Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, it's five o'clock. I'll call to order the regular meeting uh for October 8th with the Albony County Planning Zoning Commission. And we will begin with roll call. And Mr. Hornet is absent. She's traveling and will be unable to uh join us on call so I don't expect her here. Um Mr. David here, Tanny here,

here is here. So we will proceed with approval of agenda. Uh I'm cons suggest that we move one item Gadori zoning district amendment uh down from below the union telephone company application so that we can take uh the city comments all together with three in a row and city represented by those of jihadi. Um and so we'll make that suggestion. Does anyone else have any suggestions for the agenda? Just so I understand that. So then Mary point north and also will all be that's the together. Okay. In that case may have a motion for the agenda as amended.

So moved second.

All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Um may I have a motion for approval of minutes for August 13th to I move that we approve the minutes of August meeting second any further discussion in favor say I that motion carries also disclosures and conflicts of interest David none Hanning none none

and I have none either so we will move on to the public applications uh for members of the public who are here uh we We have an unusually busy and full agenda tonight. Um we will try to be as efficient as we can but our priority will be to give full and fair consideration of the facts matters before us. Uh we will attempt to be as fair as impartial as we can and to the best of the ability that's what we will do. Um if you're here for a protected application as most of you are once once we've uh concluded that because you're absolutely free to leave anytime you want to. Uh so with that uh we will go on to item five the parisoning district amendment application CDA CDA 08-25 Joe.

All right. Uh yeah the applicant owner is Paula Paris. It's located at 1124 highway 11. Um the ch the request is to change the zoning from uh ranchet to commercial. Um the applicable sections of the resolution are chapter 3 section 5C. Um all uh required notice posted by signed publication certifi certified mailing has been met. Um the staff analysis is that the planning department does not believe that the proposed zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestion of the Alme County comprehensive plan as a comprehensive plan future land use map calls for rural residential in this area and says that rural commercial should be located at the intersection of major roads. This property is going through the zoning district amendment process because the planning department has an open enforcement case for having three dwellings on a ranchet zone property of 235 acres which does not meet the allowed density. The findings necessary for approval and applicant responses referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has oh the findings need to be changed. Um, and the conclusion of law is that the applicant is not proceeding in accordance with it is it is not in compliance with the requirements of the Albony County zoning resolution. And the staff recommendation is to deny the Paris zoning district amendment um application ZDA0825 as uh this proposal does not generally follow as suggested at the Alb County comprehensive plan.

And Joe, would you give us a brief history of this enforcement action on property? Uh, sure. Um, we received an anonymous phone call about this property in February. Um, and began to try and fix the issue. Um, we met with the applicant and their real estate agent um to discuss the poss or the the different methods for how to fix this issue. Um, and this is what they chose. Um, and here we are.

Okay. Um, Bern, do you have questions?

Um, yeah. Um, kind of just follow up on that one, Mr. Chair. Um, remind us of where violations fit into our analysis. We we kind of come upon this periodically where we've got somebody who's had a long history of violations. um is that grounds for denial application uh that both ways maybe the question goes to Mr. So, in enforcements, we typically, you know, give them, you know, let them know that they're in violation. Um, give them the options of remedies, which includes coming through this process. Um, and if we don't hear back from them, then we go forward with the legal side. Um, but they have the opportunity to come through this board as well as the board of county commissioners and ask for approval of, in this case, a zoning change to commercial. Um, and so if it gets denied, then we go through more enforcement steps and if it gets approved, then I guess in theory everything is fixed. Right.

Right. I guess maybe maybe to sharpen my point just a little bit. If if someone simply came to us at Denovo and said, "I'd like to build three buildings and that will require a conditional use or a zoning change or whatever," then we would evaluate that and say yay or nay, right? is the fact that somebody's coming to us with a fata complete is that relevant and and perhaps the answer is no because that grounds in and of itself for saying no we're not going to do this. I don't think that's grounds not for a zoning district amendment there's no um findings necessary for approval uh or standard in the zoning resolution which would give rise to that basis.

Okay. I I think I'd heard that opinion before to just just to be clear. So So we need to address this as setting that all aside and just as though this is brand new. Somebody came in and said, "I want to put three houses." Posture for this. Yeah. Objectively, just like any other proposal would be coming forward. Then I I may have you in a little bit quickly on your staff report that I caught on the phrase that was the applicant is proceeding in compliance with the with the uh zoning resolution. That isn't quite true. Right.

Right. Yeah. There's a couple mistakes. The findings of fact is wrong and then the uh motions are wrong and I will fix that for next time. Okay. So in terms of the step and the conclusive law is wrong. Yeah. Yeah. That was in the conclusion. Yeah. Um, okay. Um, the the next question I had is I looked at it and and you're the reason the staff report gave for for recommending a denial was the

incompatibility with surrounding areas, but when I looked at the commercial zone, it looked to me like that the property has serious problems with the setbacks. It's a small property and it's supposed to be 10 feet from this, 100 feet broad, 50 feet from the sides. Have you guys looked at that? Yeah, it would. Um I guess this is really the only option though. Um I I don't know what else to Well, I guess my point is if we did grant the the zoning to commercial, it would still be in violation of commercial zoning. It looked to me like from a size dimension setbacks point of view. Is that not correct? What are the setback?

Well, it' be 50 feet for Okay. 10 feet from the side property lines, 50 feet from the front of the property lines, 100 foot property frontage, 50 feet from all property lines, the piece isn't big enough to do that. Right. Right. I mean, it's really not big enough to do what it's doing right now. So, say if it came to us denovo and they were going to propose what they're doing now, I'm suggesting that I mean, we really don't have a zoning that fits this size of lot in the county. Okay. So, so where would we be if we granted the application? It would seem to me they're still in violation. That's why the buildings would then be non-conforming buildings, right? Structures,

but not non-conforming in the sense of a grandfather. It would be non-conforming and you'd have to deal with that separately. Well, if we granted this, we wouldn't do anything about it. It's existing. It's on the property. It's okay. when the when that zoning got changed then they would be pre-existing relative to that point right that sounds correct Mr. that's kind of an interesting construction that would be a valid perspective because it pre-existed the application of those particular standards

okay fair all right that's all I had There's any what you said that you reviewed the potential options for dealing with the violations. Were there really any other than this?

Yeah. Um I guess the one that we presented was I guess this this route. Um or to uh make the dwelling that is above the garage no longer a dwelling. um stop listing it as another dwelling and using it as another dwelling and just use it as like a bedroom to one of the other dwellings on the property. Um that was the other suggestion and the applicant chose to go this route. You know how I always care about stuff to take leech fields. What can you tell me about that?

Yeah, we don't know much about it. Um we don't have an application for it. Um, I don't we don't know when it was put in. Could very well have been put in long before the these structures were built. Uh, we know nothing about it. So, it's really hard to enforce something that we don't know anything about. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. I have two questions and I think maybe uh Burn actually already asked my first one, which is, is the property even on the parcel? I mean, is the building actually I mean, the maps look a little off. Are the maps wrong or

uh So, it's a good possibility of I guess either one considering the size of the lot. Um, if this were to um be changed to commercial, they would be required to change the use of that third dwelling into a dwelling. And as the application that was turned in right behind my staff report shows that it was applied for as an accessory building. Um so they'd have to go through the change of use which would require a survey. Um so I guess that's when we would plan out um for sure. Um so that might be a bigger problem than what Burn was referring to. Uh could be. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. And the other thing, if you don't mind, uh, tell me how does this compare to a similar case we had in Centennial? Very similar. Um, yeah, very similar. That's all I needed. That's all I needed. Thank you. Yeah, I have a few questions also, Joe. Okay. Um my first question is uh at the end of the staff report and before the application you include a couple pages from when the applicant had saw a permit. Yes.

And because that was approved back then does that mean that essentially their property as exist today is grandfathered in? I mean there's a drawing of how the property looks. Uh, and you could conclude that, you know, maybe dwelling by the garage was always intended to be that way and the county had a chance to see that and they did approve it. Well, they what is your view on that? They applied for an accessory building, right? Um, on the application it says an accessory building is defined as any structure not used as a residence. uh on their their uh site plan of the what it's going to look like that it doesn't look like what it looks like now.

Um and all the approval documents call it an accessory building. Um so accessory building probably isn't the right term either as it would have just been an addition. Um but they didn't have that back then to apply for. Um, so the accessory building was the only route to apply for it. Um, so they applied for an accessory building, they were approved for an accessory building, and they built a dwelling.

Okay. Thank you for that. Um, as I looked and look at the site plan, to me, uh, to me it looks crude to use that word and and does it truly meet the standards that we should expect for site plans as applications come before us in your opinion?

Um, well, we don't have any regulations specific to the zoning district amendment other than what's on the application. Um, so maybe that's something to look at is is putting what we want on a site plan for zoning district amendments in the zoning district amendment just as we have for zoning certificates and conditional uses um instead of just relying on the application to um do that for us I guess.

Okay. and and I asked that question uh for the benefit of my colleagues especially because I do think it's something we ought to revisit and I would have liked to have seen the setbacks identified on this for the well in the subject field. I don't think there's any way I mean as as Mr. suggested that the setbacks are met and there's just not enough space for them. So anyway, um staff, I've got written here your response uh about the question of is a proposed zoning amendment to commercial compatible with surrounding properties or not. I mean it's not a clear yes or no. So is it or is it not compatible? Um in your opinion

I mean in my uh I would say no. Okay. Uh, and is there any way that we have being sure that the property is not already adversely affecting water quality as it says today? Uh, I don't think there's any way for us to know that. Nothing through this application, I should say. And then how long has that been out of compliance? Well, that permit was given in 2008. So 17 years. I don't know when it was actually built, but it's a circle of 17 years. Sure.

All right. Does anyone else have any questions? All right. Thank you for that, Joe. Is the applicant here? And will the applicant stand for questions? And please come forward, tell us your name. If you'd like to add anything to what you've submitted the application, feel free to do so. otherwise. But

yeah, um I pulled permits in um uh when I pulled him, I told him exactly what I was going to do. My father died and I told him I was going to build a cabin in his honor and we were going to use it as a rental. When I visited the community, there wasn't enough housing for people that like to visit the area. And I'd like to feel over the last 21 years, I've been a positive part of the community. I've helped other businesses. Albany Lodge and I have worked together, Ray Deval, David Wright, exchanging, you know, overflow of business and helping each other along with everybody else um on the mountain. And I didn't know that I was in compliant. So when I gave them all the stuff, it says detached garage. I mean, so I didn't know until recently that I was not compliant. Um, I've been on the internet for 17 years, you know, advertising and until this came up, you know, nobody said anything, including my neighbors. So, I had no idea that um, I was not following the rules. So, I'm here to try to make that right. I want to continue running my business like I have for 17 years. I'm the only one in Albany right now doing business. The lodge is out of business and it would make sense for me to be commercial since I am the only one doing business in the entire town, which is going to make it really difficult for me with the lodge being closed. It's been open since 1940 and this is the first time it's ever been closed and I'm the last one standing. So, I would like you to grant me the, you know, to be commercial. And I don't know about the setbacks, but there's pins there that are still there from back in the day. And the septic's right where it was when I bought it. the leech filled on the driveway. I have proof right now I can send you from uh All-in-One Septic that I get it pumped out twice a year and I have the emails on me and uh

any questions for me? Well, I suspect there are some questions and David um I'll defer to my colleagues. Okay. Uh in that case, uh I'm not I don't I don't think I have any questions. Okay, Mr. Thank you. I mean, I guess I would invite the applicant if there's something you've heard that that you think is incorrect. Otherwise, it sounds I feel like we have a reasonably clear picture of what is there and what has gone on.

Yeah, it's been 17 years. I mean, it's been 21 technically when I built the house. So, I've been on the the community for a very long time. Well, I have one question. Sure. Have you seen any of the comments that any of your neighbors have submitted? Absolutely. I was sent all of them. And do you have any comments about that? I think they're all self- serving and some of them are a complete lie. Thank you. I have a question. Can I ask a question? No. Uh I'm sorry, but you will not be able to. You'll be able to make a comment later on. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, but I just Yeah.

All right. Uh in that case uh we will have a public hearing now and anyone who would like to speak on this application uh please raise your hand. I'll call you forward. Uh and I will also allow the public online to do that. Again we've got a full agenda. So I would ask that you restrict your comments to three minutes. Uh if you're saying something that we might want information on, I'll allow you to extend that. But otherwise uh please come forward, say your name, where you from. Um I have something printed so if I don't get a chance to read it it's okay and also it's an invitation to the blessing of the animals but my family and I have owned a property I remember Dr. Solid Palmer 715 South 11 in Laramie but 1088 Highway 11.

Thank you.

A property that we bought. Someone had to move to Chicago. And he said, "You have to make a decision in 20 minutes." 20 minutes. My husband and I talk everything over, but we said, "Yeah, this is a beautiful place for a family company." I'm trying to very very brief but basically the documents I gave you say there are few places left where one can retreat from the busyiness of the world. The small mountain community of Albany is one of them. This sturdy place has withtood many storms including forest fires, snowmoilers, four-wheelers and drunk drivers. This is and was a place of serenity where people could take her family to enjoy the prairie, the foxes and the stars. I said, "Well, please, please keep this a neighborhood and not a place where people can come and waste their space with their parties, their drunk driving, their waste, and leave the mess for us who live there, who stay there, who honor this space. Not just for us, good for the animals that call it home. I can talk longer, Michael. But yeah, I written copy like commercials where families have found safety. It carves out the place that we've called home that we can see the stars. Thank you.

Well, thank you for your question. Any questions? I don't think so. Okay. Thank you. Go for it, please. I'm her husband. Okay. So, there are three three Michael Palmer. Hey,

there are three generations here from my family that um I think my daughter wants to say something, too. But I think we have some concerns about changing a residential area to a commercial area. And we also have concerns about the septics and about the stream that flows through that goes into beaver ponds where we live. And we so we have these concerns. I don't know if there's pollution or not from the septics, but I think it should be looked into. Um there's a lot of wildlife that goes through there that would be affected and I think it's just not in the the nature of the community to be commercial. It's a family community and perhaps my daughter could speak next for a few minutes to talk about it too. But there's we see this as a very serious matter.

Well, we see as a serious matter too. Thank you. So please come uh your daughter Okay, just tell our grandsons can come.

It's okay. Um, my name is Christy Palmer. Um, and um, like I said, we or like said um, we've been in the area since 1985 and I'm in a cabin just two properties down. I looked at the ownership map of on the online ownership map to the county assessor's website. Um, and I noticed that there um, I looked at 30 properties in the area. Of those 30 properties, um 27 were zoned residential. One was or is commercial right now and the other the other two um are vacant. Um what's the word? Vacant. You know what I mean? Like the undeveloped.

Yeah. Undeveloped. Yeah. And so that's 96.7% 96 and 23 uh% of the properties up there right now are um you know uh residential. And so I just think it would change the overall feel of the area. And um and I have uh two small children who are here today. And I think um Commissioner Hankley said it well that it kind of is a um different than what's already going on up there. Like there's the the Albany lodge which is kind of up above but this is down below um a little ways and not quite in that same area. And um I just want my two small children to have the same opportunity I had. um with regard to the overall um area. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else? Please come forward.

I'm Kenny Langford. I live 1126, I'm sorry, 1128 uh State Highway 11. I'm the neighbor to the west, the neighbor to the south, directly to the property. I gave an easement to this property so it could be sold for uh single residence uh use. Uh there was a single wide trailer there previously. They removed the trailer, built a twotory structure, evidently entered into the first occupancy or certificate issued by the county. Uh they later on applied for necessary building and a mudroom. Uh and there was some question about septic location and everything else. Uh the septic was installed during the initial build of the uh initial building uh right alongside the new additions. The mudroom is expanded into a 1400 ft probably a two-bedroom residence. Uh there's an apartment above the uh out building uh for use for another residence. So, what I've seen is a single residence deemed into now a triplex under one roof. Uh they've did some work on the well that's permitted and uh still continue to use the easement that I've got through there. Uh I've had my share of problems with the use of this, not so much by the applicant, but by uh renters, short-term renters. Uh fences broke down. I've had uh trees on my property used for targets why they shot at them. Uh I've made some complaints to the users about speed on the road. And uh

anyway, we've got a quarter acre with a 3600 foot uh that she advertised as resort uh for use for short-term use. Uh I joined her. I too ran out uh to short-term use. My properties are two tracks built in the 1940s that I purchased that are alongside my home that was built in the 58. And u I did have a short-term rental business and I don't believe I've had any complaints with that. And uh anyway, I guess we're looking at uh out of compliance. I think a lot of it was misrepresented on the permits. Uh proper permits weren't proper for what was built and uh my understanding she is uh doing this to clear the way to sell it and probably continue it as is or whatever. um depends whether you follow the structure of the zoning amendments of Albany County which really do not allow this to be a commercial property by location and surrounded by completely private properties. So that's my viewpoint and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.

Do you happen to remember when the building was built? The original structure pardon do you happen to remember when the original structure was built? Uh 2005 I believe. Thank you. So maybe go ahead do questions. Yeah. Uh sound like you're one of the long-termers out there. What so explain your situation in terms of your short-term rentals and what's your what's your zoning and permitting uh situation that you operate under? Uh are you are you just in residential and maybe maybe the gentleman to your right can help us out there. What's your what's your zoning? Uh I'm having a hard time hearing the noise is pretty uh you know the speakings were not very loud.

Yeah know this is a difficult room that way. My question was was you indicated that you two do short-term rentals and so what is your permitting zoning configuration?

Well my configuration is rural residential which evidently now is ranchet my understanding from the planning department. It's really nothing more but a short-term rental just as you would have a leased rental of your uh residence. I have two separate uh buildings on originally two separate lots. I did not build anything here. I'm sorry. you know, I just uh utilized them uh for the market, which is short-term, and then I went into long-term uh for probably the last six years, which were they were under lease purchase, and right now uh I have taken those back and looking to sell those uh as we speak. Got a contract for purchase. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. You bet. Next. Anyone else in the room? Anyone online would like to speak? I just had a couple. Oh, please come forth. Hi, I'm Clark Gunther. Our family's had a res 56 years in Alb. What's your name again, please? Gunther. Clark Gunther. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.

Anyway, when when I look at the application for zoning from uh what year was this? 08. Yeah. And it says accessory building to be used as a garage in a mud. So, however that got changed, I don't know, to a residence and living quarters. Anyway, I look at the map and there's no way the well can be compatible with a residential or a commercial. So, if it goes to commercial, is my understanding that if a zoning change occurs, then it has to meet the current specs of the county. Is that correct? No, that would be a question for either Joe or Matt here.

