out for a few days. Could be their vacation home where they rent out while they're not there. Or it could be owned by, you know, an individual or a company that's being rented out. But in our eyes, there's not a definition of short-term rental in our regulations. There is a definition of dwelling, which it meets and which is what we follow. There is a specific land use for bed and breakfast which if you look under the common definition is not the same as a short-term rental.

So we don't have a definition for bed and breakfast. We don't but we can use the common definition. So if I have an Airbnb that throws out a coffee pot and granola bars am I now a bed and breakfast? I mean, it some sounds to me like that these distinctions if if I came in and described what I was doing to you and asked you if I could get a permit for it, would the answer be as long as you don't serve any food? I mean, these all seem kind of squishy. Is it that is it the food that makes the difference?

I mean, usually, like I said, bed and breakfast usually has someone on site. they live there or they're there during the day taking care of things and serving the customers. Um I it's it's a different setup but but are they closely related? Yeah. Like usually what does that I don't I'm looking for some tight lines to know whether I'm in a conditional use permit or not. Does it rec if I'm if I don't have a person on site then I can't be regulated as a bed and breakfast. is that it doesn't say that any place

necessarily. It's just the it's the common definition of bed and breakfast. The lamb stable was written before Airbnbs existed. I mean, personally, I don't have any problem distinguishing between an Airbnb and a bed and breakfast. They're completely different things. Okay. I don't

It's It's like if you walk by a short-term rental place and you walk by a hotel, you know you're not looking at the same thing. It's easy on the extremes to see the difference between the the Hilton Garden and and the guy who's renting out the for his relatives to come and go to the big game, but it seems to me that that those lines are not very well defined. And if I am on the internet saying come stay at my house and here's the here's what it's going to cost you and I'm collecting the lodging tax if I'm obeying the law. That starts to look awfully like a little motel. I mean, do I have to have a sign on the edge of the town that So, maybe what I'm saying is a response to this would be I would like to see tighter definitions in our zoning for what is and isn't in these various categories.

Sure. One don't say anything. I would agree with that. Yeah. Okay. There's some thoughts. [clears throat] Did you were you gonna I thought I heard him go

Yeah. Well, BJ, is there anything in particular you'd like to say? I mean, if so, here's your opportunity. Yeah. Um, you know, my whole deal is is treating them like a commercial entity because that's what they are. Um, I don't mind competition. Competition makes everybody great. Makes a healthy ecosystem. Um, but it is a huge disadvantage for my operation and my entity for me and my family to compete with so many Airbnbs running a traditional hotel and restaurant. Um, there are regulations that I have to follow being a commercial entity from the state and the county that these properties do not. Uh, a big one is a hot tub. If I have to have a if I have a hot tub on my property, I've got to clean it every day or every other day. And that gets real costly. These other properties, they don't have to do that. They don't have to be inspected. They don't have to be um marked as safe by a fire marshal uh to go through all these routines when you're talking about an annual license. Um, it's an annual inspection that I myself as a commercial hotel have to go through when a marshall comes in to make sure that my property is safe to rent out. These properties do not have to do that. Um, you know, yes, it takes employee housing, but that's that's a global problem right now. Um, would I like to see that go away? Yeah, I would like to have a few more local employees because Centennial is a huge tourist attraction for Albany County. Um but beyond that uh the Wyoming statutes do give counties full authority to regulate in uh land use and private commercial operations in residential areas. That is statute 18-5-201-207. So you guys do have the authority to regulate uh short-term rentals in some capacity based on land use.

Mr. Chair,

yeah, we do. We we can regulate through our zoning, right? We can regulate through allowed uses, conditional uses. Um, we can do that. But most of the things that Mr. Finny just said, we can't regulate. We don't regulate whether we can't regulate whether hot tubs are cleaned, all that health and safety. And I and I I agree wholeheartedly that's that's probably a disadvantage, you know, to to business owners that have to go through that. But unfortunately that's outside of the scope of planning and zoning commission um in the county at least the I mean we're we're we have the sideboards our sideboards are zoning you [clears throat] know and zoning we we can't license we can't come back the next year as um Matt has has talked about um we can't inspect that's not that's not within our zoning authority um so like yeah I I feel I feel for you know, for sure. But I just we we can regulate, but it just has to be within the bounds that we can, you know, what we can do. So, I'm not saying we can't. We just we can't do a lot of those things that we're that are a problem. I mean, that's a state issue that that needs to be dealt with.

