[0:04] Okay.

[0:07] » All right. Uh, I call to order the

[0:11] August 12th, 2026 Alb County Planning on

[0:14] Commissioners Regular Meeting. Um, roll

[0:17] call. Greg here. Ralph

[0:20] >> here.

[0:20] >> Barb

[0:22] >> here.

[0:23] >> Burn

[0:25] >> here. Can you hear me?

[0:26] >> We can hear you. And I'm here. record,

[0:29] we will note that Vern's in Spain right

[0:30] now.

[0:33] Okay, so we're all here. Um, move on to

[0:36] approval of the agenda. Is there anyone

[0:38] who would like to uh

[0:41] um move to amend the agenda or or also

[0:43] approve it?

[0:44] >> Uh, I would like to amend the agenda to

[0:47] add a discussion after we deal with

[0:50] everything about uh what we learned

[0:52] about data centers on the last few days.

[0:55] >> Is there a second?

[0:56] >> I second.

[0:57] >> All right. And uh we will do that if we

[1:00] approve this uh right above item six

[1:02] staff updates. Um so all those in favor

[1:05] say I.

[1:06] >> I.

[1:08] >> That motion carries. Um may I have a

[1:10] motion to approve the minutes for July

[1:12] 8th 2026?

[1:14] >> I move that we approve the minutes from

[1:17] last meeting. I read fine to me.

[1:23] [clears throat]

[1:23] >> Uh all those in favor say I.

[1:25] >> I.

[1:26] I that motion carries also. Uh Greg,

[1:29] do you have anything to disclose?

[1:31] >> No.

[1:34] >> None. Thank you.

[1:36] >> Barb,

[1:37] >> no.

[1:40] >> Yeah.

[1:41] >> I will just mention that I had a

[1:44] friendly talk with Dr. Kuri

[1:47] um out at his storage site back in early

[1:51] June. Uh that was before I was aware of

[1:53] this application or the purchase of this

[1:56] property that we're going to take a look

[1:57] at later. Um and there were no conflicts

[2:00] of interest. Uh but I just want to

[2:01] mention that.

[2:03] Uh in that case, we will move on to the

[2:05] Kaduri zoning district amendment ZDA

[2:08] 03-26. David.

[2:14] » Yeah, Mr. Chair

[2:17] >> Commission. Um Dr. Kaduri is the

[2:20] applicant for this um project. Um he's

[2:25] requesting to change 57 acres from

[2:27] ranchet to commercial. The location of

[2:30] this property is along Soldier Springs

[2:32] Road and Rosedale Road. Property is

[2:34] addressed 147 or 37 um Rosedale Road.

[2:40] The area includes a mix of ranch at

[2:42] commercial and agricultural zoning.

[2:44] There's a mix of residential,

[2:45] commercial, and agricultural land uses

[2:47] in the area. Um the buildings on the

[2:50] south, there are buildings on the south

[2:51] end of the property and then there's a

[2:52] drainage that crosses the northeast um

[2:55] portion of the property.

[2:57] Um a number of folks

[3:00] reviewed this. Um I'll just kind of go

[3:03] through the ones that stood out. Larry

[3:05] Rivers Conservation District, Martin

[3:07] Curry, senior resource specialist, um

[3:10] noted that land owners should take care

[3:12] to minim minimize disturbance of the

[3:14] property. Um, disturbed areas should be

[3:18] reclaimed quickly using native grass and

[3:21] shrub species.

[3:23] The Larman Rivers Conservation District

[3:25] can provide recommendations for

[3:26] appropriate native grass species and

[3:28] planting methods. And USDA soil web soil

[3:33] survey [snorts] information indicates

[3:36] that the lower elevation portions of the

[3:38] property are rated very limited for

[3:40] building development due to the shallow

[3:42] groundwater and seasonal surface water

[3:44] flows. I'm guessing is that's being

[3:47] talked about that northeast portion

[3:48] where that drainage goes across. Yeah.

[3:50] >> Um and then any other

[3:54] >> Yeah. information on that that that

[3:58] review was included. Um the Wyoming Game

[4:02] and Fish, Will Schultz, habitat

[4:04] protection supervisor, noted the areas

[4:06] outside of delineated crucial habitat.

[4:09] He did recommend avoiding fencing that

[4:12] restricts big game or using of wildlife

[4:15] friendly fencing.

[4:17] Um he also noted to um mitigate any

[4:21] invasive species in the area to clean

[4:23] vehicles and equipment before

[4:25] construction and coordinate with the

[4:27] weeden pests to plan um on a plan to

[4:32] assess, treat and monitor invasive

[4:34] species.

[4:35] Um, city of Laramie planning manager

[4:39] Philip Gavatuler

[4:41] um provided comments as well

[4:42] recommending denial based on the future

[4:45] development

[4:46] um saying that the f future development

[4:48] of the property should follow a state

[4:50] residential future land use designation

[4:53] of lar growth area plan. Um, so my

[4:57] analysis,

[4:58] so the the commercial zoning district

[5:01] would allow uses that are compatible

[5:03] with the surrounding commercial

[5:04] development that's already in the area.

[5:06] The property does have direct access to

[5:08] a paved county road. Um, it's maintained

[5:11] by the county. Um, it's also in close

[5:15] proximity to Laramie, so that provides

[5:18] efficient access to emergency services.

[5:21] um fire department,

[5:25] um the sheriff's office, all of that.

[5:28] So, and then um the applicant addressed

[5:31] the potential impacts associated with

[5:33] the zoning amendment, allowed uses are

[5:35] generally compatible with the

[5:36] surrounding land uses, minimizing

[5:38] potential conflicts, and supporting a

[5:40] logical growth plan pattern.

[5:43] So the comprehensive plan um the

[5:46] proposal is generally consistent with

[5:48] the comprehensive plan goals of economic

[5:50] development, growth, efficiency,

[5:52] commercial zoning would support

[5:54] additional business investment and

[5:56] potential expansion or exp potentially

[5:59] expand the county tax base. Um prior to

[6:02] growth area three is where this is

[6:05] located and identifies potential for

[6:08] small convenience orientated oriented

[6:10] commercial uses. Um also the rural rural

[6:14] commercial land use. The property has

[6:16] access to uh paved countymaintained road

[6:20] and is near future major arterial

[6:22] intersection. Domestic wells and small

[6:24] wastewater systems can provide um that

[6:28] those services that are needed for rural

[6:31] commercial development out there. The

[6:33] proposal also supports a logical

[6:35] expansion of commercial development is

[6:37] generally consistent with the intent of

[6:39] rural commercial designation.

[6:42] Um the Larman growth area growth area

[6:44] plan. So although the designation is

[6:47] estate residential, the property is

[6:50] adjacent to neighborhood commercial and

[6:52] would provide a logical extension of

[6:54] that area. um land use or that the

[6:57] proposed extens proposal extends an

[7:00] existing commercial development pattern

[7:02] rather than creating an isolated

[7:04] commercial use and is compatible with

[7:06] surrounding land uses.

[7:08] Um staff recommends approval of this

[7:12] application

[7:14] um and would be happy to answer any

[7:16] questions.