If the zoning change happens, they have to meet the current specs that are on the county criteria. Is that correct? Sure. I think that was my earlier question and the answer was no. Is that right? Correct. Yeah. If there I mean if whatever's on the property today and the zoning's changed, that's all okay to continue to be there. We wouldn't retroactive. So, it doesn't have to meet the current specs then. Correct. If it were approved, if it was if it if it was vacant land and they did a zoning district amendment. I mean, everything going forward does. Yes. But anything that's on the property today,

but I'm talking about with the zoning change, though. Doesn't it have to meet current specs with the zoning change? Not necessarily. I mean, it doesn't necessarily doesn't meet the zoning that's there right now. So, I mean there's no difference between being ranchet or commercial. There's no standard. That was another question I had because uh according to the Albany County map, the uh everything in Albany is residential except for the lodge. Ranchette has to be two plus acres according to the county specs. I got a copy of that. So, how could it be ranchet to commercial when it's not a ranchet to begin with? Well, these these properties are grandfathered in their current size.

Yeah. Okay. So, why does the county map and the county specs not show that? Well, again, they're being grandfathered in would be my answer. Uh, and so it's possible to have, for instance, a twoacre ranch at if we're grandfather. Uh, and it's also possible to have a two twoacre ranch ranchet depending on how the property original larger property subdivided. Well, that's not really a pertinent issue here today. I don't Anyway, that was just a point I was bringing up. But

anyway, I just wanted to say that uh you know, we believe that doesn't follow the Alb County comprehensive plan. We don't believe the well and septic meet the criteria and we respectfully request that the the permit be denied based on all those findings. And uh that's all I got to say. Thank you. You bet. Anyone else in the room? Please go for it. Who are you? And I'm seven years old and I'm worried about the water quality. Okay. Well, thank you.

Anyone online? May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Microphone. I apologize. I apologize. Please go ahead. And you're Caitlin Harper.

I'm Caitlyn Harper and uh Mr. Langford just spoke about selling two portions of his properties uh the tracks that are just down from the property at issue. And my husband and I are the ones that are purchasing that. And I just echo some of the comments that other people said. We live in Cheyenne and we fell in love with the property. We've got a three-year-old son and a nine-month old daughter. and Kenny's been gracious enough to allow us to stay every weekend up there even though we've only got the contract for purchase. We're waiting for a closing date. And we just love the community and that it seems so familyfriendly. And our concern would be perhaps the change that could happen if this were to be zoned commercial and the use of the road that our three-year-old is currently running across and what that would look like in the future uh if it were to be zoned commercial and that the intention when the easement was granted was that it would be single family residents. And we love the area and we hope that it continues to have that same character that we immediately fell in love with. Anything else, Kaylin?

No, thank you. Well, thank you. Is there anyone else online or in the room who wish to comment? I'm trying to be very succinct, but well, you've heard comment. So, I just want to explain that the use is never going to change. It's been the same since 2004, and I will not make any changes. It's going to remain the same and if I'm not approved then still going to run as it is and we'll just take one cabinet out. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move we close the public hearing. I'll second.

Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Discussion. Um Sandy, why don't you lead off? Well, I think um Commissioner Ben David brought up a an issue about consistency with a previous uh instance like this in Centennial where we voted to deny. Um and I I feel that would be the appropriate uh direction to take in this case as well pending revision to the staff report since we have to refer to that as the findings of fact. Um, Mr. Hley.

Um, yeah, I I uh would approve denying this. Um, and then I would start with point that was made somewhat obliquely perhaps in the staff report that as I continually try to remind us all, the change of zoning to commercial includes a much larger envelope. And I appreciate the applicant's suggestion that she would never change, but that carries no weight in that the thing could be sold tomorrow and having it zone commercial allows a great envelope abuses. Um, I too agree that that is it is incompatible with the comprehensive plan and it is unsuitable for commercial use whether there has anything on it now or not. It's simply too small and and it's back behind off the road as you guys pointed out in terms of the of the access. The frontage is incompatible with what we call commercial zoning. So I just think the whole piece is completely unsuited to commercial zoning.

Anything else? Thank you. David,

I echo both um Commissioner's comments. I think this case is even worse than the one we dealt with in Centennial more violations. Uh I think there is a misuse of the easement uh granted by the neighbor. So there are a lot of issues that um and so I would agree that denial of the application is the right decision. And I'll add that uh I feel the same way and I also give extra weight to the comments we receive with complaints from the neighbors. Uh that must not be fun. Uh in that case and sware agreement. Um you have a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend that the board of county commissioners deny the the zoning district amendment based upon the applicant's failure to demonstrate proposed zoning district amendment complies with criteria specified in the Bony County zoning resolution with respect to the comprehensive plan for the necessary dimensions for commercial properties. Is there a second?

I second. Any further discussion? That will vote. Um, Miss David, I, Missy, I, Miss Hannie, I, I vote I. That motion carries. Uh, for those of you who are in tennis for the application, thank you for your attendance and thank you for your comments. We'll move on to uh, the Truckster LLC conditional use application, CU-Z3-25. David Yeah, Mr. Chair, commissioners.

Um, this application um is for so it's on a a P currently uh zoned commercial property just uh north of the city of Lur. Um there's currently commercial shop warehouse RV storage on this property. They're requesting a conditional use to store and rent construction equipment and tools. And so this would be a company that would come in and and use this space um or part of this this lot for that purpose. Um access is available off of North Street um and PF Road to this property. Um the applicants actually have Derek Price on here. There's there's a representative online I believe um as well for this this application, the owner Truckster LLC. Um so this was sent out for review. We received reviews back. Um kind of the normal stuff. Um the applicant provided you know the required site plan and address all the impacts. Let's see what so the proposed conditional uses within um a commercial and industrial area. the shoes will be consistent with the existing area and have minimal impacts on the area. Um, so it's just kind of adding to what's already there. Um, and so my recommendation is to approve the application and I'd be happy to answer any questions. I think it's Marty Neil that's online if you have questions for the applicant. Okay. Unless there's somebody here I got no got questions.

Okay. Okay. Questions for staff? I have one question. Go ahead. Um, I see that uh the Laram River um the Lami River Conservation District had a recommendation

that says that uh the they don't have a problem with but uh they are concerned about invasive non-native species, plant species and they would like the equipment to be washed, cleaned, treated before it's brought on. Is that anything we can enforce? Can we enforce this as part of the Can we add language to the conditional view saying yes, you could do this if you follow the learning liver's um conservation district request?

Um yeah, no, I'm kind of looking through the the impacts here. It's in the top needs to be uh tied to one of the impacts. So I we do have the impact for environmental impacts. The proposed conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts to air, water or land soil quality. I don't know if it would fit in there. Um I mean that may be a condition that you could apply there.

Okay. And maybe it doesn't really I don't think it really fits in the general reasons but I would think you could add that as a condition under that it applies to another application we'll deal with soon about uh agencies asking for specific actions that attached to the approval and if we cannot enforce any of Um, should we approve the application? You see what I'm saying? Um,

it's not just this case, but another case we're going to discuss later.

The agency uh involved that responded said you can't do this or this or your timing needs to be different or in this case you need to wash the equipment. If we can't uh apply this condition, if we are uh legally not able to apply this condition, should we approve the application? I mean the reason why we are soliciting input from all these agencies is to make sure that we are addressing all these. Right. Sure.

Yeah. Right. I just so I mean I I guess as long as it meets these criteria we can apply the condition. Okay. Um so I would I mean and I and I think it does it meets that environmental commission condition I believe. Um I mean if it doesn't meet any of these conditions I don't think we can use that as that's my question. We can't deny it based on them. Even if it's not meeting one of our criteria such as well if it has to meet one of our crit if it's part of our criteria yes then that's part of what we can do here. Yeah.

But can we enforce it? Let's say we put the language in the condition to the approval. Are we going to send the staff member to check that they wash the equipment every time? We're not going to do that unless we get a complaint. But if somebody says, "Hey, these guys are tracking weeds all over the county or something." Then yeah, we could go out there as part of our permit. It's that's what would be approved in the permit and we can look into that. Okay. So you hear everything?

Yeah. Um Mr. G, so if this is already zone commercial, this land use is not in the land use table allowing it on a commercial property and it needs a conditional use permit. So we we look at the the land use table um and determine where it what we feel is similar and compatible to other uses. Um and there's a I believe it's a heavy equipment I can't remember rental storage selling place or whatever that is in our in our regulations and so we use that to say okay this is what it requires for this. So, we're going to require it for that because it's similar incompatible.

So, that's the standard. Is that already a a right a right not on commercial property? No. If it was industrial, yes, it would be you would call it an industrial. Okay. Yeah. And I I thought when I looked at this earlier on, now I can't find it. Do they need another uh water hookup from We have so many public applications. There's a good chance I'm getting this mixed up. Oh, yeah. I'm getting it mixed up. Never mind. Thank you. That's all I had.

Okay. Well, I actually had the same question as you did and uh it's been answered now. All right. That case perhaps we

Yeah, just I I think we all had the same question just so I'm clear on the answer. Why does this need a conditional use? is because if it were industrial it wouldn't because it's commercial it's in that category requires that. Okay. And then I just had a small feedback on the on the the staff report and I think part of our charge from the commissioners is to make these as useful as we can. Um I'm the the findings not see here. So just when this says findings necessary of approval I would like to hear an affirmative statement from staff that they did those things just in in many of our formats we have but I think here's cut and paste here. So, we have to find that they've produced the required notice and da da da da. And I want to hear you guys say they did that.

Okay. Just as a to make each of these findings should have an affirmative finding from staff that we endorse that says yes, they they complied with da. So, that's all I had. Otherwise, it looks like pretty straightforward application, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Well, thank you. Uh, is applicant here or online? I believe you said so. Yeah. Uh so Mr. Neil, are you there? Um I'm here. Yes sir, I'm here. Okay, I'm here as well.

Okay. Well, very good. Uh so whoever is going to speak when you have this application, uh if you have anything you'd like to add to the application, uh feel free to go ahead. Otherwise, will you stand for questions from uh the folks up here sitting around me?

Uh I don't have a ton to add. Uh, I would just like to point out the fact that I think that, you know, the potential for equipment share to exist in Laramie would be a good thing for the town. Um, especially because I think recently some belt rentals left the area and it's just a great thing for the community because it it eliminates some barrier to entry to some smaller companies to give competition and, you know, maybe start up a company within the community. So, I think there's some positives, you know, that could come along with us being in the community. And I agree with that actually. Um, so any questions for Mr. Neil?

No, I I would concur with your agreement with his statement. Since we have a darth of that service, it's a good thing to do. You all have any questions? I do not. I do. I'm sorry. Open it up for public hearing. Well, we're Yeah, we're have not finished with Mr. Neil yet. Uh, I think uh well I guess to follow up on Commissioner Ben David's earlier questions about um washing equipment off for uh you know transport of invasive species. Do do you have any thoughts on how how that would be possible to do?

Well, if that was a stipulation that was you know put upon us um you know that would just be something that we would probably have to navigate with the land owner. I mean, typically when we have our equipment, we have wash bays on most of our sites. So, we try to get equipment washed just as soon as we get it. Uh, that being said, it would be kind of at a lay down yard capacity in Laramie. So, it's kind of the gobetween between one of our, you know, some of our other branches. So, if it came from use, uh, you know, that might look at us I if it it was coming from use, it would be from the area. So I think that the you know danger of the invasive species would be lesser. But if if that was still you know a constraint we would you know maybe look at with the existing property owner putting a wash bay on site so that we could be washing equipment when we received it on site you know even from the local area so that we weren't keeping dirty equipment on site. So that would just be something that we would have to navigate if that was a stipulation. Uh but you know if that is a stipulation you guys come up with we'll navigate it. Thank you, Mr. Neil. I don't have anything else.

Okay. In that case, we'll open the public hearing. Um, I know we got one person wants to comment, so please come forward. Hi there. And your name? My name is Dick Miranda or Richard Miranda. Okay.

Hello, Mr. Neil. I got a um letter, a signed letter to come back uh n 20 years ago now. I bought property adjoining to him. the owner of that property was less than pleasant to be around. Uh there is a rightway right between the city and the county right there with poles on it. Um Resman or or Spectrum now gets their power from it. Culligan gets their power from it. Everybody else was able to get their power from it except me. It cost me $11,000 to get power elsewhere because the sheriffs kicked me off or and kicked off the power company at the time. Like I said, this owner wasn't Mr. Neil or like him at all, I'm sure. But I'd like it to go on record or be stated that the rightway will still exist for when I do go to develop one lot. And I think there's three lots along there that need to get power from that point right there. And and I I would welcome him coming in or the business. I've got no problem with with anything that's going to go on there as a neighbor and that, but I just want to make sure be on record to have access to the right away because there's questions with an abandoned alley that where his property is the fence goes along with where my property is, there's like 15 ft difference where the present owner he's getting it from or got it from this Charles Beam had uh put the

high school there when they tore that down. And I just like to wonder who is going to manage that area of where his property actually is a and what kind of weeds or or that also u through that 15 ft area. That's about all I have to say. Okay. I welcome him. I hope it it works out for them. But I'd like those two questions answered before going forward too.

I want to ask you to also if you can attend uh the county commissioner's meeting once this once this is considered by the county commissioner so they know as well. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any Yeah. Could we maybe get the staff to comment on that? My first impression is that this approval of this conditional use would have no impact at all on whatever those easements are and how tightly they're written that this would be completely separate actions. Is that looking to staff? Is am I correct to say that this I mean that the there was a survey provided for this property and I mean they're showing that everything that they're doing will be on their property so it won't impact those easements.

Okay. So maybe the easement is valid, maybe it's not. But then it's not our I don't mean to not be sympathetic to your concerns, but it it doesn't sound to me like that is implicated in this decision. Any other public comments? In that case, may I have a motion to close the public comment period? I move we close the public uh comment period. Is there a second? A second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. That motion carries. So, uh, we need a decision here. Would you like to speak first?

Um, I would be voting in favor of it. I seems like it's in a commercial area where where this kind of use would not be consistent with the other uses in that corridor. Mr. I I share that sympathy. Um, but would invite to Christian David if we could craft a a condition associated with our approval that would address those concerns. It sounds like these guys are receptive to that and it would be appropriate. So, yeah, I would I would approve this say with that condition. I'm not exactly sure how we craft that, but

would you like to craft that? I'm I'm uh looking at what uh Malida wrote and I think uh her comment is pretty simple and we can just adopt that language. Very good. I'm still getting

um the I I understand her main concern or the district main concern because the the whole area is pretty close to the rail to the uh Larmy River. That's where the river comes. However, at the same time, you know, we have the train going by and it and the train probably brings in a lot of um a lot of uh invasive species with it. Um just basically what it is, the recommendation is that construction equipment be thoroughly washed before being brought on site from outside the county. That would be my call.

Well, would you like to craft a motion? Um, right. I'll move to Hang on. I'll read the commendation. So, can can I can I just just some thoughts are coming up for me if it's okay to Sure. Sure. Sure. So are are you suggesting that they get washed on their site after coming from elsewhere or I mean because because I guess for me the balance is the production of wastewater and um

you know that that there's some tradeoffs there and um creating a big volume of waste water at at the site near the river. Um, yes. And you know the use of portable water for that purpose. So, so I'm just sort of conflicted. Yeah. I guess as a person who every seller battles invasive species in my own yard without heavy equipment bringing it in,

um, I can sort of see Mr. Hill's point that it's it's already everywhere in the county and and you know I'm just so so I'm just sort of bringing that up as like a a point of my own personal tension I have over it. Yeah, your point is correct that that first of all it will be a waste of water and two it will probably help introduce invasive species to the river flood plane. Hopefully they wouldn't let their waist stream, you know, flow off site as as store water.

Um so so those are really good points. Um maybe monitor for uh invasive species and deal with them like the city does with mowing instead of washing the equipment. to manage managing um managing any invasive species that that they find they're propagating on site.

I mean, the equipment will probably go all over the county, so that won't work really well. And again, we need to think about the train bringing stuff from shop from coast to coast. You know, sometimes it feels like a a losing battle on invasive steeps. Okay, I'm changing my chair. Can I change my mic? I think we'll just approve it as is. Well, then please read off the motion.

I'll read the motion. Um, I make a motion that the commission approve recommend the board of county commissioner to pull the truck LLC conditional use application C0325 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis finding effect and conclusion of law as each are stated in a staff report. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Uh, thank you, Mr. Neil. You don't need to do individual calls.

Uh, I decided that we it was a unanimous decision. So, you know, the record should reflect that it was unanimous. Yes. I'm sure the record will reflect that. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Uh so next up we have the Dunlap conditional use uh application CU-Z4-25 and this is Joe who will present.

All right. Uh the applicant owner is Lance Dunlap. This is located at 39 Peak View Road which is in Wilder Ranch. The request is for conditional use for a second dwelling on a rural residential zoned property. Um, there were some reviews. Um, pretty normal stuff. Wyoming Game of Fish, uh, had no concerns with the application, but recommends the use of wildlife friendly fencing. Um, the applicable sections of the zoning resolution are chapter 5, section five, and chapter 5, section 7. All notice has been um completed um as required staff analysis. The applicant has addressed the impacts associated with the proposed use and the planning department believes that their responses meet the requirements of the application. The second dwelling has been on the property for um a few years uh with no known issues from the surrounding property owners or the county. Approving this application finishes the requirements of the public applications that the applicant needs to go through to get their property into compliance. The only steps that the applicant will need to finish uh can be taken care of internally with the planning department. Uh this property went through the zoning change process in which the application was approved at the July 1st, 2025 board of county commissioners meeting. Planning department has an open enforcement case for having two principal structures on an agricultural property of 38.85 85 acres which does not meet the allowed density. The original enforcement case was open in 2019 but the land owners were not willing to work with the county to fix the issues that are apparent. Um and a new enforcement was open in 2024 with the new land owner who is willing. Um, findings of fact. The information provided as part of the findings of fact for approval and staff analysis in this report are adopted as the necessary findings for approval of the conditional

use application. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the Alb County zoning resolution and the staff recommendation is to approve the Dunlap conditional use application CU0425 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings effect and conclusions law as these are stated in the staff. Okay, questions for staff. I have a comment. Go ahead. Can we please send a copy of the regulations to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department so they don't have to tell us what uh wildlife defenses are? Sure. That's all I have. Mr. Hanning, I go ahead.

You can go ahead. All right. I guess again my first one is right after the word the following findings tell me that we found that that was the case. Again, just a a formatting of your of your reports. Um, more substantively, uh, conclusions of law. Applicant is proceeding in accordance and is in compliance with the zoning resolution. That's not correct, is it? Uh, it would be with approval of the application, but but they are not currently in compliance.

