Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

You ready, Joe? Uh, I think so. Okay. I call uh this meeting to order. December 10th, 2025 only planning commission regular meeting. Roll call. Henning here. David here. I'm here. We're all here. Very good. May I have a motion for approval of the agenda? So move. Second. Second. All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries discussion if there hadn't been any. I assume there wasn't any. I was taking a look around.

Okay. [clears throat] Right. Engage in discussion. Uh motion for approval of the minutes for November 12th, 2025. Our last meeting. I move to approve the minutes. Second. Any further discussion over this? All those in favor say I. I. I. That motion carries. Anyone have any disclosure or conflicts interest disclose? I have no no conflicts uh by way of just disclosure. I have had some communications on the short-term rentals that we can talk about when we get to that point. Okay. A little bit other information come in. So talk about that.

Yeah. Very good. Uh, in that case, uh, we will move on to applications and I believe Joe will be presenting the Bingham Zoning District Amendment CDA-10-25. Joe, hello. Um, the applicant is Brett Bingham. Uh, this is located on the RANT track 2, which is up off of Two Rivers Road. The request is to change the zoning from Ranchet uh, to Ranchet from agricultural. There were some reviews. Um, uh, conservation district commented on soils, soil degradation, reclamation, and invasive species. Full comments can be seen in the review section. Game and fish comment on wildlife friendly fencing in the Larry River. Full comments can be seen in the review section. The applicable sections of the Alb County zoning resolution is chapter 3 section 5C. Find bindings necessary for approval pursuant to the Alb County zoning resolution chapter 3 section 5C6. The board of county commissioners must make the following findings. That the applicant has provided a site plan that's required by the planning department. That the zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestions of the al county contra comprehensive plan um and other applicable land use plans of Al County. Um and that the applicant has demonstrated that the adjudicative zoning district amendment meets the following impacts. Um, and pursuant to chapter 3, section 5C3 of the Albany County zoning resolution, the applicant has provided the required notice by posted sign, publication, and certified mailing. Um, this parcel is located within both priority growth area 3 and priority growth area 4. Um staff analysis. The planning department believes that the proposed zoning district amendment generally follows suggestions of the Albany County comprehensive plan as part of this property is located within PGA3 and is near a concentration of existing

residences. Has existing county road and existing utility lines and priority growth area for calls for lowdensity residential uses. PL is a fact. The findings necessary for approval and applicant responses referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has met 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 zoning resolution and the staff recommendation is to approve the Bingham zoning district amendment ZDA 1025 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report. Before we get start questions I have one general question uh the map showing priority growth area three in the back.

Yeah. Is that area defined in the comprehensive plan? Uh, party growth area three. Yeah. Well, I mean, the actual physical area is shown on the map. I [clears throat] don't think I've ever seen it before. I believe so, but well, there were some additions to the comprehensive plan. I thought we just sort of had a node or came later and sort of a general area and that shows a very, you know, well- [clears throat] definfined area.

Yeah. So there is a the when it was originally adopted it was little it was a dot. Yeah it was a note on the the uh on the map. Um but after that um two different maps were put in there. I think it was like 3.11 and 3.12 um that have better definment of that. So, um, what Joe's using is is what was defined in that subsequent amendment to the comprehensive plan.

Okay, great. Um, so questions for staff starting with burn. Um, and just to quickly follow up on that for those who might be following the the comp plan, there's the printed one and then there's been a number of things that get added to it. So, if you want to know what the comp plan says, I don't know what's the latest edition, but you got to go find it online, I guess. Is that how you Yeah, the the one online is the current is how you see what's actually going on. That's good to um Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I was trying to just match up my various versions of the regs and I thought we were in chapter 3, section 5G rather than C. Did I am I confused or we got our references? Um I don't have the Rex right in front of me. Um but I

I'm looking for the place where it says these are the findings and I thought I found it. G just to get our references straight. So we can just put that in as an editorial comment. Anybody have the ranks there at their fingertips? [clears throat] Right. 35 section three. Yeah. 35. I thought G is where I found the finding. Uh C is the adjudicative zoning district. Yeah. C is the adjudicate which is what we're doing zoning district.

Okay. But if we want to talk about the findings, am I right? Those are in G where it says you have to do. It's under C6. It looks like I'm looking for the part where it says you have to be there. There is no G. Are you looking at an older version? So yeah, I am okay. I'm so adjudicative versus Yeah, we've changed those. Okay. So C6 is where the findings are.

Okay. I'm I I was falling prey to my own concern there. Wrong wrong version. Um okay. Uh then as I'm going through these the findings, uh yeah, there are four adjacent subdivisions. All of those are on the other side of the river, the other side of the railroad, the other side of the highway. Is that is what it looked like to me. The the ones that the applicant has referenced by way of of compatibility. I believe one of them is there are there are homes on there. They are touching. I believe I think all the little stuff just I guess just across the railroad tracks.

Yeah. And I think that shows and then to the to the west those are subdivision but they're the bigger bigger parts. Yeah. Okay. The subdivisions that are referenced here are almost all the ones off to the east. Yeah. I [clears throat] think so.

Um then that the economic impacts. This is just a fine point, but uh there was a study done some years back um that demonstrated that any of these rural subdivisions are do not, as it's stated here, increase tax revenues for the county. They're a net loss. I don't know if that study has been updated or if you guys follow that at all, but at one point somebody ran those calculations and concluded that the increased tax revenue that's generated is less than the cost of providing services. Is that are you familiar with that study? I am not. Uh I will point out that that

I mean there yeah there have been studies by the university in the past but I haven't seen anything in the last 10 years. So it was it was an older study I guess I'm asking if that had been updated your knowledge. Not that I'm aware of. I haven't really looked for it either. So, um, yeah,

I think it's a relevant background concept that if there has been a new one, we ought to bring that forward. Um, then I get to the statement about the the priority growth areas. And I I think it would be kind of fairer to the presentation to point out that this is in priority growth area 4. There's a tiny little sliver that's in the flood plane that says in PGA3. So I think to be fair to the PGA map it would be prior to go through four sound reasonable to you.

I mean consider it whatever you want but part of the parcel is in prior three. Well, I was thinking then the description of the part of our role is to help the board understand and so if we could help you guys prepare a staff report that is more informative of the application I think that would be useful and my suggestion is that the staff report would be more useful if it were to point out that this is a basically a priority growth area 4 area despite the fact there's the one sliver in the flood planets in priority growth area three which you wouldn't be developing anyway. So I would just add that to your as an editorial comment on the staff report and I think it is significant. Uh right above that uh rural residential is described as being five acres that's changed again. Maybe I'm caught up in updates and so forth. Are you referring to

underneath the comp plan? Yeah, I mean the staff report there at at 3.6 six. Right. So that that's in the comp plan. That's directly from the comp plan. Yeah. Would it be useful again for the reader to point out that what we now call rural residential isn't that this cover this rural residential from the comp plan covers ranchet rural residential and a residential. So any anything that deals with either of those three that will be the statement that's included in the staff report.

Well, all right. Again, my my coaching would be to to be a little more helpful to those who may not know all those details. Um because am I correct that what we call rural rural residential zoning now is 10 acres. Uh yes.

Okay. Um and then just again as a pointing it out and you can respond or not as you as you think appropriate the when we're quoting from the priority growth 4 uh from the comp plan and it encourages low density residential uses. I think it's relevant that we now have in our zoning portfolio two lower residential densities than Ranchet. That is correct, isn't it? Sure.

Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. I think those are the only questions I have. Mr. Chair, thank you Laura. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a couple questions. Um, so Jake Schneider, the county engineer, did not review this. No, it's a zoning change. Okay. He generally he normally doesn't.

Okay. Okay. Um I guess I'm I was struck by the percentage of the property pointed out in the Laramie um rivers conservation district uh letter that are prone to flooding. And I wondered what [clears throat] what did you do to look at the Oh, no. It's not opening on my iPad. The the flood the the flood plane resolution seems to be all about the economic impacts from im, you know, not only changing how water flow [clears throat] goes to avoid flooding or increasing the chance of flooding, but also it addresses land uses in in places that are prone to flooding. And I know that of the vast majority of the property is outside of the 100red-year flood plane that now nowadays you wonder how valid our hundred-year flood planes are. But I know we don't have replacement maps. They are what's on the books. Um, but there there's a high percentage of the land that has soils that are determined to flood frequently. And that seems to me to be an economic uh concern that wasn't explored in the in the evaluation um in the in the staff report that we have in front of us. And so I'm I'm kind of wondering about that. Um, what what do you think about that, Joe?

Um, I guess anything drainage wise will be taken care of at a subdivision stage. Um, if they wanted to develop within a flood plane, um, they would have to do a flood de a flood plane development application through our office. Um, so I guess I'm [snorts] not sure that a zoning change like a flood plane has any effect on a zoning change. Um, I guess at this stage,

yeah. No, I I see I see that the idea of addressing some of these issues at the subdivision phase um is, you know, often what what you guys are telling us about zoning changes when we bring up concerns. Um, but I'm I'm just concerned that the density being proposed for the amount of acreage that's prone to flooding maybe just sets up a a conflict to begin with for trying to figure out the subdivision step and whether or not the ranchet size lots would be more amendable to working with what's what's out there in a way that doesn't Um,

rural. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Rural res. Here we go. Getting our [laughter] [clears throat]

mixed up. Um, so rural rural residential, the larger lot size. Um, seems like it would provide a safety factor for when you get to the subdivision phase. being able to lay out a subdivision that does not put future homeowners in um in a bad position because I mean the uh the Larmy River Conservation District letter was was pretty clear about the soil map indicating what was it something like 70% of the land would be considered not suitable for dwellings. Um, and so I just it just seems like we're we're creating a future um train wreck kind of by by saying to just leave it all to the subdivision stage, but I know I know that is often where where you guys um say you can solve these kinds of problems.

