Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is Jan Leard. Good evening everybody. Thanks for coming to our March uh planning and zoning commission meeting. Uh I would like to call the meeting to order.

Okay. Um call to see who is here. Mr. Hley, are you online? I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Okay, good. Then I'm I'm here by Zoom. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. O'Brien. Yes. Uh Mr. Platt is not is absent. Uh Mr. Sally here and I'm here as well.

Okay. Uh I hope everybody had a chance to look at the agenda and I would like to uh ask for a motion to the agenda unless there are any changes to it. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. I'll stay. Okay, everybody in favor, please say I. I. I. I. Do you wish you to say this? Hey, these are the people. I can't I can't hear you from back here. So, I don't know what I'm saying. I about I know. Okay. He's having trouble hearing what he's saying. I have to hear you.

Would you mind coming closer? Maybe that will help. Why, of course. I'd love to come closer to you. Thanks. Thank you. Appreciate it. Of course. Say how you doing. All right. Uh, next on the uh to-do list is approve the minutes from last month. Uh, I hope you had a chance to go over them. And can I have a motion to approve the minutes from last time? I move that we approve the meeting minutes for the meeting for last. I'll second. Okay. Everybody in favor, please say I. I.

I. Hey, the minutes of food. Okay. So, we'll start the uh um Oh, we do have one more thing. Uh, does any of the commissioners have any conflict of interest with vote? No. No. Nothing here, man. Okay. Thank you. I neither do I. So, no one has a conflict of interest. Uh, we'll start with the uh public applications. Mr. Rose.

Yes. All right. The applicant and owner is Brett Bingham. Uh this is located on the Randrack 2 up on Two Rivers Road. The request is to change the zoning to rural residential from agricultural. There were some reviews. Jake Schneider, county engineer, had no concerns. Uh Jeremy Sers from Roaden Bridge, uh has no issues, but noted that increased development along the road will have a higher demand for road and bridge maintenance. Treasur's office noted that the taxes are paid. The conservation district commented on soils, soil degradation, reclamation, and invasive species. Their full comments can be seen in the review section. WOT uh commented that a traffic impact study may be required based on traffic estimates and that any work within the Y dot rightway will need uh proper permitting or licensing. Game and Fish commented on wildlife friendly fencing and the Laramie River. Their full comments can be seen in the review section and the city of Laramie noted that this property is beyond the growth boundary. The applicable sections of the uh Alb County zoning resolution is chapter 3 section 5C. Findings necessary for approval pursuant to the Alb County zoning resolution chapter 3 section 5C6. The board of county commissioners must make the following findings that the applicant has a site plan as required by the planning department. that the zoning district amendment generally follows the sessions of the Al County comprehensive plan, including but not limited to the long-range growth plan and the priority growth areas um and any other applicable land use plans and that the applicant has demonstrated that the adjudicative zoning district amendment meets all impacts um and that pursuant to chapter 3 section 5C3 of the Albony County zoning resolution, the applicant has provided the required notice by posted sign publication and certified mailing This property is located within both priority growth area 3 and priority

growth area 4. Um there is some history of this application. Um there was an application for zoning district amendment from agricultural to ranchet for this property. Um that was at planning and zoning on December 10th. Uh and the board of county commissioners on January 6th. The application was denied because the planning and zoning commission did not uh think that the application followed the guidelines of the comprehensive plan or was compatible with surrounding properties. Staff analysis. The planning department believes that the proposed zoning district amendment generally follows the suggestions of the Albony County comprehensive plan as part of this property is located within priority growth area 3 and is near a concentration of existing residences, has an existing county road and existing utility lines. and prior to growth area 4 calls for low density residential uses. Findings of fact the findings necessary for approval and applicant responses referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has met the specified impacts and the same are incorporated herein in conclusions of law. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the only county zoning resolution and the staff recommendation is to approve the zoning the Bingham zoning district amendment CDA0126 adopting and incorporating the staff analysis findings of fact and conclusions law as each are stated in the staff report.

Thank you J. Any questions for

burn do you have any questions? Yeah. Yeah. A couple of comments. Um, of course, thank you for the history section and uh maybe just to elaborate that briefly since we have two commissioners who weren't here for that meeting. Um the discussion was almost entirely on density and the as I'm sure we'll hear later from the public today the the original application was for 5 acre minimum lot size and I think it was the consensus of the commission that that that was the incompatibility. So just to elaborate a little bit on the history section that was put together for us to uh I think our discussion hinged primarily on the issue of of density and what was an appropriate density for that area. Um I had one question for staff. Um and just an observation the the priority growth area map shows that this is is basically a priority priority growth area 4 uh situation. And there is a little bit of of three that's down on the flood plane, but I think it's it's fundamentally correct that it's it's PGA4, granting that it's right on the boundary and those boundaries are not something that was that was run out with a with a laser level. So just just a question for our staff. Um, if this were squarely out in the middle of priority growth area 4, would you similarly recommend that it was compatible or would you suggest that the the egg residential might be more appropriate than rural residential? just to what extent was the staff recommendation to approve based on the proximity to to three versus just being fundamentally uh compatible with comprehensive plans designation of

priority growth area four. Yeah, I think this uh application is very similar to the Willis one we did a few months ago um which similarly is just on the other side of uh Highway 30. um um neighbors with the Analopee Bridge um subdivision and it was changed to rural residential and approved. I think this is similar to that. So I think we probably would recommend approval as we are tonight.

Okay. All right. Um and in that sense it was again it was pro it was immediately adjacent to that analopee ridge and some fairly high density development there. I guess my question was if we were 5 miles from the nearest existing development and we were PGA4 would your recommendation still have been to approve do you think and somewhat hypothetical like out out in the middle of a bunch of egg land? Yeah. Like like all all a surrounding it. Yeah. probably not but hard to know.