No, but this is the process that we have to go through to get them in compliance. Okay, I understand that, but I'm I'm just bubbling with phrasing here. Is in compliance with the requirements of the zoning resolution. That is not the case. You would say would be yeah, with approval of this they will be um again it would seem to me that that as written is not is not correct. Um above that new enforcement was open 204 working to fix the issues. Tell me what you mean by that issues. Uh they have two drawings on the property. Yeah, that that's the whole thing. There's more. Uh yeah.

Okay. Um yeah. So I Mr. Chair, I this goes back to a 2021 decision when I I listened to the uh the discussion of this in June. If you'll recall, that was a meeting where I went off to emergency eye surgery. So, I wasn't here. Um, and in deference to my colleagues who unanimously approved the decision then, uh, kind of with the understanding that this would be the next step, I I would feel a little sheepish about opposing it now. But I I do want to just raise that flag of working with someone. If if someone's going too fast and they get a speeding ticket, do we work with them to get the speed limit changed so that they are brought into compliance? No. So, um I don't just just to flag this issue of we find violations and so we change the rules to make the violations go away just seems problematic to me. Um now maybe there's a history piece here. Did these folks buy the property with the two units on it? Is that how how good it is?

Yes. Give me some history on the on the the dwelling units. Yeah, that that's the case. So, they bought a piece of property that was out of compliance. Correct. And no and and didn't know that. I guess we can't know what they knew or didn't know. But that's the presumption here is that that this you can ask the applicant. Okay. And then let's do that. Um hello. Can you hear me? Well, uh let's finish there with with staff questions and we'll come to you. Okay. And thanks.

Sure. And then just again to remind ourselves of that 2021 decision that was quite an interesting discussion that we had and I you guys might remember that I was fairly new on the commission. This was in 2025. No, but the other the in in the discussion that I listened to in June, the north, why are you talking about the parcel of the north,

which was the parcel of the north and somebody asked the obvious question of how did we get this piece of residential out the middle of this and and incidentally a shout out to the minutes that just that worked like a dream for somebody who wasn't there. I just hit the click and here it came up. So no, good good job. That's that works splendidly. It was just exactly what we would like to have happen where we were then. It was a piece of a 40acre tract and the guy wanted to build a second house on it because he didn't like the house that was on it when he built the piece. At that time we didn't have our our more finely divided residential zonings and so the option was to go ahead and zone it for 5 acre rural residential. I objected pretty strongly to that because it really he didn't want to do that and it allowed the possibility of a seven lot subdivision on the on the 40 acres. I I nearly moved the chairman of the time, Sean Moore, who's a real estate agent, with that argument of we are approving a a package when we change the zoning, even though the guy saw it wasn't going to do that. Um, so now we have out the middle of all that a land this piece that's zoned rural residential ranch and now we've reszoned another piece of it to a smaller density in the context of 40acre tracks. And we had comments clear back in 2021 that people bought land out there because they wanted the 40 acre tracks. U and now we've reduced it to less than 20 density. Again, maybe I'm just venting here. But am I understanding that correctly? That's the history of this and the east to the north and

yeah, the decision that was made back in J. Okay. Um, and then what what do you guys think about this idea of we changed the zoning to make violations compliant? So, just give me some philosophical feedback here.

I think that that we recommend this because it it it exhausts that that option, right? So, like we don't just enforce something if there's other options they can go through to make themselves compliant. So, we support going through the process. Doesn't mean we're going to support the application, but we would like them to go through that process first to see if if you know it's something that would be it would be approved, you know, and if it's not, then we move on with the enforcement. But, I don't know. I I I I just I mean, our job is to help people comply with the rules. That doesn't mean, you know, we're going to get an application to go through and get approved and that's what's going to happen every time. But I I think it's our job to give them the options and they can choose whether to do that or or other options, I guess. No,

but but if say there were five pieces of residences on the ground and then they say, "Oh, well, you can't do that." And then say, "Well, we could if we did it small lot residential. That would be a solution." And would you staff support that as whether to bring them into compliance? I mean, where are your where are your parameters here? Um, what we can always change the zoning. If that was the case, it would have to be commercial, which obviously would. Well, all right. But let's say well they wanted to do it at a density that would only be appropriate for small lot residential. Then would we see them come forward and a solution to their problem would be to reszone it small lot residential. I'm looking for some sideboard.

It would be a solution but I think everything is a case by case. Okay. I'm looking for some sideboards on staff's recommendations here.

What do you mean by recommendations? Do you recommend that we do this that we give them this? Well, we will recommend that they that the you know, we can give them recommendations or options to follow. That doesn't mean we're going to recommend that the zoning district amendment gets approved. If we feel like or a conditional use, I guess it's a conditional use. I mean, if it's something that we feel is appropriate, we're going to recommend approval. If we feel it's not appropriate, we recommend denial. I mean, but we're we're still going to give people the options that are available to them to make it right. And then when we exhaust those options, that's when we move into the, you know, the the options that maybe aren't as as nice and easy and and all that.

I'm I'm looking for the grounds for your approval. I understand you give them the options and and and that's cooperative of you and you can lay out the buffet for them to choose among but then at some point staff recommends sure approval of an option. So what is the basis for approving this with respect to compatibility with the surrounding areas and the 40 acre background and we look at all those things and determine whether we feel like it would be appropriate in the area and that's what our recommendations based on

and and am I right to then say if this was four lots instead of two then that your approval would change. I mean, do you have a notion in your minds of how far we would go in changing the zoning to accommodate higher densities than are currently approved? I mean, I guess I'm confused because this isn't a zoning district amendment, right? This is a conditional. This is the conditional ruse that derives from a zoning. I mean,

same it's the same question. What it's a conditional that increases the residential density in the wild horse area. I I don't know if we care if it goes down to five acre lots that's big enough for a wastewater system and a well on the property. Um, I mean, if if we think it's totally out of line and and maybe if it's like in the middle of all this, maybe it's not appropriate, but maybe if it's next to a public road and if you're in other development that's like that, then maybe would be I mean, it's all dependent on the circumstances and what the surrounding properties look like, but

All right. I was looking for some a general discussion. I guess I got it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I'll just add Matt has advised us repeatedly that our cases are essentially ad hoc cases. Sure. And we need to consider the facts as they are one by one and things will change over time. So what might be an appropriate decision or any decision we might recommend or make today could well be different five years down the line or with a different commission. I think that's probably I don't think you could apply really a hard and fast rule that would apply for rest of history. Uh anyway, well if we just I was looking for a sense of this. Is it five acres? This

background is 40. So what is it that we consider compatible with that? Is it is it 20s? Is it tens? Is it twos? Probably not. I'm just looking for some I I think I would have voted against the zoning change, but I wasn't here to do that and that is done and you guys were unanimous in your approval of it and I respect that. So I'll stand out. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? I don't have any either. Uh so would the applicant like to say anything about this? Uh, Mr. Dunlap.

Um, nothing to add here. I would just like to thank Joe and his colleagues for um, helping us and navigate this um, process. I'm the son Lance Dunlap of the late Mike Dunlap who was the original owner. Um and and once he passed a lot of this came to light in the years to follow and um it has been a big learning curve and as you had mentioned earlier um as we Joe had mentioned earlier that this they they've been great with giving us you know a path forward and I'm very receptive and open to any comments and feedback and this is you know I've just been following uh the guidance and the application process. uh this is very much a learning experience for me. So um we greatly appreciate everybody's understanding and we are doing our best to um remedy the whole situation. Um so thank you for the time and um please let me know if there's anything else I can provide. Okay. Well, we appreciate that. So are there questions for the applicant?

Oh none. Okay. In that case uh we will have a public hearing. Is there anyone would like to comment on this application for conditional use? I don't hear seeing one going once, going twice. I have a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing public hearing say I. That motion carries. May I have a motion on this application? I mean you can discuss this if anyone has any discussion but

is that part I have a question uh sorry is that part of that uh cooperative or are they outside I'll let Joe answer that of Wild Horse Ranch they're in Wild Horse Ranch don't they have a minimum they do in their covenants it's 10 acres 10 acre That's right. Can I Okay. And this will not be smaller tonight. No. Uh, this isn't like, as far as I know, they're not going to do anything public after this. So, it's not like they're going to do a a subdivision or anything like that. Gotcha. Just bringing another dwelling into compliance.

Correct. Okay. it and it is it correct that unlike a zoning change, this is tightly constrained. That's all this would allow that dwelling to be put on that property. Correct. Okay. I can make a motion. Go ahead, please. Uh, I move that we recommend to the board of county commissioners that they approve of the landl conditional use application CU0425 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, finding the fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report.

Is there a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? In that case, we will conduct a roll call at this time. Begin Mr. Hankley. I'll pass. Go back. Go around here. Okay. Uh, Miss Henning, I miss David. I I vote I I abstain. Okay. Uh, Mr. Hankley abstains. That motion carries. Mr. Dunlap, thank you.

Thank you everyone. I appreciate your time. So we will move on to the Union Telephone Company Rock River tower permit LUCT-01-25. This is also 100% by Joe. All right. Uh the applicant is Union Telephone Company. Um this is located a little bit east of Rock River um on agriculturally zoned land um which is vacant as far as I know. and the property can be accessed off of Thornton Way. Um there were some reviews. Um I guess if you have any questions about those, ask them. Um the applicable sections of the Alm County zoning resolution is chapter 5 section 5 and chapter 5 section 9. Um all notice was completed correctly. Staff analysis. The the request from the applicant to install a 100 foot communication tower on this site will meet all minimum standards of the tower permit regulations required. Documentation was provided and the proposal should have minimal impacts on the surrounding area. The findings necessary for approval, applicant responses and staff analysis staff analysis referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has adequately addressed the specified impacts in the same are incorporated herein. Uh con conclusions of law. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the Alman County zoning resolution. Um and the staff recommendation is to approve the union wireless tower permit application LUCT0125 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings effect and conclusions block as these are stated in the staff report.

Um I'll have a question first. Were Jake Schneider's um comments addressed? Uh yes. Uh questions for staff. I have a question. Why in a summary you don't have any reference to the Wyoming game and fish department? Uh I don't know. Um and oversight I guess

because they have very specific requests u recommendations or limitations that put within on this. For example, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the site is located in foothills shrubland habitat and is located entirely within Ponghorn crucial mental range habitat. And they ask that all ground disturbing activity and other project related activity at the site will be uh so restricting all the activities between November 15 and April 30th. And then they uh also require that all equipment is clean prior to arrival at the project site. And you know the very specific what needs to be um removed and then after construction the project should monitor the project area and control noxious weeds and invasive plants that are found within or adjacent to the site. So um this should be something that we definitely include in uh the motion. It is um an area where there are a lot of uh not far from there is a lot of uh uh wind uh wind farm very large with with uh a lot of native plants actually really nice mountain bee plants all over the place. But I think we should definitely uh incorporate these requirements by the human fish

under environmental impacts under wildlife. Oh well. Okay. Do we have a specific item that is wild? Could you point us to that? I'm not under towers. We do not. Under tow on to under tower applications we do not have that requirement. Tower permit not a conditional use permit. It's a different probably do the environmental impacts. Okay. We can do it under environmental impact. Sure. I thought we had So the the wildlife is only something we changed in the uh

zoning subdivision. Well the wildlife for the fences is Yeah. Yeah. But what about the the wildlife impacts are conditional uses? They're under conditional use applications different applications. Yeah. No, but I thought we changed um more than just the conditional use. Did I don't think we touched our applications in a while. Okay. So maybe we should. Yeah. But anyway, if we have an environmental because this is an important um this is a very important from home.

Sure. And I can tell you why they weren't included is because they were turned in with the application meaning that the applicant actually went to them first. Um and they didn't respond to us. So I guess that's where Gotcha. Sorry for reading everything. Careful. Yeah, I would um definitely would like to see that included in approval. More. Do you have anything? Well, I guess so. Unlike a wax tower, which is a conditional use permit, right? Like it's another different application,

right? Yeah. Right. But but like you can you can condition that approval. Can we condition this approval? There's nothing in here.

Uh, sorry. There's now there's nothing in the the tower permit regulations which explicitly allow for the uh planning and zoning commission and county commissioners to condition the permit like for a condition. Er, you have anything?

Let's just follow up on that. Generically, can can there be could is that a is that a a gap in our regulations that perhaps should be corrected? I'm back to where we've gone around this morning a number of times is why do we ask David Fish for their recommendations if we have no way of incorporating them into our decisions? Yeah. No, that it needs to be in the regulations. heavier to do that. I mean, that's always been my recommendation, but um I mean the the other option is it it can always be a request. You can request whatever you want.

Sure. And then and we're all good neighbors and I have no reason to think these guys wouldn't be but but let us flag that for for correction in our regulations going forward. That that would be consistent with what I'm hearing here. Um, so that but that also gets me to my one of my comments on environmental impacts. The staff comment was this area is not a known environmentally sensitive area. Perhaps that's an incorrect statement. We have been alerted by game and fish that in fact it is. So that would be justification for a recommendation to not. Yeah. I'm and I'm not heard to go that far, but I would like the staff report to reflect that we do have some knowledge of sensitive areas.

Is that an appropriate comment? We could straighten that out. I mean ask just the way it's written is is as though it was examined and nothing was found. U next question. Am I understanding is correctly this is a replacement tower? I I don't know. Uh it has to go through this. I mean, it's a brand new It's like a new tower from ground up, if that's what you're asking. Oh, just the way they had written it, it sounded like the uh the proposed equipment upgrade is not suitable to withstand future equipment loading. Therefore, they propose a new I assume they're taking another tower off Yeah. the grid or whatever. That's what I And they're putting this one up. It's not like it's not one for one. This is a different site.

Yeah, it's a different site. That was That was Sorry, I was a little confused. Um, and there there is a representative for the project online if they need to correct us or something. Um, then as always, I'd like to see each finding be affirmatively addressed. Um, there's one here that says, uh, screening and buffering provide separation from incompatible adjacent applicant responses. Please see the zoning. The staff comment is staff agrees. That strikes me as a maybe a bit too offhand. Staff agrees with why that they have met the distance and found the separation distance adequate or Yeah.

Okay. So, could you modify the staff report to say that what it is that you're agreeing with and the point is that we are able to find that they meet the the requirements. Uh then down below you've done exactly what I'm keep lobbying for. uh under air traffic safety for example the applicant submitted the required information and there are no issues similarly under number four sure staff has received this so again I' I'd like to make our staff reports consistent so that people can easily understand what went on otherwise I I think it's a good project I have no objections to it and I think the same so uh with that let's hear from the applicant

and who is that here hey good evening Chris Schlack is online here. All right. Go ahead.

Yep. I'm joined by Courtney Standidge as well. We're both with SACE Wireless on behalf of Union and this project is a result of a federal government mandate to replace Chinese-made equipment that is out in the field. Um it's a national security concern and so there's a program called RIP and Replace funded by the federal government to replace that equipment with new equipment. Um there is an existing union site in the town of Rock River. It's actually on top of like a shelter building uh and that is not uh structurally capable of handling the new equipment and thus we are looking to add this new tower uh just to the east of the town. Um I think that's kind of the the general uh scope of the project. I will comment on the fish and game response there. If there is a requirement outside of that build window, we will oblige to that. We do that with um many of our towers. If there's any restrictions through the NEPA process or any of our envir environmental reviews, we're more than happy to uh work around the uh construction schedule there.

Okay. Thank you. Uh Miss Hang, do you have any questions? Um Mr. Schlacks, can you tell me the difference in the heights of between the original tower and this replacement one? Yeah, the original tower is actually on top of a shelter, so it's it's probably about 20 ft. Um, this one is slightly outside of town. Uh, it's proposed for 100 ft. That's to provide coverage for the area. Um, it'll provide, you know, sign um coverage within existing uh other towers to connect in. But because we're moving it a little bit outside of town, this allows for kind of full coverage. uh for the wireless network there.

And so you you run a model trying to predict whether you would be required to provide FAA lighting um or FFA lighting, sorry. Um and you're you're finding that you don't need it, but until you actually apply for the permit, it it may in fact be required. Correct. So that would be a FAA requirement. Um, typically if there's an airport nearby or it's over a certain height, I believe it's 150 ft, that's where it gets triggered to uh require lighting. So at this point, we don't anticipate that being uh a requirement.

Thank you, Mr. No, that's good. Thank you. David, I have a question about the range. Um would the coverage uh encompass the uh woodland reservoirs? Um we'd have to probably confirm that with the engineer. I mean typically you're looking at five miles um in any direction. That that might be a little bit far, but depending on the terrain, it may extend over that way. I I I don't know if I know that offhand, but I could could look. Okay. Thank you. Anything else?

I don't have any questions for you also. So, thanks for your time, Mr. Schlags. Thank you. So, uh we'll open this up for our public comment if there is or public hearing. Excuse me. Is there any member of the public present online who would like to say anything? I don't see anyone. So, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of close up public hearing say I. I. Motion carries. Uh Laura, tell us how you feel. Well, if there's no lighting on it, I can live with it. I'm glad to hear that. I'm Miss D.

I am fine as long as the recommendation of the game and fish shall follow. Okay. Mr. Hley, I'm okay with it. Would you like a motion? I would like a motion. I recommend the board of county commissioners approve the Union Marus Tower permit application LUC125 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis as amended findings of fact and conclusions of the law. Is there a second? I second. Any further discussion in that case? All in favor say I. I.

That motion carries unanimous Joe. Uh so great. uh we will continue then uh so we will now come to the Kaduri zoning discriminant application ZDA-09-25 and does anyone need a break? Okay, go ahead David. All right. Um so this is a zoning district amendment application. Um the applicants are the Gaduris. Um the address for this um proposal is 1618 Skyline Drive. They're requesting to change a portion of their property to commercial. Um this was sent out for reviews and we received some comments back. Most notable would be the city of Laramy's comment which who recommended denial of the application based on deficiencies in the site plan, inconsistencies with adopted plans, cap um compatibility and development pattern concerns and reliance on city services. Um he recommends future development for this property include annexation into the city of Laramie. Um and so the applicant addressed all of the required um impacts and provided a site plan. Um and get down to my analysis here real quick. So the planning staff believes that the proposed zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestions of the Albony County conser comprehensive plan and the Laram area growth plan for the following reasons. Amending the ranch portion to commercial supported by the abdopted plans in that prior growth area one map supports auto urban um commercial land on the properties contiguous to this to the

west. Um Larmy growth area plan is similarly shows neighborhood commercial land uses um to the contiguous for the contiguous properties to the west. Um and then rural commercial land use designation of the Hab County comprehensive plan supports um rural commercial uses where major intersections are. So this and this proposal is consistent with the rest of this area which is mostly commercial um uses on the south side of Skyline Drive and much of the north side um where this property is currently zone commercial and ranchet with existing commercial uses on the property. The expansion of commercial uses will not result in a change that will negatively affect the character of the area. Access to wellmaintained road at a busy intersection makes this property a good location for future commercial uses and the proposal has addressed all the required findings. Um staff is recommending approval of the Kaduri zoning district amendment adopting incorporating the staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report. Um, I'd be happy to stand for any questions. Also, just note the the kadoras are in the back and they would be happy to answer questions as well.

