Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

You have to a little big They were so small. I could vibrate.

I wish I was still there. Okay. Uh, I will call to order the regular month meeting of the Alb County Planning and Zing Commission for April 8th, 2026. Get the roll call. Uh, Mr. Selli is absent. She is here. I think I don't know where. Maybe online then. Yes. All right. Mr. rise till you're here. Miss David is absent and I was notified in advance she not she has behind here.

All right, Barbara should be on. Okay, very good. All right, let's just roll call. You have a motion to approve the agenda. So move. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say I. I. I motion carries. Thank you. Quiet. There's Barb. Okay. So, Barb is present. Hi there, Barb. Okay. Hello. All right. Very good. So, fours are present, one's absent. That's good. Uh, may I have a motion to approve the minutes from March 11th? Motion to approve the minutes from the 11th of March. I'll second. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. I.

I. That motion carries. Does anyone have any disclosures or conflicts of interest? Eric, Barb, nothing here. Thank you. Nothing here either. Uh, in that case, we'll proceed with our first public application signate sublusion permit for final plat SD-09-25. And David, are you presenting that? Yep. Just a second. one technical problem to another.

All right, Mr. chair. Um, commissioners, um, this is a request, um, by by Dwellink is actually the applicant for this this project. The owner is Sandal Station LLC. They are requesting to subdivide property into two lots. Um, it's an approximately 1.64 acre parcel. um their water they the property is also is on commercial right now. Um it's located at 2758 Highway 130. Um water for this property is is already provided by the Centennial Water and Sewer District. Um sewer is also provided by the Centennial Water and Sewer District. Um a storm drainage plan was was provided and reviewed by Jake Schneider. Um utilities are also in the area and are already provided to the properties uh to the property and then uh postal service is provided by the Centennial Post Office. There are no new roads proposed. The access will be available from First Street in Centennial. Um no road maintenance is required. Um the fire protection is it's within the area of um Albany County Fire District number one. Um they have a volunteer Centennial Volunteer Fire Department in the vicinity that will provide that. Um number of folks reviewed this. Um Jake Schneider, the county engineer, made comments on the final plat an engineering report and all of his comments and things that um he had issues with were taken care of. Um, Centennial Water and Sewer District, Harmony Hendrickk and Cheryl Willig

commented that they are not opposed to the application, but noted that each dwelling needs to have a separate water separate water and sewer taps. Um, I believe the applicant is working right now on that with them. Lyman Rivers Conservation District. Mark Curry, senior resource specialist, um reminds the app or the land owners they should take care to minimize land disturbance during construction, quickly reclaim any disturbed areas with native grass and shrubs um species to prevent invasive weed species. Taylor McCord, district traffic engineer, um commented this from white dot um commented that any work in the rightway should be properly licensed or permitted. Um the applicant has provided a complete preliminary and final plan application including all required documentation reports. This proposal will split the existing lot into two lots. um water, sewer, and power infrastructure exist on each of the lots and are connected to the existing buildings. So, in essence, what is there is what's there, and they're just dividing lots to to separate those buildings with structures. Um the findings of when necessary for approval applicant responses um staff analysis of inclusion of required information as referenced in this report are affirmatively adopted and the findings that the applicant has provided the board with adequate information that the requested and required findings documentation notice and not notations have been satisfied by the applicant and the same are incorporated hearing conclusions of law. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and in compliance with the requirements of the Albany County Planning and Subdivision regulations. Staff recommends approval of the seam estates subdivision preliminary and final plan application adopting and

incorporating staff analysis, findings of fact and conclusions of laws each step that are stated in the staff report. There's any questions for me to try to answer those. Sure. Barb, do you have anything? All right, if you're muted, I think you said that you said no. All right, got to you. I'm good. I don't have any questions. U just a point of clarification. Um at one point it says they are hooked up to cent sewer and then in somewhere else it says they will have to hook up. So

So what it is, um it sounds like there's not separate taps for the buildings out there. So they all have water and sewer. It's just they're not separated and they want to separate those taps for each of the buildings so that they're built separately, I believe. Okay, that that makes sense now. And then so they're currently in compliance. They're just wanting to divide ownership. Is this or is this are we kind of a this a cleanup thing? They're currently in compliance. This was a request just to divide. I'm not sure exactly why maybe that an application. So I guess my question is whether this was one of sometimes we end up with trying to resolve a fraction issue by changing that is what

it is not there is no enforcement issues on this okay that was that was my only point of clarification okay and I don't have any questions so is applicant applicant representative here no um stand yeah well I don't actually believe we need anything else unless uh any of you fellow commissioners have anything else? I mean we we could table something when representative or that was not here but again I think we have all the information we need to make a decision is staff comfortable with with proceeding that way. Yes.

So uh amongst ourselves is there anything you like to discuss about this Barb? No

burn. Looks pretty straightforward to me. In that case, let's have a motion. Although I will say one thing. Uh that maybe uh if the motion is recommend approval, we should attach a condition to that at the order be taken care of. Is that necessary? I guess looking to to staff. I mean, it sounds like they've been talking though. Um, and do we require that as part of our

So, they already have the water and sewer hookups. Um, this is something that was probably done years and years ago. Um, I don't know if the standards have changed for the water and sewer district, but it's really a water district property owner issue. Um, and the property owner is working diligently to to do that. So I don't think it's necessary but my thoughts in that case uh receive application. I'll I'll make the motion Mr. Chair that's acceptable. Please go ahead. That we approve this evening the state subdivision preliminary and final plan application SD925 adopting and incorporating staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions of the law as each are stated in this staff report. Is there a second? I second it.

Any further discussion? No. Hearing seeing none in that case all those in favor say I. I. I. I. Okay that motion carries unanimously. Uh we will move on to item six. Rangeacre subdivision preliminary plat application SD-10-25. David.

Yeah, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. Um so this is another subdivision application. The applicant and owner is Nathan Willis. This is out at 83 Little Worth Lane. If you recall, this was a a property that was approved for rural residential zoning not too long ago. Um, their request is to create 11 lot subdivision within their 131 acre parcel averaging about 12 acres uh per lot. Um, water will be provided by individual wells for lots 1 through 10. Lot 11 has an existing well. Um, same goes for sewer. Septic systems will be provided for lots one or will need to be provided for lots 1 through 10. And lot 11 has an existing septic system. Um, the storm drainage report was provided reviewed by the county engineer. Um, utilities are available um for carbon power and light. Um, Black Hills GA Black Hills Energy is willing to allow them to put um gas out there, but it cost a fortune to get it out there, I think, for the applicant, but um but they're willing. Um, and then all utilities must be installed underground. Postal service can be established out there. Um, Littleworth Lane is an existing road driveway that will be improved to county standards. Culac is proposed off of Littleworth Lane that will provide access to the majority of the lots. Um and the roads are proposed to be private roads which that um proposal does not comply with chapter 6 section 4 sub paragraph A2 which requires that perpetual right of way easement or title shall be transferred to the board. Um access the applicant has provided proof of access to the property. Um, road maintenance. A draft