Sure. Sure. No hypothetical. Thank you. I was just looking for some kind of a feedback on on those priority growth areas and densities. Uh that's all I had at this point, Madam Chair. Then I'll have more when we finished public comment and get back to discussion. Thank you. I have a question. Um so I may have missed something in the response of the bridge road uh Bridge. Odin Bridge. Sorry. Did they say that they will need to hire another person to deal with us? No. Okay.

I think they they just said that. Uh let me let me uh find that one real quick. Um um they basically said that they are already stretched thin and growth consistent growth of this nature will require consideration of adding personnel. Okay. So so it wasn't totally out of I didn't dream it up. No, no, they did say something about getting personnel. There was nothing that said like if this is approved, we are we need staff. Nothing like that,

but that's what they hinted that stretched. Yeah. Okay. Is there any uh remediation for that? Do we as a Nothing from us. Um we can't do anything. No, I mean that'd be a board of county commissioners decision with like the budget, right? Yeah. and we should not take that into consideration. So I wouldn't one of the findings necessary for approval is

adequate infrastructure uh the parcel subject to the adjudicative zoning district amendment is or reasonably can be served by adequate roads, utilities and other public facilities. Um I suppose it's it's whether you consider potential budgetary constraints of the uh road and bridge department um to not be adequate in

infrastructure provided to it. I would think that that's it's a little bit of a stretch just based on the wording of that. Okay. Any other questions? May I follow up on that briefly? Sure.

Yeah. Um I had I too had read that same piece. Um and basic and what they said was um the increased residential development would add traffic to Two Rivers Road which will increase maintenance demands on the roadway. Ongoing development in this area has already placed strain on a road and bridge department that is currently stretched thin. Growth of this nature will require consideration of adding personnel to meet the increased operational demand. Close quote. So while they didn't say of course they'd have to to add staff, um I would push back a little bit on that it's irrelevant. Our consideration in that fundamental to planning and zoning is how the infrastructure has to follow along with that. Studies have shown in the past that these rural residential subdivisions generate a greater load in public services than are supported by the additional tax revenue. doing nuts isn't a fatal flaw. But I just think we do need to keep that in mind and particularly given the uh perilous state of property tax revenues in the state of Wyoming and county of Albany these days. I I would suggest to my comrades that that is in fact a relevant factor in deciding how to zone the county. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Um, the uh applicant, would you like to say a few things?

Yeah, of course. Thanks for having me tonight. I appreciate it. My name is Brett Bingham. I know we have some new faces on the council. Uh, I live just a few feet from the proposed zoning change and I can still remember riding the school bus down Two Rivers Road when I was younger. Since then, a few things have changed. There's been more houses built out there and my wife and I have been able to build our own house on Two Rivers Road. Uh, late last year, I proposed a zoning change on the the currently proposed property. I appreciate the the comments that we received at that time on my initial proposal and um I just wanted to thank all you guys do for the for Albany County in general for hearing us all and making decisions to help us out. My initial presentation was for ranch at zoning as there are many properties in the area already zoned ranch at during that process I was able to hear neighbor concerns and to help alleviate these concerns which we had um I've changed the proposal from ranchet to rural residential which we heard from quite a few people and then the proposed zoning change follows the comprehensive plan and fits within fits within the designed growth areas of PGA3 and PGA4. The proposed property meets the requirements of PGA3 and there's a significant subdivision to the east which is covers PGA3 and has a lot of ranchets zoning. Similarly, the proposed property also fits PGA4 which notes that low density residential uses are encouraged. RO residential similar to PGA4 promotes single family dwellings on large pots.

There are many properties in the area that are smaller than the allowed density under row residential or have a higher allowed density than that of RO residential. When considering the proximity of this property to PJ3 and to not a portion does land in PJ3 and then the closeness of this property to highway 287, this zoning change would continue a logical and orderly development that already exists in the area. Are there any questions the the board has for me or about the application? Do you have any questions?

Burn, do you have any questions? Oh, no. I'm good. Thank you. Yes, I have one question. Of course. Thank you. I'm uh sure you read the comments from the game and fish. Yes, I have. and and I'm concerned about uh contamination of uh book trout habitat and the need to uh design the development and the construction procedures such that there is no damage of course. Yep. a new plan for

agree. The Wyoming Game and Fish mentioned to use best construction practices in the area and then they would also or provide recommendations and we could talk with them to understand that more in detail. And then they brought up two points which I think are great and the other one being the move the travel of big game species and accommodating them with wildlife friendly fencing. Um the county uh regulations for fencing are actually a little more strict than what was listed by the G fish. So you might want to consult those before any other steps. I appreciate that.

Any other questions? General questions or staff? I have a question. Oh, wait. You'll get your chance. We'll give everybody a chance to uh to speak. But any specific questions from the commission or the staff to the applicant? No. Thank you.

Say thank you. So uh I would like to open the floor to public comments and if you are coming to to give a comment please come forward speak up so we can all hear and uh state your name and your address for the record. uh three minutes and and yes every comment is restricted to three minutes just otherwise we'll be here forever. So, yes, please.

Chuck Agnazic, 1607 Spring Creek Drive, Laramie. I have property that is uh about 2 miles from this proposed uh uh construction area. Right now, I'm holding a flood plane map. Would you mind uh facing the the commission because we need people here? I can talk to everybody here. Yeah. Yeah. Now it will just help us hear you better.

Oh, you have problems with me here talking. Okay. Um, Brett, what's going to happen if the Laramie River overflows its banks, which is clearly indicated here, and the people who have these dwellings, are not going to be a part of city water. They're going to have septic tanks and leech fields. And when that river water comes washing over that what form of abatement please face us. Oh face just face you. Okay please do us a favor.