Hold on, please. Uh, let's just hold on a second, please. Would you please give us a little bit background history? Background history. Yeah. Uh, of how this application came forward for the county.

Um, so Dr. secretary came in and we visited with him um about um the application. I believe that he also met with the city staff um to talk about um the potential for annexation and um it was his decision to come through the county and to apply to do what he wants to do on his property. And so I mean he's had some different ideas over the the course of some time or whatever, but um this was was something he chose to to apply for and so we're bringing it to you. And when was the initial contact about roughly? I have no clue.

I was a couple years ago or No, probably within six 10 months. Okay, we'll go in order here. Which application are we discussing? You said no. You said also. I heard you say also. So I was looking at something. Yeah. I'm sorry. And thanks for the comment. Just want to make sure we are all looking at the same thing. We're now all looking at the same thing and that is the Canador. Yes. Yeah. So uh please go ahead. Um yeah, just pardon my confusion that I got kind of lost in the maps. Uh can you bring up maybe the zoning map? Uh ours. Um yeah, that was included in the packet. Oh, okay.

It's label zoning now. Yeah, maybe there's several of them that are because there was a sketch that the applicant provided. Again, I just got a little bit lost exactly what what pieces go where. So, you just help me through that. And then as far as the staff report, I think this is great and I love the fact that you put the the city zoning on this map and that you brought the city's comments right to this trend. I mean, that's what this is all about and and you went through it and addressed them. So, I I appreciated the the organization and the thoroughess of that. So, there it is, Bern. Okay. So, the the aqua colors are around a small rectangle and a kind of a of a panhandle piece. So, what So, okay,

looking at that, tell me what we're doing. Okay. So, the little red piece there, um the that's the little rectangle piece, um that is um skyline or no, it's the the golf place, the little mini golf place, whatever. Um but that is actually not a separate piece of property that that property and then the panhandle shaped property are one property, but um the zoning on this. So there's basically two different zoning um categories on this property, right? And then and the application is to make the whole piece correct.

Yes. So the whole thing would be commercial. Okay. Thank you. That was what had me a little twisted off. Appreciate it. That's all. We're off. Skip over cuz I ain't catching up.

Well, it's it's a I feel like there's it's right like no man's land in between residential area and commercial area. And you could like flip a coin and say it should be residential, which it's currently zoned for. Heads it's commercial. Um, and just knowing the housing, I guess I can ask the applicant when it's time to to ask him whether whether it ever made financial sense to annex and get on city infrastructure to build out more residential um potential for our county residents. Um, so I'll I'll just ask the applicant some questions. Thanks.

Are you ready or Yeah, I I had the same thought and more about whether it should be I mean what's what's going on? Um would it be better to make it residential or leave it residential and develop it? Yeah. Is that it? That's all. Okay. Uh I have a few questions, David. Um, do you agree that the city has a strong and important interest in this property? What happens to it? Um, I believe that because it is next to the city, um, an annexation is a potential that Yeah, of course, the city has an interest in

and it shares border with the city. Correct.

It does. Um, and how would you characterize the uh the city's comments? I mean, would you say they're sort of could go either way or they have a strong objection or uh I appreciate their comments? Um, so I mean there there's some that I think there's some misunderstanding of our regulations um that I wouldn't agree with, but um but I don't I don't necessarily wholeheartedly disagree with everything they said for sure. And um it looks to me that the the state establishes a pretty high hurdle that have to be met to show that city interests have been satisfied in cases where properties are be considered at city borders. Is that about right?

Say that again. Uh I mean it looks to me like the state has established a pretty high hurdle that needs to be met to show that city's interests have been satisfied when properties joining the city boundary uh or being considered for development or zoning district changes. M you're shaking your head. The state has in statute. That's for subdivision and that's only that they get the opportunity to provide comment. Okay. Right. And this a zoning resolution that the city has no um I guess vested interest interest in this where there's nothing statutoily that gives them any right to make decisions or provide comments and that's because this is zoning change request subdivision request. Correct. All right. Good.

They're different. Yeah.

Um well I mean what do you think would would generally best serve the interest of the county and city here? I mean basically should the city be able to decide this in your opinion as a planner? Um, well, no, the city shouldn't be able to decide this because it's in the county. So, um, I mean, that's why we're here before you, um, for you to make a recommendation, the board of county commissioners to hopefully be make that decision. Um, it's up to the landowner to determine whether they would like to pursue um, annexation with the city or to pursue development within the county. So, I mean, it's their choice um, to to to try to do what they want to do. um within either of those.

Okay. Us I guess other Did you have a comment you want to offer or something? Yeah, I did. Go ahead. Mr. Chair, um I guess before we wade too much further into these waters, um the the county's role in annexation is numb. So I better just like for that to be Yeah. Consider I do have one quick question. Um, is this outside of the aquaill protection zone? Yes, it is. Okay. I think that takes care of

Well, okay. I don't know how you want to wait into that. I would like to hear staff's response to the uh letter that we got from the city. Can we how how you want to handle that? It's a big piece of this. Do I just start at the top and go through? Um, I guess as a specific question um perhaps Mr. anticipated it. We cannot insist on annexation. Um we could deny the zoning change because we think this is incompatible with the barary growth plan. However, is that correct? You can recommend that. Yeah. I mean the plans are intended to guide our zoning decisions.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, so the the primary growth path is in play in this discussion if we choose to put it there. Okay. Since that is a criteria for approval, right? And our regulations and the growth plan is an approved land use management plan by the city and by the county.

Okay. So, just to lay that groundwork then I that's what I'd be interested in is just maybe going through this. What's your plan? Uh let's move on and and have applicant step forward take questions and in our discussion we can have a freeranging discussion I guess. So uh Mr. here and I'm sorry are you Mr. or Dr. Well uh okay we'll please step forward if you have if you like to add anything your application great go ahead otherwise uh we'll have some questions for you I'm sure. Uh so would you like to add anything your u your application itself? Um my intention just a little background or whatever.

So the the property I bought like I just thought of just keeping it as the golf course and stuff and I bought it. It came with a residence and they both are like zoned differently with one piece of title and deed. And um the the last building we built in front of the golf course like since it's zoned commercial, I was able to get a permit builded, but there were like 20 applicants that needed like commercial space to lease. The only reason I realized is the the space to lease in the city or like wherever to store stuff is like more than a dollar a square foot versus I was able to give it for like way lower than that. So like 20 people that wanted space but then like I don't know like uh what's the proper way to I mean there's no way I can financially sustain annexing and building a subdivision or anything like that. That's that's not even in my scope. I'm a small guy. It's like I can build a small steel building and rent it to somebody to use if you guys have crew. If not, I'll just mind my business. That's

okay. Yeah. I'm not trying to do anything out of the the section next to me, they are using it as commercial. The west side is all commercial, right?

And um my neighbors, all of them are in agreement with what I'm doing. I have no problems with any of them. So the residential side like how the master plan for letting me I totally agree with it but I have no intent to sell it in my lifetime because I don't trust anything other than the piece of land I can touch and feel. So it's not going to happen unless I mean if if something bad happens to me and I have to lose the property for whatever reason. So if you allow me to do something like commercial, I would use it appropriately like according to the guidelines of the the county and I think it'll add value to our small businesses for like somebody who has a landscape company to store their tools securely for like few hundred a month versus they can't even find a space in town of Larami. It's not going to hurt anything for people in the city. It's completely it's it's completely away from where people drive and all that. So, and it's a safe part of town to have people to store their stuff. So, that's that's all I'm trying to do. So,

okay. Uh, do you have any questions? So, um, well, I don't have any ability to do anything about annexation as per our attorney, but I am just curious whether when you were talking to the city, were they able to offer any um any assistance in running any kind of sewer? I only talked to the city two and a half years ago when I bought the property and the rules and regulations what they were telling me they are completely about what I can afford to do like even just getting a survey or like some sort of master plan to that that's not in my scope beyond

if and I didn't offer any I may be misinformed um about whether the city in the meantime has changed any of their um uh cost sharing to do something like that. Um if if they have and I'm not and I'm not totally bonkers about that, would you would you consider talking to the city again to see whether

anything? Okay. Thank Thank you, Dr. um you know questions much like Hannings and perhaps Joe can explain that when he gets up to it when we get to him because I wouldn't be too I too would be interested what exactly does annexation require what is that threshold uh okay well thank you then u so uh Joe from the city please come forward and and give us some good stuff

uh good afternoon chair commission as the chair has already My name is Joe Shidy. I'm a planner with the city of Laramie. Um I appreciate the opportunity to be able to talk on this and other items tonight. Um the city has reviewed this application um against the standards laid out in chapter 3 section 5 of the Albany County zoning resolution and we respectfully recommend denial of the zoning amendment from rural residential to commercial. First and foremost, we found that there was deficiencies in the application. Under chapter 3, section 5 C6A um of the county zoning resolution, the complete site plan is required for a zoning amendment. Unfortunately, the subi submission fails to meet the basic requirements of just that per the site plan requirements of chapter 5 section 4, which we believe you would go off of for this because there is no other specific instructions for a site plan within the previously mentioned chapter. Um, and the submitted documents lack um the the basic requirements of that section. Um, for example, some of the minor things in there include things like project name, repairs name, data preparation, revision history, all things that are specifically laid out within that section. Um, but also it omits dimensions for all existing and proposed structures, provides no indication of wells, fencing or signage, and offers no verification of setbacks and landscape standards um that can be met or whether they can or cannot be met. The map itself um is in sufficient quality to clearly identify easements of driveways and dimensions. Um we noticed that it was very very blurry and was hard to tell exactly what it was looking at. Um without this level of information, neither staff nor the commission can determine whether the property can safely or adequately

accommodate the commercial use permitted in the county's land use table 4.1. Additionally, we found that there was inconsistencies with adopted plans. Both both the Albany County comprehensive plan map 3.5 priority growth area one and the Larmy growth area plan um designate the site for suburban residential use, not commercial development. Suburban residential areas are identified for single family dwellings on moderately sized lots forming the transition between higher intensity commercial corridors um and established neighborhoods. Converting this parcel to commercial use directly conflicts with the adapted land use designations and introduces incompatibility um incompatible activities next to the nullles edition and the CPL edition subdivisions which are a part of the city of Laramie. Additionally, um while there are commercial zoning zones nearby, simply being adjacent to commercial property does not automatically make further expansion appropriate. Sound planning depends on logical transitions between uses, maintaining predictable patterns as development moves from arterial corridors towards residential neighborhoods. Commercial zoning at this location would push higher intensity uses eastward into areas that both the city and the county county plans have long envisioned for residential growth. It would erode the gradual transition intended along 15th Street or the future 15th Street and risk conflicts between existing homes and potential commercial operations. Additionally, although the property lies outside of city limits, it is already benefit benefiting substantially from city fire protection and city street access via Skyline Drive and 15th

Street. Expanding commercial activities would increase reliance on these municipal services without extending regulatory oversight, infrastructure standards, or mitigation measures required under the city's unified development code. Approving this resolution would therefore undermine both this county and the city's goal for growth efficient logical sequential development. Specifically, objective LU of the Alb County or LU1 of the Alb County comprehensive plan which promotes development that can be efficiently served by public services. The city firmly believes that the uh constructive path for this property's future um is through annexation. Something that we realize that you cannot force or review, but we believe that leaving it as is as um in its current zoning meets this standard as much. Um, in conclusion, the city of Larmy urgences the planning and zoning commission to recommend denial of ZDA09 25. I stand for questions if

Yeah, we will have some questions. Uh, first I'll comment on site plans. We had an earlier discussion about site plans with the Parsons uh application and I don't know how much you're listening or not listening but uh with zoning district changes or amendments the site plan requirements are different than uh for conditional uses and they're not actually required to provide uh for zone district change some of the things you outlined but which I also agree should be there and something we intend to address in the future. Uh with that uh m do you have any questions first? No.

Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Mr. Shahini for coming to the meeting. In the past sometimes we received letters from the city but not a human to accompany them. So um I appreciate your time tonight to do that. Um, so what I said earlier about whether I'm off my rocker that the city more recently is trying to consider ways to change the cost share relationship and in in extending infrastructure out to properties. Is that am I wrong about that? Um, chair through you. Go ahead.

Um, the city has looked into that. Um, I think we have adjusted um our oversizing requirements. The basic requirements is to build to the minimum standard of city streets. Um but as far as extension of services and utilities as well as anything that would be required by UDC for sight specific um such as landscaping or parking areas that that is all on the applicant um to to provide um as it would be in the in the county as well. And

so so to answer your question, it's a very limited scope on what the city can provide assistance on. Um it would not be it would very be very unlikely to be the entire site,

but that has that changed since um Mr. Kaduri was or Dr. Kaduri was in talking maybe his his time to go in and talk predated your employment with the city and and you don't know but um I just wondered if there was any any chance to get the parties to talk again or just like the um the other new thing that the city is trying to do with like a I guess that's for city land the the 99-year leases the economic de that that wouldn't apply here and It's not even a done deal for the city yet, right?

Sure. Through through you. Um, our code changes frequently. Not frequently, but you know, we adjust to improve our code and to address deficiencies and address market conditions. Um, from two point two and a half years ago, I do believe that the code has changed in that specific respect with oversizing. Um, I believe that was fairly recent actually. Um but but yeah, but as far as 99 year leases, um I don't believe that uh Mr. Gdari would would need that because he he owns his property as far as I know. I I don't know actually the status of the property, but I assume that he is he owns it because he is applying for this,

right? I just I guess I'm just think thinking out loud about whether there's any any way to bring the parties together to explore a housing option, but it sounds like uh like Dr. Kaduri has investigated sort of the cost benefit of his options and wasn't wasn't finding the housing route to be something he could uh afford. Um okay. Well, thanks thanks share through you that that is certainly a business decision on Mr.Qatari's part. Um

the city of Lamry doesn't get involved with business decision which we we do let them know exactly what our requirements are and hold them to that standard but we don't get involved with whether they want to invest in such a way or not. Thank you Joe. You know you can make great references to me. That's fine. We're a little bit less informal if we can be s

just uh we're trying to kind of play out the where this would go in in your vision, I guess, as I understand it is the the piece would remain as is if we were to deny the zoning and and it would remain that way until such time as somebody came forward with the with the financing to put in a city improvable subdivision. because that kind of how you would see this playing out that at some point in the future this would be annexed.

Um we are fine with it either staying the same or annexed into the city. Um we believe that holding all parties accountable to either the Larmy growth plan or the Alb County um Alb Countyy's approved comprehensive plan is is reasonable. If it was brought into the city, I do imagine that it would be recommended for zoning to be residential. So if the re if the zoning application were for small lot residential, say that would be congruent with your understanding of the city's interests in the long-term plan. If that was the the the suggestion here today before us, we would we would not be making comments today if that was the case.

So you're not necessarily looking towards annexation. You're looking towards residential use of the what we're looking for is concurrency with the plans that both the city and the county have have agreed on. But if I characterized that correctly that that is a reasonable characterization. Yes. Thank you. Um okay. Anything else?

Not that immediately on my mind. interest. It's a difficult question and and I'm just looking at the map and it there it is sandwiched between commercial and and residential. I appreciated your your phrasing of how do how does one handle that transition abruptly, gradually creepingly trying to find the right adverb there. So I'll stand out at the moment.

Yeah. Well, I'll just add on right there. To me, the appropriate way to make that transition, an ideal world would be with 15th Street and not the boundary between this property and residential, but that's just my side. Um, if this were approved by the county commissioners and uh Mr. Caduri uh commenced with construction on the property. Would it be possible for the city to expand to continue to expand further past this using fifth conraint alone? It would be extremely difficult at that point. Um

I did not possible you because in many towns or cities it's possible to go down a single street and X properties further beyond some sort of you know essentially like a wall of non city property.

Um the city would not uh it would depend on exactly what is being annexed in to bring it into city standards. Um generally the city does not leapfrog and have island annexations um because extension of services does not make sense financially or otherwise. Um essentially, you know, if we're not building 15th Street, which would have been part of the obligation if it was built part into um by the city within the city, um the next property down will have to go through the county process in order to gain access through 15 what potentially could become 15th Street. But um you know as far as you know the development and whether it would stop that um I don't know I don't know the next property owner but extending services out that far would certainly become much more difficult.

Well let me re ask a question that's not what I'm asking and maybe may I phrase it poorly. I I was asking could the city uh expand its boundaries down 15th Street if this were you know not to go into the into the city this county piece and continue the city growth beyond this property if it chose to or at some point in the future or is that not possible?

I think what we're seeing and what we determined in the growth plan is that 15 our skyline has become somewhat of a barrier in the way it's developed currently to ex normal expansion. Um and therefore, um this this would probably mimic what has already been created there and kind of create this wall of this island of not being able to expand in further south. That's all I have. Does anyone have any other questions? No. Uh David? Yeah. Just um so this property annexes and then there's two island properties

that are created. So, what do you do about those? Do they have to annex two as part of that annexation or how would you deal with that with the city? By uh state statute, any islands um that are surrounded by three or more sides can be forcibly annexed at that point, brought it to the city. Um, and so if you're island zoning with county, you would, our recommendation would to our planning commission and city council would be to bring islands of county zoning in as well.

I'm not the two islands, pardon to jump in here, but just some which are you talking about again? I'm looking at the map by Yeah. So that that big pro so in yeah to the to the east it would create because it would connect to that other subdivision but then there's those two pieces or two or three pieces of property that are an island now. They're all contiguous though. Yeah. That would be the island. This guy would be Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So could we get staff to respond to his his suggestion deficiencies and so forth? Yeah. Well, I tell you, uh, let's let's hold the public hearing and then we can

continue our discussion. So, is there any member of the public who would like to comment? I would like to comment on that. Yeah. Well, please come forward. Said your name. Uh, my name is Max Skart and I'm the developer in town. All right. U, my first question is to you for on the board. Are you here to represent the county or are you here to represent the city? We represent the county. Okay. Okay. The city county planning zoning question. Well, I think I think a little different than that, Mr. Hinckley. I think a little different on that and I think that was settled with the state long ago when they took away the uh onem radius in regards to the development rules and regulations. One of the reasons why does anybody know why Sunbelt left? I'm just bringing up another subject that I want to share with you.