road maintenance agreement has been provided for the maintenance of Littleworth Lane and then proposed covenants address the maintenance of the proposed subdivision road that ends in a culde-sac off of Littleworth Lane. Both documents will need to be filed with the vinyl plat if the subdivision permit is approved. Um, fire protection. Fire protection for this area is is provided by Albony County Fire District 1. Um, fire fire protection must be addressed with the final plat accordance with the this planned subdivision resolution. A number of folks reviewed this and provided comments. Um, sounds like Albony County Fire District number one had some questions um that were answered by staff. Um, and then Jake Schneider, county engineer, looked at this, had some concerns with the preliminary engineer preliminary plat and engineering report. His concerns were have been taken care of. Um, I think there was a minor typo, but I actually it's been taken care of as well. Um, and then Jeremy Seller, superintendent um, of Rome Bridge didn't have any comments. Albony County Planning and GIS specialist Jory Unresot noted that the proposed name road name of Range Lane cannot be used. So they provided proposed one one name of that that cold sack road and um they've since changed that. So that's all been taken care of. Larmy Rivers Conservation District um Martin Ferry also provided some comments about wind erosion. We encroachment on disturbed lands. We recommend a quick race feeding of disturbed areas and may offer their assistance if choosing native grass species. Taylor McCorist number one traffic engineer ask for traffic generation estimate. He also notes proper licensing permitting is required for work in the

white out rightway. Um game and fish um recommend the use of wildlife friendly fencing. Um the applicant has provided a complete preliminary application including all required documentation reports. All standards of the planning subdivision regulations have been met except for chapter 6 section 4 subsection A2 which requires the perpetual rightway easement or title shall be transferred to the board. The applicant is proposing that all the roads be private which is not consistent with this requirement. It is also recommended that rightaway be provided to the end of the property providing access to the neighboring properties and future access if additional development is sought in the area. Um findings of fact so um all re all all required findings cannot be made until the applicant provides perpetual rideway easement. Once that finding is made then we can have the the normal finding that we have about um the findings necessary for approval applicant responsive and staff analysis of inclusion of required information as referenced in the staff report can be affirmatively affirmatively adopted findings that the applicant has provided the board with adequate information that the requested and required findings documentation notice and notation have been satisfied by the applicant and the same are incorporated herein. Um same goes with the conclusions of law. Um can't really make that that determination at this point without that perpetual right ofway easement. Staff recommends approval of the range acres subdivision preliminary plat application adopting incorporating the staff analysis findings effect and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report with the following conditions. the applicant provide perpetual rideway easement for all subdivision roads. Um, obviously there's other options that you

can consider um with this not being provided at this time, but that's what we're recommending and um happy to answer any questions. The applicant is here and we can provide information as request. Okay, we're going to pause for a moment because I realize I neglected to ask if there any member of the public wanted to comment about the previous application. Is there anyone here that wanted to comment about the same application? Well, I'm sorry about that. This one. This one. Okay. No, not this one, but the previous application. And it's my mistake. Okay. So, with that, we will go to staff questions. Uh give birth.

Um yeah. Um, getting fish talked about wildlife friendly fencing. So, remind us, aren't we requiring that routinely now? Yeah. If there's not fencing out there, they would be required to provide the fencing would have to be wildlife friendly fencing. So, does does that something that shows up on this plant stage or that's just part of the certificate of compliance? Where does that come from? Um, I believe it comes with the final plat. I think this property is already fenced though. And if it's already fenced, then we can't we don't require additional fencing or change if it's

so if it is not I mean again I think we would like to go forward with our previous direction to establish wildlife fencing where the opportunity presents itself. So if we don't know the answer to that are you telling us that that will be taken care of on the final bot. Correct. I can I can do a quick check of the regulations too during public comment if to answer that question. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be taken care of at the final plot stage, but there just to make sure there's anything in the preliminary plat stage that has to be taken care of, but I can let you know that. Okay. So, that was just And then there was a note from Fletcher that there was some missing information. What was the story there, Tracy?

Yeah. Uh so there was she had mentioned that the taxes um hadn't been paid at um but they're they're all paid up now. So so that was there's there's no problems yet. Um so then one of the things we changed in the final plat in the preliminary plat was where certain information comes in so it can trigger certain deadlines and so forth.

Sure. Um the engineering on these is taken care of by county engineer Jake Schneider. What's our current status in the county in terms of reviewing the the water wastewater suitability study? What's where are we with staff on our what used to be called wastewater engineer? is do we have a designated waste engineer in the county now that looks at these things with that same kind of a care that Schneider looks at the engineering stuff? Um well, I don't think so. Okay.

I mean, we we we we received that information um from what they're going to turn into to DEEQ, but ultimately it'll go to DEEQ if this is approved. Um, and you guys were the ones that had all the expertise to review that. That's why I was coming to you, I thought. So, yeah. Okay. Now, I'm trying to Where are we? Um, so what is that that position? Is that filled right now? That position at least we call waste water engineer for the time. It is not. And is it being filled at some point? Oh, we hope so. Yeah, we're we're trying to get applicants if you know anybody.

Um, all right. So following up on that and then you're exactly right that one of the reasons we did that was so that that water wastewater suitability study was exposed to public comment and commission comment before we triggered those those timelines that DQ is subject to. So do you know whether this whether that say has been submitted to DQ or not? Um not to my knowledge. Okay. the orderly process as you alluded to a minute ago would be that if we approve the preliminary plat with that attached that's the point at which that would go to the DQ and start their review timeline

correct okay so I guess I'd like to know if that's maybe we can ask the applicant if that's what's really happening yeah I mean that would be a good good idea I I can tell you that typically once it's once it's in their hands they send us a notice and I have not received any notice for from Department of Environmental Quality. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but that's the typical process. They receive that and then the county receives notice that they receive that. So, and and then sales company receives notice of of how they tell about it. Yes. They they they yeah, usually say we have 30 days, but we'll probably take 60 if we want to. So,

okay. Um and then you might guess by the reason I asked is I I had some issues with that. Um, so I just wondered where it was in the process and I think that's all I had for staff. Okay, sure. Thank you. Um, correct. No question. No.

Uh, well, I do have question about access here. Um, so is it your feeling that access all the way to the edge of property is desirable, is important, or is it to to the to the to the edge of to the the neighboring prop property. Well, in Yeah. In in your report, I believe you said that correct. Yes. A need to have easements granted for the private road, right? That's required,

right? And then you indicated it would be desirable and that's what I was asking whatever your wording was that that that easement extend always the edge of the property in case further development should ensue you know beyond this property. I mean good planning is is you don't you don't leave things unconnected like properties unconnected. Yeah. However, we don't have anything to back it up. That's why it's just I would love to have that happen but I can't there's nothing in regulations that requires that. And have you talked to applicant about that? Yeah, we've talked about this road. Yes. But if you talk about that additional easement,

well, they they do not want to provide an easement for anybody other than the private users of those lots. That's their position. Yeah. So, so they're probably not interested in providing this extra bit. Correct. And that's what I'm asking. Is in your mind, is that critical or to to go to the end of the Yeah, it's not critical. Hello. All right. Uh I think that's all all that I had. So with that, please uh come forward for questions. You can tell us who you are. I'm Nathan Willis.