Okay Brett uh what form of abatement do you propose to um mitigate flood water from being polluted by leech fields and overflowing septic tanks from the river water. So the the difference between between what we're doing here and the next step in the development is they'll have to put another application where they will detail this. Okay. Well, I pulled this off the internet

along with a a lot of other maps. And Brett, I'll tell you, I really uh have a problem with somebody telling me what the hell I can do on my own property. Number one. two, unless it uh affects my neighbors, then I would say hands off. But in this case, it looks like there is a grave potential for uh you know, all kinds of uh uh things uh happening once all these houses uh are put in. One last thing. I heard that this was an answer to lowincome housing for Laram. Is that true or false, Brett?

No. Super. No. What do you want to answer? I don't have an answer for that. Heard that. Can I turn and look at Brett? It is relevant to the application. I heard that that this that you were doing the lowincome housing. uh for this deal. Is that true? Excuse me. Excuse me. We are not challenging each other. I'm not challenging anybody. I heard this and I want to clarify.

Okay. You Let me explain. You are voicing concerns about uh uh the integrity of the Laram River. Yes. Water quality because of potential flooding of Okay, we understood that. That's on record. Thank you. Okay. Um Uh what else is um pertinent to this application? The rationale for the uh uh application and its use uh for being a lowincome uh housing unit. I just want I heard that. I just want to know is it true or isn't it true?

So let me let me explain. I I appreciate that. um we make our decisions based on the land use planning okay not any other justification. So uh whether what the answer would be is irrelevant to the decision of this commission. The commission makes decision based on what is in the staff report. So what kind of housing it will be is in the next step where we where the subdivision planning comes in not right now. Okay. Does that make sense?

No, but uh that's that's what you say then uh that's fine. I think that there is a

that's the way the process goes. First we do the zoning and it may be that the subdivision plan will never materialize. I can't I can't given what we have been handed uh we we whether it will be low income or high income or whatever kind of housing it will be is is beyond the perview of this application we're dealing with. I understand your concern. I do really and I appreciate you uh speaking up and it's all on record but uh uh that is um not anything we can deal with at this point when the subdivision application comes in then that will come up.

That's after the zoning has been changed. Yes. Okay. If the zoning is changed. Am I right, Mr. Yes. Yes. This is just a consideration of whether to change the zoning district designation. At this point, the commission is not um considering any sort of development proposal, just the abstract designation of the property. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Nothing personal. I'm just trying to find out. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Um, anybody else would like to speak? Yes.

And please, uh, I will speak this. Yeah. Thank you.

I apologize. I have to read from my phone because my printer would not print right before I left. So, I'm hoping that you received my my comments as well. Uh my name um I'm my name is Jan Hart. I'm talking for Jan and Kevin Hart, 41 Two Rivers Road. We live um on the east side of Two Rivers Road. Um the proposed um zoning application is on the is on the west side of the railroad tracks. So, um, so we're property owners on Two Rivers Road and we oppose a zoning change from agricultural to rural residential with 10 acre lots, potential 10acre lots. We would request that you consider zoning to be agricultural to agricultural residential with a minimum of 30 acre lots. That's pretty much what's adjacent to the properties there. Now um and um there was some the application references development would be cap would be compatible to uh 80 properties to the east of the proposed area. Um and a lot of those properties are located in upland habitat. They're not along the river. Um they're on the other side of of uh Highway 30. a lot of them um they have private roads that that service entrance and exits of those properties. So right now pretty much uh well with the exception of the existing homes on Two Rivers Road um all the other like I said all the other homes have their access um onto a paved highway 30 and they're east of the the Union Pacific Railroad

tracks. If the zoning is allowed to 10 acre lots, uh potential impacts we urge you to consider areas has already been spoken are increased vehicle traffic, which is an increase in dust production and its suppression and in Albany County maintenance costs for grading to reduce the washboard road surfaces. Um, and what's been brought up about the water water wells is those areas would have or could have all individual water wells with all individual septic systems that um on these 10 acre lots that um I worry about the increase in water pollution from the septic systems to adjacent lot wells of the addition of these lots on the Laramie River or the Larmy river aquifer. Um, also there's been a lot of talk about this increased development um on the other side of the railroad tracks there on the west side, but um you know we we also do not um really have adequate fire protection for more residents out there that we don't have really volunteer fire departments. We've actually had several homes out by burn down because they don't they can't get out there in time to put houses on. In fact, both of the houses across the street from me burned the Perkins and uh Stevenson's wild living out there. Um increase to wildlife um collisions and wetland habitat along the Laramie River is a con I have a concern. Um people go flying down that road the way it is right now. and we have a lot of deer in that area and it would be nice if we did get some deer crossing signs there. It would be

great too. Um, and my last comment is or concern that you'd like to consider is there's the the Unacific Railroad crossing there that all these houses on that side regardless of just this track but a proposed additional um development out there as across those tracks. There's a lot of train traffic on that on those tracks. Uh people are always, you know, running trying to run beat the trains and stuff. The trains stop, too. The trains stop along there. And so if there was an emergency, you couldn't get across across tracks. I guess you could go on Well Lane, but those are my concerns about additional development down our road. So, I would again I would just like to emphasize that um there's 30 acre lots out there now. It's it's agricultural um and that's what I would propose that you consider in those areas.

Thank you. Can you wait a second? Does anybody have a question? So, I have a question for you. Um in December we discussed uh a an application to change it from agricultural to run and we haven't heard from you people. Uh can you tell me why you didn't uh object to the runet proposal? Actually I did um submit comments to for the ranchets as well. Okay. During those I submitted those comments. Okay. there. Um, and that was Sorry that I didn't remember a lot has happened.

Yeah. No, no, no, no. I did I did submit comments um for five acres because that was just the same concerns. You know, 10 acres are still the same concerns. There's the aquifer in the Laramie River that's that's there. Um, and um I know that area floods. I've lived out there for 34 years. Granted, it's probably not going to flood this year, but it will flood. And we've we've c canoed and kayaked along the river there. So we do know it floods eventually hopefully. 2010 it flooded a lot. Right. Thank you. Thank you. I have your comments. Oh my earlier. Anybody else would like to comment? Please come forward.