Sun belt is huh know what Sunelt is? Does anybody know? I know him for a fact because we're going to do work for them.

That project was shot down because of what the city was requiring of them to do in regards to their property. So, as we move to the county and we try to develop in the county, um if we overregulate, we're going to do the same thing to the companies that want to come and be in the city of Larmy. And I would I would you know would ask you guys to to consider that in regards to what's going on in all my development experiences over the 50 years. I keep seeing with the city municipalities that they're working industrial commercial and residential and multifamily houses in together. So when I hear the argument about it being commercial and there be problem out there, I don't see the problem in regards I've lived here all my life. We were with the loans when they were developing that. We've been before the city and reviewed properties up there to develop and this is one of them and the cost in the development of um housing. you can't meet the criteria to develop housing there based upon the city's regulations 30 years ago. Our regulations in the city municipality have changed dramatically to where what we're doing as developers to develop property. The cost is not a change over cost. We can't develop housing out there in that New York in that circumstance unless uh I don't know if I get your name right Mr. already had, you know, if he had 100 acres burned, we can make it work. But he doesn't. And so, in regards to the simplicity of what he's trying to do, and I'm not involved with I I I don't even know him. I haven't met him. Um but in regards to I just think sensibly when

you think about that area and what is going on it's very industrial and commercial you know in regards there was a question when um the development of of uh Mr. Lo's property went in over there. The question was people were concerned about the residential being with the commercial and we hear all the time in regards to uh the development throughout the whole city plan and everything else. There's multifamily, there's single family, there's commercial, there's industry, and it's all meshing together, which I don't think is I'm not too excited about that. I'm thinking residential be over here. If we're bringing all these, if we're talking big industry and commercial and we're bringing uh semi-truckss in and we're doing all those kind of things, makes it a little bit difficult to be dragging that through uh uh a residential area, which you wouldn't be doing that. That whole frontage of Skyline is all commercial in regards until you get to 18th Street to where there's got to be a line drawn somewhere, right? There's got to be a line drawn somewhere where commercial starts or where industry starts or where multifamily level starts or whatever the case may be. You you understand what I'm trying to say? So I I would like you guys to consider what you're really evaluating here and how small this piece of property is and what he's even proposing to do. I think it's very reasonable. Um I think it'd be a good idea. uh you know living here and being a fourth generation person in Laramie in regards to this whole thing we're struggling in Larmy and I've got a lot of reasons why I think that's the case and it has to do with the city and we have spent hundreds of thousands

of dollars on this issue. So in regards to this, I think that we have got to get things moving in regards to the community in a safe manner. But if we keep regulating things, we're going to regulate people right out of, you know, improving the city of Laram in regards to whether it's industry, commercial, whatever it may be. Uh I don't think anybody here is trying to hurt anybody in regards to that. And in most developments as we develop things, we we take on letters of recommendations from the communities and we try to meet them. So I I would really man I just want I just want to bring some common sense and some clarity to where he's trying to put a building or I think he's going to try to put a building or maybe it's a shop or whatever he's going to do. But um we really need to consider that as I've listened to you guys this evening and I listen to the concerns and regulations. Those concerns are inevitable always on up for discussion all the time, but yet we keep bringing them up and we keep extending these times to get things developed and we can't get things done. So people that are coming that want to rent a commercial building or need housing or need because they're moving into Larmy, we can't we're not getting it done. We're overregulated. and the idea that um that the the that the proposed rental company that uh I can't remember the guy's name. He's talking about the property north of Larmy and how that might pollute the river with invasive species. It's absolutely impossible in regards to what they're doing with

equipment. I've been around equipment all my life. Um, and if we're renting here, which we do now, I have to rent out of Denver, which may bring a concern if I'm bringing something out of Denver and I'm working up here, right? It's a better deal to have the rental company here because we're not crossing the line. They can't, we're not going out of town to get equipment. We don't do it here. It's a lot cheaper just in shipping. You put one of them big machines on one of them trucks, it's $3,000 just to get it here. So, I know I've said a lot of things about a couple other things. I've got much more to say, but I think can we be a little bit more uh considerable of what's going on and how people are pouring money into this community, whether it's in the county or it's in the city. And thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments.

Um, is there anyone else who wants to speak public hearing? Hearing and seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say I. I. That motion carries. Okay. Uh well, our discussion will commence. Um I make one brief comment. Sure. I would like to apologize for my my jumping in there and to you. That was a lot. So uh well I we are we're all doing our best. Okay. So yes, I I shouldn't have interrupted. You made a good statement. I appreciate your comments on the the the community. Thank you.

Thank you for allowing that. So let's begin our discussion. Um I have mixed feelings about this because on one hand um the area is at least to the west is pretty commercial with uh quite a few empty buildings actually. Um and um on the other side uh there's residential and we need more affordable housing u so you know it's it's a it's a tossup but if Mr. Kadori cannot afford to develop and city cannot afford to help him especially with reduction in property taxes we are strapped for money um I don't know that there is a solution out of it except I mean all of the conflict yeah I I mean I think it's the the the tension we see often between you know property property rights that Dr. Kaduri has the right to develop this land the way he is envisioning and we we have land use plans that try to uh guide growth in a logical fashion. Um, but it's not like uh a strictly enforcable document if it's not incorporated into our our zoning

resolution. Um, and that, you know, I think of the Millipur, um, the Millipur company, which is out here, and they went from being, um, you know, they requested to be annexed into the city at some point. And so what what we decide today doesn't preclude a future land owner wanting to annex um like like the Millipur example. Um so I don't know. I'm I'm feeling I like I said, you could flip a coin and say it should be residential because of everything to the east or commercial because of everything to the west. You could arbitrarily pick where 15th Street dumps out onto Skyline and and then I think it's also a little complicated that part of the property. It it isn't subdivided off. It it's just zoned. That one oasis golf section is already zoned commercial. So that sort of adds a little complication to to the to the to the facts of the land. So I'm I'm interested to hear what what uh you both think about it as well.

Well, I'm I uh in response to this application and and Mr. Kard's point. I I think it's perfectly clear that our charge as is the charge of the county commissioners is to represent the residents of the county and there are some 35,000 of them. Some of them live inside the city of Larie and some live in Rock River and some live out dispersed across the landscape. But our charge is to do our best to ensure the health, safety, and welfare and morals is actually in the state law of the that whole that whole group. And so I appreciate Mr. Gothard's use of the word community, which does not stop at some particular street. and and so I think it is fully appropriate for the county commission and us as the new adviserss to address the concerns of the community which includes both in and out of the city of Larmy. Um then as to the substance of the proposal, I'm sympathetic to the idea of of you draw the line somewhere between commercial areas and we try to concentrate those and develop them around these major alterials like like 27 uh north and south skyines kind of on the bubble. Um I'm sympathetic to leaving this in residential zoning towards the time in the future when development pressures and development financing are commensurate with it being brought into the city. So I the city and the county cooperatively developed and adopted the primary growth plan as they have other land use planning documents and I and I celebrate that cooperation uh rather than those who would draw a sharp line and say our job is to defend

the county against the city. I just don't subscribe to that psychology at all. That that said, the community does need additional housing and we need to develop in an way. But but Mr. Hanning is I'm kind of on the bubble, but but if I'm going to fall off the fence one way or the other, I would fall on the side of leaving it in residential zone. Mr. Hankley, can I respond to that?

Uh I'm sorry, but I I believe we need to hold off on that. Um, can I make one point to consider? The point would be that it's not you you're not going to develop that um you're not going to be able to build housing there, not because it can't be done. It's because what the city requires in development fees as well as water and sewer that's got to make it there. We know those things for a fact in regards to the cost because we've been there on that property before. So, I'm saying please consider the fact that okay, wait a minute. If the property can't be used for this because it's too the costs are too much, what can we use property for? That's what I'm that's what I'm asking you to consider.

Yeah. Oh, thank you. Um I'm in line with uh burn here. I'm very very sympathetic to Dr. Guri and um property rights. Yeah.

And I'm also thinking about the long-term success and prosperity of the rural community. My hope would be that if we stick with the plan we have and talking about the water growth area plan and also the city's plans that if and hopefully the city prospers also property values will prosper and that any property owner will enjoy increases the value of their properties with city growth and prosperity. Um, so, uh, I'm inclined to again stick with the current zoning we have. I would recommend denial of this, um, and go with that. I'll also add that we all recognize that some of our decisions are easy and some are very, very tough and it's not possible to make everyone happy. That will never be possible. Uh and also further add that I really appreciate the city being represented here.

I think s put all the facts. I don't agree with everything what he said. You have to like wet those facts what they brought up and I think I'm being like bullied by some everybody that can be powerful enough to I'm a single person here. I don't have any experience with this. I honestly don't know this gentleman until this moment. So I'm just trying to say whatever they came up with all that logistics like half of the does not is not true. I know that I can prove that. Yeah. So is anyone prepared to make a motion here?

Do do we want to have staff respond to the city's for example the claims of deficiencies? Is that there are some objective notions floating around this discussion? have the Yeah, David, please uh tell us whatever you'd like to say here about what the city had to say.

Sure. Um chair, commissioners, um so his first the first point that was provided was that it's not meeting the uh requirements of the Alb County zoning resolution. Um that's he basically based on what is required in chapter 5 section 4. If you read chapter 5 section 4, it says site these are the site plan requirements for a zoning certificate and for conditional use which this is neither. And we know that I mean obviously city staff doesn't know the the history of how we separated out the zoning district amendments and you know the permitting the actual permits. So those applied to the permit and that's what was being discussed here. And so that's where I I believe there was the confusion. Um and in my opinion, they did meet the requirements because there's no requirements actually for a zoning district amendment when it comes to site plans. Um so there's that inconsistency with plans. Um oh actually they mentioned landscaping requirements. You know, we do have landscaping requirements. However, they're not required at the zoning district amendment stage. they would be required with any buildings or development on the property. So with a zoning certificate or a future conditional use permit, that's when we would require the landscaping page. So it's not that we're not requiring it, it's just not required at this stage. Um it's inconsistent with the inconsistent with with adopted plans. Um the area already includes um commercial zoning that's contiguous to the I mean there's the two subdivisions um and the commercial is already abudding this these these things. Um and there's actually commercial on the east side of this property as well. So it's not like there's not commercial over

there. there is um and the the the subdivision that's north of this property um is abudded by a commercially zoned property that's in the city. So this I mean I'm I'm trying to figure out where these things are inconsistent but um you know if you look at those things those those subdivisions already have commercial zoning um and I don't think there's going to be an impact there. um reliance on city services. This area is shown as growth efficient by the Alb County comprehensive plan. If you look at the growth efficiency map, um it's in prior to growth area one. Obviously, I believe this area is covered by the the Alb County Fire District number one central station. So, it's either them or there is a a contract um where the the county um district fire district pays the city for services. So, it shouldn't be a strain on city services because we're paying for them if they are coming into the county. So, some of that was was not exactly um um I don't I guess I don't necessarily agree with with some of the comments there. Um and you know, the only the only service that's being provided right now to these this property is there's an existing road, but it also serves every other county property that's out there as well. So, um, yeah, maybe there's a little additional traffic, but, um, it's a paved road and it should be able to handle additional traffic. So, so there really isn't unless they request additional services from the city, um, nothing is going to change when the zoning changes or if the zoning was was to change. Um, so those are my comments to those comments. Um, you know, we do appreciate the comments from city staff, um, and their time and effort they put into this. Um, and and obviously, um, we

have differing opinions, but it gives you the opportunity to to weigh their opinions and the information and and make a decision based on those things. So, and I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any questions on my comments. Just a quick one in terms of the city zoning. I thought you said that the city's there's their own commercial right across the street. I'm looking at the map. You mean not right across the street, but like to Yeah. to the west there's that that that abotss the the subdivisions across the street. Yeah. Okay. So the as we're kind of characterizing in our minds, do we do we stop at 15th? If right if one did it would be residential east, commercial west. Yes.

I mean if if that's the the boundary that that is set. No, just so I'm understanding the map that I'm looking at. Correct. Yeah, thank you. Oh, well, thanks, David.

How do I feel? Same as we did before. All right. To to uh looking for the for the words here. All right. Just to to bring us to something we can vote upon. Yeah. Is that your I would recommend that the to the board of county commissioners that we deny the Kaduri zoning district amendment um based on incompatibility with the county city adopted land use plans. Is there a second?

Well, I'll second it for conversation. Okay. So further discussion the motion

can we think about timeline for example I mean what are the chances that uh that this area will be developed for housing I mean well there's But it's reasonable to try out there that I mean from what we know about development in the city right now the area on the other side of I80 is going in right I'm sorry

the area on the other side the north of I80 across from this is uh you are developing it it has been I think she's talking about the plan urban development by the high school. Yeah,

that's for you. Um, yeah, there is development up there. Um, we're looking at Grand View Heights, I assume. Um, and there is multif family development going on there as well as various different topologies of house housing going on. Um, for full transparency, within the city, we have about 60 new units of housing built every year. That's not necessarily a lot of times that is partially a workforce thing as well. Sure. Sure. How many people we have to build things. Um but yeah.

Can I ask? Yeah. So I'm looking at the map again. I'm seeing 18th Street which is has developed and really still be high density residential properties. How is it that that was developable and and this other area would not be? Are you talking about there where like Pearl Street is? And I'm looking at the map that was right to 18th Street south of Skyline. It's right here. That's Pearl and all that. I'm looking at the air photo that has been annotated for us by the staff. Pearl. Okay. And that's a subdivision running south on 18th Street. Is that correct?

Right. And and speaking to Mr. Kther's point in some of this discussion that that this could never be brought into residential area that that seems in Congress to me when I'm looking at the area immediately east having been developed as high density residential. Any response to that? that is there any reason you see that this couldn't join its partner there on 18th Street

without doing a full uh financial analysis it's hard but I can make some speculations um yes there is housing there it's fairly high density it is single family residential though and so it's possible to continue that up north leading off of adjoining streets and the continuation of 15th Street um and so whether or not it's financially feasible for Mr. Kadari specifically or for anyone other specifically. I'm I would be making a lot of speculation without doing historically that those houses on 18th Street south of I80 are relatively new.

I'm remembering right I mean they're kind of being but built as we speak. So were there any shortcuts that they took? Were there any special obstacles that they were uniquely able to overcome to develop that subdivision for for the area to the south or or to the east or to the area Grand View Heights? The existing development along South 18th Street.

I believe that development was either late 90s or early 2000s. Um so it's been a little while since anything was developed out there. Um why part part of that has to be you know who owns property and why they would want to develop or not develop um is it within the purview of the the individual property owner and so um why this area is any different than anywhere else in the city I don't believe that there is any extenduating circumstances for this may well be the case that I wouldn't be able to personally develop that either I don't have the financial Sure.

A large company that does this for their business could perhaps come in, buy a property, develop it. Well, and in fact has immediately east of that is my point if if I'm understanding that correctly, which I was inviting you. I guess I'm feeling that I'm seeing this correctly. And this was well before my time and so um it was before my time. Yeah.

Um so I'm not sure if it was a big developer. We have smaller developers who do minor land divisions to put a make a lot that's much larger than what they need into two separate lots. Um when we're starting to get to major subdivisions, that's when costs come into play and engineer design reports are required and um you know design of streets are required and it in order to build there is a financial application that goes into these projects. It's not a trivial undertaking and I don't mean to suggest that otherwise

and it's also the case that different investors will have different investment referrals uh you know for sure return they might want any other further discussion in that case we'll take oh you want to say anything else

just one thing that in a I think it was last year in a similar case in west Larammy we uh approved the application based on property individual property rights. Um and that area was even more integrated into the the city cloating the city and uh and we uh we felt that individual property rights were overriding interaction between the city and uh and the county. And so I I have a little bit of a apprehension about uh denying this application given that we have approved similar ones in the past. So we saw the precedent of it.

We'll say one last thing please. Are you all agreeable? Yeah,

sure. Please come ahead. So that city depth subdivision that exists like on the south side of that I80 that has never expanded for a few reasons because since I own the property we did like some test like uh like like when I built that foundation for the the the commercial building in front of the golf course that soil and that that that place is not suitable or it's not easy for like building homes and stuff like that. So, it takes way more money to build a subdivision. That's why you didn't see any expansion of building extra homes in that subdivision. I mean, believe me, if it is feasible for me to develop it as a subdivision, as a housing, it's more lucrative than just building a little shop in that whole 11 acres. So I'm trying to like say so at some point let's say if somebody wants to build it I can easily dismantle the shop and easily annex into the city and I myself will build it at some point but please be considerate in just letting me use the land that I own. I bought it with my sweat and blood. I feel like I'm being in a position where I can't use like the land I bought with I mean just because I'm not violating anything. I'm just asking permission to build like a shop and use it. If nobody rents it, that's my problem. But I just want you to think through why did that subdivision never expand?

Thank you. Yeah. So, we'll conduct a lot. Um, so can can I make a Yes, you may. The general comment about where where we potentially find ourselves is we could end up with a tie for the second time in a year where where it stays with us until we have all five commissioners to break the tie. Or we could look at this as um really we're we're a recommending body. We're not a deciding body. Just hold on a second. We've dismissed the tie issue, haven't we? Uh,

haven't we voted and approved our bylaw changes for ties? No, we we did not. Well, they they're going through public. Where are we? Yeah, we did. We did. We voted on it. Okay. Yeah. This this one something the public can't do anything about. So, we can have a tie vote. Right. Right. So, with that, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but Right. This just feels like one of those issues that the county commissioners are the ones who are going to have to make the decision, right? And that we could spend a lot of time discussing it when it's really purely a recommendation for us. It's almost like it's going to be called by the by the three county commissioners. So So remind me if we have a tie, it goes forward.

No. No. Uh but anyway, that's only if an application with a timeline. Yeah, if a motion fails on a tough is the standard for procedure. So the motion fails, we would not have to go forward. Well, okay. So then we have to do something else. But but yeah, fact that the motion was to deny it, that motion would fail on a tie vote. Your comments and I'm sorry for interruption.

Part part of me is just I'm I would I'm leaning towards voting to uh it's sort of a double negative, isn't it? To to say no to the denial. Um I'm sensing that from Commissioner Ben David, which puts us into a tie. Or I could vote to approve, even though that might not be what I want, just to like get this thing, move it up the chain into the real decision makers,

I think, which is my recommendation is that you keep it moving. Um, and it can even be move uh a motion to rec or to pass along to the county commissioners with a recognition um that it was a tie between recommending denial and approval. Oh, so we could have our tie and then recommend moving it up the the chain regardless. Yeah. Okay. So the motion would fail and then we would be back where we started and then we could do something else as per Mr. suggestion. That's how we would proceed in a parliamentary way.