[7:19] >> Uh Mark, you have anything?

[7:23] >> Yes, I have a question. Um the proposal

[7:26] is um proposing uh a few bathrooms uh

[7:31] for the septic system and not a dump

[7:33] station or anything like that as part of

[7:35] the the construction.

[7:39] >> So this is this is a request for

[7:41] commercial

[7:42] um zoning. So that information would be

[7:46] provided at the time that they developed

[7:48] um the property and they built the

[7:50] buildings and and went that that way

[7:52] forward. My my assumption would be um

[7:56] and I'm not sure if applicant is here um

[8:00] is that they would use waste a small

[8:02] wastewater system a septic system um for

[8:05] domestic sewage that's created on the

[8:07] property. So

[8:09] >> okay thank you.

[8:11] >> Can I follow up on Bob's question?

[8:14] [clears throat] One of the uh neighbors

[8:16] that is opposing this or send us a

[8:18] letter opposing this mentioned the need

[8:21] to empty uh the uh sewage storage within

[8:26] RVs that would be brought for storage.

[8:28] Uh that seems like it would be a big may

[8:32] be a big uh require a big wastewater

[8:36] system

[8:39] that

[8:39] >> did you get?

[8:42] So, at the um the zoning district

[8:45] amendment, we're just considering

[8:48] commercial,

[8:50] you know, abstractly. We're not

[8:51] considering a specific development or a

[8:54] specific land use, but really any land

[8:57] use that could potentially be within the

[8:59] commercial zoning district that any use

[9:01] of it would be at the zoning um

[9:04] certificate stage. So, and I would just

[9:07] follow up, you know, if if they went

[9:09] forward to develop something like that.

[9:12] Um, they would need to talk with the

[9:14] county and potentially the state on on,

[9:18] you know, taking care of the the

[9:19] wastewater, but but yeah, as Matt said,

[9:22] we're not really looking at that at this

[9:23] stage. But if this were approved and

[9:26] permits started coming in, those are the

[9:27] questions would need to be answered.

[9:31] >> Anything else, Barb?

[9:33] No. All right.

[9:36] >> I'm good. Thank you.

[9:39] >> Ralph,

[9:41] >> so my question is I didn't understand

[9:43] from the maps that

[9:46] there's a plan for converting the entire

[9:49] 57 acres so that the whole 57 acres will

[9:54] become commercial.

[9:55] >> The proposal is for the entire lot. Yes.

[9:57] Of 57 acres.

[9:58] >> It's a very large area.

[10:00] >> It is a large area. That's That is true.

[10:02] Yeah. [clears throat]

[10:04] Is that all?

[10:05] >> That's it.

[10:07] >> Um the opposing letter, if they're going

[10:11] to put up an 80 by 200 foot building, 20

[10:13] ft tall,

[10:14] >> there's no once this is approved,

[10:17] there's nothing saying they can't put up

[10:19] 10 of those or 15 of those. And that

[10:21] seems to be the concern here. Is there a

[10:24] restriction on that or

[10:25] >> Well, they'll have to get a zoning

[10:26] certificate and go through that process.

[10:29] what the use whatever they're using it

[10:32] for has to conform to um the allowed

[10:35] standards in a commercial zoning

[10:38] district. Um if it doesn't, it may be a

[10:41] conditional use and then in that case

[10:42] they would come back to you. But if it is allowed, it would be just a

[10:47] zoning certificate to to do that. So

[10:49] they wouldn't have to come before you

[10:51] and and there really isn't a limitation.

[10:53] No.

[10:56] >> Thank you.

[10:58] Uh I don't have any questions. Um I just

[11:01] want to note uh that something you

[11:03] mentioned I do believe that

[11:05] northeast corner if I right of the

[11:08] parcel it's in fact it could include

[11:10] some sort of wetland.

[11:11] >> Mhm.

[11:11] >> Um I just wondered about that. So is the

[11:14] applicant here or if it's

[11:16] representative?

[11:19] Uh in that case I'm going to suggest we

[11:21] table this uh for next month. Um, going

[11:26] back in time about a year ago, I'm not

[11:29] positive if I have the right application

[11:31] in mind, but I think it was a Wil

[11:32] wholesome application

[11:34] um, up north of town. Neither applicant

[11:37] or a representative was present. We went

[11:39] and considered that. After the fact, I

[11:42] thought that was the wrong decision that

[11:44] I should have moved to table it and and

[11:47] that's why I suggest we do now. So, is

[11:49] there a motion to dispose this for the

[11:51] time being? Uh, to table it. I motion

[11:53] that we table this for the time being.

[11:55] Is there a second?

[11:56] >> I second.

[11:58] >> I'll conduct a roll call vote then.

[12:01] >> Could we discuss the motion or is it

[12:03] table?

[12:04] >> Yes, we can. Absolutely.

[12:05] >> But I mean unless that's a nonable

[12:07] motion.

[12:08] >> Do you have something you want to say?

[12:09] >> Um we this is scheduled for public

[12:11] hearing. So you'll need to hear from the

[12:13] public before it's tabled.

[12:14] >> Okay. Fair enough. Um so we will hear

[12:18] from the public and then we'll we'll

[12:20] discuss the motion. I burn. Okay. Uh, we

[12:23] will conduct a public hearing now. So,

[12:25] any member of the public who is here who

[12:27] wishes to make a comment on this

[12:28] application, you may step forward.

[12:35] » I guess I'd like to ask some questions

[12:37] about it.

[12:38] >> Please step forward and tell us who you

[12:39] are and where you're from.

[12:40] >> Altha Garson. I have um property that's

[12:43] right just south of the radio station

[12:46] and borders this piece. have a large

[12:48] concern about this. Um, just with the

[12:51] amount of people and that that will be

[12:53] there. Bought a place so I could be out

[12:55] of town.

[12:57] I know you guys think there's no

[12:58] wildlife there. When I was living there,

[13:00] I rented out.

[13:01] >> Don't make any assumptions about that.

[13:03] >> Okay, [laughter]

[13:04] >> we might have very diverse opinions

[13:06] about whether wildlife out there or not.

[13:07] >> Rabbits, I mean,

[13:10] some antelope. There's wildlife on that

[13:13] place. And I think that if you go in and

[13:16] make it all concrete, you're going to

[13:18] take away their habitat.

[13:20] Um concerned about where they're going

[13:22] to put the sewage and water development.

[13:26] My water comes from a well, [snorts] and

[13:28] if they're going to have their sewer

[13:29] right there feeding into my water,

[13:31] that's not um ideal for for myself or

[13:35] the people living there.

[13:38] I guess just a lot of questions. I did

[13:40] read the letter on the on the um that

[13:43] they wrote and I know that they're going

[13:45] to start small and then build, but I

[13:47] never did understand which side they're

[13:48] going to start on. Are they going to

[13:50] start on the south or the west or

[13:57] » we can answer those questions for you? U

[14:00] if that's your comment.

[14:02] >> You can't answer those questions.