So, as we're as we're looking for for lines, whether they're ones we can draw or somebody else can, can we come to understand how the state addresses these basic health issues? I mean, I don't I don't know the answer to that. You do off the top of your head. BJ knows because he has to deal with it. Okay. What is it? What is it? How where do they draw the lines between a a small motel and a a B&B that has six bedrooms?

And BJ, what do you have to do with safety? That's that was the first question. Like every year you get inspected for safety. Yes, I have to get inspected for ingress and egress for uh fire hazards. Um I got to have uh fire mitigation systems. I got to have plenty of exits. I got to go through kind of a structural uh safety inspection, too. You know, if there's a hole in the drywall, I got to patch it. Trust me. Uh they got after me for a baseball size hole in a storage closet for a housekeeping cart. Um, I have to patch any kind of hole in sheetrock I've got to go through to mitigate fire going through the building. I have to give people plenty of time. I I even had to put in doors that cost me 6,500 bucks in a hallway. Those doors haven't been there in over a dozen years. The previous owners told me they never had those doors put in.

So, there's a lot of safety inspections that I have to go through and deal with that these other properties do not. And do you know where those lines are drawn? How how does this health department decide who who because I'm a commercial entity? So they have defined what a commercial entity is. I'm just looking for some definitions here.

There's there's something in I actually I just found it. It's in uh so it's it's part of code enforcement um which the county does not have code enforcement um that they have statutoily exempted um single family detached residences and this is the legislature Um, so this is 359163B. Short-term rental of detached one and two family dwellings and town homes shall not be regulated as a commercial use for purposes of fire, building, and electrical standards and shall not be subject to regulation under the international market. So that was the legislature made that determination. Okay. for dwellings but not for commercial entities.

It just it says right here short-term rental of detached one and two family dwellings shall not be regulated as a commercial use. Huh. For purposes of code. Okay. No, that's that's that's useful. [laughter] David, um, have you had any discussions at all with the county commissioners about short-term rentals? Have you had any direction? I have not been given any direction by the board or not. Could you perhaps seek some? [laughter]

Uh I mean I think that's your perview. If you would like to seek direction from them, you you can make a motion. I can take it to them. But um that's how we'd have to do it. Okay. Okay. So before you before that happens, um

well it's not going to happen. [laughter] Like can we talk about next steps and because I don't want to leave here without knowing a next step right is next step like a committee of like like people like BJ or you know from the county countywide like five people eight people somebody who owns the Airbnb somebody Yeah. I mean can we get some movement on this so that we don't just walk out with nothing? Well, I I will I will say something, but I'm not speaking for my other three colleagues here, and they of course can express their opinions, but I'm not promising anything. Uh I don't think we have enough information or direction at this point,

but wouldn't that be what a committee would be for is to gather that information? Yeah, I'm not even sure that I would want to do that, but again, I'll colleagues about that. But right now, I'm not promising anything. Um again, express my own opinion. I would rely heavily on staff recommendations and and discussions with staff about how we might want to proceed. They've been around here for a long time. We've been here around for some time. They're professionals. We're lay people volunteers. Uh and we have limited authority. And again, it's actually as I told you privately, but say public now without direction of the county commissioners. I mean, they might be utterly opposed to all we know about doing anything. In which case, we could do all we wanted to and it's waste of time. Understood.

Yeah. So, the next step is to go to the county commissioners. I'm just looking for guidance here. Well, I mean, can I Yeah. So, like that's really not the next step to go to the county commissioners. That's your your This is your your deal. You are here to advise the board of county commissioners. If you guys want to do something, let's do it. You know, if if you need more information, have staff get more information. If you want to drop this, drop it. I mean, this this is your baby. We don't need to get direction from them at this point because you're supposed to be advising them what to do in planning and zoning services. Well, I'd screw there. I think we ought to have some communication.