Okay. And uh if you have anything you'd like to tell us first about this application, go ahead. Otherwise, we'll see the questions. Um, I guess not particularly except for as far as the easement goes, that's just that road when it leaves my the property we're trying to subdivide, it goes into a ranch that is 16,000 acres. And so, it's not a necessity that that access be given. And we I guess as far as con as as far as the concerns to the subdivision, I'm just I would like to have the right to not have people randomly driving in and basically parking in people's backyards on a public public rideway is what the main thing I'm trying to avoid here is. Um and that that it's kind of a safety and also a just a comfortability type thing. Um

uh and so that's all I have to say about that. Okay. Um do you have any questions? No. Thank you. No.

How are you doing on getting the water and sewer separated? Are you any in process on that or? uh we had the um environmental study done with the engineering report and so all that information would be over my head but that we did do we did do the environmental study and it didn't seem to be an issue. I have talked to the state office about the water and the water table um in depth about as far as any of that goes and they didn't raise any concerns about it there being any kind of contamination issues. But I I guess that would be something to refer to that environmental study on. I was just wondering if you had started it and if they anybody had come up with any problems so far. No, I haven't heard any any problems.

Very good. Thank you. You got just quick follow up on the question I asked Mr. G earlier. Do you know has your environmental study been submitted to DQ? Yeah, I don't know if it was submitted to the EQ. That was just No, I don't think it has. I don't think it I don't know about that. Don't know what Yeah, that's Chris. We'll track that down. Thanks. Well, I don't have any questions. So, thank you. Perfect. Thanks. Uh and now we will conduct a public hearing. Uh, if there's any member of the public we'd like to see, please step forward, state your name, where you're from, make your comments. Yeah.

Uh, my name is Denny Sullivan. I'm the president of the HOA. That's basically to the west of the new property line. As far as that, there is a fence in the back. Uh, there's wildlife that goes underneath it all the time, you know, in pretty good fashion. Uh our only notice is one is uh we talked with Nathan briefly last time we had our meeting here, but uh making sure uh the access because the access from 287 back to the start of where his property line is probably I'm going to say quarter mile. It's not real far. uh the and we always maintain it as our within our group uh of having a a committee that manages that part of the road and then our little uh loop that goes back uh to the north with our property. But as far as uh doing a cooperative with you, and I'm sure that you're going to work with us on that as far as to maintain that part of the road, uh you know, good that it's uh private access only. It makes it a nice safe community. We've got kids in nine out of our 10 houses back there right now. So, it's a it's a busy little uh piece of property. And uh is it possible for us as a HOA because I'll be having my meeting coming up in the next couple months of getting uh documentation on this whole uh proposal and everything in our hands.

Is it possible what to get the documentation on all this as far as the the whole plan? Uh David, are you are you talking about the application uh all the wording and such as far as access and uh management of it and you know all that goes with it? I mean, we could provide you the application and any of the minutes to these meetings. That's that's what we have. So, I'd like to be able to get that. Yep. Absolutely. Okay. Uh I don't I don't I don't think I have any other questions on it. It is it is going to be what it is. We understand that. Uh it's good that it's going to be uh what is 131 acres, something like that. Yes,

above that. And uh I know the larger portion of the property is going to be his land and basically 10 acre uh sites and 31 acres or something like that. A larger one just to make sure that's all and there's no issues as far as the extra water draw on the water table or whatever like that with those additional uh wells that'll be drilled out there. They said it would be it would all be work work well. Um

that was the environmental So we haven't s that the one of the discussions we were having is a report goes to the department of environmental quality um and they also send it to um the state engineers office um and they do provide us information about some of that stuff. Um they used to have I don't know what their requirements are but they used to do kind of a a water study. I think they have to do that as well. That's that's I think that's part of what's been submitted. Um, so as far as I know, there's not any problems. Um, DEEQ will also give us their opinion as well. So, okay, that's something we're discussing. The final plan should just be approved. Okay. And is it possible to get a a layout or a drawing of that uh

of those? You can find that the application that's online. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I got. Mr. Chair, go ahead. Yeah. Just um tell me if I'm misrepresenting this. Uh Mr. GCH. Um, any subdivision as one of its conditions for approval has to demonstrate that it has adequate access and egress. Correct. Correct. So, just if there was any anticipation from you guys that there might be a conflict, it is my understanding that that they he has to get your approval

to use your road tax as his subdivision to meet our requirements that he has fully approved the non-controversial access. and it really impacts two dwellings on our property that are along that uh that roadway that goes in there. Okay. So, I'm sure I'll hear uh discussion from that from those two those two families. Yeah. I mean, if there's any question about his legal access that will have to be resolved and that and there was a document in the packet um I think from I don't know I think it's from the homeowners association homeowners association our high plans. Yeah. Like kind of a preliminary Yeah. um agreement. So they've already discussed this and and there's documentation

and then that that what I was calling the water wastewater study is the environmental report that's referred to and in that you'll see their consultants opinion that there's adequate water for their subdivision. You're certainly one of the reasons that we brought that forward at last stage is so that folks like yourself could look at it critically um and and bring those those comments forward. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. Please step forward. Hi, my name is Moren Miserve. I own the property directly south of Nathan's property. Sorry, what was your last name again?

Merve. Okay. It's like reserve except it starts with an M. Um, I own a property directly south of his and we share a fence line. That fence is very old and very jerryrigged. I have livestock and so my biggest concern is having people's dogs come and chase my livestock. I have had conversations with Nathan about replacing that fence. Um, and mostly I just wanted it to be in public record that that's something that needs to happen. Okay. Because I need to not have people's dogs chasing livestock. Oh, of course. So,

are you also separated by a road? The the Little Worth Lane is on the north side about 20 ft away from our common fence line. Okay. All right. All right. Well, that's all. Thank you. So again,

well, just to take the opportunity to reassure or otherwise, um, Mr. G a moment ago said he thought that the the subdivision was currently fenced. Is there a quality of fencing in that someplace? I mean, is there some point where, yeah, it's fenced, but they'll lay it on the ground. How do we handle that situation where the fencing is existing, but not adequate? Um, see I'm kind of looking through it right now, but it doesn't doesn't really address that. It just says fencing is required. It does have to be maintained. So, if it's not currently maintained, that it wouldn't need to be maintained. Um, but I don't there's nothing in about like if it's inadequate, you have to replace it. It's it's pretty vague. But but under the rubric of maintained would be the opportunity for someone to say yeah that that hasn't been in which case it would have to be properly maintained.

Right. Right. And and I believe that's it's it's affirmly stated that they were going to maintain it and take care of it in the engineering report. So thank you. Anyone else? I'm just gonna

Yeah. Who's that for? I'm Sandra Brian Briquette and I live on uh Analopee Bridge and I read through the the U handout or the papers today and I wanted to make actually a pretty positive comment that I was appreciative that there was an HOA mentioned and that there were covenants addressed and they seem to um address the uh quality and the upkeep. deep that is expected to be maintained. Um and so I I actually appreciated that and it alleviated some of my concerns. Two other comments. Um maybe just one one we've lived out on Analopee for 27 years now. One of the things that we've noticed over time is the light the light pollution. And if we're in a county, you would think it'd be really dark and it's just gotten much lighter over time. Um, and it would be something to consider that, you know, that there is some stipulation about I don't know the amount the the um, you know, the hours of operation, so to speak. It just seems everybody comes out and has their three spotlights operating from 8 to 8:00 in the morning and it does kind of detract from um living out there. Um I think that was about it. Okay.