Uh, sure. Uh so I guess I will start off with saying that um this is what the applicant wanted to apply for. Um you know, you can't just change it on the fly to whatever other zoning district. I will also say that by no means am I uh an expert on soils or anything like that, but I kind of I read the report that the 70.5% of the property that's you know Bosler barolic, however you say that other word. Um basically that they they don't know how it reacts. That's how I read it. I don't know if that's right. Um but so I I guess I think that assuming that the 70% is going to flood or it you know has higher potential to flood or something like that. I think we're reaching for something that I don't know that is that's what's being said.

Yeah. I mean, just just like if you do, you know, a search of the word flood in in the PDF, you know, it it it gets to some of these soil units and and says, you know, floods frequently, floods frequently. Um, so it just it just I mean if if the flood plane resolution is sort of saying, hey, this this the purpose of this whole resolution is to Oh, David's got his hand up. I should just like stop here.

You're good. Oh, just just the the you know the findings of fact in laid [clears throat] out in that resolution are all about um protecting from economic fault. Um and and I and I just I guess ultimately I I don't feel like what's in front of us is addressing that piece of the findings that we have to make for a zoning change. Um, if the answer is just, well, we'll worry about it at the subdivision stage. I guess I I'm kind of, you know, it's a finding here at this at this stage of things and I I just didn't feel like it was like [clears throat] addressed in a in a in any kind of way at all.

Okay, David. Sorry. [laughter]

Right here. Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I I mean, I'm just looking at the map. Um the majority of this property is not in a flood plane. Um now if it's the soils um the soils uh report that was done by by them is if that's what you're going by um you know unfortunately it's we you know in our our analysis if if this whole property was in the flood plane we would definitely you know really consider whether we want to recommend approval of something like this. Um but where most of it's not um and unfortunately that's where it gets to like when you get to the subdivision phase then then the wastewater systems will be looked at. You know DEEQ a report will be done. They will have to review that report and determine whether wastewater systems can be be put on the property. Um but with our process now we don't have that information. So is that the point at which um Jake Schneider would get involved to look at um like suitability for placing a structure on on the soils?

Yeah. And and he would if he wanted to he could, you know, require like no build zones and different locations and that kind of stuff. So I know you don't like it, but that'll be taken care of. [laughter] Okay. Thanks. That that's that's Can I follow up because my question is related. Oh, no. I've done [laughter] Thank you. So, in 2010, this whole area flooded.

Do we have a photographs, maps of that flood? because I drove that road in 2010 and I looked online especially again when I saw the application and if my memory is correct the whole place was flooded not just the flood plane. So if we have any documentation of the 2010 and it wasn't a 100year flood it was a bad flood. Anybody remember June 2010?

Yeah. the the water was at the level of the old bridge over the L River in town. Um [clears throat] if we have any documentation of the flood of this area, that would be useful for us to be able to say, hey, you know, I understand the subdivision stage. I'm not questioning the subdivision stage. I'm just saying um I was surprised that the uh liberal district did not put any of these uh maps in the report because I distinctly remember the whole place was flooded.

Yeah, I I'm not sure. I wasn't here. I wasn't aware that that happened. Um obviously I would have loved to comment if that if they were concerned about that. Um but we didn't receive any. So, I don't know. June 2010, we had a big rainstorm and all the snow is melted and the whole area was flooded. Sure. No, I BELIEVE YOU. I JUST

THEY HAD TO EVACUATE. THEY had to evacuate people. They had to rescue cattle. It It was a bad flood. So, I'm just asking for not just for us. We are not going to be personally affected by this, but for the people interested in or the applicants, I should say. Sure. So, you're not aware of any? I I didn't receive any comments. I wasn't aware of, you know, that flood. Um, and I don't know if we have any maps or anything. Our office doesn't mean like we could check with the emergency management, but I don't know if that was part of the county at the time. So, and these get sent to EMA, so I don't know. I'm surprised that Yeah, I

They've commented on previous floods before, so I don't I don't because I went online and I tried to look for maps for the flood myself and I couldn't find any. So, I thought maybe you guys have something. No, it's too bad. Anything else? No, that was my um request is for ranchet, right? Not rural residential. Yes. Yeah. Okay. And maybe I mean it is in fact a question. I'll let you or I can go after questions.

Okay. And I mean in fact again there I mean this is a mix of PGA 4 and three. It's not PGA4. That's sort of going after what B asked. I mean I agree that's a mix of PJ four and three. I mean that's that's what y'all looked at and concluded as well. Right. Yes. Okay Diana. Okay. Yeah. So it is PGA three and four but mostly four.

Yeah. And that says that it's in environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, um, and that low density residential uses are encouraged. And I'm concerned that ranchet is not particularly low density. And also the, um, the game and fish comment about septic and well impacts on the river. I don't know how high the water table is out there, but if it's zoned ranch yet, do they, you know, can they by right put 28 houses out there or do those lots have to before you can put a septic tank in, you have to be able to get a DEQ approval? How does that work? I mean, does it become a thing by right that you can put those houses in even if these other concerns aren't met at that point?

So, [clears throat] I guess I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll try and answer. Um, so anything larger than than three lot than a three lot subdivision would have to do all of the the reports that go to DEEQ. Um and at that time if if they feel that something needs to be put on the plat where like for example the paddics plat they have you know must use advanced septic and mounted systems are whatever and so then if that's what happens it has to be put on the plat that's what is required of that subdivision for ever Um, if they don't say anything, then they would have to come in and do the normal septic permit just like a normal any other application.

Okay. So, I mean, so the uh conservation district said that a whole lot of this is not suitable for houses with basement. If you can't have a basement, can you have a septic system? How deep are they? I don't know. And how high is the water table there? And how if it's if it's zoned ranchet, are they then entitled to put that density of houses out there even if it turns out the water tables too high, the soils really are unsuitable? I mean, if all of that happens and they have this zoning, how does that get resolved?

I mean, I I assume that they could put a no basement allowed stipulation on the plat. Um, they could do mounted systems. Um, I mean there's different ways. David can maybe answer better.

Well, I was just gonna say during again during the the uh preliminary reports they do for DEEQ, they do have to do like deep deep pits like 8 to 10 feet down. So at that time they would determine where the water table is. I mean, if it's less than if it's more than 10 feet, they wouldn't know. But, um, but if they go down 10 feet in the water tables and so far, you know, the the rule is for um septic systems, I think it's you have to have at least 4 feet of um basically dirt um between there and and groundwater or bedrock or or whatever. And then they after that you can put your septic system. If there's two feet uh you got two feet and then you hit the water table then you'd have to to do a mounted system you'd put two feet more and then you put you know you'd mount it over the

Oh, I see. So you build a hill to get the elevation. Okay. Yeah. It's it's all doable um through engineering and they just have to meet those those standards. So yeah. So, even if the soils are like super horrible, I mean, people can bring in new soil to do that. I mean, there's, you know, you can do what you need to do to to meet the regulations. They're the regulations are written basically to to give you options. So, anything else, D?

Well, then I just wonder if you bring in a whole lot of soil, then we're concerned about sediment going into the river and we just it seems like a sensitive area. This seems like a dense zoning. Um that's so that's my concern and it is mostly PGA 4. It is partly three but it's mostly four. Right. It's not PHA4. It is a mix. It is a mix. It's not even mix. No.

As far as density questions, obviously nothing is set in stone at this point. Things can change, but you can ask the applicant what they're thinking. Any further questions? Burn. Do you have anything else? No. Good. Okay. I assume the applicant is here. Yeah. We'll place that forward and if you have anything you'd like to add at this point, go ahead. Otherwise, we'll have some questions for you.

All righty. Sounds good. Um, the only thing I'd add is [clears throat] I've grown up on Two Rivers Road. My personal house is just down the road about 7,700 feet from the proposed property. I remember when the river flooded during that time and the flood plane was completely covered there, but I do remember all the the high ground that was outside of the flood plane did remain dry during that time. Any questions? Okay, one more start. Oh, he answered my question. All right. Well, very good, Diana. [clears throat] Um, I don't think I have anything different than what I just said. tomorrow.

Well, I guess I'm gonna ask you questions that are immaterial to our decision making. [laughter] Okay. But, um, ask away. Have you have you been thinking down the road as to what how you would lay out the the lots on this property? I have. And

and I don't want to I know you mentioned like super high density of 28 houses. I don't want to go that direction at all. I'm thinking more of five to nine acre lots and then strategically placing those to not just cram them in there, but to make something that's more visually appealing for residents, giving everyone a good portion to be able to have suitable ground to build houses on so that no one's like sandwiched with a lot in the flood plane. That wouldn't be fair to anyone or work good for anyone in that situation. And so I'd be more in the range of like 10 to 15 dwellings is what I'm looking to do out there.

Thanks. Thanks for answering my immaterial question for sure. And that would also be dependent. I've talked with hydro geologists like Ben Jordan on different situations out there. And I've also been in contact with different engineers to be able to see their recommendation for layouts that'll work better for accessing from the county road and so forth. Thanks.

Um, yeah, again a followup and I I would say it's irrelevant. I think it's context. Obviously, from the questions you've heard so far, there's concern about the density. So, my question is, have you looked at some of the lower density zonings and found that those would not fit your your your goal when when you say uh 10 to 15 dwellings, for example, that would be accommodated within a a lower density zoning. Yeah, some of them some of the front lots I have neighbors just to the side of me. My lot itself is around five acres and so I wanted to put some of those front lots around that five acre point. I thought they looked really nice with a house situated on them and it gives residents the area they need and then the back lots I'd like to make bigger but with that going down to five acres in front is what influenced my decision to go with ranchets. and and you you're aware of that say the rural rural residential zoning allows five air lots as long as the average is 10 but you

I looked at that um I figured ranch out would be the best thing to pursue at the time. Okay, fair. Thank you. That's all I had. I don't have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. So, uh we will conduct a public hearing I believe. So anyone in the public would like to make a comment on this application,

please step forward, state your name, where you're from. My name is Bo Bingham. I also live on Cers as well. I noticed a couple of the questions dealt with soil quality just a little bit. And uh Brett is my son there, but he we just recently built his house this last year. as you're talking about the different septic issues out there. We actually had the soil tested in order to put a septic tank in out there. Um just how did you say 1400 ft from the property is is where his house is located. So um we've been able to go through the regulations that way to to make sure the soil is suitable for septic use at that time. And my house is close to there as well in regards to the flooding plane. And I love the I loved your question about the because that was a great flood. It was pretty impressive. Um but uh the the majority of the property is not was not affected during that uh where the building where Brad is proposing that that would not be influenced uh by the flood. It was it was up to the river in the lower area but the higher area did not receive any water at that time. Um and that's where both of our houses are located. So thank you. [laughter]

Actually would I ask one other question? Sure. Absolutely. Um, yeah, out in that area, uh, I think some of the land is kind of bitched above the river. And is this property, you know, part of the does it have a there and is it above that? Yeah, I love that. That's a great description, actually. So, it does sit on kind of a bench um the the river on the flight plane, that 100 flight plane falls down in the the river area there and there's a little bench that comes up and that's why it's protected a little bit from that flight area associated with is that bench. So, great question. Um, anyone else would like to make a comment from the public? We have a motion to close the public hearing.