I mean, what's what's the point? Like, what what are they what are you guys doing if you're just saying, "Well, what do you want us to do?" Like, there that you've been appointed to be, you know, they're they're recommending body. You're supposed to be recommending what to do when it comes to planning and zoning. Well, I mean, we've talked about how to proceed with the lar growth area plan and have basically decided not to do anything for the foreseeable future because we don't see it going anywhere. Okay? And we're not wasting effort uh on something we don't think is going to go anywhere for a while. Uh and I would hate to see us spend a whole bunch of time on something that's also not going to go anywhere. Well, I'm I'm

I mean, but I mean, please express your thoughts, too. I don't want to be the only one talking here, Mr. G on that. I mean, we were appointed to explore our ideas and bring recommendations to the board of county commissioners, and we should proceed to do that. If we think it's a worthy cause, then we should proceed. Now, we we can't command the the priorities of the planning staff, obviously. So, Mr. Have to sort that out. budget and time and energy. But I don't think this is a is something that I think it's worthy of our consideration. Now maybe I'm don't disagree there. I'm quite interested in

that's why we put this on the schedule tonight. Thank you.

And and it strikes me that I mean if on one hand the concern with short-term rentals is 5% of the residents of of Centennial that's been suggested here that that's a minority vocal and well articulated and wellressearched minority um then then perhaps that is not worth um spending a lot of time on. Um, but in general, we know this is a building issue and as as I've said before, it's it's it isn't um well, like Mr. Arnold's saying, it isn't unique there. We hear about these issues from from Manhattan Island to Centennial, Wyoming. So, it's it's real and it's out there and that's what planning is supposed to address itself to. So, so I would say that from my point of view, it is a an issue that is worth investigating. I'm not saying that it's a we need to do something immediately and this is a crisis to be solved. But again, I'm totally with you. If if my colleagues don't feel that way, um then this is like some of the other things that one of us has brought forward for others review and everybody's kind of said, "Not that great of an idea." And

yeah, I just I think Mr. Nicole made a really good point about if we make a countywide regulation that's possibly too wide a net. You know, there are people all over the county who are trying responsibly using their properties. They are there. They don't these these are not issues for them, but we could end up messing up their legitimate use of their property. And I think that need that is an important consideration. Um I'm wondering if you have you talked to the sheriff's department. A lot of your problems are law enforcement problems. I I have people doing things that are already illegal. You know, we don't need new regulations to about people building bonfires during red flag time.

Those are examples of some of the things that were going on or tearing up property or noise at you know there's there's already some regulation on that, right? Well, states I mean it's criminal law which is right. So, do we talk to the sheriff about being more present for infractions like That's a good idea. I will say I have witnessed times when we did need law enforcement in Centennial, you know, we and and they were and I get it takes 35 45 minutes to get up there sometimes, but and in all due respect, I feel like they don't take us seriously out there. They kind of, you know, they get there and they're like, "Oh, what's going Well, that's a conversation to have with them

for sure. And so, actually, I remember when we were trying to put this Elen Road um parking lot up there out along the cross from the visitor center, there was a woman there that was a touch closer. She was from the Department of Transportation. And we were telling her our concern for that um parking lot because we were I can't remember exactly, we were worried because we didn't have enforcement. And she goes, "Well, please tell me when we need enforcement." This is just a very simple example

and [clears throat] we said have them come out at 4:00 after Scary gets out on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday and have them sit between Wild Horse Ranch and this and she took it to them and she followed up with me. But again, like it never was taken seriously. That's just one. I mean, we have a cop that will like run through town at like 10:00 at night during mud season when there's like not even any people out. Um, so that's just one small example of not being taken seriously and I agree. It is a conversation that we should bring up to the sheriff. Yeah. I mean, I'm sympathetic to the problem. I would hate it if it was going on in my neighborhood. Yeah.