[14:03] >> No, we can't. Well, David, my comment

[14:06] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would just say the

[14:08] proposal is to change the zoning of the

[14:10] property. So, there's not any

[14:12] development

[14:14] um proposal at this time. I mean, they mentioned it in their application,

[14:19] but the application is to change the

[14:21] zoning only. So, any development would

[14:24] be from further permits in the future.

[14:26] >> So, they will have to come through and

[14:28] ask you guys again. Um

[14:29] >> well, they'll come to Yeah. the planning

[14:31] department to ask about those things. um

[14:33] they'd have to get a permit for any

[14:35] wastewater or buildings on the property.

[14:38] >> It wouldn't necessarily have to be in

[14:40] the public form.

[14:42] >> So, this is my last chance to Can I Can

[14:46] I write a letter on opposing?

[14:49] >> Absolutely.

[14:50] >> So, just to the planning department.

[14:53] >> Yes. Yes.

[14:55] >> Thank you for your time.

[14:56] >> Thank you.

[14:58] >> Is there any other member of the public

[15:00] who wishes to comment? Please step

[15:01] forward. Okay. My name is Roger

[15:03] Schaefer. We're the owner of the

[15:05] property that KBB sits on, which is on

[15:09] the edge of this. Oh,

[15:10] >> okay. Right.

[15:10] >> And so we're uh the only concern we have

[15:14] uh we're in the process right now of

[15:16] renegotiate or renegotiating a lease

[15:18] with KB for another 5 years. The only

[15:21] concern we would have, you know, there's

[15:23] radio, there's towers there, right? And

[15:25] so we would be concerned about the

[15:27] transmission of the towers and and I

[15:30] have above my pay grade talk about

[15:33] whether whether it would be any effects

[15:35] on transmission or not. That would have

[15:37] to be something that you know the radio

[15:39] engineers or whatever could talk about.

[15:42] That would be our biggest concern just

[15:44] if that was a problem.

[15:46] >> Well, uh I'm glad you're here to express

[15:47] that concern because I'm sure Dave's

[15:49] paying attention. Okay, that's all I

[15:53] could say. Anyone else? Thank you, sir.

[15:59] Hearing and seeing no one else, uh, may

[16:01] I have a motion to close the public

[16:02] hearing?

[16:03] >> I move the close of public hearing.

[16:05] >> I second. Any further discussion? All

[16:08] those in favor say I.

[16:10] >> I.

[16:12] That motion carries. Okay. Burn. Uh,

[16:15] we will discuss our motion to table this

[16:18] until next month.

[16:20] >> Yeah. um uh assuming that the motion to

[16:22] table is debatable and I don't mean to

[16:24] debate it much but just to be to clarify

[16:27] the the way that sequence came down it

[16:29] was strongly implied that your motion to

[16:31] table was because the applicant neither

[16:35] the applicant nor his representative is

[16:37] there is that is that the intent of the

[16:39] tableing was

[16:41] correct

[16:42] >> okay just so then they're on notice to

[16:44] do that and then the public is on notice

[16:46] that we will take this up again and they

[16:49] should reappear and we will have a

[16:52] proper wide ranging debate if I

[16:54] understand correctly. Is that the idea?

[16:56] >> Okay. Thank you.

[16:58] >> Hey David,

[16:59] >> Dr. Kaduri is coming in the house.

[17:01] >> The house. Okay. Well, we've just been

[17:03] informed that Dr. Kaduri is on his way

[17:04] in. So,

[17:06] >> uh we will not get the move to

[17:11] >> Yeah. So, yeah. Very good.

[17:14] >> Back and forth.

[17:17] >> Formally withdraw the motion. Yeah, I'm

[17:20] withdrawing the motion.

[17:22] If we now hear from the applicant, does

[17:24] that mean we should reopen the public

[17:26] hearing again?

[17:27] >> I think you should.

[17:28] >> Okay, we'll do that. Very good. Um, so

[17:31] Dr. Guri, uh, we have heard staff u give

[17:35] the report and we have perhaps some

[17:37] questions for you.

[17:38] >> Okay. So, would you please have

[17:40] questions?

[17:41] >> Yeah. Um, and we will begin with.

[17:46] >> Thanks.

[17:48] Thank you. Uh my question is about

[17:52] actually the intent of 57 acres is a

[17:56] huge area. Um and I understand that you

[18:00] want to make it into a storage of boats

[18:03] and RVs and uh so on and so forth. And

[18:07] so uh have and and there is a wetland at

[18:11] the north uh um end of or south end of

[18:14] the property.

[18:16] >> The northeast side of the property.

[18:18] >> Yeah. Um so my question is you're aware

[18:22] of the fact that you may need

[18:25] >> a very large wastewater system there to

[18:28] deal with emptying RVs [snorts] and all

[18:30] that.

[18:31] >> Oh no, no. Like I don't plan on doing

[18:33] like an RV park or anything. My intent

[18:35] is to just store like like dry storage.

[18:38] That's my intent. Maybe one or two

[18:40] buildings with the steel buildings on

[18:42] the facing the soldier spring road that

[18:45] could be used more like indoor storage

[18:48] and uh like everything else should be

[18:50] just like dry storage like most of my

[18:53] friends in the city they park their

[18:56] stuff in the side of the streets and it

[18:58] becomes unsafe because when we are

[19:00] driving around we can't see who is

[19:01] crossing. So, I have several friends

[19:03] that requested to park stuff in the the

[19:06] 15 acres and I can't say no to them. A

[19:10] lot of them are parking like like in

[19:12] that 15 acres. It's just overwhelming

[19:14] the situation. So, that's what I thought

[19:16] I should just like ask for permission if

[19:19] that's okay to park there instead of

[19:21] here. So, a lot of people are using that

[19:24] 15 acres like the Skyland Bike Road, the one we built the steel buildings. I

[19:30] left a big parking lot there. Every time

[19:32] I go there, like there is like an RV and

[19:34] a boat and everything parked there. And

[19:36] I ask one of the tenants, okay, what

[19:38] who's is this? And they say, oh, one of

[19:40] my friends is begging to just park

[19:42] overnight and all that. So I I just felt

[19:46] like maybe if I don't overwhelm that

[19:49] space and use the other space if if

[19:52] approved by you guys would be better

[19:55] space than disturbing the businesses and

[19:57] all that that are currently running over

[19:59] the sky.

[20:02] >> Okay. Thank you.

[20:04] >> That's all.

[20:06] >> So you have no intention. Let's let's go

[20:08] around. Oh, I'm sorry.

[20:11] Oh, maybe Barb,

[20:14] >> I don't have any questions.

[20:17] >> Um, Bernard,

[20:18] >> um, yeah, just a couple. When did you

[20:20] buy this property?

[20:22] >> Uh, like around 3 months ago.

[20:26] >> Oh, and and why did you buy it?

[20:29] >> I just bought it as an investment. Like,

[20:31] uh, like I want to park my money for my

[20:33] retirement.

[20:36] >> Okay. Thank you.