I move we close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. So, let's have some discussion beginning with Mora. [clears throat]

All my concerns will be addressed at the sub. [laughter] Um, yeah, I I I don't think it's any surprise. I'm I'm concerned about that density. Um, I think it's fair to describe the proposal as being PGA4. There is it's not incorrect to say there is a bit of PGA3 in it, but I think that's that's really not the way it should be thought about. Um and I note that we have now I think to good purpose u defined some two higher or two lower density residential zonings to allow the county to buffer between straight a 35 acre and the much higher density lots that that our ranchet provides. Uh [clears throat] I'm also looking at the map and noting that all of the lots on the west side of the of the tracks, let's use the tracks and on the west side of the river are uh the smallest one I could find was 10 and most of them are in the 30s, 40s and 50s. Um, so I do not agree with the staff report that it is compatible with surrounding uh land use nor that it is compatible with the directions of the comprehensive plan with respect to priority growth area 4. Um, so I would be much more receptive to the proposal were it to take advantage of one of the lowered density residential zonings that that we have provided and and would would oppose the application as it has been presented to us. Again, noting as we always do that we're not approving a subdivision here. We're approving an envelope of possibilities which would be 30 new residential lots within that area along the side of the river and along

Two Rivers Road. I don't think that is compatible with what we got there now. So there's my two bits of risk. There's more. That's okay for So I'm I'm still concerned about uh the sensitivity of the area in terms of of flooding. And I agree with uh Burn that a lower density would allow to put the buildings away further away from the flood plan. So I would burn encourage a low density proposal on both of them. Diana.

Yeah. Um Mr. Hinckley pretty much said that I that I feel about [clears throat] this. I would be much more supportive of lower density even though that is the plan to have lower density when we have to approve the higher density and that I have. Okay. It's just too much space for a number of reasons.

Well, I generally favor this. Um um the area outlined as PGA3 could be expanded or changed. I mean this is an area marked for growth. Um and I would not expect that to remain fixed over time. Uh I don't see a problem with the soils uh particularly with regards to the zoning dis uh district amendment. uh those things can be addressed in time by architects and engineers if uh there's soil problems. I mean [clears throat] that happens all the time when people develop stuff notably think about soil problems with expensive soils down Colorado that that plague developers over the years. So I mean so that this is another thing and around here too there also expensive soils and um I mean I think in the nearby vicinity you know within less than a mile there are plenty of properties that are 5 acres or less and to me compatibility of uses is not lot size dependent or parcel size dependent but the use itself we're talking about residential uses. Um, so in some I would I would favor approving this recommend.

Any further discussion? I would just say that it may change the zoning for the plan could change in the future, but it doesn't change now. Yeah, that's our guiding document. Yeah. No, right now it says [laughter] low density and that this is not low density.

So, uh, if there's no further discussion, would someone like to make a motion? I can do that. I move we recommend that the board of county commissioners deny the Bingham zoning district amendment CDA 1025 based on applicants failure to demonstrate that the proposed zoning amendment complies with the criteria specified in Melbourne County zoning resolution chapter 3 section 5 um as follows does not follow the guidelines of the comp plan and is not compatible with surrounding properties. Um, I was referencing C2 and 3A, but if that reference is incorrect, we can straighten that out. That's the substance of mine. Is there a second?

I second. Is there any further discussion? We will receive a vote to that case. Um, let's go. We're The motion is to deny. The motion is deny. Mr. Hingley I. Mr. David I. Miss Hanning I

and I vote no. So that motion carries. Um so thank you all. Uh thank you the applicant and of course this is our recommendation. County commissioners will decide this one or another. Um so with that are there is there anyone here says who would like to make some citizen comment? I don't see anyone and yall free to leave y'all. You can say also but thank you for your time.

Thank you. [clears throat] We don't have any assistant comments looks like. So we will move on to current planning projects. Uh begin with short-term rental discussion. [clears throat]

David, Mr. Chair. Um [clears throat] thank you. Um, so just to preface all of this, what I've provided today doesn't mean that we're not going forward with what we discussed last time. Um, we just haven't had a chance to get through um, definitions, um, the land use table and all of that. But as we were thinking about it, um, we did decide that it would be might be prudent to try to get some more information from some folks. We actually have a survey out. I don't know if any of you guys have happened to see it. Um, but there's a survey out. We've collected approximately 100 responses from the survey concerning short-term rentals. Um, when I come we come back next next month, I should have those results for you. Um, just to I will tell you it's not scientific. It's this is just for information purposes. uh maybe just to kind of get a feel real feel of what people are thinking and saying about this subject. Um the the memo um came as we were thinking about the comprehensive plan um and how you was developed with robust engagement, public engagement. We collected a lot of information from a lot of people about a lot of things. Um when we did it, however, short-term rentals weren't a thing. Um, and so they weren't that's not something that was addressed or even thought about at that time. That's it's been a more recent phenomenon, I would say. Um,

well, let's say a more recent phenomena around Centennial Hall. Sure. I mean, obviously they've been around for a while, but the VRBOs and the Airbnbs are pretty recent, I would say. Well, that's within the last Well, that's within the age of internet. Um, like in fact, short-term rentals have been around for forever and maybe not here, but I mean anytime you might have wanted to rent a beach house pretty much on any beach in the United States, you know, you could rent it for a week. Sure. It's really common. So, they actually been around for a long time.

So, um, so anyways, yeah. Um, but we haven't addressed them or thought about them other than what we we hear every like once every couple years or whatever. Um, I guess our recommendation would be to to think about this um think about potentially doing a comprehensive plan amendment um for this purpose and to gather information from community members um in I guess a more robust way than than my survey that I've that I that we've sent out um and and then potentially come up with an amendment to that before we go forward with with changing um the zoning standards. Um, that being said, this is just for discussion. We're still moving down down the same road. Um, we just haven't put together that package of information for you to look at um, specifically that we discussed last time. So, so anyways, those are my comments, my thoughts. If you have questions for me, happy to answer them. If you just want to move on to the next item, we're like, "Okay, good, thanks. We're done." That's fine, too. So,

yeah. So, I'm I'm just going to suggest we have a little bit of a discussion and talk about a little more. Uh, it could be free form or I can go one one person at a time. What what your preferences might be is fine. So, what might prefer I'd like a little discussion of it, but I'm happy to defer to any of my colleagues. Okay. Well, why don't I call you one at a time and uh we can we can have us at least reform in terms of interjecting comments or questions and I think that'll work well enough. So, uh, Diane, would you like to begin? [laughter] Well, so we have talked about the comp plan being somewhat outdated on a number of issues, right?

So, are you proposing update the whole thing before? No, that's it. It would be just this specific area to look at. Okay. So, it wouldn't be the huge project, right? I would love to do the huge project because I do feel like it's outdated and it needs to be updated but um you know for staff to do that without help of a consultant I just I mean consultants have all the tools I mean they have the the surveying tools the engagement tools where staff it would be just hard but like for some a little project like this we could probably handle it so okay I just wanted to get a scale of what's being proposed yeah yeah yeah no just just this kind of

Yeah. Yeah. So, it's a big project have to be like budgeted and planned for. That would be what I would recommend if we do that in the future. Yes. Okay. But we could do this with the current budget constraints.

Yeah, we could do that instead. So I [clears throat] uh was super sick and left the meeting [laughter] last month and [clears throat] tried to follow uh the recording but can you just recap what the main tops topics are that we're trying to is it what how do we define short-term how uh you know what are the things we're trying to what are we gathering information about? So what came out of this group and you guys that were here obviously you can correct me. Um I did review it recently. Um but was was basically what was discussed was a definition or definitions um to you know define I mean because what's been pointed out um is like well Airbnb short-term rentals they're all short-term rentals right? They're all overnight. what's the difference? And we don't have any definitions for any of those in our regulations. Um, and hotels and Airbnbs are in the land use table and short-term rentals are not. So, that was the kind of the other issue is so do the definitions and then put short-term rentals and then determine how they they go on the land use table. U, I think those are the two things that we really discussed. I mean, there's a lot of things that were brought up by the public. A lot of things that, you know, snowmoilers driving on somebody else's property, that's a sheriff issue. That has nothing to do with us. Um, you know, loud parties, we don't have a noise ordinance unless you're putting up wind turbines. Um, so, you know, those types of things. Um, but and then it it

was I guess the the to put it I think this is what it was is just kind of get the put the backbone in there and if we ever need to put some flesh on it we do it in the future. But yeah, great. So, [clears throat] so I think this is uh really very important. What are what are the mechanisms for collecting the data? Are you looking at what other places are doing? Are you asking the public to help define uh are we looking at input from dot on traffic? I mean what what what are the sources of information?

Okay, so the information that we're collecting is basically what are other people doing? How are they defining short-term rentals and how are they kind of regulating those? Um, what I'm looking with the the public survey that's out, it's it's more just getting the impression of like, do you like these? Should they be regulated? Should how how much should they be be regulated? Um, so we're not looking at like yeah, traffic studies or anything like that. So,

is there a way to get some information on like things that might affect the community? I'm thinking Centennial but uh you know parking um I I myself stayed in like many others and you know parking was an issue. Mhm. So is there my point is what are the points of information we're collecting to to help us define or make a regulation or whatever.