But yeah, I really hate it. I mean,

I thank you for your empathy. Um, but I I I feel I feel this um I I I really feel like this is something that should be explored and even those are just a few small, you know, we're like, okay, yeah, there's nuisance. And Kelly is totally right. There are places that do a great job and I brought them up early when I got up there to speak. Again, all those people are local, right? So, you know, if there is a problem with somebody down the street, I can pick up the phone and call my neighbor and say, "Hey, what's going on?" Can't do that anywhere else. And coming back to the Airbnbs versus the the bed breakfast to even BJ's hotel, there's somebody on site. There's somebody within 15 minutes. You know, that's the difference is that it's just a faceless hotel room. that's being rented out like a hotel room for more money than they charge at some places in Manhattan and we're we're helpless to we're helpless to do any kind of control on it any kind.

So, are you wanting control or are you wanting to limit the number or both? I I want I think as a community and maybe as a rural county unincorporated parts of the county I think we should wrap our arms around it and figure out how do we work forward for this all together in a smart way. Yes, Fishon Ranch you know all of these other places you know that are they do a great job. I mean I think VBAR is commercially zoned anyway isn't it? Mhm.

But I, you know, we all know a bunch of ranchers who rent out a a place in their barn, you know, as a VRBO. I don't I don't care about that. What I care about is our town has 48 rentals in it and [clears throat] we're and the and the housing is evaporating. Well, turn it around. You know, if you're a property owner and you bought a vacation house, I mean, does that person have any obligation to provide rental housing? I don't think so at all. No.

Once you go down to the individual level, and this is what makes it a very difficult issue. Uh, you know, conflicting uses and conflicting demands and uh the fact that a lot of people have as much money to spend as they want to. And you know, for a lot of people, you know, maybe buying a place in Centennial and not using it more than a week a year, I mean, that's maybe it's pocket change and it's hard to compete with that. Understood. I I'm I'm pointing out I'm not I'm pointing out the problem. Yeah.

Right. And I don't I'm really concerned that it's just going to be a problem in two years and it's going to be a problem in five years and David, you have your hand up. Well, bring your hand hand up first. So then I'll come. What did you want to say, Bri? Now you put me on the spot. What was I gonna say? Um Oh, I I I was going to say I don't think anybody who feels like these very strong feelings like wants to dictate to somebody you, you know, you can't buy a house here and then turn it into this. It's just if you could if they could play by some reasonable

rules. like requests of like, hey, like can you have somebody represent you or you be around so that way things don't go haywire on your property and it creates a nuisance for your neighbors? Like I don't think anybody's trying to say like you can't make these decisions, but if you do, please play by these requests, these regulations, these rules.

Yeah. Um, like I have not had like a whole lot of time to look at anything. I threw a few things together. Um, just pulled some numbers and things and and and talk to you about them. I mean, I would be more than happy to look at this a little bit closer. Um, I have some reservations about regulating these, but I mean, I'm still not convinced that that there's a real problem that we need to solve. Um, but that's not what we're hearing either. Um, but also there's, you know, 5,600 rural residents and we've heard from 20 of them, you know, so in, you know, outside the city limits. So, I mean, I would be happy to dig a little deeper and to look into this um come up with some options if if you want to look at that. If if you think this is not worth our time to look at, that's fine as well. Um, so I'm here to help, you know, um, and I will do whatever you guys decide you want want to be done. Even that even if it's just want some more information, we can do that.

Yeah. But eventually we're going to need guidance. Yeah. Right. What do you actually want? Yeah. Okay. Well, you have one more thing where it's like guidance. Go ahead. I just

I guess the common theme that I'm hearing is that is if it's going to happen if the entity in charge of managing it was was local was a resident of the county. that that would go a long way to solving some of the problems instead of an outofstate owner who can't be reached to say, "Hey, there's a big bonfire and it's red flag warning and we're worried our whole community is going to go up and smoke." I mean, that you you don't So, I don't know if there's a way to do conditional use permits. Well, I just How is that better than sheriff's office or fire department?