[20:38] >> Great. So you don't have any you don't

[20:41] have any intention of having people come

[20:42] out there empty their

[20:44] >> No no no no

[20:45] >> they have to have that done before they

[20:46] get there to

[20:47] >> yeah this is like storing stuff that

[20:49] they don't use not parking in the city

[20:52] streets instead I have at least like uh

[20:55] 10 people that are [clears throat] using

[20:56] the business park right now they are

[20:58] parking on the side like right now their

[21:01] RVs and stuff

[21:03] >> and uh like uh I don't want them to park

[21:06] there and uh they said oh like we'll pay

[21:08] you and all that. I said 40 bucks a

[21:11] month or whatever, but I said, you know,

[21:14] it's just overwhelming because there's

[21:15] like 20 tenants using that 10 acres or 8

[21:19] acres of space. I just thought this is

[21:22] like reasonable to ask if if this is not

[21:24] a big pain. And then I know there are a

[21:28] few concerns from my neighbors. I would

[21:30] like to also address their concerns

[21:32] about um the gas stations and stuff. I

[21:36] have no intent of like signing up to

[21:39] anything because I'm also busy doing

[21:41] some things. I just don't want to run a

[21:44] day-to-day business like operating there

[21:47] sitting there full-time.

[21:48] >> Me and my wife both are pediatricians.

[21:50] We are very conservative in terms of not

[21:54] disturbing the place. We always want to

[21:56] leave a place better than what we found.

[21:59] Never have intend to like cause trouble

[22:02] to the neighbors or anything. Yeah.

[22:04] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[22:08] uh I might have a question here. Um

[22:12] [clears throat]

[22:14] and you I'm going to give you permission

[22:15] to not have to answer this question if

[22:16] you want to because we're actually only

[22:19] supposed to be considering the zoning

[22:20] itself, not any actual purpose, but

[22:23] that's supposed to be a spectac purpose.

[22:25] But you do have a site plan on your map.

[22:27] And just so

[22:28] >> again, [clears throat] you'll have to

[22:29] answer this if you want to. Right now,

[22:31] your intent is to build a building. And

[22:33] then the site plan shows basically a

[22:35] ring road that's a story. Correct. All

[22:38] right. Well, thank you for answering

[22:39] that. That's all I have.

[22:41] >> Okay. Um

[22:43] so, uh we will conduct another public

[22:46] hearing for anyone who now that Dr.

[22:48] Feduri is here would like to make a

[22:50] comment again.

[22:52] Do either the two people who spoke

[22:53] earlier wish to speak again?

[22:58] » Go ahead.

[23:00] Sir,

[23:01] >> I understand. However, you are allowed

[23:03] to make a comment. You're not here to

[23:05] ask questions.

[23:06] >> I can't ask questions.

[23:08] >> Okay. If you want to go you need to go

[23:11] up to them.

[23:12] >> Um

[23:14] I guess I'm I I live out there on

[23:16] Soldier Springs just south of and excuse

[23:19] me.

[23:19] >> You have to address us.

[23:21] >> Does you can come closer.

[23:23] >> Well, I want him to be able to hear

[23:24] because I am talking to him.

[23:25] >> Well, I would ask you to stand up also.

[23:29] Can I stand?

[23:30] >> She'll be able to hear you.

[23:31] >> Okay. Um just south of the um road

[23:35] stations, my place. I'm concerned about

[23:37] >> I'm sorry. Excuse me. I want you to

[23:39] address the commission.

[23:40] >> You have to address the commission by by

[23:42] law.

[23:42] >> I understand you want to talk to and

[23:44] maybe he'll talk to you after the fact,

[23:45] but you need to address us.

[23:46] >> Okay. [clears throat] Concerned about um

[23:49] the the wildlife that's in that area. Um

[23:53] I guess the proximity of um just

[23:56] everything. I um um if you're storing um

[24:02] RVs, you're going to have some that are

[24:04] dripping oil and some that are dripping

[24:07] gas and um if they don't get everything

[24:10] drained really good, they're going to be

[24:12] draining septic. And I guess that's I

[24:14] just concerned with the environment out

[24:16] there and um the health of the soul.

[24:21] >> Thank you.

[24:24] Uh, in surveys, you also like to

[24:25] interview.

[24:32] » I'm Brad Schaer with Shaper Place LLC

[24:34] and we actually, like I say, we have the

[24:36] property of the radio station. We're

[24:38] just mostly concerned of possible uh

[24:42] building anything that might hinder the

[24:44] transmission

[24:46] of the from the towers dependent upon

[24:49] how close they are. uh the building

[24:52] might be uh to those towers and uh

[24:56] because we are negoti currently ne

[24:59] renegotiating a lease with uh town

[25:02] square media for another 5 years and we

[25:05] want to make sure that we don't have

[25:07] issues with the transmission of cuz all

[25:11] of a sudden they built something that

[25:12] might interfere with that and uh so

[25:16] that's kind of [clears throat] where we

[25:18] stand with this thing as far our

[25:20] concerns. So,

[25:22] >> okay. Thank you again.

[25:23] >> I have a question.

[25:24] >> Sure. Yes.

[25:26] >> Uh would you if the plan for the

[25:31] development comes back and it shows that

[25:36] you it won't hurt your operation, would

[25:39] you have any objections to it? Well, the

[25:41] one thing we don't know is we really,

[25:43] like my brother said, uh we don't know

[25:47] what would interfere with their

[25:49] transmissions. I mean, if they built a

[25:51] building real close there and it was and

[25:55] they had towers on that building, would

[25:57] that interfere with the transmission of

[26:00] there's three large radio towers there?

[26:03] And and if it depend upon how close they

[26:06] build, what they build, how high it is,

[26:09] and everything. We don't know. You would

[26:11] have to probably talk with Towns Square

[26:13] Media. their engineers might have a

[26:15] better idea what what might cause

[26:18] problems with the their transmissions

[26:21] and uh but uh you know we don't know I

[26:25] mean we we own the property but but

[26:28] those towers are what broadcast their

[26:31] radio station and we don't know what

[26:33] would potentially cause problems. Uh, so

[26:37] I don't uh we we did inform them of this

[26:42] situation that it had been acquired and

[26:44] they were trying to uh change it the

[26:46] zoning on it to commercial and so we so

[26:50] that they knew what was going on and I

[26:53] don't know like I said I didn't know if

[26:55] they would have a representative here to

[26:58] uh state their case or not it either and

[27:01] maybe maybe they will if we go further

[27:03] with this or whatever. So,

[27:05] >> well, I'll just say uh I'll suggest that

[27:08] uh any concerns I may have and you may

[27:10] have take them up with our plan

[27:12] director.

[27:13] >> Okay.

[27:13] >> And uh you'd be the appropriate person

[27:15] to discuss.

[27:16] >> Yeah. I mean, like I say, we we're a

[27:18] little lost with it. We're just kind of

[27:20] helping. Like I say, we're in

[27:22] negotiations with them, but we don't

[27:24] really know what it could how it could

[27:26] affect them, if at all. But, um you

[27:31] [clears throat] know, so that's where we

[27:32] stand. So,

[27:33] >> Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you.

[27:35] >> Is there anyone else who would like to

[27:37] make a comment?

[27:41] » Uh, please come forward. Tell us who you

[27:43] are.