Make a comment about our light regulations. Um we do have lighting regulations. Light regulations. Um we're actually kind of in the process of looking at those a little bit harder to make it the problem with the regulations right now is just some of the language is vague and it needs to be a little more specific. Okay. Um and so um we are working towards getting something that's simple and easy to enforce and understand for for everybody and hopefully take care of

kind of take care of some of those issues. I would appreciate that. That's just one other thing I just happened to think. Um the other thing uh uh Fourth of July fireworks, we're in a really dry year this year and just folks just don't appreciate that or they don't pay attention to that. So, I would like to see something maybe addressed in the HOA about um you know not uh permitting fireworks. It's a suggestion um because it's it can get pretty pretty crazy out there um around that time of year. David

Yeah. Um if you're not aware um the county is actually under a fire restriction which you cannot be using them right now just just so you know. So, if you see anybody using them, okay, um they should be. So, the most effective way that I've seen the fireworks um dissipate uh was having mosquito control spray over the river while people are out lighting off fireworks. It really disbands things. Sandra, I'll just say one thing here. Uh if at some point in the future you feel like no action's been taken with lighting, you can get in touch with our planning office and Okay. Check the status of that because that is something we're concerned about.

Okay, good. Good. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Could we have staff remind us um the lighting stat the lighting regulations that we looked at recently. Is there a grandfather issue here or would those apply to everybody or would they not apply to us because it's already come in? So what we're working on now, anything we approve today only applies to today and after. So um I mean we do have some regulations now that if if there's um egregious, you know, problems from properties, we can look into it and see if there's any way we can we can do some enforcement there. Um but but yeah, there would be kind of a non-conforming um standard that that would apply to anything that we approve from, you know, when it's approved going forward. So

So as in tonight or as in board approval? Well, so when the board of county commissioners approve something that's at that date going forward, that's that's what we can enforce and require for like new builds and those types of things on what they put up. So I just to be responsive to your concern, the fact that we are working on something for future application probably doesn't apply here. This would not today. No, this would likely proceed under the existing lighting regulations. Yes. And the problems might fall under a nuisance or something. Is that correct?

Um potentially. I mean, we still have regulations. It's just we need to be able to um determine that they're enforcable to to make people I mean um yeah, like I said, if there is there is something really out there that's just really bothering people, we can look into it. I can't can't guarantee we can do anything about it. Um but a lot of times we can just work with the property owners and get it shielded and make it a little bit better. So, is there anyone else in the public like to comment? Make one more. Mark uh Scott Marsh has his hand up. Okay, we we'll take Nathan here first. We'll come to Scott.

Sorry, I should have mentioned this before, but uh to his point of the road maintenance between the highway and the subdivision. I have talked to DOT about making improvements exiting off the highway to make that more safe uh make that safer. And that is those two I've I've spoke to those two land owners there right off the road that he was talking about both both of which have kids. Um so that's another part of the safety concern I'm talking about with public access and cutting down traffic because we're going to be adding traffic to begin with. And so the more traffic we can cut down on the better. And then uh we'll be we've got plans to widen that road and make it all a little easier and safer coming off the highway is is all I was going to add. I should have said that earlier.

Thank you. S Marsh, um just want to uh before we move on to the next topic, I know I'm kind of jumping ahead a little bit, but Jonas Osmire, he's my counterpart for white dot. Uh could we read him into the session? He got disconnected early on. Um, but I'd like to have him in for our topic. Uh, I'm not following you on the the tower. Were you talking about the tower? Are you talking about this application we're talking about right now? He's just trying to get um his coworker back on into the meeting. So, um, let me We're going to try and take care of that.

Yeah. I don't I don't see I don't see him trying to get in. Um, so that's where I don't I don't know. But I missed my stuff. Let me uh reach back out to him and uh confirm that he's still on hold. But I do appreciate Yeah, we'll look into it. We're going to look into that. Um may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close public hearing. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. I. I. Okay, that motion carries our discussion. Um Mark, what do you have?

Well, I understand uh some of the concerns about, you know, children playing and access. Um so we have to take that into consideration. Also fencing.

Anything else? No. Okay. Great. On the fencing, I don't know how what kind of fencing that you're going to be able to do to keep dogs from drifting into cattle or sheep. I'm sorry. Oh, no. Uh, sorry, I did not mean to interrupt. Please go ahead. That may be something that you have to work out between you. Yeah, we've been discussing it. I just wanted it in the public records. Thank you. So, I didn't

Yeah. Um, so under the uh subdivision statutes, the I guess state of the fence, it has to be a lawful fence. Um, which is defined under Wyoming law. Uh this was back when we were looking at the fencing standards initially and it's it's defined by um the ability to keep out uh breaching livestock specifically um not dogs, right? Yes.

Um so it's it it does have standards of of what constitutes a lawful offense in Wyoming. Um, and that's under the Yeah, I think agricultural district statutes. My apologies. I had to restart this computer. Um so yeah, it's basically three strand barb wire um with spacing uh requirements and then posting board fence or a pole and or yeah just a pole fence. Um so that is the standard. Um it doesn't necessarily specify you know, sort of a quality of construction. But there is sort of the provision that uh it just has to be as strong and well calculated to protect uh enclosures and is as effective for resisting breaching stock as those sort of construction parameters specifically outlined there.

Uh anything else for anyone? Go ahead if you have to. Um, yeah, I guess I' I'd just bounce back to Barb for a moment. You said we should take these under consideration. U, what do you mean by that? I mean, out of this meeting will come either a motion to deny or approve. Were you thinking of some conditions or something? So, I'm just inviting you to elaborate here, Mr. Chair, if that's appropriate. You can that's fine for you to make that point. No, I was just u wanted to acknowledge u what I was hearing from the audience. Okay. In that case, I suggest walk away.

Okay. For myself. Yeah. Um I guess I'm in an interesting position in that I have been I've been reviewing this reviewing this as a plate zone commissioner, but then I'm also, as Mr. Gers alluded to, reviewing it as a as a a practicing hydraologist. I had some issues with some of the environmental report but I don't think this is the forum for us to be arguing fine points of hydrogeeology. So um I'm thinking that the appropriate place for that input would be to DEEQ's review.

It's it's yeah the way it's structured is because we have not subsumed a delegated um reviewability of the water and wastewater reports. That review is still to be done by DEEQ at the state level. Um this allowed us to uh at least see it because it is part of the application that comes to the county for the time being. um and uh basically provide any concerns um to DEEQ that there might be with the uh the studies themselves for them to consider as part of their review.