That is a law enforcement issue. Yeah, that's right. Sheriff's office and fire department. Actually, I mean, well, if if I were contacted, a local agent doesn't have the authority to arrest. But if if I would contact my renter if I were in that position and be like, "You're not supposed to have a bonfire. You're going to burn my place down." I mean, like, right? like you could take action as the owner of the property to protect your property and to and do you have more skin in the game because you're part of that community and and you want to create I mean I'm just hearing from them

that in the situations where the owner is present things are run in a responsible way and so I'm just wondering if that's like the narrow the narrow way to address it where where you and maybe it doesn't solve all problems. Um but but if we're hearing that law enforcement doesn't show up, then I'm just wondering if that's an avenue to look into. Yeah. I'm not satisfied that law enforcement's disinterested even though we've heard what we've heard. I'd like to talk to the sheriff myself and see what he has to say. Uh as a very interested party. Yeah. No, they could just be spread the

And I'm also not satisfied that we should take has an assumption that everyone local is fine and anyone is not local is not fine. I I mean in all fairness like that it takes an ambulance a minimum of 45 minutes to an hour to get out to our area, you know. So I it's not it's it's it's because we're so rural is really trying to that's that's also part of choice on the people who live out there too. And I mean it's kind of like the law of the land. You also know what you're getting into. I don't mean you personally. There's a reason we moved out there. Yeah. And the reason we live out there, it's just I'm I'm saying that before we start to throw darts at the sheriff,

right? It just takes everybody that long to get out. One of the things that's happening too is we're taking very few isolated incidents of an occasional bonfire on one and it makes it sound like like this is happening in all 28 or 48 instances every day and it's not the case. I mean it's it's typical that things are getting blown out of proportion to create rules and regulations that when there is no problem to begin with. Well, I I I I agree and I disagree. There's enough of a problem that we've been here three times. Yeah.

Right. There's enough of a problem that we don't have housing and you know there is trespassing and there are like our roads do get ripped up and you know and some of those people wrote letters and some some didn't. you know, if what what David suggested two years ago, and I know I keep going back to this, but let's just do listening sessions, you know, come out to where the people are and talk to them and then gather that information and move forward that way. Um, I know we've been an hour. Does anyone here like to say anything else? Especially because I like to wrap this up. I think just did I just So, you're proposing like a town meeting in Centennial. We would love it. Have you guys done that? Have you tried to organize that?

Well, we it needs to be official. It can't just be, you know, the in the shell show. Come on, let's go talk. Buy a beer. So, you would like to see special us as a commission. Um, yes, that's what you would like to see as a next step. I think that's a great next step. Okay. Well, look how excited you guys are. Well, I [laughter] don't know. It's uh well I think we have well okay let me let me sum up where I am on this.

All right you you okay I think Mr. Gers put it nicely when we started residence is a residence so I'm trying to take all these issues and sort them into um I mean if somebody who lives in Omaha could rent their house in Centennial I I'm not sympathetic to where the owner lives because [clears throat]

We have neighbors in town everywhere. They're they're obnoxious. I mean, so a lot of this stuff is just this is life together. And if you don't want to do that, go buy a lot that's, you know, somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. You don't have any neighbors to contend with. So many of these issues are, as you suggest, a function of you live in Clare out there, it takes a long time for the animals to get there. I don't think we can zone for that. Um, what I would like to see and where I would start is our existing zoning regulations. I I think it would benefit from tighter definitions. Right now, we have we have Airbnbs that I guess are home businesses, but they don't really meet the definition of home businesses. We have BNBs that I'm told have a common definition. We have motel that what's where does that line get drawn? Because each of those um Airbnbs are allowed as a matter of right. BNBs are a condition of use. Small motel are prohibited. So I think it would behoove us as a starting point to draw some lines in some coherent way. Um just so our current regulations make sense. Then I would like us to explore the idea of a conditional use as many jurisdictions have for these quasi commercial ventures. And that would give you the ability to say this is a rancher out there in in Toltech. They can do whatever they want to. Here's one where the neighbors are violently opposed to it. Maybe for good reasons, maybe they don't like the guy, then one could consider that an issue conditional use permit. Um, but until you have a definition of it and get your arms around it, what is the it that we're discussing? So, that would be my first step is just to get some lines drawn and and consider conditional use permits, not and implement them, but let's let's see where that goes. That's that's my two bits worth and and be