[27:46] >> Darren stays. Um, I wasn't really

[27:47] planning on talking about this. This is

[27:49] the first I heard about it, but I do own

[27:51] property in the county and um, I have

[27:54] had property in the county shared with

[27:56] my mother since 2011 and I lived in

[27:59] Laram. Was raised and born and raised in

[28:01] Laram. went to school here and now came

[28:03] back to the university. Since moving to

[28:06] the county and we only have a very small

[28:08] portion of property, we've seen

[28:09] increasing development in the area and

[28:11] it's not close to this. It's in a

[28:13] different part of the county, but

[28:15] accompanying any increasing development,

[28:17] even private homes on as small as half

[28:20] an acre, we've seen a radical increase

[28:23] in invasive plants. And so I would

[28:26] advocate um to be cautious about any new

[28:30] development disturbances driving um

[28:33] building because we've seen Russian

[28:35] napweed, we've seen tumble weeds, we've

[28:38] seen yellow toad flax. Um we

[28:41] particularly live in our area because we

[28:43] are trying to avoid exposure to

[28:45] pesticides. My father died of pesticide

[28:48] exposure. Um, and so we don't use

[28:50] pesticides to combat the invasive

[28:52] species, invasive plants on our

[28:54] property. I go out every summer and I

[28:56] hand pull and in 10 years it has

[28:59] improved so much so that um, the county

[29:02] will threaten to come out and use

[29:03] pesticides on my property. Um, I keep it

[29:06] under control, but um, I would be

[29:09] cautious of approving development that

[29:12] could increase that anywhere in our

[29:14] counties. Thank you.

[29:16] >> Is there anyone else who like to

[29:18] comment?

[29:22] Thank you. So I did get this concern

[29:25] about the radio towers uh from like one

[29:29] of my friends and I did do some due

[29:31] diligence of what would cause trouble

[29:34] and all that did speak to like one of

[29:36] the radio engineers and he said since

[29:39] this particular radio station broadcasts

[29:41] towards north and I don't own any

[29:44] property towards the north so it should

[29:47] not interfere anything but this is like

[29:49] a preliminary kind of report I have And

[29:53] like I said, I don't have any intention

[29:56] to hurt anybody including my neighbors.

[29:58] So I think I'll be reasonable to with

[30:01] them not to build anything anywhere

[30:04] close to any.

[30:06] >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else?

[30:09] May close the public hearing.

[30:12] >> I move we close public.

[30:14] >> I second the motion. All those in favor

[30:16] say I. I. I.

[30:21] Bern.

[30:23] I I vote I also that motion carries.

[30:27] Okay. So, uh I believe now we are

[30:29] prepared to discuss this item.

[30:32] >> Bern, why don't you begin?

[30:34] >> Um yeah, Mr. Chair, given that I'm

[30:37] coming in remotely and sometimes I feel

[30:39] a little fractured. I just I've kind of

[30:40] prepared a statement. Is that

[30:42] appropriate? I'll just go through that

[30:43] and see where we and we actually hear

[30:45] you quite well. So, uh that's good. Um u

[30:49] I think the the the visual that goes

[30:51] along with this is the zoning map and

[30:52] that's what this is all about. So as far

[30:54] as I don't know what you guys are seeing

[30:56] but I'd like you to be looking at the

[30:57] zoning map that was included in the

[31:00] packet. Is that whether that needs to be

[31:03] broadcast to all the rest of us or not

[31:04] but does that make sense since that's

[31:08] talk about those surrounding zones and

[31:10] so forth. I was wondering if

[31:12] >> Jory can you bring that map up?

[31:14] >> Yeah we'll do it bring that map up.

[31:16] >> Continue talking. uh as much as you can

[31:18] anyway. And David's trying to bring that

[31:19] up now.

[31:20] >> Okay.

[31:23] » Yeah. The one I'm thinking of is is

[31:25] starts with Dr. Kadur's recently

[31:27] reszoned property and then runs on south

[31:29] through this one.

[31:34] Yeah. Okay. Good. This is the one I want

[31:36] to look at. Okay. So, um

[31:39] just quick background. Planning and

[31:41] zoning is about developing a long-term

[31:44] vision for the county. That's the

[31:45] planning part. and then turning that

[31:47] into land use maps and regulations.

[31:49] That's the zoning part. Our job here

[31:51] today is to advise the county commission

[31:53] on the zoning part.

[31:56] Um, we also look at the specific plan,

[31:59] we also look at specific land use

[32:01] applications. That's not what we're

[32:02] doing here, but like subdivisions and there all the heavy lifting is done

[32:06] by our staff and the engineers make sure

[32:08] that the grades of the road are correct

[32:10] and that there's access to the acres and

[32:12] the drainage has been discussed and so

[32:14] forth. So most of the the assessment of

[32:17] a of a specific application is done by

[32:19] staff and u as long as the applicant is

[32:23] within the parameters of their zoning we

[32:25] have much much more restricted

[32:28] discretion in terms of our approval to

[32:30] denial and my point of that is that is

[32:32] the zoning decisions is really where the

[32:34] rubber meets the road and that's the the

[32:36] place where I think we were all

[32:38] appointed to bring our our various

[32:41] backgrounds and input into the advising

[32:43] of the of the county commissioners. Um,

[32:47] so we have a wide discretion in our

[32:51] subjective judgments on how and where

[32:53] the county guides development and

[32:54] there's no cookbook criteria or scoring

[32:56] sheet that says you're in if this and

[32:58] you're out if that. It is really largely

[33:00] quite subjective in terms of how a

[33:02] particular application uh conforms with

[33:05] our our our land use plans. Um and and

[33:09] so here we are talking about drawing

[33:12] lines in the zoning. And the general

[33:16] concept of zoning is that the county has

[33:18] stood back and said we want to do

[33:19] residential over here, we want to do

[33:20] commercial over here, we want to do

[33:22] industrial over there. And in order to advance the county development in in

[33:26] an orderly and systematic way for the

[33:28] welfare of our citizens, uh then if we

[33:31] can draw a line, of course, you have to

[33:32] decide where one land use stops and

[33:34] another one starts. And and that's often a challenge. You got to

[33:37] draw the line somewhere and that's true

[33:39] of regulations and that's always

[33:40] difficult but that is what is before us

[33:42] in this application. So the first point

[33:45] I'd make is one that we've emphasized

[33:46] before. We are not being asked to

[33:48] approve an RV storage facility within an

[33:52] existing commercial zone. We are being

[33:54] asked to redraw the existing line

[33:57] between commercial land uses and

[33:59] residential agricultural land uses to

[34:01] move 57 acres from residential to

[34:04] commercial use. So, we should remind

[34:06] ourselves that a commercial zoning, this

[34:09] is picking up on a statement was made

[34:11] earlier, allows by right and and you

[34:14] don't get a second bite at the apple.