Well, so I I mean that wasn't specified by anybody to collect specific, you know, parking data or traffic data or um so we're not really looking at that, right? I mean, if there's things to look at and collect. I mean, when it comes to parking, I mean, I don't I don't know what I mean, for a short-term rental, it would be the same as like a residence, which is kind of their driveway, I would imagine, but I don't know. Um, yeah. I mean, if there's specific thing, you know, pieces of data you want us to look at, we we'd be happy to try. I'm not sure what it would look like or what that would be. So,

okay. [clears throat] Thanks, B. Um, yeah. And I'll I'll uh seeing that memo, I had some correspondence with Mr. Girch. I and perhaps I reacted to it as that there was decision to just let this go until some later date and I reassured that no no that you you didn't share the whole thing with us. the survey I'm curious about. Is that is that something that just went up on the website or how did you distribute that or did I miss it or

Yeah, so um it was I mean it was just kind of thrown together. We're using um Microsoft Forms to do it um which is within our Microsoft platform. Um but we we put it on the website um I've sent it out to um all the fire districts that we had emails for to send out to their people. um sent it to the e-post which is a centennial e news thing. We sent it to uh some folks in ty sighting that have like a little newsletter. Um we've sent it now I don't know if this has went out through those. I sent it to the people that run these. There's a Facebook page that's in the harmony area. I sent it to them um to to post on their their Facebook page. I don't know if they did or not. Um but like I I

on our Facebook and it and it's on our Facebook page. So, I tried to hit some of these groups that are out in the county. Um, and hopefully they've passed it on and um I've got about a hundred, you know, responses. So, you try the road districts. Who? Road district. Oh, no. I don't think I have that. I mean, I could That's a good idea. port. Each of them have maybe I'll look at the road districts in the water and sewer districts as well and see if that's a good idea just to look at some other folks to to shoot an email and I mean there's just a link or a a QR code to use to to take it. So So if we want to see it, we should just look on the website. Yeah.

And and part of my question displays my abject ignorance of social media. [laughter] There aren't enough hours in my day to do much Facebooking. So I don't think that's a bad thing. It sounds like

not [laughter] good job. So no, thank you for that. Um so um some of this will be a recap for for uh David. Um I guess the first point is we're trying to see is this a big problem or not. But I think that approach is itself problematic because it it implies that we don't do anything until it is a big problem. And as as the counselor always advised us um you can't go back then it's all grandfathered. So I do think that there is an argument to be made for uh getting ahead of these things to the extent we can. We don't just go chasing shadows but

but uh it is a a growing issue and I approve of us trying to get out in front of it rather than waiting until everybody's screaming each other's throats. Um, to your point, Mr. Chairman, that the this the spectrum of short-term rentals is is now been fully populated between the the verbos, uh, VBOs, uh, and then things that are, which is just a a brokerage. It's not a thing. And so is Airbnbs. Then there's conventional what we might call conventional bed breakfasts, hotels. Every motel I've stayed at in the last 10 years has breakfast. So, uh, that's why my concern about a first step is is defining things like hotels, motel versus bed and breakfast versus other short-term rentals. Um, do you have any idea why bed and breakfast were put on the lead use table as a conditional use? Where did that even come from?

It was there before I got here. Well, I don't know the background. Okay. So, um, and and I guess where my thoughts go there is that that this having brought to our attention, I think is exposed a problem with the current setup. Um, and and maybe that's solved by getting rid of bed and breakfast as a thing on the on the table. I mean, I just we don't have to solve all these to to to get at that. It's unfair, it seems to me, for people to come in and ask you, do I need a conditional use permit? What do you tell them? You just do you ignore that that line at the table or if they they're doing a bed and breakfast.

Well, if I come in and say, "I'm my kids are all gone. I got a big house and I want to start renting out rooms and do I need a permit from the county?" Then do you ask me whether I plan on serving breakfast or not? Or how does that how do you handle that discussion? Do I need a conditional use permit or not? I'd like to have I would like the answer to be no. I mean, if somebody came in and they said they're doing a bed and breakfast specifically, then we would say you have to do a conditional use. If somebody says that we're just doing a short-term rental, then we would say there's no rules.

Well, I'm not I I don't have to identify it as anything. I'm going to describe a situation where I want to rent out my room and then I'm going to ask you what of my activities triggers the need for a condition use. I mean, what I do is I I I mean, with with any use, we just ask the questions that we need to ask and make our best decision on that. So, on what their their answers are. Um, if there's a building that's that's part of it, then obviously we have the plans and things to look at to make sure that they're doing what they're saying they're doing. Um, but but yeah, we do the best we can. That's

Well, but I guess I'm I'm suggesting that we don't have a good answer. We we view the county to what's a bed and breakfast. I need a conditional use permit if I'm what giving him a fried egg in the morning versus not. Is that is that what triggers the need for a conditional use permit? And and my question is somewhat facitious. I'm thinking the answer is we don't have an answer. Am I wrong? Definition of bed and breakfast is an establishment offering lodging and breakfast. Okay, that would Airbnbs and VBOs generally at do not have an expectation that breakfast will be served to you. Hilton garden endos.

That's a hotel, right? So, I said Airbnb or VRB short-term rentals.

Okay. Well, then then I go back to the discussion that we did have a lot of um and my understanding from um the commissioners at the far end of the table was that the thing they were most sensitive to centennial was they wanted an on-site representative. That that was what we we thought, yeah, that makes a good sense. So, what we have right now is is somewhat backwards from that. we are requiring you to have a condition use permit if you do have somebody there looking after the place providing breakfast and not if you don't. So that's backwards. So so that's what suggests to me that that we should delete bed and breakfast from our land use table um unless we have some good reason for it to be there rather than just inertia. um uh to try to uh well Brett just a few more thoughts I' I'd like to share with you in terms of what we could do going forward. one would be to strike that from the table because it is inconsistent with what I understand our interests and and I would suggest that we don't have a a a definition that's clear enough to satisfy me that I could say well that's a bet and breakfast and that is not if it's hinging on what counts as breakfast that seems pretty precious so that's why I'd get rid of that or replace bed and breakfast in the table with short-term And the state does provide us a definition of short-term rental. We haven't adopted it to zoning yet, but for purposes of application of the lodging tax, there is statutory language available to us that would define a thing called short-term rental. So that is a thing. Bed and breakfast, I don't think is with all due respect for for for Mr. um so we could change the land use table to say short-term rental and adopt the state's definition of short-term rental. Um, and then I'm also looking at the home business, which I

think is compatible with what we heard last time of if the primary use of the of the building is commercial, then it isn't a home business. So, if we had a situation where short-term rentals were exempted from from zoning restrictions under the umbrella of home business, I think that would satisfy a lot of the concerns that again throwing these out for for your reaction. Um, but I do think that the current regulations are objectionable for those reasons.

I I mean I I agree that we should define them. I I think bed and breakfasts are more like an in than anything. Like you you could have, you know, you could have multiple families that are staying in the same the same house. Um, so you have actually more traffic than potentially than a a short-term rental would. um you are having people there that are that are dining together and um there's health things with eating food in a you know so I mean there's more stuff that goes into a bed and breakfast than just listing a place to stay overnight and just staying there and then leaving you know um typically without breakfast and it's typically like one family and I mean I guess it doesn't have to be because there are like Airbnb I think that's how it started was like you they're renting rooms. But, um, I mean, I I would I mean, if we're going to go down that route, I would would leave bed and breakfast, but just define it so that we know where the sideboards are on each of these things and have obviously a definition for short-term rentals.

Although, I guess where that would be going is we would be defining it contrary to what we heard our [clears throat] interests were last month. We we would like to make it easier to have a a short-term rental where there was an on-site representative there that was keeping people from shooting up the countryside and doing all the things that we hear from that would be preferable to us which a lot of that is outside of our realm though like the news some of that nuisance stuff going on other people's properties trespassing right but I think we could

shooting like less in a situation where you have nonsai representatives and some of the people who have attempted to to find short-term rental and regulate them around the country have have keyed it to is there a representative on site or one who's designated within 10 minutes or so. That's what we see when we look at short-term rental things around the country. So, uh, and like I say, I'm sympathetic to that and I thought I heard a lot of sympathy for that from from this commission, which means if you were to define bed and breakfast in the way that you seem to be headed, um, that would be the opposite of of what we seem to think it would be best for the citizens of Albony County, which is why I'd like to get rid of bed and breakfast. um rather than forcing you to decide whether a a buffet with with few granola bars and a c and a coffee is that a breakfast. I mean that all just gets so smeared out. Whereas short-term rentals is a thing and in home business is a thing that is currently defined. Um

event breakfasts are a thing too. They're across the nation. We may not define them but but I've stayed I mean I've stayed in a lot of places. In some cases, it's a it's a room um and the person is there and they ask a dog for breakfast in the morning. Some places it's a it's a room where there's kind of a buffet laid out. Some cases it's a room that you just get a code for over your phone and you get in and you get out. I don't know which one of those is a official bed and breakfast or not. Sure. Right. So anyway, there it's like anything like you try to this is what it is, but it's really all these things in the between. that zoning needs to it's all about drawing lines and that's difficult I admit. Sure. And so we should draw them in coherent and applicable enforcable ways. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Question for you B. What is the definition of shortterm rentals? Overnight lodging for less than 30 days. Consecutive days. Consecutive days. That is 30 seconds. It's uh I could give you it's Wyoming statute 3915101A subi as far the the state has actually to find that. Oh, let me add one more thing to that. I asked the assessor if we could identify all of those and the answer is yes because they're all paying lodging tax. So short-term rentals u yes yeah short-term rentals people that are subject to the lodging tax. Now, a lot of people aren't aren't paying the lodging tax. But

that's what I'm saying. It's like I don't know if we can actually identify identify all the people who are paying lodging tax. Yes, I sure all the people who are legally correct inviting folks to rent. So, I can't go beyond that, but but yes, that makes sense.