cognizant of we can't control people's neighbors relationships. That's true of all of us anywhere. Residence is residence and it has all of its warts and blemishes and that's just the way she goes. Okay. Well, we haven't accomplished a whole lot. Is the half hour up yet? It's well over half hour. This is absolutely not the way I like to run a meeting, but I'm I was happy to do it. I'm we appreciate your time.

No, we we are listening. As I said to you, uh we can't make any promises, but we are volunteers and we do our best. And while we might not have made any progress in the past two years, this is now a higher priority issue. That's why we we you took this time and we're not going to let go of it. But again, we're not making promises. I'm not making good promises. Understood. So, uh, for us, thank you so much. Shall we give staff any direction that I've offered mine? I I agree with Burge on next steps. I think that's that's a

getting getting it defined and looking at the potential of uh requiring conditional use permits. Um, it's it's not going to resolve every every possible scenario of like make sure you got fired fire fire suppression abilities, etc. for safety, but it's seems like it's a a starting point that could be looked at. It will also not do anything for every single existing one. I'm sorry, say that again, Matt. It won't do anything for uh every single existing short-term rental. They're out the barn door. They would be It's a start. It's a start.

Would it would it be possible to include a conditional use? Would it be possible require a requirement for a local agent? Because that that seems reasonable to me that somebody's responsible for the place. So, how is that being used? And who that is that David? How do you That is Yeah. How do you in charge of this local agent? I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. Are you talking about an issue for the the property owner?

No, just that that somebody is responsible for what goes on there that's within the 15 minutes that Michelle suggested or something something like that, you know, there's somebody local who is has some responsibility. I mean, I have to name an agent as an LLC business owner, you know? I mean, I don't see why that's it just gets named, you know? It doesn't seem like that should be so hard. Well, but what does it accomplish? Uh, accountability for what's going on there. Well, there's always there's going to be liability. Accountability for what's going on. So, so if they have a conditional use permit

and they violate the standards for that conditional use permit, um the the county would have to revoke the permit uh and go through a full contested case hearing on the permit. Um it would take at least probably 60 days. Uh and then if they continue to violate that um then it would [clears throat] go to a complaint filed in district court take probably about a year to get resolved. Um so I guess I I'm not understanding what what this like local contact person is that are you giving that name to all the neighbors? Um,

sure. Yeah. So they know who to call if there's a problem. If if if anything could be dealt with on a on a local level to problem solve, maybe there's some percentage of the time where that works and maybe there's going to be some percentage of the time where it doesn't work. And um I think we ought to give some more general direction for now and work on the details as we go forward. So the general direction would be to have David to begin work on seeing how we can regulate short-term rentals in zoning. That we're talking about well defining spectrum.

Yeah, that's what we're talking about. It would include definition. Okay. So you want a definition for short-term rental and then you want add it to the land use table. added to the land use table and then some standards for conditional use. What are those standards? What they might be I mean I would modify what you just said that again was I reading the land use table and trying to say what exactly does this mean? I would like to hear see a line between bed and breakfast and motel. Yeah. And between bed and breakfast and that's not a detail. That's a basic definitional request.

As a as a practical matter though, I mean that's part of what we've already been been working on with define uh providing a definition for each entry in the land use table. Um so I think that would be more appropriate to be handled there. But right now we could just provide short-term rental

definition. But my aim is to give David a task that he understands and that we understand and that's to begin the process of looking at how we can regulate short term rentals through our zoning resolution and uh we can begin our journey. [laughter] Is that good enough David? Sure. All right. Um very good then uh we will move on uh from this. Thank you folks for your input. Thank you all and thank you for so much time. I mean, we really really appreciate it. Well, you've put a huge amount of time in this, so we're all we're all volunteers in this together. [snorts]

So, um, we're going to wrap this up pretty quickly, I think, here. Any staff updates, David?