Could have a motion to dispense with it to dispense with the tie by sending it up the chief. Is that what you're saying? Uh well, the motion itself would be to forward the application to the county commissioners recognizing uh that it was a a tie between recommendation of approval and denial. Yeah. So, we'll continue the roll call vote. We will make the decision uh and then we have further discussion if necessary. The motion on the table on the table is to deny

um what's you miss Hanning? They I guess it um and I agree uh to deny and Mr. I vote yes for my motion but it fails. So we're back to where we started. So we do have a tie. So we don't have a tie. We have a nothing. We have nothing. Um so uh as Mr. errors has indicated. I think probably what we should do is uh dispense with this by recommending go up to the county commissioners for the decision with the acknowledgement that it was a title. Exactly. Yeah. So, may I have a motion uh that we do that?

I move that we send this matter on to the board of county commissioners with the acknowledgement that we had a time. Is that appropriate or that there was that we were split? It wasn't we were split, right? That it's that there's a split between uh recommendation of approval and denial. Okay. What he said. So we clear on the motion. I second the motion. Okay. Second. And uh I'll call roll again. Mr. Hinckley I. Miss David I. Miss Hannity I.

And I vote I also. So that motion carries. Uh for those you're here who are present which I guess is Dr. Pori on this page. Thank you for your attention. Again I I regret that we're not going to be able to make everyone happy in life but that is life. So can we have a break? We can't have enough.

Joe, are you good to go? Uh, I think so. All right. Uh, so our next application is for the Point North subdivision preliminary pled application SD25. Joe, please regail us.

Yes. The applicant is Coffee Engineering. Owner is Point North LLC. Um the request is the approval of a preliminary plat and it's zoned industrial. Uh some general summary. Um they're proposing a 15 lot subdivision within their 71.13 acre parcel which averages about 4.74 uh acres. Water is proposed to be provided by individual wells. Septic is proposed for each individual systems. Uh storm drainage report was complete for this proposal and reviewed by Jake Schneider. Um power by carbon power and light or rocky mountain. Internet by charter, gas by Black Hills. Um US Postal Service can establish delivery. Um no new roads are being proposed with the application. Um the applicant has provided proof of access. Um road maintenance uh PF is a county road and fire protection for this area is provided by Albony County Fire District 1. There were some reviews. Um I think most have been taken care of. Um and we can get to those later I assume. Um, the applicable sections of the Elmy County Planning and Subdivision regulations are chapter 3 section one, chapter four, sections five and eight, chapter 5, section one and four, chapter 6, section three and four. Um, all notice was taken care of properly. I will note that the fencing requirement has not been met um as the applicant does not believe that this requirement applies to this subdivision. Um they have sent in a variance request and I can get to that in a moment. Um staff analysis. The applicant has provided a complete preliminary plat application including all required documentation and reports. A final plat application will be required if the preliminary plan application is approved which will also

require approval from the board of county commissioners. Findings necessary for approval. Applicant responses and staff analysis of inclusion of required information as referenced in this report are affirmatively adopted as findings that the applicant has provided the board of with adequate information that the requested and required findings. Documentation, notice, and notations have been satisfied by the applicant and the state are incorporated herein. Conclusions of the law, the applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the Alton Academy planning and subdivision regulations and the staff recommendation is to approve the point nor subdivision preliminary plan application SD0325 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions law as these are stated in the staff report with the condition that the plans for the fencing requirements uh be submitted by the board of county commissioners meeting. Um it is I guess let's get into the variance. Um they're requesting a variance from the fencing requirement as they believe that it they don't pertain to them. Um we view the statute as any of our zoning allows um cattle to run um which is the statute. Um, and I guess with that we would recommend denial of the variance because it's statute. Um, the applicant can give us the plans for the the fencing. Um, or um receive notice from all of their neighbors um that they are not required to do the fencing. Um, and either one of those is satisfactory for us. Um, so yeah. So, we don't have an actual application for a variance in front of us.

So, subdivision variances go through the subdivision application. They come with the application. All right. Is that correct, Matt? I'll defer to J. All right. Very good. Um, was that described as a variance? Well, there's nothing in there about that. Okay, that's it. It was sent separately. Okay, so yeah, so let's go ahead and ask questions for Joe for those who have them. Begin with uh

this is just really unique for us. We've never had an industrial subdivision come before us. Um, have you I have not. Now,

I guess when I think about the way zoning was laid out, you know, after the fact of things being in existence already, that probably one of the reasons why this was zoned industrial was the idea that growth in that direction would be hooking on to city sewer. for the kinds of wastewater that could leave an industrial facility. But we don't have anything in our in our um in the zoning resolution that guides any of that. I mean, it's just a one acre minimum lot with certain setbacks and you can have a private well and you can have a septic system and the septic system will be up to the state to permit. And we know that the state doesn't look at the cumulative impacts from one septic system next door to another if they're all receiving industrial potentially, you know, different different types of industrial wastewater. I guess one one thing I wonder if you can just pull up on on the screen for us all to just sort of look at real quick. I mean, it's already zoned this way, so maybe it doesn't matter. Oh, there goes the fan. I'm just wondering what the permitted land uses are like what what are we contemplating could be all stacked on top of each other or maybe we don't have the right to even think about that because it's already zoned industrial and there's nothing in the ranks that

yeah I don't think you can you can deny a subdivision based on what can happen there but maybe I'll that'll be a math question I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question? I I guess generally I'm I'm troubled by the the concentration of um industrial uses all next door to each other, all discharging to septic tank leech fields near the river. Um, but our, unless I'm mistaken, there's nothing in the zoning resolution that would allow us to take any of that into consideration.

This would be for the subdivision of it. Correct. Um, it's

Well, there's the the water supply system study and the sewage system study. So, that's that's later on or well, no, it's right now in the subdivision stage. Yeah. Okay. Which is where we are, right? Okay. Yeah. Right. Thanks for pulling up the ladies. So, ranking I'm trying I had it first. Well, Mara, I mean, do you have any other questions? No. Yeah. We're off. So, my question is these are not going to be homes. These are going to be industrial. They're industrial parcels. That's what like an industrial punk.

Yes. Okay. I um I'm highly concerned about industrial waste so close to the All right. I'm gonna stop. We're here to ask questions at this stage and that's fine. And let's say that for discussion and stick to questions for right now and and yeah, let me interrupt. But my question was that everything is going to be an industrial. That's a great question. Okay. Anything else, Rob? No. Yeah. I just have a a procedural question in terms of our interplay with the city. Now, because this is a subdivision, it requires us to consult with them. They don't receive comment.

Receive. Yeah. But I don't see how that works. So, what you've given us here is a draft response, but that's hasn't been given the city because no one's approved it yet, right? So no this whole and then the city says let us know x days before you considering it so this whole thing doesn't hang together for me. How is it that the city they give us a set of comments and then we're supposed to respond to those in some way that they can then dispute I guess. So, no,

I mean, so what happens is, so the city has to turn in um their comments about a subdivision 20 days before the board of county commissioners meet. So that's the 20 days. They turn those into us. If we decide we do not want to follow them, we have to provide reasoning why or a letter saying this is why we didn't follow follow your comments and that's it. There's no no discussion after that. um unless unless the board of county commissioners wants a discussion and we would like to have them come talk to us or something like that. But that's all that's required is us to respond to their comments,

but not not in a dynamic way. That that would happen after it's a done deal. By the way, here's what we did with your comments. Yes. Unless, like I said, the board said, "Well, let's table this and ask them to come and and explain their comments or something like that or they want to ask for but but yeah, technically all they all the county has to do is to provide a response to their comments if we don't at some point."

All right. I guess maybe I would just suggest that procedurally and and perhaps the city representative speak to this. It would make sense in to be to be ingenuous about the process that you guys would alert the city that a subdivision application has come in and then that's the basis of their objections. And then they would have the opportunity before it went on to the county commissioners to to hear what we had to say. Kind of share that draft. I guess they could read it in our packet. I'm just concerned that we don't have a I mean a healthy give and take there. Um

because the the your response doesn't go to anybody except through the packet, right? So it goes to the public. So everybody has it. Okay. Okay. So that would be the way the city look at that and and at the end of the city letter they have a request and understand it's a request not a statute requirement. Right. Please let us know what you think. Correct. Okay. And I would like us to respond to that in some way just in the spirit of cooperation even though we don't have to. Right. Well, they have it now. They're here at this meeting. They can respond and there's another meeting. So,

okay. Okay. All right. Well, that was just that segment just seemed all to me that we have a draft letter in front of me that just saying, "Yeah, couple years ago we ignored your letter, did what we wanted to do with it or took it under." And and the draft is is if you guys want to make any changes or make suggestions to the board of county commissioners. I mean really nothing's approved. Like we could take it to the board with that letter. They could say nope don't want don't believe in any of that. We'll write our own letter.

So it's just a courtesy to provide something in writing if they want to use it. I mean, and if this, you know, if it gets denied and they there'll be no need for the letter anyways or or whatever or we we, you know, acquies to whatever they're asking in the letter, then there's not a need for the letter as well. Yeah. All right. All right. Just hold that that word courtesy in there and so that they do have the opportunity to to actively engage in the back and forth between the city and the county. But I think you've explained you explained the thing properly too.

Um yeah, otherwise I didn't have any any specific questions. There was a reference to the uh water wastewater suitability study that wasn't included in the packet that provided us subsequent to that. I have had a chance to just briefly look at that by way of disclosure. So no, that's that's all I had for staff. Um Joe, what discussion have you had with the city on this application? I sent it to them and I received their comments. I haven't talked to anyone uh on the phone or anything like that. And when did the applicant first contact the county roughly? Oh, um June or July, I believe.

And I believe we had a discussion where either David or you mentioned to me that it's actually a project's been long time in in the works. Yeah. From what we were told, uh, the applicant has been or had been, I guess, trying for many years to annex. Um, I don't know the reason why or why why why stuff did or didn't happen. Um, but that's what we were told. Okay. And here, yeah, the city has registered a pretty strong objection to approval. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Is applicant here? I believe so.

Well, then have applicant applicant stuff forward. Did you say the applicant step? Okay. I didn't hear you. Well, I'm sorry. I should speak. Okay. Good evening. I'm Dave Coffee Coffee Engineering and with me is Bob. Okay. Very good. Represent. Welcome here. Uh if you have anything you'd like to add to your application, uh go ahead. Otherwise, we'll perhaps have some questions for you. I don't think we have a whole lot of comments. Uh we've we've pretty much laid everything out on paper for you guys to review. You're not required to add anything, but you welcome if you want to. Yeah, we're happy to answer any questions you might have.

Right. Well, in that case, David, do you have anything? I do. Uh I'm looking at your plan and given the proximity to the river uh and and the potential contamination from uh from uh septic systems that every one of these will be reliant on. Why put the many small smaller lots closer to the river rather than on the other side? um you could have at least mitigated a little bit of the potential uh contamination by actually flipping the plan and having the small lots closer to 287 or 30 uh than to the liberal.

Uh we uh we decided to make the land the the lots um match our intended use. Oh well in but can it be flipped? No. And and I'll make a comment. There are there are a number of industrial uses out there now on that property that do not have septic systems. Cell towers, propane tanks, uh level three and uh resonant communication, fiber optic,

fiber optic. Uh yeah. So I mean for the most part uh they're the only real septic systems that I know of out there are in a in uh one property well residential residential that Yeah. So yeah and that's right on the river and that doesn't make me feel bad. I know. I'm just saying. And there's a pretty good buffer from the river.

That's my main concern about this. And I the these are septic systems that will have to be designed by a professional civil engineer or geologist and and and and reviewed and approved by the DEEQ. And they aren't right. Most of those lots are not right on the river. Uh the city of Laram has their wastewater treatment plant right on the river which is and and my knowledge they don't have a septic system there either in it. Okay. Uh I mean our so

um I didn't have time to look at the DEQ rules and regulations about septic tank. So maybe you can just fill me in if if they're top of mind for you. Um, and also we didn't get this the water and wastewater report until this afternoon and I was at work and couldn't look at it. Um, I'm just noticing that you're referring on the first page that the proposed land use will continue to be commercial. Um, but it's but we're really talking industrial. Does the DEEQ make any distinction between those two land uses and their regulations? Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Thank you. I think that reference isn't commercial as in these are industrial lots, but they're it's a commercial use in inevitably, right? It'll be a business that goes into these lots in a commercial fashion,

right? So, so unlike our our planning and reszoning which sort of demarcates these uses, your DEEQ rules and regulations don't make a distinction between um until you come in with an actual application. the I I see I think believe I see where you're headed with this that the DEEQ does distinguish what type of affluent can be discharged into a a a septic system

and that has to be considered when whoever whatever the land use is uh is not going to be allowed to just dispose of you know toxic chemicals into their uh into their septic system because it's an industrial zone pro property. They still have to follow the same septic system design guidelines. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Um I was intrigued to hear that there's been a history of talking to the city about annexation. Can you just walk us at this point in time? We've had the property for a number of years. At this point in time, we've decided that the best course of action for us from a business perspective is move forward with the county subdivision and and so was there some you populate that a little bit. Is it?

No, we're not. I don't think it's gerine to the discussion today. Okay. Well, I guess it's gerine to the city's comments which they have lodged forcefully with us in terms of where does annexation fit in. And so I just wondered what your what your thoughts are on the annexation option. So it's not something we're interested at this time. Just just full stop. Not interested. Okay. That was the the question I had just so we could understand the context of the discussion city. that if the applicant is hasn't has hasn't got anything to share, then I guess that's where we are. Yeah,

I don't have any questions either. So, thank you. Thank you. Uh Joe, please uh give us the city perspective.

Chair commission Joseph Shidy with the planning division again. Um, as you have in your packet, you have a a comment from the planning division from um, Philip Abatuler, planning manager. I'm here representing these comments today. Um, speaking from a planning point of view or how this letter is outlined is from the different departments. It's laid out slightly different. The letter that I provided you um, but the first one was related to planning and our comments. Um the point north cert subdivision does lie completely within the Larame Grove area plan. Um a plan that was jointly adopted by the city and county. Um and obviously the there's other extenduating circumstances. Um while the proposed industrial use um does not reflect a deviation from the plan itself. Um annexation into the city and bringing it into city standards um certainly does. Um the city strongly discourages unincorporated urban style development in the areas um directly adjacent to the city without annexation. Um similarly to what we listened to earlier um the the LGAP specifically envisions coordination coordinated utility and road services expansions um in order to make this area more developable. Um public roads if dedicated must be designed um and constructed per city of Laramie standard details and specifications per our engineering department. Um from our utilities and fire protection standpoint, the engineering report acknowledges for existing city of Laram fire hydrants along PF road. The subdivision does not propose extension of public water. Reliance on individual wells and septic systems for 16 industrial lots within immediate

proximity of city city limits raises concerns regarding water quality, long-term service feasibility and compliance with community's broader utility strategy. Finally, um we have a comment from our code administration division which is our building department. Um, if for any reason any of these lots were to want an annex or to want to get city services, then they would have to come into city standards prior to being accepted into the city. Um, the city and the county's regulation on this, it deviates pretty substantially. Um we um while I believe that there is some congruency, we do have to follow up and we do have to um inspect those within city limits um to ensure compliance which is slightly different in the county. Um overall um our concerns are mostly related to an industrial style development, urban style development directly adjacent to the city borders and you know not following normal normally applied city standards and I am available for questions but I can also go first. So you realize that this is completely industrial, right? There will be no homes or families or

from what the applicant is my understand your responses because when I read your comments and then uh Commissioner Jones responses, I I felt that you were talking about maybe potentially uh uh some residential development and she responded about industrial. So I I got confused on your exchange. Joe, I will say that the Terry Jones responses are drafted by planning staff. That's a draft. That that's not her actual responses. Fine. Okay. I I see who signed the letter, right? Sure. But

I felt as I read the responses to your comments that there was an misunderstanding between you guys. So your comments in your your commentations were about an industrial development. This is only industrial. That is to my knowledge what this property is because the way I I'm sorry I must have misunderstood your comments. Yeah. No, this is related. Clear to me that you knew it was industrial. Okay. Thank you, Marl.

I don't have any questions.

Yeah. Um it it strikes me that this is very different than the previous one because this is a zoning decision versus this is subdivision decision versus a zoning decision and those zoning decisions give us quite a wide latitude to make up our various jointly approved land use plans. Um, and I think this draft response from staff to your letter, uh, basically boiled down to, uh, can't do it. We have no rules that we can enforce that would implement the learning growth plan into subdivision requirements. Respond. What what do you think the county can legally do?

Um, let me just say I'm not a lawyer. Again, I I've come up here and said I'm not a lot of things. I am also not a lawyer. Um, and so I I do hesitate to speak on legal um rights or obligations of the county. Uh, I will say that the Larmy growth plan was a mutual document that was drafted by both the city and the county and adopted by both the city and the county. Um, and whether or not they implement it or not is a decision by both planning staff, their legal representation and the decision of the county commissioners. We believe as we are implementing it as to the maximum extent feasible which we recognize that the Larry growth plan is primarily focusing on the unincorporated city of Lar uninccorporated Albany County um may be difficult to implement with the current regulations that are there. Thus the reason why we had brought before before you all and the county commissioners the mutual agreement um the intergovernmental agreement as stated by um state statute.

Okay. We believe that it is a guiding document and should be followed and the distinction that I understand the staff to have made in their draft response is that that's that we all agree with that but we're not there yet. We have a current zoning designation for this property and if they maintain their application within the four corners of that zoning designation then there is no latitude for denial based on the plan. That's what I've understood. Now maybe Mr. Gers can correct me but that's what I've read response is what I've understood to be the county's response. So I was just inviting the city to if they have an alternate point of view.

Yeah. I guess I'll say that the property is zoned in industrial. The Laram growth area plan calls for industrial. The comp plan calls for industrial. Um and once again, as Matt said earlier, the county has zero to do with annexation. So, well, all right. But with with your indulgence, chair, uh with the way I understand it, that's all irrelevant. We we could not deny this based on the area growth plan because they are is that because they're within their zoning, correct? Okay. Well, that just seems to me that's the that's the be all and the end all. Am I missing something?