And I would pass that along to you, the folks from Centish it out of of listings on the internet and so forth. But again, there is a official state definition of short-term rentals and you are legally required to declare yourself and that those names are all done. [clears throat] Just one comment. Uh the notion that Airbnb or whatever is one family coming in for a night or two, that was the beginning. You should [clears throat] see what our graduate students do when they go to conferences and rent an Airbnb. You can have 35 graduate students. [laughter] So, it can really easily get out of hand.

I Yeah, of course it can. [laughter] I'm just that can happen right now, too. I I don't know if this is a good idea, but I wonder I mean, a lot of the problems we heard about were actually law enforcement problems, right? Has anybody talked to the sheriff's department about what kind of regulations might be useful? Would they have some insights? Do you think? I mean, they would enforce our regulations. Not force them, but just just ask them what they think would be helpful. They they reach out. They get to mop up everything, right? You you can um request to speak with the sheriff.

Um I mean, I'll tell you that anything on the regulation side for zoning is going to be handled slowly. Uh whereas a sheriff's um deputy can issue a citation or arrest someone on the spot.

Yeah. And I'm not I Yeah. I just wonder if they would have some helpful suggestions as to what kind of regulation zoning regulations might make this work better because it's not working for some people right now. [clears throat] But a lot of it is law enforcement. And I don't know, maybe we could change the regulations to somehow make their job easier. Like if having an on-site agent would help, maybe that's something that they would suggest. I don't know if it's good idea or not. Just throwing it out there. If there's a violation of the law, the sheriff's office needs to know about it.

Yes. They don't get there in time is what we were told to deal with a lot of it. Well, that's what we were told. That's what we were told. B, are you finished? Um,

yeah, I guess again I just would like to explore that option of removing something from the from the table and and then and then just a general notion of it changes the character of the neighborhood. So this is kind of the squishy part of zoning. It isn't a a put your finger on health and safety issue like say the APOZ where we can pin that to scientific data and what's going on. But I think we do recognize under the general rubric of zoning that we're preserving quality of life, neighborhoods, how many people are driving down the road, whether they're driving too fast or not is a law enforcement issue. So I just would make the pitch that I think some of these character of the neighborhood kinds of issues are appropriate for zoning and using that authority quite judiciously and sparingly. Um so I'm listening when I hear the people [clears throat] they say I don't want my subdivision, my town to be converted slowly into nothing but short-term rentals. And again that would be the argument for trying to get ahead of it. Yeah, I guess um I have some thoughts on our end of it, especially with the enforcement um that I think should be thought about. I don't know if anyone has um you know, with enforcements, we can't go on people's properties. We can't go in people's houses um and minus a listing. We need to be able to enforce something. So, when you're driving down a street, you can't tell me that one house is a short-term rental and one house is a regular house without having a listing. So, I we need to know how we would be able to enforce something like that.

Yeah. Well, uh, so I'll say a few things, please, if you'll entertain me. Since our last meeting, I talked to quite a few people. I did a fair amount of reading. I talked to staff here. Uh, and also talked to planning departments from sublet counties here in Wyoming. Um, both those county, well, both those counties have been regulating short-term rentals. It's explicit. If you look at what sub county has, they have a certificate process. We've discussed a little bit at our meeting last time. Uh [clears throat] Park County has been regulating short-term rentals, although if you look at their zoning resolution, it's difficult to see that. And they regulate under, if I remember the term right, tourist oriented commercial businesses, something like that. Um, and right now they're in the process of drafting up a set of specific short-term mineral regulations that looks very similar what Sublet County has. Uh, they're not enacted yet and they're not done yet, but it sounds like they're planning to go through with that. And if you look around other counties that regulate short-term realy fines and there's other sets of regulations around the country, [clears throat] um I'm I mean I listened to all the comments we got uh you know both in person and by email prior to our last meeting and at our last meeting and you know the folks out in Centennial they're unhappy you know they're you know to me they cut a sympathetic [clears throat] but over time things change and it's not our job to prevent change and anytime change occurs there are going to be people unhappy that's pretty much inevitable. Um and my conclusion after doing my own thinking and talking to various people

like as I said is that uh we don't have a problem right now we need to address this moment it's not that severe um much of what was discussed or would fall in the category of general use and nuances in that general meeting not use under our zoning resolution type uh definition that could be addressed and enforced Um, we are not here to enforce criminal violations. That is the sheriff's department. [laughter] Hopefully the folks out there when they see a criminal violation, they're calling the sheriff's department and press the complaint. Um, I don't think we have any reason to believe they're being ignored by the sheriff's department. They sort of said that, you know, they've tried and it takes forever to get some sort response, but that as far as I'm sure it's hearsay and I have no reason to believe that our sheriff's department is not responsive. Um, and I believe we should continue looking at this, but like I said, right now, I just don't think it's is a problem rises to our level that we need to do something right now. And I am very sympathetic to what a number of people both at city uh planning and our own staff have said. um that you know if if the folks up there out there are really unhappy and it's a significant majority they ought to take action themselves and get on with it and whether that means you know forming new HOAs or upgrading their existing HOAs or ultimately incorporating and run their community like the way they want to do it. I think that's uh the better course of action. And I think it's fine if we continue to study it and listen think and and whatnot. As a special aside with regards to bed and breakfast, I think bed and breakfast there's a general understanding out the

public what a bed and breakfast is. It's different from short-term rental. It's different from a hotel. Um and if we have a line for bed and breakfast, I mean that that to me doesn't bother me a bit. I don't think I mean I don't know if you have any idea. I can't imagine there's all that many back breakfast here in the county. I don't see as a something we should because you know I don't think it's something that productive that way to spend time talking. I don't know if there's four or six or eight but I don't think there's a whole lot. [laughter] Could be wrong. Anyway, so that's what I've concluded. I don't think we need to take action right now. I would not personally recommend taking action. Uh so that's where I stand. More comments. We can we ask our fearless leader here. Absolutely.

How many conditional use permits for practice do we have? Conditional use permits. Yeah, they're supposed to have them. Um, we could look pull that up, Jeff. More than zero. He'll look it up. Um, there's not a whole lot. I know of um existing ones that they're probably here forever. I mean, the V bar's got a bed breakfast there. I know there's one that's out uh south of town, but I

probably not more in a I don't know if we have any condition use permits because they probably are all here before or allowed or something. Um, but one thing I was going to say is like I did did some Airbnb VRBO research today and and just looking around the county and I didn't get around up to the north part. I'm sure there's probably like a hundred, you know, up by Hover's Cupboard that of those Airbnbs and stuff, but no, but like just looking around like Centennial is the predominant, you know, um place for the short-term rentals. There's Huh.

J's got like two maybe.

There's not a whole lot down in down there either. Gel like there's I think there I found one in J. one or two in the jail area and then you go down to like WC Colo and there was like one or so there and and I think there's one in Fox Park but like the concentration really is in the Centennial area. I mean, there's the the 28 properties, not individual, you know, rentals, but like 28 properties. Um, in Centennial, that was what was given to us by um, Miss Tilly, Miss Tilly. Um, and, uh, yeah, so that that's the predominant place for for Reynolds in the county. So I I I guess I can understand that, you know, that's it's a little different right there than it is anywhere else because there's really not a whole lot even like just around Laramie. Most of those are in Laramie. Um but and my research wasn't scientific and I didn't, you know, see everything, you know, but like just from doing that, I was it was kind of like, oh well, there's really not a whole lot around other than in that Centennial Valley right there. So let's see. Out of yourund,

there's two. Sorry, two two with permits. Permits. Yeah. Sorry. Out of your hundred um responses, did people seem to care? People interested in this issue? Uh yeah, it seems like everybody's they're pretty interested. Yeah. Do they think it's a problem? Unregulated?

I I I haven't really like looked at all the data. I've been trying to like, you know, wait for the surprise at the end, you know. Um, but I have kind of looked um just the the metrics or whatever. Um, there's a lot of people that would would like regulations. Um, but I I think more than like no regulation at all. Um, and I some people it really bothers them, some people it doesn't. And um, I'll tell you that the majority of those I think are 82055. I think that's the the zip code. Is that Centennial? Yes. Is that right?

Yeah. They're from 82055. So, they're from the Centennial area. So, of course, if they are bothered, they're more likely to do the survey for [laughter] Yeah. No, it's not scientific. It's not random. Oh, I did send it to Michelle Tilly, too. And so, she was able to send it out to her people. So, yeah. So, so I have a question. What is the problem with burn's suggestion which I like a lot to change instead of saying bed and breakfast a short-term rental for which we have a definition a state definition why why would that be a a big deal

I mean I just feel like they're two different things but if you guys feel like they're the same thing then I guess we could go that route um so it seems like if the state treats them differently. We should be consistent with the state. And I think well that's that's for the purpose of taxation. Um and it's it's the same thing that we see all the time. How you're assessed doesn't mean your land use,

right? But the but the land use [cough] I see the land use as being different from each other in that you you have an onsite property person as a bed and breakfast with a short-term rental. you don't um and that um like I wouldn't I wouldn't want to ditch it from the land use table because I think there's an increase in traffic and an increase in in in things that could matter to a neighborhood where a bed and breakfast exists that you you'd want to have a conditional use permit. Just just like at the city level, if you wanted to do a daycare, you have to get a conditional use permit because it may matter to some neighbors whether you're suddenly going to have a bunch of kids playing out in the yard ma making noise and having traffic with drop off and pickup. Like it I I feel it's an equivalent uh potential disruptor to a neighborhood that it merits a conditional use permit. So, I I wouldn't I wouldn't favor taking it off the land use table. I'd just favor adding if if the decision is made to try to do something with short-term rental that it just comes on the land use table with its own definition and that you don't ditch the the bed and breakfast. Um, so, so my point and why I support Burn's suggestion is in terms of disrupting the neighborhood, short-term rental covers both uh, bed and breakfast and Airbnb or whatever other thing will come up in the future. It's more comprehensive. So, it's not eliminating bed and breakfast from the table. It's just making the definition a little more broad and consistent with the state. I like that [clears throat]

question for church. Sure. Go ahead. Let's let's remain a bit on conditional use and and this idea of enforcement so forth. On one hand, we shouldn't pass laws that are just crazy uninforceable, but on the other hand, we can't corral all illegal activity like the folks that are supposed to be paying lodging tax and aren't. But we're trying. We're trying valiantly. It's not a reason to not have a lodging tax because you're not going to apply it to everybody.