[34:15] So, we don't get to say, "Oh, we didn't

[34:17] really like that particular proposal. If

[34:18] it's within the parameters of the zone,

[34:21] then then it's a it's one has the right

[34:24] to do that with very little uh

[34:27] modification from us. You look at our

[34:29] land use table in commercial zones

[34:31] includes recorder services. I'm just

[34:34] quoting from the land use table. Bowling

[34:36] alleys, nurseries, hotels, lumber yards,

[34:39] TV stations, supermarkets,

[34:41] uh, vet clinics, RV parks, and not

[34:44] necessarily RV storage facilities. Um,

[34:46] and and all of that is what is then

[34:49] encompassed within a commercial

[34:50] designation. And all of that is what we

[34:52] are potentially improving. Interesting

[34:54] that Mr. Kaduri just bought this this

[34:56] land three months ago. He could walk out

[34:58] of the meeting today and and sell it to

[35:00] someone with very very different plans.

[35:02] So we need to make that decision based

[35:04] on the zoning. Now where do we look for

[35:07] guidance for that decision is to our

[35:09] land use plans. Those are guidance not

[35:12] commandments as our staff points out to

[35:14] it. But the point is that the county has

[35:17] addressed these kinds of issues in a in

[35:19] a general sense before and come up with uh guidance from which when I do

[35:25] that I come up with the opposite

[35:27] conclusion from staff. Uh so let's let's

[35:30] just go through those quickly. The first

[35:32] thing to consider is our existing

[35:34] zoning. At some point the county tagged

[35:36] this parcel as most appropriately

[35:38] developed for residential use. Now to be

[35:41] fair that that wasn't part of a comp

[35:44] plan. Our zoning precedes our comp plan

[35:46] or at least portions of it do. So it's

[35:48] something of a stretch to say we thought

[35:50] it all very carefully through and and

[35:51] tagged this as as residential. It was

[35:55] more of an inventory. But still there

[35:57] was a policy statement made that the

[35:58] county liked things the way they were

[36:00] and let's hang on to that unless we have

[36:02] a good reason to change it

[36:04] and we should have that change. The the residential and a zones should not

[36:09] be just considered holding patterns

[36:11] until we come up with something better

[36:12] to do with the with the parcel. Those

[36:15] are an affirmative statement of what we

[36:17] think is best what the county thinks is

[36:19] best used. Now I thought it was

[36:22] interesting that the application the

[36:24] applicant himself identified the value

[36:27] of the existing zoning for quoting from

[36:30] the application anything left over from

[36:33] the development of the 57 acres quote

[36:35] will be preserved in its natural state

[36:38] maintaining wildlife habitat natural

[36:40] drainage patterns and rural open space

[36:42] character. Good points all. So why are

[36:46] we offering to change those good points?

[36:49] Mr. Kaduri bought the land under

[36:52] residential zoning.

[36:54] From last month's important Wyoming

[36:57] Supreme Court decision, I'll quote, "An

[37:00] expectation that property may be

[37:02] subdivided or reszoned in the future is

[37:04] not a vested property right. One has a

[37:07] property right only in existing land

[37:09] uses and not in prospective land uses.

[37:12] So, we are not depriving the applicant

[37:15] of anything that they have by leaving

[37:17] the zoning as is. Okay. Now, let's look

[37:21] at the comp plan. That's a more formal

[37:22] statement, an affirmative statement of

[37:24] what the county goals and objectives

[37:26] were. As Mr. Gers pointed out, this is

[37:28] in priority growth area three. Quote,

[37:32] will be generally large lots, single

[37:34] family homes, possibly with small

[37:36] convenienceoriented commercial uses. A

[37:39] 57 acre RV and boat storage facility is

[37:42] not a small convenienceoriented use in

[37:45] my book.

[37:48] Now, the comp plan

[37:51] identifies some rural commercial land

[37:53] use nearby as a possibility, but there

[37:55] again, it's for small commercial

[37:57] businesses that cater primarily to users

[38:00] from the surrounding areas. I'm quoting

[38:01] from the report. Buildings should be

[38:03] small scale to relate to to surrounding

[38:05] residences. Again, this does not

[38:07] describe a 57 acre reszoning from

[38:10] residential to commercial.

[38:13] Third, we have the area growth plan

[38:16] which adopted by the county a couple

[38:18] years ago. I guess in that plan, the

[38:20] county affirmatively tagged this area as

[38:23] appropriate for estate residential.

[38:26] Now, the staff report notes that there

[38:29] in the growth plan also talks about

[38:30] neighborhood commercial in the area to

[38:33] the west. But even so, this is not

[38:36] neighborhood commercial project.

[38:39] Finally, the staff report points out

[38:41] that the major street plan approved by

[38:42] the county foresees a someday extension

[38:44] of 15th Street south in the direction of

[38:47] this property. That's true, but this

[38:51] parcel would lie east and south of that

[38:53] extension. and 15th 15th Street like

[38:57] Soldier Springs and the railroad is a

[38:58] logical and orderly place to transition

[39:01] from commercial uses to the west and

[39:03] then residential

[39:05] uh uses to the east. So all this goes to

[39:08] the compatibility with the previously

[39:10] adopted land use plans and to

[39:12] compatibility with the surrounding land

[39:14] use. The staff report points to a couple

[39:19] of small commercially zoned lots nearby.

[39:21] Those are the red ones on the map you're

[39:23] looking at. And says the majority of the

[39:26] north half of the property abuts

[39:28] commercial zone property to the west.

[39:32] Well, that that's not even correct as

[39:34] written. If you chop the the north half

[39:37] off, it's there's a piece that's

[39:39] commercial, it's residential, and

[39:41] agricultural. When I run the numbers on

[39:44] abuing properties, 78% of the abuing

[39:47] property is either residential or

[39:51] agricultural. Agriculture, the biggest

[39:52] piece, the one off to the to the east

[39:54] there, uh, is far and away the the

[39:56] biggest one.

[39:59] Then I would also point out that if if

[40:01] touching a particular zone is

[40:05] adequate reason to do the reszone, then

[40:08] you really don't have any lines at all.

[40:10] You just set yourself up for a a step by

[40:12] step chewing through the county. This

[40:14] one's commercial. That justifies the

[40:16] next one being commercial. That

[40:17] justifies the next one being commercial.

[40:19] And all you've done instead of drawing

[40:21] lines between your commercial industrial

[40:23] areas and your residential areas is say

[40:26] we're going to to move that line piece

[40:28] by piece like like Pac-Man chew and his

[40:30] way through the county. Uh now the staff

[40:34] report has chosen to stand on this

[40:36] particular parcel and look west across

[40:38] Soldier Springs Road and across railroad

[40:40] tracks where one finds arguably

[40:43] compatible use. But if one stands on the

[40:45] property and looks east or north or

[40:48] south, they see open ground just the

[40:51] sort of land in its natural state that

[40:54] the applicant himself praises.