No, it's it's that under 98301 local land use plans cannot be used as a ground for the denial of development. uh zoning change is not a development because it's it's all a hypothetical application of a particular set of rules to a property and it has nothing to do with the actual building of it that comes later. Subdivision generally involves improvements to the land and it's sort of that beginning stages of development. This is not a zoning

and this is not so this subdivision is generally part of develop. Um, so therefore there's statutory prohibition against using Ry's plans. That that that was what I was understanding. So it sounds like we're on the same page. Okay. That was the only question I had in in the discussion. Seems to me that it's pretty well constrained. Yeah, I agree. Um, so let's conduct a public hearing. Uh, is there any member public here or online who wishes to comment on this matter before us? Please step forward. And you are uh Travis Olsson.

Okay, Travis, go ahead. Yeah, I have a statement like to read.

So, I'm a small business owner, run a small excavating business here in town. Um, I would like to express my strong support for the proposed plat of industrial sites currently under your review. Developments like this are critically important to the growth and sustainability of our local economy, especially for small and micro businesses that often struggle to find affordable and appropriately zoned spaces. Many of our county small businesses such as contractors, excavating companies, trades people, light manufacturers cannot operate in a traditional storefront setting. Instead, they require affordable industrial zone lots where they can responsibly store equipment, manage operations, and prepare for off-site projects where we can serve our customers. Unfortunately, the availability of such spaces in our county is extremely limited, which has hindered the growth of many local entrepreneurs. Supporting this plat means supporting the backbone of our local economy. Uh from excavating companies to welders, mechanics, and other tradesmen and contractors, these businesses play a vital role in our community yet are often overlooked in zoning and land use planning. By approving this project, the county would sending a strong message that it values small business owners and is committed to fostering their success. So, I would strongly urge you to approve this proposed uh plat and help ensure that small businesses in our community have the opportunity and space they need to continue to grow. So, thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who wish to comment, please?

I'll try to not drag on for you, but uh again, it's what Mr. Olsson said about being the backbone of our economy. When you really think about uh uh the backbone of the economy, this growth that we all desire to have, you need us and we need you. So, in regards to uh the subdivision and you know there's several things I'd like to address with the septic system, but I probably had to address burn on that circumstance. Um um but as this, you know, it being zoned industrial, it opens up an opportunity for guys like me that need a building to store all of our equipment in instead of having it scattered from one end of the town to the next. It's a little bit better space. But again, there's there's we're talking to three different industries which are more commercial than industries and their usage of the septic system is so minute it's ridiculous. Um so in regards to that uh um I don't think that would there's no harmful issue there. But um these are all three potential uh people that need property to function with their business of which uh one has just left and is considering to come back based upon this industrial park that could be in which would suit us very well which I heard you guys' voice very well to support. And so I would I would encourage you to to uh get behind it and push it and and and help us get some things done in Larry, Wyoming. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there any other member of the public who wish to speak? Hearing and seeing none. I may have a motion to close the public hearing. I move to close the public hearing. Second. Any further discussion? In that case, all those in favor of closing the public hearing say I. That motion carries. uh our discussion or if someone's prepared to make a motion I will entertain a motion. Make a motion. Go ahead. Wait. Well, like I can make a motion and then we can discuss the motion.

So, I recommend the board of county commissioners approve the point north subdivision preliminary plan application SDO325 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions of law as each are stated in the staff report. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Now, is there any further discussion? Yes. Joe, sorry. Go ahead. You want anything to do with the variance? So, yeah, that I mean that is a necessary component. Okay. So, how should we handle this? Uh, uh, recommend disposing of the variance. Okay. Let's discuss the variance in that case.

So, u Joe, why don't you Well, is there something you like to say? Yes. I think you ought to hear a little bit more about the fence issue. Sure. Go ahead. So, this is an industrial zone property

and the Wyoming state statute that they're they're referring to um is is not geared towards this kind of development. It's geared towards small residential development in the county where freerange cattle is a available to trespass against across properties. There is no likelihood of this happening on this property. All the surrounding uses are incompatible with freerange regardless of the fact that yes, the county does allow freerange cattle to roam across industrial property in this in this county. But we have no compatible freerange uses anywhere near this property. We have railroad, we have highway, we have satellite dishes, we have level three communication, we have a storage unit, we have an industrial facility called, we have a a cell phone tower and a and a sewage wastewater lift station. This is ludicrous. This is there there is there is a lack if if if you if we find ourselves in a position where we have to build this fence because we're fencing out cattle there there the lack the common sense in in in governance has has gone out the window. That's why we're asking for a variance.

We can agree with that but we're not going to change the state statute and we're here here comes here comes the other problem. the the way around this that you've been given us is to go forth and ask all the surrounding land voters. So, I didn't give you that. Statute did. We didn't we didn't come up with this requirement. That was the legislature. And I'm not going to sit here and defend its

uh you know, prudence or spoken like a good lawyer, but we're we're we're hoping we we were hoping we could get some some some relief from this. Bill, spending money on a on a fence for no reason is is is crazy. Well, well, thank you. Uh, again, we're not here to defend state statutes, but if we have a legal obligation to enforce them, we do. Okay.

All I can say, can I add something? is that our fencing regulations in Albany County save you a lot of money because we made them extremely wildlife friendly. If you look at the regulations for fencing, you'll see that we've done our best to accommodate wildlife and save you money. That's all I have to add. And I'm not against supporting.

Okay. Well, let's follow up here. Let's find out what we need to do. Do we need to either first approve or deny the variance and then approve or deny the overall application request? I I can amend my motion is what I was seeing what Matt says we should be doing. You do because without the variance being approved, it's the application is not facially meeting. Okay. So, we need to either approve or deny the variance first. And do I have a motion about the variance? Let me withdraw my motion. Procedurally correct here. Okay. So now we're back to Okay. Well, just like now we're looking for a motion on the varian. That's correct. Okay.

Can can I just could can you pull up the statute or just like can we look at what the language is? Is it really all subdivisions or so? There's no distinction on No. type of subdivision. It's That is correct. It is it's all in composition.

Each subdivider seeking to create or divide a subdivision that is adjacent to lands uh upon which livestock can be legally run at large. So that's whether you have the legal ability to run them at large. Um shall comply with the following. The subdivider shall be responsible for the construction of a perimeter fence on any part of subdivision that is adjacent to lands upon which livestock can be legally run at large. unless a perimeter fence already exists or all adjacent land owners consent uh that a perimeter fence is not necessary. So under Wyoming statute uh there's really only one prohibition against where you can legally run livestock at large and that is a fence public highway. Uh it does provide that all railroad companies are to um construct perimeter fences uh along their right ofways. Uh but it doesn't place the same onus on the owner of the livestock uh that they are not permitted to allow their stock to run at large within those rideaways. It just shifts liability. Um, Wyoming is a fence out state. Uh, and it's obviously very um a lot of laws are geared towards the ranching industry and this is a reflection of that. So yeah, this this is an applicable requirement to any subdivision and under state statute and since our zoning has no prohibition on uh the running of livestock anywhere in any zoning district, it can be run anywhere except for Highway 30.

Did did the applicant try to get permission from the property the Jes property owners? I don't know if you've ever tried to get a response from the Union Pacific Railroad. Yes, I have. I mean, we it's a it's a it's pointless. Isn't there an existing fence there? No, there's not. Nor is there one on the highway. So, I mean, that indicates to me that they neither of them really care about whether or not there's freeranging cattle there, nor should they. No, we don't. Okay. The procedural question. Sure. We can deny the variance and how does that impact our treatment of the subdivision?

Is that right? So I I don't think you should because it's a it's a necessary component of the application under state statute. You could use also they added this as a separate statutory section than the minimum requirements. Um, so that the county does not have discretion on whether or not to require this. Oh, we can deny the variance in and that we don't have to build the fence unless Well, no, because then the variance just proceeds to the county commissioners. It's it's the same way where this is a recommendation.

Okay. But I would say that the planning and zoning commission cannot recommend approval of the subdivision uh permit application unless it also approves the variance. Why can't they approve it with conditions? You approve the preliminary. That was my recommendation was to approve it with a condition. I guess happens all the time in the city. Can you condition a subition? Can you condition? Oh, sorry.

Yes, you can make you can add a condition to the approval where they if they were to provide that aspect of the application, the plans for fencing which are required by the Wyoming legislature for all subconditions. So, what's missing is the plans for fencing. Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm being a little thickheaded here. That's what we have an incomplete application absent those plans. Yeah. Okay. So, we could approve the application with the condition that fencing plans plans be provided to the board. Yeah. Yeah. That you would have to do that if you deny the variance.

But if you approved the variance, well then you've said that that requirement isn't applicable. So then the application is complete. So appropriate. Can we approve the variance? No. No. The board made the decision maker. Well, you can you can recommend. Yeah. Yeah. But can we recommend approval of the variance if if it's against state statute? The board can make the decision they want to make. So we it's up to them to make that decision. I think the probably the best way to dispose of this though is to attach the condition that that can provide well fits. In that case,

we we have put in the in the subdivision resolution that you can request a variance for any requirement of the subdivision resolution. Um, so I'm not sure that uh just that unconditional ability would be found by a court, but as it stands in our regulations right now. But again, let's go back to the basic question. We can approve this recommend approval with the condition attached that that could provide a fence plan. Well, in order for the variance to get to the board,

there needs to be a recommendation from this commission. So, we can disapprove the variance. We're deni recommend denial of the variance, but approve the application with the condition that offense plan be provided. Yes. Okay. I think that's what we should do.

I think that's exactly right. So, may I have a motion? All right. Let me try that. I recommend the board of categories Deny the variance request and approve the point north subdivision preliminary plan application adopting and incorporating the staff analysis finding of the fact includes the law as each are stated in staff report with the condition that a fencing plan be brought forward submitted by the applicant. Is there a second? Second. Does everyone understand the motion? Yes. Does Mr. agree that that's a properly crafted motion? Yes. Very good. We will conduct a roll call vote. Mr. Hinckley. Yes. Hanning. Yes. Mr. David.

Yeah. I vote I Davis. Uh, and I hope the applicant is not too distressed and smiling. Well, you do. Talk to your legislators. That's the answer. You've got more money than us. No, it's a relief at the back. No, I'm I'm sorry, but thank you for for uh staying the process. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Uh I can't believe it. We're at final application here. It's not even midnight yet. Uh so uh the Olsson subdivision preliminary and final subdivision per application SD-04-25 is up next. David.

Yeah, Mr. Chair. Um members of the commission. Um this is a subdivision application for the Mar final flat small um subdivision. The applicant is Eugene and Cynthia Olsen. Um the property is located at 375 South Ka Street. They're requesting approval of the preliminary plat final plat and subdivision permit. The current zoning of the property is urban residential. Um the applicant is proposing to create two a two lot subdivision with their approximately 3.2 acre parcel. Water is pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl pl planned to be provided by the south of Laramie water and sewer district posted lot one has an existing water surface service um and lot two will require a new water service. um lot for sewer there there's an existing septic system on lot one and lot two will um be served by a septic system as well. The storm drainage plan was provided and reviewed by the county engineers Jake Schneider. Um utilities um that reviewed it said they could establish um Rocky Mountain Power has no concerns there's already electrical service that exists on lot one and can be established on lot two. The postal service can establish delivery for lot 2. Um there are no new roads that are being proposed. South KY Street will be improved by the developer. Access is available from South Ka Street and covenants have been provided for road maintenance. Fire protection for this area will be provided by Alb County Fire District number one. Um this is reviewed by a number of folks. Um namely I mean quite quite a few folks the county engineer looked at this made comments on the proposal and the

applicant addressed those comments. Um the road bridge department Rob Fischer superintendent noted that South Kaiwa Street is not maintained by Albany County but it is a county easement. Um and then we had some other folks that reviewed it. Um, we did get a review from the city on this. Um, Emma Dixon, planner one, provided comments and recommended denial of the application and her comments are provided and attached. Um and then so where this is in the the one mile of the city of Laramie um the city does have the right to provide um their comments um and they have um and they're I provided their the basics of their comments in the staff report which you probably already read. Um, let's see what else do we got here. Um, really there's not any huge issues that we've found where the road exists. Um, water is is available from the south water sewer district. Um, and you know, they're just they're they're changing the basically they're just dividing the lot. The the the area that it's in. Um, you've actually reviewed the zony district amendment last year and provided an approval recommendation um collectively. Um, and the I I will note that the city was provided notice um and copy of the application to review at that time and

we received no comments from the city at that time. Um, but staff has reviewed this um is recommending approval of the the proposal. So, if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to um try to answer those. I'm still going through the the staff report because it's full of every regulation we have to look at. So, I'm trying to get to the end. Sorry. Um, but I'd be happy to if you have questions about it, anything specific? Um, happy to do that. Okay, B.

Um, my usual start off with the staff report. Is that right? You have to recite all that stuff. I mean, I found myself getting there's three pages of things that the ultimate says, but you don't have to do any of this. This is was the staff report that was recommended by the county attorney's office that we used. Yeah. So, that's why we're using it. I mean, it used to be like two or three pages, but now it's 30. It needs to be each applicable requirement and and is it an applicable requirement that you have an exemption from that requirement? That's I guess what what's that? Well, this is a minor subdivision, right? Oh. So yeah, then if it's not applicable, then you don't need to make a finding on it.

Okay. So again, I just saving paper and eyeballs and brain power. If if you have a long thing that says this is what you would have to do if it weren't a minor, but it is. So you don't, right? There's two whole sections like that. Sure. Okay. So if it was acceptable to your legal counsel, get get rid of it, but just say this is a minor subdivision. I guess then you have to say what you're not doing. All right. Anyway, to try to just make this more tractable and you should it's it's a minor subdivision, correct? Yes, it is. And and it should say that right up front. Yeah, I probably should. I had to stumble around a little bit before I figured out what I'm doing here. So So just for the

Sorry, I I haven't used this format uh in a while or I don't know ever. All right. So, I just used the like what the template was out for me out there for me. So, and I think you have a little section called the background or something. But anyway, that would be just real helpful. Fine. Just

Yeah. No, absolutely. It should have been stated that comment. Um, the only thing that that caught my eye substantively was because it's a minor subdivision doesn't have to go through a septic system review. I mean, these are 1.2 acre lots. That's pretty tiny. Um, where do we where do we find that addressed any place? Just is there any accommodation of that? If this were halfacre lots and they wanted individual septics, is there a way to say that's that won't work?

Um, that's not something that we address. So, I mean, it' be addressed when they want to develop the lot, but our wastewater regulations don't, do they? I mean, if I come in then for my septic tank, they have setbacks. Yeah, but this isn't a setback issue. This is more just a ballistic contamination. It's the kind of thing that if you went through the full scale chapter 23 DEQ, it would be flagged as unacceptable possibly. I'm sorry. I thought we had a subdivision application, not a septic system application here.

Subdivision. If it were not a minor sub, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. G. If it were not a minor subdivision, it would require a waste water. I'm sorry. We'll we'll let you comment later. We're deal with the staff right now.

That is that is correct. Um, if it was a major subdivision, we would we'd be required to send it to DEEQ or the applicant would. But where this is a minor subdivision and statutoily, we can actually go down. We can have five lots and not require this as well, but our regulations limit it to three. So, um, so yeah, that we are just following what's in there and this is an exemption from from the rest of of what's going on. So, so the way you just said that we they don't have to do that, but can we require that they do that? That being a septic study? If our regulations said that, yes, we could. And they do not. Correct.

Okay. So then I'm jumping slightly outside the bounds. Our wastewater regulations when this when someone comes in for a individual permit to build their septic system. Mhm. Is there any portion of that analysis that addresses lot size besides setbacks that the wastewater regulations? Yes. Um just they have to meet the setback standards. Okay. Interesting. Thank you. That was my question. All right. Um we're off.

So I have a question about the water. Uh it talks about adding a a another well when there was actually water there. Um that may have been a mistake. Um they they they're actually being recommended to hook into the South Florida water district. Okay. Yeah. And and it's required for that zoning to do that. So Gotcha. Okay. That was my question.

Um I guess my question is is similar. um on page 109 of the packet in the section of of reviews. I couldn't tell who this review was by. Um but it says um just a recommendation for lot two on the Olsson subdivision. Located closer to entrance of lot number two is a water tap/meter pit for south of Laramie water and sewer district. Listed in the engineering report underwater source. They listed a well with board approval and a plant assessment fee. They could they could have water from the south of Larby water district as an option. So this whoever this review was

from the district. Yeah. Yeah. And I can I can answer your question after you give it. Okay. Well, all right. So, usually when we see these, we see a letter already from the district saying you can you can add on we're going to give you a tap. Do we we've seen that in the nine mile area. We've seen that in the South Laram district. And and I didn't see that in the packet unless I overlooked it because it's rather voluminous.

That letter was from the South Laram Water Sur District. Um the reason they were referencing a well is the original um packet that was kind of given to us um it it referenced a well but we when we were working with the applicant they they changed their engineering report to say they're going to hook into the water and sewer district. So, so they they got the iteration before we we had some of those corrected, but that was their comment is from the South Lar Water and Sewer District is that they have a a meter pit there that you can hook into.

So, it's it's uh it's not as explicit of giving approval as some letters we've seen from the district, but you're taking it as that was my interpretation of what they provided. Yes, thanks. That takes care of my question. And I don't have any questions. Uh so with applicant step four and you are I'm Christy Roberts with Dwell and I'm here representing the applicant today and I'm available questions.

Okay, we will go in the same order. Um you were wanting to jump in on my discussion of septic systems. Please proceed. I I just I want to clarify we have a subdivision application here, not a septic system application. So, and does your client share any concern that this this lot may not be big enough to accommodate two septic systems? No.

And is that based on any analysis or just your sense of it? Um, well, I've designed septic systems very nearby this and I'm familiar with percolation right there and I'm confident that the lot sizes will accommodate the setbacks and the the use. Okay. Without reference to impacts to groundwater, your discussion is with respect to perk rates and setbacks. That's the analysis that you've been. Again, we're here for a subdivision application on the septic system. No,

I'm just asking what analysis has gone into this to your your judgment on the septic system. That's of concern to me. So, right. Well, we we will agree to disagree on this one. I I don't know that we're disagreeing. I'm just trying to understand what's going on. Okay. But if you have nothing further to say nothing further to say Okay, we're off. I have no questions. All right. I don't have any questions. Yeah, I don't have any there. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh we will conduct a public hearing. Is there any memor [Music] I am representing again Joseph Shahiti finer with the city of Laramie up here speaking with you again. Um our objection on this one primarily goes along the lines that this is within the Larary growth plan. Once again, a mutually adopted document um but does not follow the guidance of that document in either um the zoning of this area or the size of rightways or bus. Um and so that is where our objection comes to from this. not from any sense that it is readily going to be annexed into the city, but um the county regulations that were laid out within that that document were not being followed. So, thank you very much. Uh any questions for Joe with respect to this application? Okay. Thank you. Uh we will conduct a public hearing now. a member of the public here who would like to speak. Please step forward and you are.