Sure. So when I think of of what something is a conditional use, I don't see the the cops rolling in and jerking out the sink. I see that the point of issuing a conditional use permit, it's noticed neighbors at that point are invited to object and for whatever reasons they want to. So, it's the it's that permitting that that I think is a a value and that's the point at which we then expose a potential use to the neighborhood and then somebody us advising the board can say that's incompatible, that's too much, that's out in the middle of nowhere, who cares? So, am I right to be thinking of conditional uses

that way? this it just kind of gives you an opportunity at the threshold to

uh so I mean I think like that's all fine um but what what are the parameters you know we have our findings necessary for um [clears throat] necessary for approval uh none of those findings are related to I guess neighbor opposition [clears throat] um but then there's also the issue of of land use plans. Um I think both in the zoning and in the comp plan there needs to be a geographical aspect to that. Um where this use should be allowed generally or is it just on an ad hoc basis?

But but isn't that covered by you make it a conditional use within residential zonings? So we're we're not just saying anywhere anywhere and and and when you look at the conditional use findings it's not bang bang bang but but in that language are health safety welfare compatibility with neighborhoods that that those concepts are are embodied to some extent in the criteria for approving conditional use and so that would to me take care of your geographic issue is it it is conditional uses are geographically dependent. Are they an appropriate add-on to the zoning here but perhaps not over here? And and you're able to evaluate them on a case by case basis.

B so that uh I understand what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting we should apply conditional use to short-term rentals? That that would be talking about bed and breakfast now. Well, I am bed and breakfast are talking about short-term rentals. That's why I was this thing called short circum rentals which is renting lodging for less than 31 days and whether you give them a sandwich or not I think is irrelevant. Yeah.

So the problem I see with that is that um if we require short term rentals come in for consensual use then once that's granted then that runs that property forever. Right now, it appears to me that most of these houses out in Centennial are being used for short-term rentals or vacation houses bought for vacation house purposes for the owners who are using the property for part of the year and of course they're [laughter] passive income here. That makes perfect sense. And those houses are likely to continue to be bought and sold with owner turnover. And that's the problem I see with the condition. Well, that that it doesn't run. Yeah. They'd have to renew it every time. That's your

Well, no. I'm saying that's the problem I see with with the conditional use is we have it right now. You know, today when we grant conditional use for the property, it runs to the property. No, no, no. It expires with the No, that's if it's not put to use. Conditional use run of the property forever as long as they're being used that way. And I think with short-term rentals, if we want to make it use, it should be limited in some way. So, that's why I would not favor, which my legal advice is that you cannot. Yeah, and that's one of the discussions Matt and I have had and Matt also we talked about that our previous meeting. I'm sorry. Explain that to those of us who weren't part of those discussions. What cannot?

So that's that I mean that's what I said at the last meeting is that it can't be a license. It can't be something that has to be renewed every year. There's only one type of anything that is statutory authorized by zoning and it's a zoning certificate. Conditional use permit is a type of zoning certificate and statute doesn't speak um speak to you know renewing a zoning certificate. It just says zoning certificate for the use and the structures. Um, and if you go under the the general maxims of uh statutory construction that are consistently employed by the Wyoming Supreme Court, um, that sort of power, which the legislature is very familiar with authorizing, a licensing power, um, is not granted explicitly by the zoning statutes. Um therefore the county does not have that authority.

Okay,

I understand that. Now I don't see however that that's particularly relevant. I mean my point would be somebody comes [clears throat] in say I want to turn this into a short-term rental. They are granted a conditional use permit that is a decision that one makes with the understanding that that's forever or for the next two weeks. So I I guess I don't know why that would argue one way or another on whether it was appropriate to bring it under the envelope with some conditional users and I just I mean it's just what I think it's not like I'm right universally right or whatn not I think is is a good principle it would be better to do that through a permitting process rather than a conditional use of forever that's what sublet and park county are doing. [clears throat] Okay.

And question, how's the convent conditional use permit going to address the problems experienced in Centennial? They're they were complaining about nuisances and noise and trespassing. You know, so how would that how would those problems be resolved by a condition? And that's exactly why to me it would be better if you weren't a regular things and forget about what what we're allowed to do or not allowed to do, you would do it through a permitting process that would be renewed on an annual basis or some basis, you know, regularly where if there been a problem with that property, you don't get renewed. [laughter]

Okay. So that's how that's how we would address it. That's one way. No, but that's the way that's not available to us. Well, that's what PR County and SA County are doing. The advice we're getting here is that's not available to us. But our conditional use permit would not address that. My answer to your question would be it would not address that. It would be a step in the direction of corelling the decision of even to have this thing or not because you would be fearful or not fearful of people shooting up the countryside and killing your dog or whatever it happen to be. So, no, it would only be a it would only partially address those concerns. So address them at that land use. How do we want this neighborhood to develop at that level?

But like Okay, so as Mr. Co pointed out last time, there's people on ranches out there. Correct me if I misrepresent what I heard you say, but there's, you know, there's people renting out short-term rentals to hunters and they're not in neighborhoods and it's not residential. It's it's out there on a ranch somewhere. It's not causing any problems. But applying for a conditional use permit is not a trivial process, right? I mean that you got to get a you got to hire somebody. You got to do surveys. You got to do you know it's expensive. You got to pay for it. Um so it should have you know if we were going to require that there should be a real payoff for that. It should really address the problems that we're seeing and I don't see that it would.

Is it our let's get a response to that? I guess I had not understood a conditional use permit to be an arduous process. It isn't like you're putting out a plat hiring surveyors or anything. What what does it take to get a conditional use permit?

Well, I mean, the filling out the application is not the thing. It's coming to this meeting when all of your neighbors show up and are upset about something you're going to do. Um, which would happen for every application in the Centennial area. So by by requiring a conditional use permit, I would predict that the majority of those would not be approved by the border county commissioners because of the the neighborhood show up with the pitchfork factor, you know. So if if we don't want to have them, then let's go that route, you know. I just I really think that's what's going to happen, which I think for if I was a business owner in Centennial, that's shooting yourself in the foot. That's all those people that are probably now going to stay in Laramie because they want to stay in a 12 or 2,000 foot or square foot house, which you can't just rent one of the hotel rooms and get the same deal. They're going to come to Laramie and now they're not eating in Centennial. They're not. I just don't understand the whole thing there. But um

do I have I have one question. Okay. Why is that not a problem the same problem for bed and breakfast? bed prep issue. There's only one scenario is is fundamentally different than a short-term a short-term rental is a residential structure where you're renting out the entire thing. That then find me an Airbnb or VBO in the county where you don't get the entire house. Well, I don't know everybody in the county, but there's certainly Airbnbs where you don't get the whole c house. There's one two blocks down the street from me. I mean, that's a in in Laramie.

In Laramie. Yeah. Yeah. Find the same in the town. Well, that's just a a function of my experience. I mean, the concept is exactly the same. Why would there [laughter] So, if they're they're living someone's actually living in the main area, that's like their permanent residence. a bed and breakfast. You have multiple rooms, multiple rental units all under one roof where it's being it's much more of a commercial activity than just letting someone have your house for a weekend. It generally been operator business and that's how people are making income sometimes.

Well, not sometimes. I've been to lots of I don't understand. I have stayed in places that call themselves uh bed and breakfast, Airbnb. By the way, Airbnb is short for air bed and breakfast. So, you just log online air BNB. I just don't understand it. We have understand if we are putting conditional use permit request to for uh Ben and breakfast, we should do it for all short-term rentals. I don't understand. You don't want to pitch folks in this. take it all out. I think we should have a permitting process, but that's me.

I mean, to back to your your point, Mr. Inkley, like if we decide to that we want to do short-term rentals and we want to make them conditional use alongside the Airbnb or just a bed and breakfast, there really isn't a reason to have a bed and breakfast definition. We could just use that one if that if we're doing the exact same thing. Yeah. So, right. And that's the way that you guys go or whatever. I don't think bed and breakfast is a thing. I mean, I understand. I mean, I think they're different, but if we're treating them the same way, there's no reason to have two definitions. So, and I don't think it's an important thing. We're really on the same side. [laughter]

Well, okay y'all, we've talked about this for a while. Is there anyone else like to say anything else substantive or have we talked about this enough? I just wonder if the survey were to be posted on the main the main part of the Albony County web page instead of embedded down into the planning department. We could try to get that on there. Yeah. Just wonder if it would get more traffic. That's good. Yeah, we'll submit that to the it to get on. By the way, nice. You guys keep improving the web page. It's really if it's you guys, huh? Joe's the Joe. Sorry. Go Joe. Go Joe. [laughter]

Very um it's very contemporary and modern. [laughter] That's Joe. Unlike some of us. I mean to that point, seriously, think about the time we have been involved. We haven't been on the board the same amount of time, the commission the same amount of time, but you know, we've seen some substantial changes. We've made some substantial changes altogether. I mean, I'm not dismissing. I mean, [laughter] staff. We've done a lot and I think we've done a lot to our credit, frankly. So, in fact, how we about move on to uh livestock production, which I've been looking forward to all evening, David,

I figured you would be waiting for this. I'm really excited. My cowboys back here All right. So, um,

so yeah, we we were approached by one of our past subdivision applicants. Um, and and they they wanted to they were requesting some changes to um how we zoned livestock production um basically because of the the fencing standards. Um and so um obviously the minimum spenting standards were mandated um through the statute which has caused some irritation for pretty much every applicant for a subdivision since that has been implemented. Um and so we're what what I'm proposing and what we're proposing um I worked with Mr. on on this um is to basically define where commercial livestock can be ran and where it can't be ran. Um and then um also we we have a uh standard that allows pretty much that you if you have 4 animals or a small incidental type um use of of livestock and stuff then you could pretty much have that anywhere but it has to be fenced. Um so by doing what we're doing here um which if you look at the standards that that we're proposing we we defined livestock production grazing and storage of related equipment um just a kind of a basic definition there. We um removed commercial from the the the definition or the the use. Um and then we prohibited livestock production basically small residential, urban, residential, commercial, neighborhood business and industrial. um and then included that that um standard in the

chapter six that basically says incidental smallcale livestock production and grazing um for personal use basically can be done as long as it's fenced in or otherwise enclosed. By doing this um we've now kind of put some sideboards on where um livestock can be run at large basically um because they're required to get a or if they were required to get a conditional use or if it's prohibited in a zone now they they can't legally run livestock on those. So any of those zones if somebody's doing a subdivision now they don't have to to build their fence.