[40:58] Finally, I would point out that we are

[40:59] faced with a very we were faced with

[41:01] very similar much smaller application by

[41:03] this applicant just last October. In

[41:05] that case, it was anchored by a small

[41:08] piece of commercial, the mini golf

[41:10] course there on the corner of 15th and

[41:13] Skyline, and he asked to reszone the 12

[41:15] acres immediately south of that from

[41:17] residential to commercial. And that's

[41:19] that kind of Utah shaped piece that's

[41:21] just one parcel removed north of the one

[41:23] we're looking at. This commission split

[41:26] two two on the application and one of

[41:28] the reasons I was interested in

[41:29] attending the meeting was so that we'd

[41:31] avoided a a potential tie which was

[41:33] inconvenient for everybody. One side in

[41:35] that discussion was looking at our land

[41:37] use plans and the existing city

[41:39] neighborhood on South 18th Street. Uh

[41:43] that's the part in gray that you see off

[41:45] to the east there. And we argued that

[41:47] the 15th Street was the logical break in

[41:50] zoning. the other side noting that the

[41:53] commercial zoning had already jumped

[41:55] 15th Street with the golf course. 12

[41:57] acres wasn't that big a deal and the

[42:00] county commission ultimately went along

[42:01] with the reszoning.

[42:03] I continue to think that Soldier Springs

[42:05] Road and the railroad and the present

[42:08] and future 15th Street are logical and

[42:10] appropriate boundaries for commercial

[42:13] and industrial zones to the west and

[42:15] residential zones to the east. Um the earlier testimony by Mr. was a

[42:21] little bit disappointing to me in that

[42:23] it seems so casual. He's having

[42:24] difficulty maintaining discipline of who

[42:27] parks on the 15 acres north. So, let's

[42:29] go ahead and throw in another 57 acres

[42:32] of commercial property. Now, maybe I'm

[42:34] casting that as too casual, but I did

[42:36] not hear in that any compelling reason

[42:39] that we should take 57 acres out of

[42:41] residential zoning and turn it into

[42:43] commercial zoning. So, consistent with

[42:46] the existing zoning, with the adopted

[42:48] county comprehensive plan, with the

[42:50] adopted clermy area growth plan, and I

[42:53] would argue even with the adopted major

[42:55] street plan, I agree with comments we've

[42:58] received from both the neighbors who

[43:00] attended here this evening and those

[43:01] who've written to us. Uh, and I would

[43:03] point out that the city of Laram is

[43:05] itself a very important neighbor in this

[43:07] area. Uh, therefore, Mr. Chair, I move

[43:11] that ZDA 0306 be recommended for denial

[43:15] based on incompatibility with the

[43:17] comprehensive plan, the growth plan, and

[43:20] the land uses in the great majority of

[43:22] the surrounding area. Thank you for your

[43:24] patience.

[43:27] >> Okay. Uh well, is there a second for

[43:29] this motion?

[43:31] >> A second.

[43:32] Okay, we will have further discussion.

[43:34] Dan, having a motion on the table that

[43:36] has been seconded. Um,

[43:41] Rob,

[43:42] >> yes, I have a question for the staff.

[43:45] [snorts] Um, [clears throat]

[43:49] the thing that jumped to me uh as a

[43:52] problematic was the 50 the size the 57

[43:55] although that's a huge area. Uh, even

[43:58] for parking hundreds and hundreds of

[44:00] RVs. Uh, what are the chances of a

[44:05] subdivision?

[44:07] Well, is there a way to

[44:10] um subdivide the lot to make it only

[44:15] partial commercial? What what what's the

[44:18] options?

[44:19] >> Um yeah, absolutely. They could request

[44:21] a subdivision. Right now, the way that

[44:23] it stands, they could actually get 11

[44:26] lots out of out of that ranch at area.

[44:31] um which again is not just to point out

[44:34] that that wouldn't meet the what the

[44:35] growth plan is is purporting. They're wanting to have um three three

[44:41] dwellings per lot which it wouldn't meet

[44:43] that. So, you know, just just point that

[44:46] out. Um but but yeah, they could divide

[44:49] it. Yeah, that's that's something that

[44:51] they could do. Um obviously have to do

[44:54] engineering and surveying and all that

[44:56] stuff and do the reports that are

[44:57] required to do that. Um and then

[44:59] obviously has to go through this process

[45:01] and be approved formally by the board of

[45:03] county commissioners. But that's an

[45:05] option.

[45:05] >> That's an option. Okay.

[45:08] >> Anything else?

[45:10] >> Barb,

[45:13] >> uh I agree with Moras and Ashley Burn.

[45:15] Um for one, I think that's a huge lot to

[45:19] uh develop commercially.

[45:24] » Anything else?

[45:26] >> No.

[45:27] Correct.

[45:29] >> I think it is way too much to develop

[45:32] commercially and it's a huge change over

[45:35] the area. Um,

[45:38] it was originally residential. It's a

[45:41] residential now. That's what people are

[45:43] used to and I'm not sure I have the right view on

[45:48] this, but I do believe that I'm here to

[45:50] represent what I hear from the people

[45:52] and the public and what what I see and

[45:54] what I think is right and wrong.

[45:57] I don't think this entire 57 acres is a

[46:01] good idea to have it commercial.

[46:04] If it was a smaller portion, it might be

[46:07] more manageable from the standpoint of

[46:12] how many large buildings. What one of

[46:14] the concerns was they're putting an 80

[46:17] by 200 foot building. It's 20 ft high

[46:19] now and it says for starters or

[46:22] something along those lines. I can

[46:25] understand not wanting to see 25 or 30

[46:28] buildings out there on 57 acres or even

[46:31] more. So I I think I think this is too

[46:35] much land to change over

[46:37] to commercial.

[46:41] Anything else? No, I'm good.

[46:45] Well,

[46:47] I'm going to offer a slightly different

[46:49] perspective.

[46:52] Um,

[46:55] I'll say that had this come before us 12

[46:58] months ago or even six months ago, uh, I

[47:01] would inclined to automatically say

[47:03] or recommend denial of this based purely

[47:06] on a land rate growth area plan. So, it

[47:08] shows is a state residential,

[47:12] but

[47:14] there's a problem with that.

[47:17] growth plan was adopted three years ago

[47:20] and at some point it either needs to be

[47:22] implemented or not and at some point

[47:25] enough time has passed by when if it's

[47:27] not implemented I question whether it

[47:29] has any applicable validity today

[47:33] and um so I I wonder about that and it

[47:36] was three years ago right I think it was

[47:38] adopted in August three years ago

[47:42] >> sure

[47:42] >> I think it's right [clears throat]

[47:43] >> well I'm looking to you if I'm wrong.

[47:46] [laughter]

[47:46] You have to look it up. And the last

[47:49] significant action that I can remember

[47:52] having been taken on the plan was an IG

[47:56] agreement that went to the county

[47:58] commissioners for either approval or

[48:01] acceptance or decline. They declined to

[48:03] sign that document

[48:07] and as far as I'm aware, nothing has

[48:09] happened since then. I mean, is that

[48:11] more or less correct, David? I mean, has

[48:13] there been any work on of UIG either

[48:16] from the county or the city.

[48:18] >> Um, no, it's still being talked about

[48:20] from time to time.

[48:21] >> Yeah.

[48:22] >> I mean, and you know to your point that

[48:24] the implementation hasn't necessarily

[48:27] occurred. We are using it to analyze

[48:29] these projects that come come through

[48:32] the through the door. So, it's not that

[48:33] it's not being used.

[48:35] >> Well, the plan is originally conceived

[48:37] was in three parts. The basic first part

[48:39] was the conceptual plan which was

[48:41] adopted.