Uh, yeah. As per your request, I can go over the permits and things that went to the board of county commissioners. Um the Paris zoning district amendment application was denied. Um the Kadur Kaduri zoning district amendment application was approved. The Truckster LLC conditional use application was approved. The Dunlap conditional use application was approved. The Union Telephone Company tower permit application was approved. Point North subdivision preliminary plat application was approved. um the Olsson subdivision preliminary and final plat subdivision permit application was approved. So that's those are that's everything you sent from the last meeting to the board of county commissioners and a rundown of what happened there.

Is there any particular discussion on any of those things or was it us approval? Uh no the kaduri was 21. I know. Um there was one that was against and then two four. Um I think everything else was unanimous. Were they consistent with our recommendations? Maybe a way [laughter] to so well the Caduri zoning district amendment didn't really have a recommendation. So,

um, so yeah, the people that voted voted for for approval, yes, it was consistent with them. The [clears throat] other side said, no, I guess. But, um, I think everything else was was pretty much the same. Same. Yeah, the same. Is that just the Kadori one that I that you didn't really have a recommendation? So, I might add to that just because it was one that we were split on. Um uh the desending vote was Gossars and he had suggested that wouldn't it be nice if you could just take the the northern piece off and make it commercial. Of course that wasn't on the table. Sure.

And so he simply offered that as as kind of musings and then uh there wasn't a great deal of discussion beyond that. Um, I thought your report to them captured the the thought that some of us wanted to put the line at 15th and some wanted somewhere else. I mean, that was a a difficult assignment for you to to fairly characterize where we were on it, but yeah, I think they they looked at it and concluded that it would be appropriate to bring that commercial zoning on further east. Yeah, that's it. I think I don't know if you want to talk about here.

So, in light of the fact we've got three packages of amendments going forward, where are you in terms of what you would prioritize for working on next? Uh, we're working on wastewater regulations right now. Yeah. So, hey, can you spare some time to work on short-term rental stuff? I mean, I'm sure. Yeah. Okay. I got to wait for some reviews for the wastewater stuff. Okay. And then I'll Yeah, there'll be some discussions and things. I mean, the short-term rental really won't be all that long. I mean, if we're looking at doing it Yeah. a

because like Yeah. A lot of what? Yeah. No, I'm just trying to get your own sense. Yeah. what holds you on your plate right now? Yeah. To my defense, like those numbers I I took from I mean the assessor had numbers. I had numbers and I used the numbers out of her thing just as they said. I said 20 28 properties just like it says in her application or her uh No one's accusing me or anything.

I know. I'm just like it's like we were the way she phrased it was correct but the way I phrased it was correct as well cuz there was 48 residents but I said 28 properties which is what it says in there. So there was there's just a miscommunication I think between anyway anyway. Well and the map too I was looking at it's like it cut out a bunch of residents. I'm not sure why it says no residents here or no residents there but whatever. Um

um just if you just start reviewing the things that we've suggested these guys do um somewhere pricking along back there is a growth plan and how it might manifest itself in subdivision regulations. Yeah. Like ruin standards or I mean there's some some some lowhanging fruit on that vine as well as the the big stuff of forced annexation which are not going there. Yeah. Some more back there. Okay. [laughter] Okay. Well, anything else with that's okay for all that. I mean, was our discussion about short-term memor? Was it okay? Went too long.

No, I think it's a complicated topic. I think they're, you know, among the people we're here to serve, so we should listen. All right. Well, uh, do my colleagues here have any comments y'all would like to make? Congratulate staff for those all that just mind-numbingly tedious work on that good stuff changes regulations

I mean and and important stuff I mean especially in my mind you know those easements and set a size for future roads and utility that's that's really a really important for earth comments All right. In that case, uh the next regular meeting will be December 10th here 5:00. And this meeting