Yeah. Um, and so that's this is kind of how we're we've taken what the state has given us and now we're working within our own framework to really define what you know uh at large grazing means basically um for the county. Um the one thing that I would would consider or have you consider is the ranch at zone potentially put in as a conditional use. Those are 5acre lots. I'm not sure if um livestock production at a commercial um rate is needed there without a conditional use and that that that helps us that you

well yeah yeah yeah but we've defined what incidental is too like so if it's anyways my challenge to you there in terms of uh I mean any any residential land that is not um developed yet. Pretty much its only economic use in Alb County is livestock grazing. Uh so I'm not I'm not sure that would that could potentially draw challenges from a conditional use per in Ranchette

in Ranchette. Oh. Um, well, just the more that you restrict it, right? I would just leave it at ranchet. Like anything that's more than the 5 acre lot size, I would leave as as allowed or that was what I was proposing. And we don't even have to do it with ranchet. I mean, we could leave that one.

I mean, ranchette to me is always when it was rural residential, it it's more of that buffer, you know, between like the more dense small out residential and the agricultural uses. you should be able to do some quasi ads agricultural residential stuff in there. So, but anyways, this is for your discussion. We don't have to make any decisions tonight. Um, but we can discuss it and and if this is a good idea, we can go this route. If we don't like this, we don't have to do this either. So, we can just keep keep doing what we're doing. So, Laura, what are your thoughts? Um, I guess it would be to add just a few more guard rails to what how small an operation is when you say that it's incidental like how many animal units would you be allowing you that I would just want to see that kind of defined because because um you may say oh you I'm going to have six six head to slaughter for my extended family. Um, it's personal use. It's not commercial, but but could you have too many animal units on a on a lot would be my concern.

So everything in the zoning resolution which is not defined is defined by its plain and ordinary meaning which is dictionary definition. Um so incidental is uh being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence um or just minor it's it should be I it shouldn't be the principal use on the property. The principal use should be a home probably with a family and some outuildings or whatever. But I don't know. Okay. Do we want to I don't know if you do. I mean what I mean

then are we got then you [cough] it wouldn't be I mean six chickens that's livestock you know is that a lot I don't know if that fits within the definition of livestock I think we looked at livestock and it pretty much includes everything um so yeah then I mean we're getting chickens are types of animals who knew do Or do you have a [laughter] number ofart? I don't I don't have a number. I'm sort of trying to remember how how we have a chart. Well, yeah.

Well, it's the feed lot stockyard livestock confinement operation. Any parcel of land containing less than 35 acres having greater than 10 animal units per acre continuously in a corral for more than 180 days in any 12-month period. All animal units shall be based upon the following unit equivalents. So, so basically it's you're you're considered a feed lot, stockyard, livestock confinement operation if you have more than 10 animal units. So that could be 10 cows, that could be 30 swine, that could be 20 goats, that could be

chickens. Well, it doesn't have chickens. [laughter] It's supposed to be a pile of chickens.

You could have like a um I guess you could do whatever you want and have freeranging chickens that really can't range like some of these places have. But um yeah. So, so if you are going under that then and saying, "Okay, I'm going to have nine animal units. I'm going to have nine cows. I'm going to have uh 27 swine." So, so I mean that it just by definition of what what is a feed lot stockyard, if you go one animal unit under that, then you're you could you argue you're incidental if you're not doing it for profit. That that's the only that's why I'm just wondering about I don't know what that number should be. I don't I would assume somebody in the extension at UW egg extension might have an idea about like what's reasonable to put on a certain size acreage for the acreage and but I don't have the answer. I just know that um it's sort of open-ended to just say

okay well nine nine cows [clears throat] are incidental possibly. Well, it's I mean it's twofold. It has to be incidental and then prim, you know, principally not for commercial use and for personal use, right? Um [clears throat] well, honestly, the big thing for me is is it has to be fenced in. Like I don't Yeah. Yeah. Know, I know that's the it's this fencing [clears throat] to take care of this the bigger subdivision. And and the and the thing is you can't f the fencing regulations that we have are not going to fencing chickens. No, you can have 300 chickens. Well, so that's only [laughter] states subdivision. So that's not

got to fence out those chickens. You can come in later and once it's all subdivided and put in a completely different fence if you would like. Right. I'm just saying that the fencing is not going to stop chickens. No, regardless. No. Diana, what are your thoughts? Um I I thought we were fencing out of the subdivisions. Yeah. Right. So, I'm a little confused as to why we're sub fencing out like the the livestock are outside the subdivision and the subdivider has to fence those that livestock out. Yes. Right. So, so why are you making rags for what's going on inside the subdivision? No.

Well, this isn't inside the sub I mean, it could be inside the subdivision. Well, it's in the different zoning categories. It It's trying to to help people not have to fence in if there are no freeranging cattle in their neighborhood, but we're a fence out state. Yeah, sort of. Sort of. Except for we have to now it's a mandatory now it's mandatory fence out. Yeah. So, so essentially it depends what's outside the subdivision. It's you. Well, yeah, it it does. Um, it does. And I mean, the whole premise of of fence out is that if you want them out, that's what you have to do. But you don't have to do that.

The difference is that if if you so if you f like the fence out is about liability um for trespassing. And now the legislature has said um you know it doesn't matter li we're not even looking at liability if you're just adjacent to any land upon which livestock can be legally run at large which is essentially any land um absent a zoning resolution uh that now you have to fence out whereas before it was always up to the discript discussion of land owners whether they want a trespassing stock on their land or not. Um because it's I mean it's yeah if if you are if you don't put a fence up any livestock that strays onto your land and causes damage the owner of those stock is not liable to you

and if the livestock gets injured on your land you're liable for the injury to the livestock maybe that gets into your duty of care and tor um so it depends on the type of harm that befalls the cattle and whether whether you had a duty to prevent it from that harm. Diana, it's very simple. It's like we had applications that we had to approve the variance of the fencing, right? They applied. They didn't want to put a fence in saying there is no freeranging cattle in the area. Why do I because of the zoning outside the subdivision? Because of Yeah. Whatever we have.

Okay. So, that's what we're talking about is the zoning outside the sub. Yeah. Yes. Okay. That's that's what I was just trying to clear. Okay. Sorry. Because right now under our zoning resolution, livestock [clears throat] can be run at large on on any land in any zoning district. Um and then basically I mean unless it is a state highway or a railroad right away and there are fences upon those um then it can also there's no state prescription for where so Diana with that mine [laughter]

I think I get it now I just you kind of lost me on where because you were talking about f Mr. G was talking about fencing them in. No. And I thought we were talking about fencing them out. That's where he lost. Yeah. But now how do you feeling on the [laughter] properties outside? Well, I mean, if it's not developed high density residential area like like Mr. Z was saying, then it could be used for Yeah.

for grazing. We're trying to rule out. So, and I guess looking at the land use table and how we have it, I mean, and somebody I think maybe was more said it's like, well, we should figure out how much the land can handle. Like, if you're going to graze something on land, you probably make one cow per like what 50 acres in this county. Like unless it's in some really good like wetland area where it's like growing some good grass or something, but like

yeah, they I mean unless you're feeding them on the property, you're not you're not raising livestock commercially on five acres. You're just not, you know. Yeah, but you can feed them. You could Yeah, you could. And then you could be getting into the KO standard at some point. But what was it? 10 units per acre or something. How do you feel?

I think it's a good idea. Uh I say the less fences the better for wildlife. The problem will go between the houses everywhere will uh and the less fencing we have the better. So, I like the idea, but I see more as uh need for more definition of how many animals are we talking about? Yeah. And I'm totally with Diana on this. I I started out like what are we doing here? The state the state statute says you've got to fence your subdivisions. Is that right? Yes. Yes.

If it's adjacent to lands upon which livestock can be. The the relief that this proposal would provide is if I am surrounded by one of these zones. Yes. So that seems one of the prohibited zones. One of the prohibited zones or a conditional use zone. That that seems like it's not going to happen very often, right? The relief that this provides seem to be very small because odds are across the fence is going to be egg land or or one of these allowed residential areas. So, does this really do much to say you're going to Well, it does.

I mean, we we just we would have saved Mr. Olsen um from going around and getting all the letters from his neighbors. Um we would have saved What's that? That was It was the industrial subdivision. The industrial subdivision. Why would it not? Because he's surrounded by small lot residential. That's what I'm saying. He wouldn't have had it done that, right? Yeah. We would have saved him for doing that. I'm not sure about coffee subdivision. Like that was that one was weird because he's Yeah. bordering exempt land which cattle I guess can go down the highway and then get on his land. But um but like

really really what this does is it's just for those those subdivisions that are in the more dense areas already. Um because I mean if it's in an a area that's that's what it's for, you know, they're going to have to do that. That's just part of it, you know. So my first reaction is it's very limited relief and and if that's useful, I don't know. I I think it is.

The second question I had was why are we prohibiting it? Couldn't a livestock operation be a commercial or industrial operation? I mean, I I don't understand that you're saying you can't raise livestock on a commercial. What if my commercial activity is raising livestock or processing or something or other? Why are you prohibiting livestock on commercial and industrial?

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, we could just do those conditional use. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that. I mean, commercial is typically for businesses and those types of things. Um, industrial obviously is Yeah, I mean, could have bad stuff in industrial areas. I don't know. Um, but I would be I mean I'd be happy with not doing just prohibited. You you could do a conditional use. That way you could look at the site where it's at and make sure that it's okay to have a bunch of livestock there.