Okay. So maybe it's just a little bit of a training moment. So if if there was something in engineering that that Mr. Schneider said was just unacceptable then then this would be the form in which to say no let's not proceed but that is not true of waterway source suitability because of this delegation of authority is that well lack of delegation lack of delegation yeah

okay so we would be authorized to say no that that bridge or that tower or something is inadequate but we would not be authorized to say no we think you have have missed the boat on your contamination No, but the way that we have it structured currently is that there we're able to provide concerns to DEEQ um prior to their review so that they're at least aware of the county's concerns because they're the ones who provide the recommendation

then my procedural kind of thicket is you see we uh so then would we the county need a resolution solution to do that. I'm thinking that's pretty cumbersome. I prefer to do that myself under the rubric of my professional registration, but that does not allow carry any county with that. If no, I'd recommend that you do it within the role of a planning and zoning commissioner. Um I suppose well I'm

okay. Uh so what does our regulations Yeah. My concern with that, Rod, is then it it puts the commission in a position of kind of arbitrating surely technical information and indifference to my colleagues. I don't know that I would want to have them say, "Oh yeah, if word likes this, then we better make that our official comment." And maybe maybe they wouldn't or would or this doesn't seem like the right forum for that, but what is the forum for that? that I just say I'm prepared to pursue it completely external to this.

So if the planning and zoning commission has any concerns about the subdivision permanent application from its review of the uh that it wishes for DEEQ to address during its review such concerns shall be in writing and shall be included um by the subdivider and the copies of the application sent to DEEQ. So it's up for planning and zoning commission to put something in writing um that is to be then sent to DEEQ under our regulations

but then we consider this we'll consider the DEQ report once we have the final applica I mean for the final planning correct well no because it's yes but at that point DEQ is completed because When it's a split preliminary final plan review, the the water and um wastewater reports go to uh plan zoning in the board first and then um they're to be sent to to DEQ and then their recommendation is received as part of review of the final plat and final application. If

we had concerns that point, we could raise them. It's It's better to to do it here. This is how we're getting to So, what do you think?

Well, that's right. I I mean, this is an interesting situation where we put ourselves in where we've we've I think appropriately made all of those analyses part of the preliminary plat so that everybody can look at them and public comment and so forth. Um, but I don't know that we ever got to the point of how how we planning and zoning would would sort those out. It's almost like we would have a a hearing and and people would come forward arguing both sides of it and then we would make a recommendation that we we just never kind of Well, no, we're not doing a contested case here, right?

That's never been a part of this. But no, if if if the planning and zoning commission can reach agreement on some sort of statement to send to DEEQ in writing, then that'll that'll satisfy our regulations. So yeah, that's exactly what I'm thinking. If you have comments you'd like to submit, uh we can discuss that and prove that submission or or approve you to make a submission do that way. Well, it needs to be from Lang,

right? Right. And we have I would have to make the case to my colleagues and they would have to approve it and then we would have a statement that would go forward. Um, but I would have to do that in the absence of the applicants engineer, which would seem odd. I mean, again, I'm not I don't know what I'm advocating here. I'm trying to find a way through this. So, and and I would say these are not fatal flaws. I mean, I'm I'm prepared to go forward with our approval um and pursue my technical concerns again separately. Can I can I can I can I get out from under the envelope of planning and zoning? And this is sometimes a private citizen can't submit anything. you won't.

Well, because I mean when you when you take on the role of the public official, I think it's disingenuous to be able to just say you can totally take that hat off. Um, no, I think it it needs to be addressed as a as a planning and zoning commissioner. Um because you're the only reason that you well I mean the reason you're reviewing this is asked by question.

Well yes and no. I mean anybody in the public could review it and find the same flaws that I have and then respond. I mean there's no point of making it available public so they could respond to DQ for us. Yeah. So, but right now you're you're not a member of the public. You're the planning zone commission and once once I go home tonight, I'm still a planning zoning commission for the purposes of reviewing this subdivision.

I mean, if you want make comments, uh, then you can prepare that and we can prove it and that is PL or not prove it. But then would we table this until I did that and give them an opportunity to respond? I think we move forward on this. You said because you said this these things you didn't were not failed.

I I don't think so. Well, all right. Let me let me dive into that. I say I I wasn't planning to to make this a lesson in hydrogenology and I'm not sure that's appropriate, but want to chase that down a little bit. The one of the critical elements in the standard EQ water wastewater zilla study is the issue of groundwater contamination. And how that is done is by looking at what the loading of the aquifer is from the septics and the number of septics that are put in and the amount of groundwater that is is sweeping through there. And and this is a classic case of the solution to pollution is dilution. And that's the way the data the critical parameter there stop me if this is getting too technical. This where I'm headed is what is the what is the permeability of that of the aquifer as that water moves through providing the dilution. In this study that number was provided by what's called a percolation test. So a very small pit was dug in the overlying gravels and it was observed how the water sinks into that pit completely disassociated has nothing to do with how the water is moving through the aquifer underneath. That's my

that's what I would call a significant technical error and maybe DQ would catch that in their review, maybe they would not. It should be brought to their attention. is something that I've seen repeatedly in in some of these group of reviews. Um it's it's technically objectionable. Now when I kind of do a look at those numbers myself and look through the well logs and so forth, I I would like DQS2 options once they run the numbers. If they don't feel that it isn't satisfactory demonstrated that there will be no significant groundwater contamination, then they give it a non-adverse. If they conclude that the analysis does suggest significant contamination as determined by a standard 10 milligrams per liter, then they would recommend that enhanced septic systems be used. And Craig hasn't had to go through this, but we had a lot for years of enhanced versus not and what we did on the aqua and what we did off the aqua. And this isn't a an aqua for protection issue. So I think that the the that was a a ser significant technical error in the analysis. Why I say it's not fatal is that if DEQ were to appropriately flag that error and get it corrected, they would come up with a a recommendation for sepic systems that would be appropriate. So I could either say, well, let's just hope DEEQ figures it out and does an appropriate analysis and then see where it goes. Or I could invite us to flag that issue for DEQ as a concern. Now, have I said enough to to be something that we as a group could say we would like to flag this concern to the EQ? If so, then I'm prepared to write a statement to that effect and see where it goes. I think it's a very

reasonable concern. Okay? And I think that it's way above my area of expertise. So, DEEQ, I've dealt with them professionally before on other issues, but they have the expertise to give us an honest evaluation and tell us where we're going to be. I I don't want to see anybody not be able to do what they want to. But I'm also really big into protecting Wyoming, you know, the land, the sky, the water. You know, if we mess up the water, lots of people's lives and livestock, everything is affected negatively. I think it's a good idea to involve them so we know in our hearts that we didn't make a decision that bypass something that could hurt people or in the way.

You've made some comments before the EQ, right? Oh, well I've had discussions with the EQ for my whole 45 year career. Are they feeling those things or not?

Well, it's mixed. I mean those guys they're busy and they have their engineers and their geologists and and as we all know there's a strong difference to to lensure whether it's lawyers or engineers or geologists but we also know that's been around very long that that things get past those those licensed professionals those aren't you know endorsements from God and everything done perfectly right so um would it be appropriate to have us express that concern by virtue from my short speech there. I mean that isn't saying we're wrong to this. It's saying let's let's get this resolved.