My name is Adam Nicholson. Um I'm the proposed buyer of the second lot. Um that would be part of this. So um while I appreciate the the comments from the city, um I think it's it's zoned as ranchet in the in the grand scheme of things out there. Um there are seven lots that are well in the library plan, right?

Current zone different. Yes, correct. Um, in that growth plan, it's it's ranch shed, but there's seven lots in that area that are all would not meet that said exact same requirement. Um, this both individual lots would be bigger than all seven of those already pre-existing blocks of land. Um, so it's it's not that these are going to be smaller lots than what are currently in the area. Um, they're actually larger than than ones that are um adjoining um close to it. There's um a couple that are larger that would potentially meet that requirement of what is in that growth plan. Um but the majority of them do not. Um so our intent is not to have a well. So I'm throwing that out there. Our intent is to um hook into the South LE water. It's great water. Love that stuff. Um and then as far as the setbacks and stuff for for that, the other lots again are smaller. Um four of them directly to the east. um that all I do believe also have septic tanks. So I'm not too worried about the setbacks and what the septics are is how that overall looks in that area. So um it's just me and my wife. We're going to build our house out there with our kids. So that's what we're looking to do overall.

Thank you. I have a question on the presence of the cement plant and available light next door.

No, we're not worried about that. We have family lives out there. uh really close by. Um so we're out there very regularly. We understand, you know, the you put your vehicles inside so that way it doesn't mess up your paint, that sort of thing. So um but uh you take the risk of doing that. I think the city and the the general wind direction coming from the cement plant. We have more of that in the city than than some of that that you may not realize or care to know about. Um I don't think it adversely affects us in any way, shape, or form. Otherwise, we probably I would hope that our county can commissioners would have done something about that long ago in order to deal with any of kind of terrible effects from that. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was helpful.

Is there anyone else from the public who wish to speak on this matter? Well, hearing seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? I move that we close the public hearing. Second. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing public hearing say I. As unanimous night carries.

So our discussion uh Mora, what do you think? Well, I think we're in that same situation where because it's not an application for a zoning change, the Laramie growth area plan has a limited limited bearing on our decision making until until the time comes where aspects of that are incorporated into the to the zoning resolution. um is so we're um we have in front of us a subdivision application. I think this whole area has uh because because it's already zoned urban residential and there's a lot of small lots with septic, but they're getting safe water to drink. So, I think we've sort of called the groundwater um a a lost cause in this area. like it's it's a it's not going to be protected at this point, but the people drinking the water from the South Larby Water District are getting great quality water. Um, and so I, you know, I I would be approving, you know, voting to approve this minor subdivision. Amarov,

yeah, I don't see a problem. people who are willing to live by the cement plan. So choice. Yeah. Yep. I I I agree and I and I don't mean to say we have no choice but to do this but I I think it is compatible with the surrounding areas and in my comments on the subject system just by curiosity if anybody had looked at that. But but uh I think Kushner Hanning has correctly expressed that we've we've written that one off uh and and potentially for good reason. So, no, I have no objections to the application going forward.

Okay. Well, um here's what I have to say about this. We've had three different applications at or near the city's edge, which the city's weighed on. Again, very appreciative of you showing up, Joe. Um and I see these is quite differently. Uh I believe absolutely as a general planning principle these larger more significant parcels North Point and Gdori should have automatically go to the city for consideration annexation and you know that's just that's how I would start as a default position on any similar parcel adjoining the city. This I see is quite different. is not quite joining. It is near. Uh it is affected or included in the layer growth area plan. But I also recognize that I believe that if the city and the county were to sit down together and revised the growth plan as the plan suggests, we should sit down and do and look at the map and make adjustments as you know things change. This particular strip of land between four centers road and highway 27 very likely we make some changes there. I don't really believe the consultant look that area carefully in terms of what's on the ground and I have actually been out there on the ground. I think this is fine and I would recommend we recommend approval for it. So that's what I have to say. Just just one response to that in my notes. I I think both this and the point north demonstrate to us that that we need to move forward with some minimal regulations derived from the growth area plan even if it's nothing more than requiring alignment of easements or something. So, I understand that that you guys are working with that, but I've seen we've seen two examples this evening where our subdivision regulations are silent on the Laria growth plan and and perhaps we should

we should put something into that silence ASAP. Well, for now, let's have a motion on this if if I may ask for that. Where is it? is looking for it. Whoever gets it first page 23 it takes forever to school in

Okay, I'll surprise you got beat recommend the board of kindergarters approve the subdivision preliminary and final plat application SD425 adopting and incorporating staff analysis finding is effect as each are stated in this staff report. Is there a second? I second. Any further discussion? In that case, all those in favor say I. I. I. That's unanimous vote. Joe, I thank you for the applicants. Uh, and and Joe, again, once again, I will convey my sincere appreciation to say they showed up matters. Uh, I'm sure that's that's true for my colleagues as well. Yes, for sure.

Uh, let's see. And we hope that you'll continue to work with Joe on bringing some of this into our ranks. I mean, that's not work with him anymore. All right. Some people will be very excited about that. But you're leaving. Okay. Shall uh I tell you what, let's get a sense of the commission here. We're at nearly nine o'clock. And how much further would we like to go on? My brain is dead. I can't even relate a word. All right. How do you feel? Well, I guess I'd ask staff how urgent they feel it is. Can I just make a general comment or be my response or my ask?

Yeah, absolutely. Well, I mean, if you aren't going to go into it, that's what I would ask. So, is that for sure? Well, I'm I'm getting a sense of the commission right now. Matt, what' you say? What? Oh, if I could just make like general comments. Yeah. No, we will we will have we will have some general comments. I'm but I'm looking at whether we want to go through the regulations these three things right now. And again, I'm asking for a general sense here. Okay. Well, this is a good appropriate place to stop and and do the last bits of business of the meeting. Okay. I I guess I would like just three or four sentences on each of these just just to cue it for us and then we'll take it home and think about it. Do anything with each list. I just want you to decisions.

We can absolutely do that. And I would like to say something actually about uh at least the subdivision piece as well. Okay. So, uh David, why don't you stand up and at least talk briefly about each of these things and we can offer a few comments and and handle things that way just take these. Sorry, what can I take these? I uh my time to the office. You my time. Very good.

Okay. Um so what what you have before you is uh comprehensive amendments to the second half of the subdivision resolution uh which is essentially the subdivision design standards um and requirements for improvements and and everything else. Uh it's a major a lot of things have been collapsed and removed such as uh mountain subdivision. Yeah, those got completely removed. Landscaping.

Landscaping. Um and then the big thing is mobile home park and campground applications. Uh the way that those were defined, they weren't actually subdivisions. So then those need to be in zoning because they weren't actually like dividing the land itself.

Um so that was kind of the the what took longer was actually getting those all moved over and fitting them into zoning because you know it's not just a copy paste. You have to like fit it into a totally different structure. So that's what that is. Um there's also David pointed out in his memo that there is uh there was a notice provision which got removed probably with that first half um that I didn't catch and keep in there which statute requires that you provide notice and an intent to apply for a subdivision permit. Uh that kind of led me to some bigger um just changes in terms of like the ordering of information and chapter 4. So those are those amendments are not included in this packet. We'll have uh those included for you in the next meeting um for just like subdivision permits generally. Uh so then moving to the next item, the addition of uh mobile home and RV parks. Um so instead of regulating those as subdivisions for which there is no division of parcels uh involved those will be uh or the proposal is to treat those as conditional use permits

and RV parks has been collapsed into campgrounds or camping. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um because of their I guess inherently more kind of transitive nature. I just understand what's going on to a mobile home. How you would traditionally think of a mobile home, but they're not mobile homes. They're campgrounds was what you just said. So it's it's campground. Yeah. That's a a campground is like that you have mobile homes which are for mobile mobile home parks which are for mobile homes and then campgrounds which in include RV parks. Thank you. That was

um because those are I mean RVs are are camping units. Gotcha. Just want to make sure I understood what you're doing. Yeah. Yeah. It fit into the structure well um going that direction. Uh, and just sort of the more I mean a mobile home. Yeah, that's a fully furnished. Mobile is not mobile. No. Yeah, they're not all that.

So, that was our recommendation. I mean, we played a little bit around with like the general requirements, but we tried to keep the focus the same. So, you know, if there's anything there that is glaringly offensive to you or whatever, we're we're open to considerations on that. Uh we're less open to um discussion on the subdivision because we worked really hard over the course of months with the county engineer and that stuff is really technical. So, um we we got something that that the county engineer that he thought addresses everything was needed for like the actual engineering design. So interesting. I don't think any of us are going to mess with that. Okay.

Well, and if you do, we're just going to go no no no. Well, that if I'm remembering, we went through that page by page in July and there was a lot of feedback. That's how we got rid of landscaping and things. So, yeah, we did go through it. Okay. My read of what you gave us here on all three of those was look look clean to me. I didn't go through the same comment. I read everything. It looked pretty good to me. And I don't know if y'all know Rob. I I have to admit that I didn't read them carefully enough. I mean, if you looked at it, right? And we did July. We did we did line by line. So, we've been there. Okay. I forgot about that honestly. Yeah. We did. It's been such a long process. And I only remember because we took out landscape. Yeah. Yeah.

Word. So, you said you like to offer a few comments. Oh, just just that that I thought we had we had we had done that. And if there's something more although just response quickly to Mr. Are you suggesting that we now go through what you've given us or that we wait for your No, no. I mean give get through I that was I was saying that completely facitiously. Um obviously but we're close now to the point where we can go through them and move forward on at this point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so maybe we'll do it at the next meeting. I feel good about that. Yeah. right to me. And then 10 public applications at the next meeting, right? We'll see. Yeah. So, how many did we have?

Record. The last item revisions to chapter five of the zoning resolution. Uh, so this is something actually David, I might turn this over to you. What was this one? This chapter five zoning. certific I don't want to step on mistake on behalf okay um yeah so this we just I don't remember I don't remember what we oh so okay so essentially

essentially like how the permitting of everything in in the planning office has been is it's geared essentially towards structures specifically be buildings. Um, so but that's not really the thrust of statute. Uh, statute is buildings or structures and land and the use thereof. Um, so you can use land independently of buildings. I mean, they generally follow each other. I mean, particularly, you know, in a in a residential area, they absolutely follow each other, but that is not always the case. um and it can make enforcement a little a little more precarious um just because everything is so geared towards the use of structures specifically. So this is these are clarifying amendments. I think that everything is there. Everything this isn't really adding anything new in in terms of like what what the planning department code would be permitting. This is just really breaking out the scope uh more in more detail. Um, so you'll have a zoning certificate specifically for structures, a zoning certificate specifically for the use of land independent from structures, and then conditional use permits. And we kind of started the trend with how we listed um mobile home, park, and campgrounds where it said conditional use permit, mobile homes. So, it's kind it's tying everything a little more, you know, back to those conditional use permit standards uh for notice. It's

just if we have like specialized conditional use permits, then you're having, you know, a new subsection for that, but you're not reinventing the wheel. You're just taking the framework for a conditional use permit and then saying this is also in addition to the the requirements for conditional use permits. This is what like standards specific to this exact use uh and possibly different findings or additional findings necessary for approval. um so to kind of integrate things a little better so that you don't just don't have these like wild um kind of permits so to speak. Um because really all that the county is allowed to do is a zoning certificate. That's it. Um a conditional use permit is just a type of zoning certificate. Um, so it's to kind of like keep in mind that sort of like regulatory super structure within the zoning resolution. Um, and then I think our our long-term more long-term goal will be to then take everything else that's in chapter five. Yes, chapter five. and and putting that more specifically within that structure such as tower permits which are just specialized conditional use permits. Um wax will stay the same. That'll be its own thing. We should move that and make it its own chapter because we have separate statutory authority for that outside of 185201. But um I guess that was that was kind of the goal was was to clarify the scope uh

for purposes of administration and enforcement. And I and you know just to provide an example for the zoning certificate part of it. Um um you might remember the uh it's kind of the auto autos auto place that was up on the property up by uh near Walmart or whatever that was just in that vacant land um next to the hill and next to Bradley bar one that Bradley Bar that you're talking

Yeah I think so they had that just their kind of little parking lot on there. Well, we really didn't have anything to permit because we just permitted structures. We just permitted like buildings. Yeah. And so this will allow for something like that um to be permitted. We will permit that use because now they're going to be using that for those those, you know, automobiles to sell and stuff. So, it gives us a little bit more latitude to um ask for zoning certificates or or maybe apply the statute the way we could apply the statute that we haven't been. And it really kind of just defines things and tightens it up. So that's all I add. Yeah. And it helps with enforcement, obviously.

How do you get somebody to come in? I mean, for a lot of people, it's obvious that you need to go talk to the county before you put up a structure. How do you get people to come to you for using vacant land a certain way? If they're not building a structure, we would send them a letter of enforcement and tell them if they don't come in, then we're going to, you know, start fighting. So, you have to you have about them, hear about them.

I would say the majority of people call and ask like, hey, we want to do this on our property. What do we need to do? What's the permitting? You know, but there are the few that that don't and it would be kind of an enforcement issue. Um we are actually um looking at more of an kind of an advertising type scheme for our office um websites, you know, mailings, just bullets boards, things like that, just to get some information out there so that people know that one, we have zoning in the county and you just can't do what you want, you know. Um, and then like just educate about like certain uses that we're we're finding a lot enforcements on like, you know, if you have two, you know, if you're going to do an additional dwelling, you need to make sure that that that works.

Um, there's certain types of lighting lighting restrictions. just we're we're working on this right now to try to kind of put together an advertising package for like the spring to like get it out there so people know what they need they need to do and they need to come at least ask us questions, you know, before they start doing things on a property. Thanks. Sure.

Um well, I have I have two comments pertaining sort of this area being and these are things I wanted to comment before this meeting started. So now they're reinforced even again. I think we need to tighten up site plans for zoning amendment changes. So we don't get what we got with the Parson's uh application. Just a really crude sketch and you know sort of an outline of the building the lot with no dimensions. And I mean that's not too much to ask. Uh, and I think if someone's not familiar with our our resolution, it's flipping through and sees site plan and sees the site plan requirements for additional use here and looks for that in the zoning district amendment site plan requirements. If they even see one or the other or don't see both, it's confusing. Uh, anyway, that's my recommendation is we work on that.

Can I make a comment on You can absolutely make that. Okay. So, I mean, you know, when we're doing a zoning district amendment, we're looking at the parcel as a whole, right? Like, so when we're asking for driveways and this and that, it's like, what does that have to do with anything, you know? So, I guess we'll need to think through those things. I mean, not that we shouldn't have anything in the regulations. We should we should have have that outlined there and we don't. Yeah. But like, that's a great comment. I'm glad you said that. So in this case what I would have suggested had you asked me about this particular application was you know you can tell the applicant what's to what to include on the site plan map in this case I would have asked them to for an adequate site plan would include dimensions and the setbacks. Sure. And that would have been fine and that's that's comment one.

Yeah. Uh and your response is great.

It's always great David. The other thing is um again look at these three city uh was the three applications see had comments and uh was recommended deny on all of them. The reality is I guess uh that we're not going to make any progress on full implementation of Luther plan given the current county commissioners they made I think three plane and that's fine you know that's their decision but as we've discussed we can move forward on portions of regulations to implement things that we should be able to agree on implementing and prior to this meeting I talked to both staffs talked to y'all I talked to the city I talked to some of y'all I've talked to other people as well. And there is general agreement that when property join a city wants to do something, the city ought to have some considerable say what happens to that and that makes sense in the abstract. So I think that's an area we need to look at and do something about and we could we could write I mean again has to be approved of course in a regulation what happens to specific properties that join city property and I think it's something we'll take a look at and consider. Um as we heard tonight there are are many people out there who object to working with the city or trying to comply with city requirements. It costs more money and we all understand that.

But it's not impossible. And case in point, you can look around the city and a lot of stuff is being worked on and developed inside city limits. And it may be some small smaller investor who's, you know, doesn't have millions and millions worth cannot develop a 10acre, you know, parcel land residential whereas someone else could. But we're talking about community and if this is what is for the greater good community, we need to think about how to implement these sort of things. I believe uh so those are my two comments about that. And and then I guess finally we take little bites. We don't have to do the whole thing all at once. Absolutely right. And I think there's some pretty obvious little bites.

So with that, uh David, do you have any staff updates? I know you have at least one update because we talked about this one update. Uh Joe does. Okay, Joe, go ahead. Uh, so we were asked to, I guess, discuss what happened at the board of county commissioners, uh, with applications, right? So, here I am. Very good. Uh, the Mitchell variance got denied. The Morris zoning district. Remind us. I'm sorry. Remind us what we recommended cuz I don't remember. The Mitchell was a variance. I think that you recommended approval. We recommend approval for variance to allow

to be able to subdivide an aloqua. That's the 10 acres 9.8 staff recommended. Um the board denied it. Um the Morris zoning district amendment, that's the Centennial uh property, they denied that. And I think you guys also recommended

u and the pete lean um one uh they approved it and I believe you guys uh recommended approval as well. Um and then I do have a number for active enforcements because I know that was asked and Jill told me today that the number is 70 our enforcement office. Okay. So that number's gone up from the last thing I heard. How about that? Uh and then what actions are is the county pursuing with respect to the Mars property? Now, um we have taken care of that. There has been a there's been a resolution

a notice of resolution that was granted by the commissioners. Well, tell us all about that. all that meant.

Well, I mean, uh I think that this is outside the purview of planning and zoning commission. Um I that letter would be public record because this is essentially a closed case at this point. But um it was the the removal of uh facilities or appliances I suppose within the kitchens um in the uh you know Roger. Thank you. Yeah.

Um so as to make it not constitute I guess kitchen full kitchen facilities. Um because our our definition of dwelling is a little nebulous. Cool. All right. Um yeah. Well, very good. Uh are there any other staff updates? No, unless you can remember something. I'm supposed to faster. But but on the on the Mitchell one, I mean, I thought that was fascinating. And that this is that's what everybody we were on one side. these guys in the port were on the other side and it was because they didn't have the 10 acres. Oh yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I thought that was fascinating and it was and and if I understand you guys correctly, it was it's offensive to the to the rules and the board went along with that. I I think that's that's great. And we were willing to give her a little snacks. So interesting. Yeah, we are not the tough ones. What the heck? Well, I I'm speaking for myself. You don't have any other comments? No.

Okay. In that case, uh I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Our next regular meeting will be November 12th at 5:00 PM here and there. I'll sign this out. I got it.