Yes.

Thank you. My name is Matt Willie. I live on uh 11 Mil Iron Road, which is just off of Two Rivers, about a mile west of where this property is. So, appreciate the opportunity to make a comment. Um I'm just a little bit different perspective than the other people that have spoken so far today. I'm in in favor of the request to resone the property as rural residential. I I was aware of the ranchet request, but I didn't make comments, you know, in favor or or in opposition of it. when I saw that it was re, you know, reproposed as a rural residential, to me that made a lot of sense. I think that's a very conservative compromise. Um, and I think it's good for for us as neighbors in the area. Um, my my perspective stems at least in part from the fact that I think this this is pretty attractive land from a development standpoint. So, I think it's going to be developed at some point. So, from from my perspective, I think that's inevitable. Um, part of the reason I I say that is because if you look at the land, there's like 4,700 feet of of county road frontage. There's there's power lines that run parallel to it and across like directly through it. And then obviously it's, you know, close enough to the highway to be convenient, but but not so close that you're dealing with highway traffic the whole time. So they that you live there. So to me, I think someone's going to look at this land as as attractive from a development standpoint. If it's not Mr. for Bingham, it's going to be somebody else and they may come with a more aggressive proposal at some point down the line. So to me, you know, minimum 10acre lot sizes is is really reasonable. I think that's consistent with the comprehensive plan. If you if you look at we've talked about PGA3, PJ4 today, there's lots of of that land that's developed as Ranchettes. If you look across the the highway and and and just in general, as you move north out of Larmy on Highway 30, you see the way that that's developing. If if we lock this in as rural residential now, the west side of the highway is going to be a lot a lot more rural in look and feel than the east side, which I I like as a as a neighbor. So, um that that

informs a lot of my view on it. Um I I think that it's happening in a place that the county based on the comprehensive plan has already deemed an area of transition at some point in the future. So, I I would rather say let's let's come up with something that's that's a good compromise now rather than just leave it up to uncertainty and say, you know, we'll see what happens down down the road. Um I I don't I don't think it's a choice between development or no development at all. I guess if that if that makes sense. Um couple other points I want to I want to make. Um and maybe this is not relevant from a planning and zoning commission standpoint, but I think it's relevant from for me as a neighbor. I like the fact that Mr. Bon lives in the area. He's he's my neighbor. He's a neighbor to this property. He has to live with the the consequences of this as much as any of the rest of us do. I think that's a better result than, you know, someone coming from out of town milking as much money as they can out of the development then leaving. So, so to me, I I think that's significant. Um, and then I know there's there's been a lot of talk about the road and I'm I'm sympathetic to the concerns of increased traffic. I mean, I I use Two Rivers Road every single day. Um, so that's that's a concern, but I also feel like from from my perspective driving on the road every day, a lot of the the difficulty with Two Rivers Road is is weather and wind related obviously could benefit from more frequent grading, a little bit better maintenance, and that to me that's not a disparagement on the county. I I just think it's a matter of resources like anything else. So if you if you look at, you know, maybe 10 12 15 new home sites, property tax revenue increases, we have some more resources we can put into the road. I think that's a positive thing. I think that's a blessing for for everybody. So and and and I understand that in in isolation, rural residential doesn't always the the increased tax revenue doesn't always support the ability to take care of a road that way. But in this case, we already have traffic on the road. The road, you know, connects to Welsh Land, goes all the way to West Larmy. I I think it would do

more more good than harm in in that sense in terms of of of helping us with the road. So, um for those reasons, I I I support the the resoning request and hope keep those those comments in mind. Happy to answer any questions if anybody has any. Any questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah. Hold on.

Um my name is DJ Edwards. I live on um 17 Dog Iron Lane, which is that property just across Two Rivers Road on the southern end uh to what's being proposed developed. Um I was also at the last county commissioners meeting and I um expressed similar concerns to what people have already brought forward and I don't want to waste people's time. I just want to echo those. Um, I don't think that the proper infrastructure is in place to manage the ecoli contamination that's possible in the river and I don't think that the current road and bridge are at a suitable level to handle increased traffic up to that level. So, um, from my understanding, the meeting ended in that it would make more sense to establish similarly sized POS parcels to what's already existing in that same area on that west side of the railroad tracks, which is around 35 acres a piece. And that's what I would like to see. Um, it's really hard for me to come to these meetings uh because I have two kids and I had to take off work early. So, I hope that illustrates how much I care about this. I'm also a um agricultural producer myself. I'm a first generation sheep rancher and my business depends on having available parcels of land to lease for my livestock. So I'd like to see those lands um remain grazable. Um so that's my priority. I know it's your job to make sure that this makes sense for our entire community and I appreciate what you guys are doing. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Any questions? Thank you so much. Any other comments?

My name is Mary Lee Agnazak and my husband owns property at 100 Welsh Lane out there. I just and I'm a retired banker, 43 years in real estate. And I would like you to understand as you zip behind computers and may or may not drive that road in the summer that Welsh Lane closes as soon as we have a really bad snowstorm at the end of it that ends up in West Laramie because they cannot maintain it and keep it open and keep it safe for the people that live out there to travel that way. And so from a perspective of I need to get to the hospital to take somebody there, you're going to run right smack into the railroad and there's they won't move those trains. So somebody either loses their blood and dies or you have a snow machine that can go through that, but I know that they close that road at our gate. Now, I can get back and forth because I have snow machines and I have tractors and Cody Talbot and I try to get each other out every once in a while, but as you're planning this and you're talking road and bridge, you're also need to be talking to fire and search and rescue and everything that it takes to maintain that property at that end because it's not fair to tell somebody that here's this beautiful plot of land that I'm selling you not also make them aware that it's $15,000 per p per property to hook up to those power lines and that most of the people have wells that go down one mile to get water and when you give the water it's not potable which means that you have to do reverse osmosis or some or haul water to the property and I think that those are not being considered here and so it needs to be a part of your decision making because they won't be able to

finance it. Thank you. Any questions? Good job. None. Thank you. Okay. Like to make comment. Um I think Okay, I'm good. Yes.