Yeah. Appropriate place for planning and zoning. Well, my opinion is that it's absolutely for appropriate for us to point out this deficiency. Okay. My question would be for you now leaning on your special knowledge is whether or not you believe there's a problem here proposed. Well, it's the language in our regulations is concern. It's not that we're saying that there's there's a deficiency or not. We're just saying the planning and zoning is stating that there is a concern. That's all it is. Yeah. I'm asking something a little bit separate now.

Well, but it's not it's not like a you know, it's wrong or right. just the standard is concerned and that's what is to be passed on to DEQ

and and I and I say I don't think it's it's fatal in that if DQ does what what I in and my professional family think they should do they they could give this a approval with some conditions um so I guess saying is it would be appropriate for us to express our concern and then it's up to DEQ to to arbitrate whether what the technical side of it is. So what we could do is deputize me to draft a statement expressing the concern on behalf of the funds and selling and it would be a concern to DEEQ and then we could proceed to approve the the subs. I I don't I agree with you. I don't want to slow this down. I don't want to deny it because

the correction of the air that I'm thinking of the worst that would happen is the the nature of their septic system designs would change not whether they would have them or not. So that's where that's where I've got confused is how what the right path forward would be but I guess what I'm hearing is that we could express our concern go ahead and prove the preliminary path and then commit that and I think that's what we should do. Okay. I think that works. Would you agree? I agree. 100%. You agree? I agree. Yes.

So, I would be I think a motion um to direct Commissioner Hinckley um to draft a letter um expressing a concern about the wastewater study um based upon I guess the reasons articulated by him. That motion. I make a motion, Mr. Hley put forth a paper on our concerns be presented to DEEQ. Is there a second? I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. I. All right.

And then thank you for helping us all think through that. Yeah. No, that's why we're here. Good. Uh and then I'm going to recommend that we prove recommend approval with the condition uh we find here that these be granted. Second. Well, I'm not making a motion. I make a motion that we approve with the mentioned conditions the EQ given. We're talking about now the application itself here now.

Oh, okay. I we're we approve I make Okay, I make a motion that we approve um the preliminary plat application SD-10-25 adopting and incorporating staff analysis adopting and incorporating all staff analysis facts and findings of fact and finding conclusions conclusions of law. Estate in this staff report along the following additional conditions. The applicant provides a perpetual rideway easement for all subdivision roads. Yes. Is there a second? Second.

We understand we're voting on a lot of coaching of the witness there. But yeah. All right. Uh I'll do a roll call. Craig Burn. Hi Mark. I approve. And I vote yes. Also that motion carries. Okay. Well, thank you all. Um, so you're free to leave if if you like or if you really enjoy stay as long as you like. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. So, it looks like we didn't get the other person from the line. Scott, you got something? I see your hands out.

Where did it go? Yeah, unfortunately. Uh, uh, Jonas dropped off again. He's doing this remotely, so he's having some issues. Um, he's trying to rejoin again if you wouldn't mind checking that. Yeah. Well, we'll do our best. So, we will move on to the say Vor permit application LUCT-01-26. Jory, it's your first time in front of us.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Happy to be here. Um members of the commission, the applicant is Vicor and they are requesting the approval of a tower permit to install a 100 foot self-supporting communication tower. This is on a zone property located in the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 33 township 18 north range 77 west. Um, this site is primarily ranch land and is accessed via Strauss Hill Towers Road which is accessed from Dun Creek Road. So, Denton Creek Road is the main road. Um, it's really close to, well, not really close, it's to get your bearings, it's half a little over half a mile south of I80 on the western portion of the county. It's about a mile east of the western county boundary. So, just to give you an idea where it's on. Um this review process we did receive some comments most notably from one was from Jake Schneider Bel County engineer. He had comments requiring additions and revisions to the drawings and site plan. Um all those revisions were completed. And then we have Will Schultz with Wyoming Game and Fish. He had comments regarding winter range for large game species and preventing the spread of noxious weeds. Um all these full comments can be seen in the review section. Um the applicable sections of the Albony County zoning resolution are chapter 5 section 5 and chapter 5 section 9. Um all notice requirements were met for this application. So for our staff analysis, um the request from the applicant to install a 100 foot communication tower on the site will meet all minimum standards of the tower permit regulations. The proposal involves replacing an existing tower to

accommodate equipment upgrades. All the required documentation has been submitted and the applicant has addressed potential impacts. Based on staff review, the proposal is not expected to adversely affect the public interest and should have minimal impacts on the surrounding area. Findings of fact, the findings necessary for approval, applicant responses and staff analysis referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has adequately addressed the specified impacts 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 Alb County zoning resolution. Staff recommends to approve the VIOR tower permit application LUCT-01-26 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions of the law as each are stated in the staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Jory. Uh R, do you have anything? Um just a a comment about love the staff report and particularly uh these are all have a template and and we tend to just bring them in and then fill in the blanks but it's good that the template is so affirmative in its in its findings. So when I read the statement based on the information provided in department review the proposed towers not anticipated to adversely affect the public interest I think that's great and it's and it's a more affirmative statement than just saying looks good that that this says that the staff looked at this embraced the conclusion and came to this. So it's kind of a staff analysis more than just a kind of a comment. So, I just wanted to register I appreciate that that you took the writing of this seriously and made it say what it needs to say in good straightforward affirmative way.

Absolutely. Thank you. Sorry, you're off to a good start here. Yeah, I'll take it.

Um Craig, is this replacing the 80 foot tower that's currently there or in addition to? Yes. From my understanding and the white dot might be able to expand on this. There is there's a couple towers out there right now. Uh the one that they're proposing is 100 foot and then there's an 80 foot one that's right nearby, but that's the one they're removing because it's not able to accommodate the the upgrades that they want to do. So they're going to remove that one and shortly over they're going to erect a new one. So to my understanding that's what

and that is correct. This is a Jonas Osar with white dot. Can you guys can hear me? We are going to be replacing the existing 80 foot guide tower with a 100 foot self-support tower. And there are some benefits to that. It will actually look better. We are going to get rid of the guy anchors and the guy wires. So it'll just be a self-support 100 foot tower. Um I think visually it'll look actually better out there. It's going to go next to the old 80 foot tower and then the 80 foot tower will be will be removed along with the foundation and all of the guy anchor hardware that's currently there. So it'll kind of clean up sight a little bit as well. Hopefully that answers the questions. But yeah, if you have

Jonas we'll be coming to you in a moment but thank you. Barb, do you have anything to staff? No problem. No, I don't have anything. Yeah, I don't have anything. So, uh, Jonas, you're gonna be speaking on behalf of, uh, this application.

Scott, Jonas, could you could you ask that again? I'm sorry, sir. Yeah, you'll be. So, you're speaking on behalf of the application. I'm speaking for Y dot. That's correct. We are so with Y dot and then Vor is our contractor. And I just I just wanted to kind of clarify the the other gentleman's comments so you guys could Sure. Hopefully get a bigger picture, you know, of what we're doing out there. Yeah. B, do you have any questions? Nope. I'm good. Greg, no. Actually, I think it's better for the environment and the wildlife if we don't have all those gag wires guy wires on it. Barb, do you have any questions? No, I agree with Craig.