But what I guess just what's the sense of of prohibiting commercial and industrial uses that that are livestock production from the get-go? Why why aren't those a perfectly useful good thing to do on a commercial industrial zone? I don't have a good answer for that. I guess because it's an agricultural use. Yeah. You you'd have to change up how you define the land use because because right now all all of that a agricultural production [clears throat] is called agricultural use. Um,

and whether whether you think it's compatible to have an agricultural land use on a commercial or industrial property that's next to another industrial property that is, you know, like not good for the animals or not compatible with those land land uses. Yeah. I mean, if it's in an area where there's some stuff that maybe lives. I guess I think of industrial as is the broadest. Do it every do whatever you want. Sure. Yeah. I mean, I'd be h I mean, I would support conditional use for industrial commercial. Okay. That's that those were my thoughts. [clears throat] I just have one more question. It is what that is what it is.

Effectively does the same. I'm not limiting questions here. Okay. [laughter] So, do subdivid anyway. I just do subdividers already have the option of making the case that the lands adjacent to them are not going to have catalogans or stuck on they have to get uh written I guess documentation from each of the adjoining property owners that's um okay no such fence is required okay I see what you're saying right so they do have an option they don't actually have to build the fence if there's not going to be any livestock But it's it's a house. Yeah. And and if you and if one neighbor says I designed it, then if you're in a fight with your neighbor,

no. Then then I think that it's just limited. Wouldn't it just be limited to that shared boundary? Yeah, it says any or does it say if one neighbor says no, build it, you have to build the whole thing. My bad. Yeah, I think it says all all neighbors will have to mar that sounds right. Which is why Mr. Coffee was like not even attempt right process and we have several people that won't even [laughter] attempt it because they just know the pitchfork is not working.

Well, I I think this is good. Uh, and it may be limited and what effect it has, but we do what we can. Okay. Um, would we like to to make it conditional on the commercial and industrial? Is it some feedback that's useful? Well, um, let me ask you all this. uh if we address these two issues we have right now, burns conditional versus prohibited and maybe some idea of livestock numbers, maybe we could get this Randy to move forward. Yeah.

And so why not? Um there was one change that What was it? Where was your change? I have a few actually. Okay. Matt's got a few changes he wants to make in the definitions.

Uh yeah, so add to the definition uh the use of lands and the do and structures. Um and then I would add additional use standards permits add chapter 6 section 9 just in that box within the land use table. Uh and then in chapter six section nine I realized the way that it's written now is that in any district uh the incidental smallcale livestock production would have to be fenced in or otherwise enclosed. Um, I think that that should be limited to only those districts where the principal or commercial use of livestock production, grazing and storage of related equipment isn't allowed

as right as of right as of right um so I guess it would be leave incidental smallcale livestock production grazing which is conducted principally for non-commercial and personal purposes may occur in any zoning district period. And then say uh if the incidental smallcale livestock production and grazing is within um is within a zoning district in which the principal use of livestock production, grazing and storage related equipment is not allowed by right. Uh the livestock um shall be fenced in or otherwise enclosed.

Everybody get that? Okay. Clear on that? Yeah. Okay. B. What changes would you like to see with Oh, I would again I don't You're hoping to come out of this with something that's ready for a public hearing. I guess maybe that's a little ambitious, but the things that I had flagged that it I didn't understand about it were why we were doing it prohibited in those two and and that concern would be would be eliminated by making those conditional uses. Okay. Just commercial and industrial. Yeah. I think it's I'm looking at your what you sent around neighborhood business. It would be reasonable to prohibit. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. [snorts]

Do we need to worry about You're suggesting you don't want to see this. Defined as having qualities in a business as defined in this chapter. [laughter] A business a lawful endeavor endeavor for engagement in the purchase sale or exchange of goods where merchandise or services including the maintenance or conduct of offices, professions, warehouses or records or amusement enterprises. also see home business. Um, and by by the way, the agricultural use allows like beekeeping, which you could see that being fencing will help with that a lot. [laughter]

Industrial is defined as it's not it's not defined in the definitions. It's probably [clears throat] defined in the land land use chapter though. Agricultural industrial is where are you? The purpose of the zone would be for areas or lands determined appropriate for industrial uses. These uses include the use of land or buildings requiring substantial applications of skill, capital, machinery or labor in transforming materials into other suitable forms, qualities or properties.

Very vague pretty. So would you all be in favor of law with burn suggestion we make uh this use conditional for commercial and industrial or not? given the definitions. Yes. Okay. So, does that does that just leave you in jeopardy? Like, okay, I'm I'm the industrial subdivision. I don't want to put a fence in and I'm and I'm surrounded by land where someone could seek a conditional permit. Maybe they don't. You're just basing it on whether you have one now. Yeah. So, it wouldn't matter about a future.

You don't you don't have a right to actually do and to secure the permit. Okay. So, it wouldn't create like havoc to have the No, because if you do it in a district in a district in which you are required to have a conditional use permit and you just go ahead and do it without a conditional use permit, you've then violated the zoning resolution. Okay. But but I could reszone it agricultural from one of these. Well, later on right later on it' be tough luck the fences and Yep. Yep. We crossed that bridge. I don't think we want to be out killing cattle either. [laughter]

Okay. And then tomorrow, uh, how do you feel now? Yeah, I think I think it's a good idea. Do you think we need to define animals? Well, I don't know. It sounds like It sounds like they don't want to count cows and that the incidental definition would capture if somebody seemed to be doing something unreasonable with their property. Okay. Well, good. I I think we can move forward with this. In that case, if you're on five acres and you have 20 head of cattle,

that's clearly not incidental anymore. And that probably will fall under uh feed lot if you fed them. Yeah. And then there's also the state will go after you big time for that. So, yeah. Yeah. In that case, may I have a motion to move forward this? What do you mean by move forward? Set it for public hearing. Exactly. Yeah. Do you guys feel like that's where you're like ready for or I mean we can do that or we can make the changes and bring them back. It's I mean this isn't something that's like has to be done. You know, but if you want to go forward and feel comfortable with it, we can

and I'm asking I feel comfortable with but if anyone here doesn't feel comfortable with I'm perfectly happy we're waiting. We're not in a rush, right? I I see nothing wrong. Let's see it again. Yeah, we're fine. Okay, let's do that. And so just a question then for for planning staff if if this did get went forward and got adopted could a sub one of these like the industrial subdivision they were oh that was a that was the subdivision. It it was not a zoning change. It was a

were subdivided. So they can't they can't come back at this at the point at which you would make this happen. They can't come back and ask for variance down the road. It's like they're No, it wouldn't work for them anyways. Okay. Because of the exemplary. Okay. Thanks. Okay. So, we're clear. You'll come back with us to us next month with redline version of this and we'll look at it again. Sure, we can do it. All right. That's what we're gonna do. All right. In that case, uh David, do you have any staff updates for us? Joe's got some.

All right, Joe. Very good. Uh, so I guess the projects that were here last month, uh, the Aaron Holtz varants, you guys denied the or recommended denial. Uh, the applicant pulled the application. Uh, and then the new life subdivision, you guys recommended approval and the board of county commissioners approved it. Um, and then I was talking to our enforcement officer uh today, asked her how many active she's working on, and she said around 100. So, she's working.

She is working. She's doing awesome. She's doing a great job. So, a very good day. Anything else? Can we add to the halts? Uh remember one of the uh uh neighbors said to them, you didn't write read the fine print, if you subdivide the eastment for the road that goes away. And the guy got all upset with you guys with this. He came up

with a map or something. Turns out the neighbor was right. And for that parcel, all the five parcels on that road going in, the easement was conditional on no more subdivisions. So that's why he pulled the application cuz he he he didn't when he bought the property, he didn't realize that. He didn't read the fine print. And then he sent an email to the road district to a whole district apologizing for creating all that, you know, upheaval in the neighborhood. So that's what happened with that. Yeah. Additional information.

Okay. J. Well, let me just add that I I I saw that letter myself and I thought it was an endorsement of uh public participation and uh this gentleman once once it was posted and we provided a forum for the neighbors. He he was listening. We were listening. So uh no, I thought the whole thing was an endorsement of the of the process. Yeah, give people a chance to speak. I agree. And share information that some people don't define points. So,

okay. Commissioner comments and I know Burn has some um Okay. Yeah. I was just coming to my attention that we are hitting the ends of terms. I don't know how many applications have put in, but two of our commissioners current terms expired. Um, I hope that the county commissioners have the good sense to reappoint both of them, but it's the possibility that we may not see you guys in January. I just want to extend my heartfelt unbridgeged thanks to your contribution to our efforts uh over the period of your their term where we've overlapped. uh uh I think even the discussion today as an endorsement of of this commission we find ourselves on different sides of different issues. There's no lock step here. Some of us are our libertarian side comes to the four and others it's well we've got to regulate this. So uh no I I just have been very very happy and honored to have you guys helping us out on the planning consition. Hope we see you in January.

Oh thank you. It's been an honor to be here. So, I hope I hope to be back. Also, and I certainly agree with all that. Sure. I I wanted to comment too that it's been a really a a great experience working with the planning department staff and our deputy county attorney. And it's been uh really wonderful working with my co-commissioners. Um and uh we'll we'll see what happens. We'll see. [laughter] When is uh when is the consideration again? Uh Tuesday. This Tuesday. Okay. Tuesday. Fingers crossed. So, do have there been a lot of applications? Do we know? Three. Oh, okay.

Two are sitting right there. Two of them are there. There's a third. Oh, and the application [clears throat] deadline is now closed, right? The eth. Okay. Well, we'll keep our fingers crossed. Yeah. I want to say that I've learned a lot from you. It's been a pleasure. Yes, it's been a great time. We I agree with um Chair uh Chair Platt that we we've got a lot done.

Oh, we have. and and all because the the planning department staff have really worked hard to make a lot of regulation changes and bring them bring them forward and they've all been really positive and identify some problems that affect you and it's been productive. Well, very good. Um, our next regular meeting will be January 14th. Wait, what? 14th? 14th? Really? That's what it says here. [laughter] Okay. 5:00 p.m. this place. How can the second Wednesday be on the 14th? Yeah.

Because the first is on a Thursday enough to do that. [laughter] All right. And with that, I declare this meeting ajourned. Thank you.