Um my name is Michael Beasley. I live at 171 Cow Trail right north of this property and I'm here uh to to support the effort here. And it's interesting because all the comments made by the people who are against it. That's what we're dealing with anyhow. So you you know someone's already there living with this and they seem to be doing fine. I moved to 171 couch about two years ago and we've had to make adjustments. We put a RO system in because we wanted real clean water. As far as the concern about the septic, the county won't let put anybody put a septic in a flood plane. I had to put a couple of septics in. The first question they ask is it in a flood plane? If it is, then there's other work you got to do to make sure it doesn't end up when you have flooding in a flood plane contaminating the river. And as far as the traffic, the traffic there is not too bad. Not, you know, it's a dirt road in a county. That's life, you know, as far as the washboard and all that. That's just what you deal with. And so with respect to the cost, that would be on part of the developer and the builder to tell any prospective buyers, okay, this is what you've got. And and I I feel he would be honest with that. And I think again, uh you should support this. It would be good for the area. This area needs more housing than it has right now. I recently tried to help my sons buy a house here in Laramie and there's nothing here in Larry worth buying to be honest with you. and we're talking $400,000 and it's junk and having something new out there. And I'm not sure what his price point's going to be, but it'll give more options for people who may want to live in this area. And you've got to start somewhere. And this what what Mr. Bingham has put together, I think, is a is a reasonable approach to trying to address some of the housing issues. And again, as as this other gentleman said, he lives right next to it. He's going to be there to make sure it works out well. He's got skin in the game, if you will. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

I thank you for doing all this and all the work that obviously went into it from what I saw. My name is Janet Coulter. I live at 2642 Rivers Road. I am against the proposal. Um, as far as housing goes, they're doing beautiful developments out in the city limits. And as far as the one I looked at the one map that I couldn't find is mostly in the the zone 4. My big concern is that there are two parcels that are kind of behind this that if this goes is it a domino effect for spot zoning that we're going to have a problem with those. Now, I know that housing and development will happen, but it doesn't have to be housing. It could be down the road some kind of recreational uh use. It it doesn't have to be developed. Just because there's land in Wyoming doesn't mean you have to put something on it.

So I am against it. I All the properties adjacent are 30 35 acres. The the density that they're talking about is on the other side of the tracks access from the highway and it's different living out there as I found out when I there but I love it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Opening question. Any questions? No. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in this? My name is Michelle and I live at 229 River. What? Bingham. Oh.

And I have lived out there for going on 17 years. I've raised my children out there and we've had a wonderful time living in the country. It took us several years to find a place to live in the country where we could raise our children and enjoy it. And as it has been proposed, I know that we are not alone in trying to find this to raise our children in a country in the country where they can enjoy it as well. I hear all the time that people are trying to find rural residential land that they can move to. I am in favor of this. I have lived out there. I've seen the growth. We have wonderful neighbors. It's a great place to live, but it's a wonderful opportunity that we can get this into rural residential, that we can allow those other families to have this opportunity to live. I've dealt with the roads and I've dealt with the wind and I and we have wells out there, but we all enjoy it. There's opportunities to move around, all those things, but for the opportunity to live in a place that is in the country is wonderful. So, I am for the proposed zoning change of rural residential and to have those families enjoy that opportunity as well. Any questions?

I do have a question. Yes. What do you think about the railroad and the trains stopping and stopping traffic?

You know what? We have dealt with that our whole entire life. You learn to love it. You learn to live it and you learn to adjust to it. There's also Welsh Lane. And for these last few years, we have not had any problems going down Welsh Lane to get the schools. I drove my kids for several years to Lindford Elementary on Welsh Lane and we haven't had any problems. There was one year it there was tons of snow, but you learn to adapt and you learn to get up earlier and then you cross the train tracks without any problem. It's worked for our family for 17 years and I wouldn't change it any other way. Thank you.

Do you think there would be a change if you doubled or tripled the population either? I've seen more cars recently or more housing being built beyond our home and it hasn't changed anything with the railroad tracks. Anybody else in the room? Anybody online? I see two people. Yeah, go ahead. Was there someone online first? I didn't want to step in front of them if there was.

They haven't unmuted themselves yet. So, you can come forward.

Bo Bingham 229 Two Rivers Road is where I'm located. So, thank you everyone that's uh participated and offered their input today and and especially those who've taken time out out of their busy schedule uh to be here today. Um it is great to be part of a community that cares and it's fun to have the community members here regardless of what side those community members are. It's it's good to live in a community that care. I do want to thank the board members for their input in the last meeting. I feel Mr. Bame or Brett is is my son as well. he has implemented the feedback into his adjusted zoning proposal. I left that last meeting and with the impression that the adjusted proposal would need to address compatibility with surrounding housing and that larger lot sizes would be viewed more favorably. A few comments from the board in that last meeting as I rewatched it included, I wonder if rural residential instead of ranchet lot size would be more amidable to working with what's out there. Another comment from the board was real residential, the larger lot size seems like it would provide a safety factor when you get to the subdivision phase. The proposed zoning proposal considers those comments by proposing rural residential. I am in favor of rural residential proposal. I believe Mr. Mr. Bingham's current zoning amendment takes into compat account compatibility with surrounding properties and increases the size of as was recommended. In addition, I feel his current proposal meets the five criteria in the zoning resolution needed for approval of a zoning amendment. I would like to focus specifically on one of those criteria, compatibility. The zoning resolution states the adjudicated zoning zoning district amendment needs to be compatible with type, intensity, character, and scale of existing land uses.