Yeah. And Jonas, I don't have any questions either. So, uh, I think that's probably all we need from you. Okay, everyone. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Well, thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, is there anyone from the public who would like to make comments? I don't see anyone. So, uh, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Move. Second. Second. All right. All in favor of closing the public hearing say I. I. The motion carries. I

uh perhaps we can have a motion on this. I don't know we have any more discussion here. a motion on I'm with Craig. I thought we' done that now. Okay, let's find the right wording unless somebody wants to beat me to it. I have it. I don't have our

I recommend the uh board of county commissioners approve the VIOR tower permit application LUCT-01-26 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis finding effect and conclusion of law as each are stated in the staff report. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion carries. I might note that it was unanimous since we didn't take it.

Yes. Uh please note that was unanimous or Jory whoever taking notes. Okay. Um we will move on then to current planning projects. Uh zoning resolution amendment ZA-3-26 information technology facilities.

Yeah. Uh Mr. chair and um members. So, this was was actually published and scheduled for public hearing. So, um we need to listen to anybody from the public that is interested in making comments on this. Um we've had some discussions kind of internally. Um just to give you a little bit more background, yesterday the board of county commissioners met um and one of the discussions was data centers. Um they had a um lady from uh I think it was Cheyenne Leads they were that that provided some information about data centers. Cheyenne leads it's their economic development

okay

folks um and um also we provided them some information about impacts of of data centers and and kind of proposed a question to them to whether they would like us to pursue um a way for data centers to basically come to us. Um, just to remind you, um, anything that's that's over $290 million in construction costs right now, um, it's preempted, um, by the state, um, industrial sighting council. So, we wouldn't be involved with anything um, as it pertains to that. um where most of these projects are probably going to be that big. Um we we they're the way that we can actually regulate them is to create a process to create industrial parks. So if we're going to create an industrial park and and one of these projects is going into industrial park, then we can regulate that. Um what was discussed was was looking into ideas of how we can we can do that which Matt and I I mean Matt came up with some good ideas basically. Um so how we can do that. Um and then if if we went forward, we would we would provide an opportunity or a conditional use permit for these data centers um that would that hit all of the the main things and so we can receive all reports and things and sufficiently review them to make sure that there's not going to be negative or you know really bad impacts to our community. Um, so with that, um, we would actually ask that we don't move forward with this. Um, because there's really not a reason

to do it. Um, I mean, if if it's going to be a large data center, it's going to be it's going to be over that threshold. Yeah. Um, the one that's in Cheyenne is I think about $1 billion from what I was told um by a state employee or whatever. Um, and so I guess just food for thought. If we want to, if you guys are wanting to go forward, we could definitely take this forward, talk to the board of county commissions about this, um, and make these few changes, but ultimately right now, I don't think it's going to make a whole a big difference just because of the cost of these things. So,

and we would be preempted and then just go to the state. So, there's not really a whole lot of danger in having something like that happen here. So, It seems kind of silly for us to waste energy and resources on something that we don't are we're not going to be able to control or regulate anyway. And I'm sure your staff has a lot of important stuff that it could do that is going to be beneficial to us compared to what this is going to be. Sure. I would say that we just put this on a back burner for the time being.

Bernie, any thoughts? uh completely consistent with where I was when we when first brought this forward. I just think it needs some some boundaries on it. As just Mr. Willis pointed out, we we don't regulate typically by water use or something. We we we do the use, but data centers cover such a wide range like residential. We should divide it up. I done a little bit of research and there are some definitions out there. 20 megawws is what we're talking about. So I think this was sort of a oh my god data centers are coming we got to do something if if you guys are comfortable with this not we need to get ahead of this

then then I'm happy to let this mature a little bit more try to bring some definitions forward to it. I'm not averse to the county having its own statement on data centers as opposed to just deferring to industrial sighting, but I like I guess I would like as I said in previous to have us define that a little bit more tightly as what that thing is,

right? Um and and if we go so what we would do is we put this on the back burner. We we're going to start working on some some more comprehensive regulations. Um and then ultimately like if we got something we like we'll take it to the board. If the board get the board is still they weren't really specific on like we'd rather industrial sighting do this or we'd rather us do this. So I think it would be at that time we could explain to them that yes we feel like we can do a good job regulating these or maybe it's a good idea to go to the industrial sighting council you know just to make they have you know start with planning and zoning what regarding regulations.

Well yeah that's how we would we would do our go to the board. No I'm saying we as an all of us if you guys approve something it will go to the board. Yeah, we're not I wasn't planning on taking any regulations to the board without coming to planning something. So because then we just have to come back here in So So remind us status quo. We don't do anything. So if we don't do anything and it meets the threshold of whatever 280 290,000 million million

uh dollars then that automatically goes to industrial sighting. Uh there's a provision in the industrial sighting act that essentially I mean it's broad. It says no no no local government you know may permit require approval require permission um license or like basically do anything regarding an industrial facility which has been granted a permit under that act. the Industrial Sighting Act, it gets a little confusing because then there's a provision in Industrial Sightings Rules and Regulations that says it shall comply with all local government um requirements. So, my understanding is that they do kind of require some zoning sign off. think if it was ever to be challenged. I mean that the way that statute is written, it's pretty straightforward in my opinion. Um and maybe maybe it's saying that you can't do it after the permit has been required, but you can do it before could be the interpretation. Anyway, um yeah, I mean basically at that point it's what we have right now is probably as far as we can go where it's like it's disallowed in any zoning district except you know commercial uh or industrial. Um but then it's allowed and you just need a zoning certificate. uh if we go into like the conditions then that's not that's probably not something that that we would have the authority to do because of the broad scope of the industrial sighting act. Uh and if you look at like their regulations, I mean it's it's pretty exhaustive of what

they're looking for. Like it's basically very similar language to our uh conditional experiment in terms of impacts um to you know economic, cultural, environmental w like everything. Uh so that would obviously be duplicating regulation by a state entity which is not allowed. Um, so that being said, if we if we go but then there's the uh exemption where if a project is within a industrial park as designated by a local government, then it's exempt from the permitting requirements except for they have to send like a site plan, a description uh of the project and like a estimated number of employees to industrial sighting commission, which isn't a whole lot. Um, and then obviously there's other DEQ permitting that would occur because industrial sighting council is within DEEQ anyway. But so if we if we take it on, it's totally on us. There's no way that we can run it like a wind energy um project or solar project where it's concurrent regulation because that was done specifically by statute. Um it would just be us ISC would be out of the picture. So we need to come up with I mean kind of like how we have with a wind energy conversion system you know if if that's the route like that level of standards for um these you know rather significant industrial developments.

So so if we took it on through the industrial park route is what you're saying that's where you when you're talking we take it all on

Yeah. I mean it seemed as though that was and I mean please listen to the um commissioner's meeting yesterday. There was a discussion towards the end uh about this. Um, I think that that was the rough indication is that that's that's what the county or the commissioners, you know, want want David just well and myself to start developing is um because that's how Laram County does it. They do it through a planned unit development which that's just how they do it. Um we don't have planning and development. Uh but you know we need to come up with some sort of mechanism to designate an industrial park because there's no statutory or guidance on how local government is to designate an industrial park. So for facilities that didn't meet the industrial sighting threshold, they would be subject to our existing

yeah zoning regulations which which say information technology facilities. Um and then as you as you said are allowed in industrial commercial and industrial. U so then they would just be considered any other commercial thing and and do they meet the criteria and so forth. Okay. I'm I'm comfortable with that.