I believe the prop proposed zoning amendment is compatible with the zoning type, intensity, character, and scale of existing land uses. As has been mentioned, there is a large number of properties 70 to 80 east that have ranchet zoning. A similar zoning change was recently approved in Littleworth Lane or the Willis application that has been mentioned that was changed that changed from agricultural to rural residential. There are a lot of similarities with that property with the property that has been proposed. That property was also in PGA3 and PGA4 areas. From my understanding, the proposed real zoning uh promotes single family dwellings on large lots. Um the second part of the zoning resolution states the amendment will result in logical and orderly development pattern in the area. In other words, the amendment that is presented today needs to result in uh logical and orderly development pattern. This is where I think this amendment takes into account the 35 acre parcels that have been mentioned in this area. Properties to the east of this proposal have ranchet zoning around 5 acre zoning that is there. Properties to the west have agricultural zoning. The proposed property that is being presented today lies between those two areas. Ranchet zoning and agricultural zoning. From the comments today, it's a difficult place. This property is in a difficult place to make all parties happen. But I believe the zoning resolution allows for this zoning unification. The zoning zoning resolution states, "In order for zoning district amendment to be approved, the amendment will need to result in logical and orderly development pattern. The proposed property asks for rural residential zoning. This pro proposal allows for a logically and orderly

development pattern. It bridges the current zoning that exists there. On one side of the property to the east, we have ranchet zoning. on the property uh to the in the middle of that is what is being proposed rural residential. On the other side of that, it transitions to various size agricultural products to the to the west. This results in a logical and orderly development pattern that that needs to exist in that area. It eliminates abrupt borders from going from 5 acre parcels to 35 acre parcels. Instead, it presents a logical and organized pattern that starts at ranchet, goes to rural residential and then transitions into agriculture um in this specific area that is there. So, I feel the current proposal meets the criteria for the zoning amendment both in compatibility. It also meets the other ones that have been discussed today. It doesn't result in significant adverse economic impacts. has minimal minimal impacts on natural and environmental resources and no significant impacts on cultural resources and fi finally the has adequate in infrastructure in place with the power lines the roads access to highway 30 and so on. I am in favor of the residential trans.

Thank you. Any questions? No. Good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone online would like to speak? Yes. Hello. My name is Pat Rand and I Can you hear me? I think you can. Yes.

I own uh some agricultural land. In fact, I in fact sold some of my uh land to Brett and um my land is agricultural. I greatly value the Laram River and the uh you know the the uh egg zoning. I I just wanted to echo Mike Beasley's sentiment about um Brett's integrity. if he is going to further develop it, I can attest to his integrity and honesty with anything he develops or what he would divulge to potential buyers. So again, I believe in orderly development. I wouldn't want to see it con congested in any way and uh again, I don't further I will not further subdivide my land at all. But I believe he he is honest, trustworthy, and I think he has integrity to disclose and abide by any of the planning and zoning commission's rules and certainly uh some of the rules that he'll have to follow going forward. So, I just wanted to uh concur or voice my approval with the um with the zoning change.

What's the address? Any questions? Address. Could you repeat your address, please? Um, I'm on Cal Trail. I'm in the adjacent lot. I don't know if there's a specific address. I own approximately 140 acres of agricultural land. But you don't live there. I do not. She No, that I had to give my address where I lived. So, I was just wondering if you could give yours. Yeah. No, no, no, no, no. I'm keeping it in its uh natural state. It is for the analopee, the river, and uh just agricultural. I do not live there, nor am I going to build on that land. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, anybody else? Okay. I don't see anybody else uh uh wanting to uh testify. So I uh would like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing portion of this discussion. I move that we close the public session of this meeting. A second.

Any further discussion? Anybody? Oh, everybody in Everybody in favor of closing the public uh hearing part of the discussion, please say I. I. I. Okay. All right. Uh any discussion on what we've heard today among the commissioner? Bern Hinckley, do you have anything to add?

Um yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, first of all, uh, encouraging to to hear such wide representation of Mr. Ringham's integrity and and I think that's great and and certainly nothing that that we do would suggest anything but that that this is a a model citizen proposing a model project. I think it really does just turn down come down to uh the density issues. Um and then to the to an earlier point you made madam chair about uh the subdivisions that's a later stage and when we're doing these zoning changes we have to keep in mind that we are approving an envelope of potential uses in the future and that may include uh future owners. So as we try to to address these in the abstract I think it was the term Mr. used uh whatever we decide here today, the property could be sold for whatever reasons tomorrow and exercising the full range of possibilities that a zoning change would would provide. Um on the issue of density, which is I think what this is all about, I prepared a a a small diagram that I asked Mr. Williams to have prepared for display. Can can we do that? Uh

yep. Let me pull it up. Um, and then this speaks to the whole idea of transition. So, it isn't a matter of whether you want to yes or no. We will make yes or no decision on this application, but but where we're going with it, I think, is illustrated on this diagram where I just went to the county assessor's website and pulled out the actual sizes of some of these lots. So, for those who might not be as familiar with how they lay out, here's just a Yeah. Oh, yeah. Thank you. That's good. I can see it. well, at least uh an annotated version. And the most conspicuous thing we see is all of those uh small lots that we see off to the east and five and six acres. Um and then very conspicuously we have a change when we cross the river and the railroad into the the area of the proposed subdivision which as has been represented to us by various folks. Those lots are uh from the full full quarter sections to 30 30 35 33 160 acres would be one of the the larger squares there. Um I don't know the history of the area. There's that one very small lot 2 and a half acres. Uh 141 acres is the lot immediately north of Mr. Bingham 25s 35s 30s. So looking at that I think it does represent what the the older Mr. Bingham uh presented to us off to the north and west we have uninterrupted egg lands to the east along the highway we have fairly dense development um that is well served by the the highway um and then here we are in the transition. So the question really is what is the logical uh and appropriate lot size for the transition? Do we take the the fives to the east and the the egg which is is 3540 acres zoning to the

west and average them in which case something like egg residential would be appropriate uh to take the whole lot of Mr. Binghams and turn it into 10acre lots would clearly skew the area towards those those higher densities. So I guess my take on this is the same it was in December which is that it is an appropriate place for rural residential development of small R rural residential. Um, but that something like the AG residential uh designation that we created for just such transition areas would be the the most appropriate and I' and I'd be happy to commit at this point to voting in favor of this were it to come forward as a as an a residential proposal somewhat smaller than the lots that have been suggested by some that would that would be 20 acre lot minimum minimum lot size average minimum average lot size rather 10 acre minimum if I render remember correctly. So again, this would be the perspective that I would bring, Madame Chair, and and to my fellow commissioners, is that the the lot size most compatible with the existing in the area and with this transition between higher densities to the east and very low densities to the west would be uh what we've called a residential. And that would be consistent with our general support in the comp plan and in the natural resources plan that was passed to to protect the the agricultural open space interests for which I think Albany County is is appropriately proud. So again, I wouldn't say we're looking at no development here. It's just a matter of the scale development and understanding that all players are proceeding in in good faith. My preference on this would be that as a planning and zoning statement by the county of Albany uh we

would look at those egg residential zoning designations. So uh that's my input uh for what it's worth. Thank you madam chair. Thank you. Any questions for bird? No. Any comments from the other commissioners? I agree with Bur. I do also believe that the a residential would be a more fitting with Yes.

Albany County and wanting to have open lands for wildlife, ranching, farming. Um I believe a residential is what 35 34 35 acres. 35 acres. I believe that is I residential is 20 acres. 20 acres. Yeah. I'm sorry. So, but even at that that I believe is more fitting what Albany County appears to be how it seems to be divided up now and how it may seem to be done.

Be a better fit for that. That is yeah that that seems to be an area that you know the wide open wide open spaces Wyoming that seems to fit the description of that and it seems that there's people out there now that raise sheep and use large sections. So it wouldn't you wouldn't have a 35 acre ranch with sheep and seven or eight little houses on four or five acres whatever it is next to them and then that 160 acre plot with like one one open area that they're either ranching or farming or whatever they want to do.

That's all I get. So it seems like uh both of you and Burns support the egg residential. Yes. Which means we're going to deny this application. Yes. Yes. Uh I would like to make someone to make a motion. Uh do you have the wording in front of you? Get down to it. I I can do that. Madam Cherish,

I got it. Either one. Go ahead, B. Yeah, just basically it's the same motion that that was made uh in December um in that we are looking specifically at that this application and not something else. So, my motion would be that we recommend to the board of county commissioners to deny the Bingham zoning district uh amendment ZDA0126 based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate that the proposed zoning district amendment complies with the criteria specified in Albany County zoning resolution chapter 3 section 5C6B and chapter 3 section 5C6 C Romanet I as follows. It does not follow the guidelines of the comprehensive plan and is not compatible with the surrounding properties.

Thank you. I will have a u move all uh I need a second before we can proceed. Oh, sorry. Second second. Thank you. Thank you. Um Mr. Hley. All right. No. Did I didn't I on the motion? Oh, I on the motion. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. And I too say I on the motion. So, the motion passes unanimously. Oh, yes. On the motion. Yes.

Any further questions? Uh this will go to the board of county commissioners on April, however it falls. Uh

April, April 7th at 9:30 in the morning. um in this room in this room with the uh the recommendation of denial. Thank you.

Thank you everybody for um taking time out of your schedule to come and tell us what you think and what uh um what you think appropriate. So again, thank you very much. Uh Thank you, commissioners. So, what I was getting at was she didn't give her address and we all had to give ours.

That's okay. Okay. Thank you. But that's what I was saying. I wasn't making it clear. Thank you. I can't believe how much work goes into and the staff puts in much more work. Well, that's what I do. I'm online. I'm like, hey, Joe, can you close the door for a second? Thank you.

Okay. Um The next item on the agenda is uh citizen comments that are unrelated to uh anything in the agenda. Do we have anyone wishing to address the planning and zoning commission with any topic? I don't see anybody or any nobody online. Okay, great. Uh in that case if you don't mind I need a five minute break and so uh let's take a five minute

to go. Okay. Um, back. Can you hear us, B? Yep, I'm here. Thank you.

Okay, great. So, Mr. Burch, I guess you are up next. All right, Madam Chair Fischers. Um, so this next item is the livestock production definitions and standards update that we're doing to or we're proposing for the Albony County zoning resolution. Um, we discussed these previously. A public hearing has been set for tonight. Um, the proposed changes include the following. We added definition for livestock livestock production grazing and storage of related equipment. We amended the land use table 4.1 by deleting commercial from livestock production grazing and storage related equipment land use. Um change changing ranchet to require a conditional use and prohibiting the use in small residential and neighborhood commercial zoning and adding a reference to the additional standards. And then we add a new section nine in chapter six with the standards for livestock production, grazing and storage related equipment. Um, so that's what we have before you. Um, we can take public comment and I guess any questions for me. We can do public comment and then um, whatever you guys want to do with this.

All right. Did we get any comments? Nothing was submitted um via email or written or no phone calls or anything. Nothing from in my office. Gotcha. All right. So, yeah, let's um open the public hearing if anyone has any comments on this uh amendment. Anyone? No one's online. No one is online. Okay. And no one in the room is

Okay. So, in that case, I make a motion that we close the public hearing. I'll second. Um would you make the motion? Oh, I'll make the motion to close the public hearing. I'll second the motion. Thank you. Uh, everyone in favor of closing the uh, public hearing on the amendment, please say I. I. I. Okay. Any discussion? Um,

um, yeah, I guess for Commissioner Melli, Commissioner O'Brien, uh, do you have any questions on sort of where this came from or where'd it come from? The impetus of it because I don't think Oh. Oh, yeah. Did we do this before? Didn't they? Probably they were here in January. Okay. Oh, yeah. Were we? Yeah, they would have when we decided to send it. No, they voted on this. Did we? Did we? This was in January, I believe. Y I can look. It It was um It makes sense. The emphasis was uh fencing regulation. Yeah, this was in January.