So, go forward prosper that easier said than done because there is no there's no county in Wyoming or local government that I'm aware of that that has standards for these type of of data centers. specifically county does not. There's just sort of generalized like planning and development standards.

Well, then there's a there's a very conscious we need these this is this is industrial development, this is employment, this is taxes. I mean there there are two very different uh threads running through Wyoming policy right now. One is go go go and one is wait. So I think some of that has to be resolved at say level. Yeah. Well, I I think that takes care of that for the time being. So, thank you, David. Harvey, anything else you want to add? Anything you want to add? I should anything else? But no, I support staff uh recommendation to put it on the back burner. Yeah. Well, that's what we'll do.

Staff updates. Uh David, what do you have for us? Okay. So, a number of things were approved in uh the board of county commissioners meeting. Um we got the subdivision regulation update approved. Uh the two zoning district amendments approved. Um the Bingham application was also approved which you guys recommended denial of on. Um and just Craig asked me earlier about um whether what the recommendation was and the recommendation was your recommendation, planning zone's recommendation. Um Commissioner Gosar asked what your you know reasoning was and I provided that from what I understood um to him as well. So um so everybody was kept in the loop. It was

and I think the person that came to me confused when it was the staff recommendation to accept or to approve. I didn't provide a recommendation but okay bas once Dave or once you guys provide a recommendation the staff recommendation drops out. Okay. But if we I'm not I'm not sure the complaint that came to me. Sure. But after seeing everything, it's I think it's a lot of emotion out in the out in the area and people were looking they didn't get what they wanted. They were looking for any way to remedy it. Sure.

Yeah. And then anything else wise? Um, I guess sorry, we're we're probably not we're we've got all these regulatory things that are kind of in the hopper, but um with Joe leaving, we're doing applications right now. So, um we'll get back to those. Um I I did wanted to let you know that I did reach out to the university. Um and this is something me and Matt or Matt had talked about. I was like, we contact the university. We contact the university about the lighting standards because they have that paragraph that has to do with the university observatories. Um, and they did provide me some comments and some resources to look at um, for that particular standard. So, we'll we'll look at that and and get something put together with the lighting. So, I think the lighting was pretty close other than that paragraph, but um, and then the short-term rental stuff. Um, it will come back. It's just it will come back. Hopefully, we're going to get somebody hired. We've got all sorts of applicants for the assistant planner position and then like one

positions to fill now, right? Yes. One for the water and waste um position. So um so yeah, we're doing interviews this week. So hopefully How many applications do you have roughly? Uh I think 29. So yeah, and they're all very good. 90% of them have are going to have their master's degrees or getting or have a master's degree currently. So yeah, very impressive. Sort of. I don't know. It's a good time, I guess, to put a application out there. Or maybe they become like a planning manager and you'll be something like that. Maybe they can have my job. Not quite. Okay. Sure question.

Yeah. Oh, good. Oh. Um, how long will the range when will the range uh subdivision be on the the board's agenda? Um, it will be 21st of this month. Okay. Um, with that, I guess sort of a rewind, will you be able to have that letter our special meeting April 15th? Because as soon as the board approves the preliminary and final plat, they can send they send it off to DE, right? Or they can, right?

So, we would need that before the board's meeting. No, before So, April 15th is our special meeting, which was already scheduled. Oh. Uh, yes, that won't have to come back to us. We just approved that. You guys will need to look this over. I I'd like to have an editor of some sort. I mean, somebody will look at it, make sure I did my job well. Yeah, I can I can take a look at it. Okay. Um, you know, I can do that and then I can take a look. Well, I turned in everything to commissioners on Monday. So,

so I don't think it needs to go the way our statute is written. It is planning and zoning and then planning and zoning adopts some sort of writing and then that is to be sent with the studies to uh Okay. So, it's just going with I I get what you're saying. Yeah, sounds good. I'm I mean and they will be sending it. They'll be sending it but you we have to provide that to them to ensure that it's sent to or do we send it directly to DEQ? You can do both.

Yeah. Both would be appropriate. Now, does the board have to approve? Now, the way the way statute's written, it's like the subdivider is the one that needs to to send all of it to DEQ. So, I think I retain that language in the regulations. That's not how it works always. I think sometimes it's you. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Um so, but either way, that letter needs to be approved by planning and zoning before it's going to be sent or ready to be sent off. Uh the studies are

But that letter, we just approved it prospectively. It won't come back to this board. because this friend lost. Uh, no. I thought it was going to come back. It's not for our next meeting. Yeah. Oh, that's that's the kind that's what I heard from the motion. Well, that'd be ideal if we got time to do that. I just want to slow the that wouldn't slow the applicant down. No, because they won't if it's just because we have a special meeting already scheduled that this is going to work out. So, we would add that to the agenda. So, add that at our April 15th special. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Probably should have brought that up then. Yeah. But

well, I mean, we're kind of plowing new ground there, but let's see how this goes. I think we did it once before. Okay. Uh, I had a question. There's updates. Um, yeah, oral arguments on the on the regulation appeal were heard on March 19th. I wasn't unable to listen to those, but just uh comments from Mr. areas or even just procedurally where are we or do you want anything to say on that subject at a minimum where are we procedurally? Yeah, I guess uh we weren't recorded or they're not uh like recorded and and preserved the oral argument. I don't think that they're not.

They're not. No. Uh so it was uh it was it was lively. Um and I you know that's we're awaiting a decision. Well, so now we're awaiting a decision. It's probably 90 days. Um it's usually about 90 days from oral argument that you can be expecting that which is right while I right when I will be going on family leave. So okay thank you but but it could be two years from now they don'tate themselves to anything uh they

they sort of do there's like a national association of state I guess like appellet courts that they kind of have like they have uh criteria of like decision timelines and I don't remember what those are but they're they're like kind of standards. Okay. Un like UN type standards. Barb, do you have any commissioner comments? No. Come on now. No, that's fine. You have anything? No, I'm good. Nope, I'm covered. Thank you.

Okay. Well, I'm I'm covered, too. So, we have a special meeting as just mentioned uh a week from now in my notes from two meetings ago. I wrote down I need to put together an agenda. David, do I need to put together an agenda or you going to take care of that? The special meeting? Yeah. Yeah, I can do that. Okay. I'll I'll You've got presentation you're going to give. Mascot presentation is going to give. Well, it's one presentation. So, Matt, David in tandem. Okay. And who? In tandem. In tandem. Okay. Very good. Yeah. All right. Uh, and we would we'd greatly appreciate it. Yeah. If you all can be there because it's it's for you guys, not

Well, uh, I think we're all fine to be there. You got a a construction project for Jackson that may require me to zoom in. Uh unfortunately that's one of those where I worked at at the mercy of contractor. So if you'll be good I will make every effort to do that. Okay. Uh in that case our next regular meeting will be May 13th 5:00 pm here and this meeting's a journ. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.

That's not too bad. We just over an hour and a half. Jory won't always be like this to get the work done stories. I've seen I'm