So, this was on the first meeting you guys were here. So, I don't But we can give you some additional information like we can do a refresher. You're probably like going, "What's going on?" for the first time. No, when you said January and I realized that I was locked out of the building. Oh, yeah. You weren't here. That's true. You weren't here. Yeah.

Yeah. Um so a last year the year before the legislature um as its prerogative is uh required counties um through subdivision to ensure that any land upon which livestock can be legally run at large uh have perimeter fences around the subdivision in order to keep out um ranging livestock. Um, which is interesting considering Wyoming is a livestock or fence out state where it's your prerogative as the land owner to determine that. Now it's affirmatively required. Uh, so um the the question then is well upon what land can livestock be legally run at large? uh basically any land that isn't fenced out or doesn't have an existing fence. Um the only only two places are uh if a railroad rideway if they have fences and then state highway if it has fences. Um so it as we saw with uh subdivisions that came afterwards uh it's just required uh by default. Um so really the only way that the county can address this is through saying upon what lands livestock may be run at large and this is an attempt to do so.

Got it. And we did have a couple cases uh where the developers said but there's no care where I want to develop. Why should I put up a fence? I don't want to put up a fence. So this is in response to some issues that we have seen in the past year.

You have anything to add? No. Um looks looks good to me. Yeah, I think weed out any differences in the in the previous hearing. Let's just for the procedure, if I understand right, the the motion now would or the action available to us now would be to forward it up to the county uh commissioners. Is that right? That's correct. Said you need a motion to approve. Yeah. Motion motion to recommend

to recommend approval to the county commissioners. So, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval of zoning re resolution amendment ZA-3-25 to the Alban and County zoning resolution pertaining to livestock production, grazing, and storage of related equipment, land use. I second the motion. Okay. Uh everyone uh uh approving the motion please say I

I would be forwarded to commissioner next week. Okay. Stuff updates. All right. Um, the Ciserelli zoning district amendment and conditional use, they went forward to the board of county commissioners and were approved. Um, both of them. So, that was on our last uh meeting. So, just an update there.

Um, unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to look into how many we have as Jill was out today. Um and um this is my final meeting with you guys. Um I have accepted a a new job uh back in Kansas, which is where I'm from. So uh yeah, congratulations on going home. Congratulations. Thank you. Joe, we'll miss you. Who am I going to yell at? Yes. Yeah, I I will miss most people.

Uh yeah. Uh I want to thank you on behalf of the current commissioners and previous commissioners that have worked with you on all the hard work you've put in and all the troubles that we caused you. Thank you. Over the years. So, thank you very much. Uh definitely good luck. Thank you. Yes. Absolutely. So, you might be seeing Jory's face introduce yourself. So, we're doing we're doing a real staff update. So, who's the new Joe? We call him Jory.

My name's Jory. I'm been a GIS analyst with the county for almost 5 years. Um, so yeah, with Joe's moving now, I'm going to be taking over some applications. So, you'll be seeing more of me. Um but yeah, I look forward to working with you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Um anything else, Dave? Yeah, just to add, um so I think there's a few things still popping around. Um we've got this short-term rental stuff. Um with just

all this news and some other things going on. Um we'll we'll try to get that back to you here soon. Um and then I believe at your next meeting we have a public hearing for data centers. Data centers. Data centers. So yeah. Um Matt and I actually attended a conference where there was a lot of discussion about data centers.

Um one of them B I felt like one of them was like okay these are the horrible things that that happened. And then the other one was a bunch of lawyers that says, "No, you have to permit these wherever they're they go." So that's what it felt like. I mean, I'm being a little bitious, but I don't know, one of the attorneys was pretty much like that, but um only one um but he he was a private industry attorney and he would that was he had clients that were data centers. So

and it wasn't here. It was in like Arizona. But um but yeah, so um also on that note, um you know, we'll continue ahead with what we have. Um there are some limitations that we're we're ironing out when it comes to um what we can regulate, what we can um because of industrial sighting council, they have they have thresholds and things that that if they meet their threshold, then they preempt us. So it'll be more the county is a party to whatever application goes through then. So but we're still ironing all that out for sure. But um that's kind of where we're at. So um yeah all I think I have anything we missed? Anything you guys have questions about or

you had a proposal last time for data centers, didn't you? Yeah. So just to prepare for the future. Yes. So, what that is, we're just changing a I think we're adding a um a definition and then we're adding some or making some changes to the land use table. Yeah. Um but they'll they're going to we've published those. They'll be back for public hearing on April 8th, your next meeting. So, good job. Yeah. Good.

Okay. Uh, do any of the commissioners have any comments? Um, I have a thought, Madam Chair. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Okay. Yeah. Um, specifically, I have a note that was provided to me by Chairman Platt that he asked that I read into the record as follows. Um, I would like to take a moment to note that Joe is leaving us for a new job. While it's sad to be losing one of our valued colleagues, we can and should be happy for Joe, even winning his new position. We congratulate him as he makes his this step forward in his career, which as well returns him closer to his roots and home in Kansas. Joe, thank you for your efforts to make Alb County a better place, and we wish you the best as you begin this next chapter in your life. We will be missed. close quote that from Chairman Platt and I certainly would add to that my own congratulations and thanks Joe for your your patience with all of us and me particularly over the years. We've learned a lot. Um so and thank you for bearing with us through the various times and issues that we've gone through and and certainly join Mr. Platt in congratulating you and wishing you bon viage. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else? That's all I got. Okay. Our next regular meeting is April 8th, 5:00 p.m. in the commissioner's room right here. And if there's nothing else or anybody, uh, I will call this meeting adjourned. Thank you. Good job. Thank you all. Thank you. Yay.