[48:42] the IGA which is supposed to follow on

[48:44] which is supposed to lead to

[48:46] implementation in the regulations and a

[48:48] granular analysis of a map to determine

[48:51] exactly where these different zonings

[48:54] actually physically you know were

[48:56] delineated by Brazilian property

[48:57] boundaries. Right now we have a

[48:59] conceptual map where like the Caduri

[49:02] property is clearly in the middle of a

[49:03] state residential but we don't know

[49:05] where that state's residential zoning

[49:08] area actually ends.

[49:10] Um, and I'll come back to that.

[49:13] Um, I mean, have the county

[49:16] commissioners at all given you any kind

[49:19] of direction to approval the plan or do

[49:21] anything at all in the past year?

[49:22] >> No.

[49:23] And have you heard anything from

[49:24] senior leadership from the city, which I

[49:27] don't include to be city manager,

[49:30] mayor, or city council?

[49:33] >> Nothing like official.

[49:35] >> Yeah.

[49:37] Um,

[49:38] so I mean if nothing sub substantive has

[49:41] happened in over a year now

[49:43] and there's nothing on going right now

[49:45] and there's no realistic prospect

[49:47] anything's going to happen soon

[49:49] or even the next year or two or three

[49:51] years. Uh, I wonder how we can use a

[49:54] plan in an adverse manner for a property

[49:57] owner who does enjoy property rights.

[50:01] And I'll point out two problems that

[50:03] exist as things stand right now because

[50:05] this has not been implemented

[50:06] regulation. Um you can compare property

[50:09] that's in the middle of one of these

[50:10] zings in this case Dr. Converge property

[50:12] which clearly in the library growth area

[50:15] plan identified as future estate

[50:16] residential versus a similar property at

[50:20] the edge of this zoning district. And

[50:22] how do you determine whether or not

[50:24] that's in or out?

[50:26] It's pretty clear to me that those two

[50:28] properties would be handled in a

[50:29] potentially disparit manner. They would

[50:32] have to be and I don't think that's

[50:34] fair.

[50:36] And then if this plan were fully imp

[50:38] implemented at some point in the future,

[50:41] there would be in regulation some

[50:43] process for amending this map and

[50:44] revising it. That's mentioned in the

[50:46] conceptual part of the plan. It's been

[50:47] talked right now by the city and the

[50:50] council. But presumably there would also

[50:52] be an element or mechanism whereby a

[50:54] property owner could seek relief for an

[50:56] amendment on the map as well just like

[50:58] as we have now you know to do the same

[51:00] with the zoning district amendment in

[51:01] our current resolution for county

[51:04] property right now there's no no

[51:06] prospect of that so if Dr. Gadori will

[51:09] want to invent the map right now or some

[51:11] other property owner seeking to gain

[51:13] approval for some sort of development.

[51:15] What do they do? They're in limbo. And

[51:17] again, I see that as quite unfair.

[51:20] And again, I I just as I started out,

[51:24] had it been six months ago or 12 months

[51:25] ago, I would have still had faith that

[51:27] something might happen. And I have been

[51:29] as big a proponent of polar rhyth.

[51:33] But nothing but realistically nothing is

[51:35] happening. And there's no realistic

[51:37] chance anytime soon.

[51:40] >> I am holding on. I'm just letting you

[51:42] know I have something to say.

[51:43] >> Yeah. Um

[51:47] [clears throat]

[51:48] and I'll just say personally I think

[51:50] were up to me. I would reserve this

[51:52] property for us. I I identify as

[51:55] property near to town. Uh once 15th

[51:58] Street is extended all the way out. Uh

[52:00] it's an easy commute on bike or I won't

[52:02] say easy on foot but anyway on bike or

[52:04] whatn not to the center of town and I

[52:06] think a storage facility like this could

[52:08] be just as well positioned five or 10

[52:10] miles out somewhere where community

[52:13] times don't matter

[52:15] but uh if I set aside growth area plan

[52:19] as a reason to look at this adversely

[52:23] then I'm left with the findings

[52:27] and you've made the findings and you

[52:28] said all the findings been satis I

[52:30] thought your analysis was thorough and

[52:32] on point.

[52:34] And I will ask Matt,

[52:37] I presume you review all these

[52:38] applications and you look at the staff

[52:40] analysis.

[52:42] >> I did in this instance. Yeah,

[52:44] >> you did. And did you have any any

[52:46] problems or qualms with the findings

[52:48] that whether they're met or not?

[52:53] » Yeah, those are really the policy

[52:55] determinations that are that are up to

[52:57] planning and zoning commission and the

[52:58] board. Now, well, my view was the

[53:02] analysis was was was solid and that uh

[53:06] the application was an excellent

[53:07] application and we we've seen a lot of

[53:09] applications and and some are frankly

[53:11] fairly crude. Uh but this is quite

[53:14] detailed

[53:15] and I look at the findings and I think

[53:18] the findings are all met and therefore

[53:21] I believe we should recommend approval

[53:22] of this.

[53:24] You're going to go ahead.

[53:26] >> Thank you. So when we look at the growth

[53:30] plan, we look at what we are facing as a

[53:35] community, I think we need to take into

[53:37] account that we are facing a housing

[53:40] crisis.

[53:42] And every parcel of land that we convert

[53:46] from potential housing

[53:48] into something that is not housing, we

[53:51] are betraying our community.

[53:54] We are taking a lot of people say what

[53:58] can county commissioners do for housing

[54:01] and my uh response to people who ask me

[54:04] that is the county doesn't own a

[54:07] [laughter] lot of land. We can't

[54:09] allocate land for housing. We can't

[54:12] build housing co-ops like they do in

[54:14] Teton County and other places. Alvin

[54:17] County, the county doesn't own land. The

[54:21] only thing we can do is we can change

[54:24] the zoning to uh to to be uh more commen

[54:30] uh possible

[54:32] development as housing. And this is a

[54:35] classic case where we have the

[54:38] opportunity to um turn a parcel of land

[54:43] into ranchets. not high density, taking

[54:47] into account the neighbor's concerns,

[54:49] but also addressing some of the city of

[54:53] Laramie and Albany County

[54:56] uh housing crisis. So uh just based on

[54:59] that I would say we should uh deny this

[55:04] application and encourage the to think

[55:08] about how can we uh do something for h

[55:12] for the to address the housing crisis.

[55:14] And just as an aside we are working on

[55:17] creating these co-ops right now in

[55:20] Albony County and the city of Larmy and

[55:23] trying to get funding mechanisms for

[55:25] them. So it may be a better approach for

[55:28] disposal. Thank you.

[55:31] >> Well,

[55:33] one more thing and then I'll recognize

[55:35] you. How about that? Um I think prices

[55:38] is a little bit overall. I would say

[55:39] housing problem and and otherwise agree

[55:42] with you and I also point out that state

[55:44] residential is not an opposed to

[55:46] affordable housing. So that's not going

[55:48] to solve much of anything in terms of

[55:50] affordable housing. Burn, please go

[55:51] ahead.

[55:52] >> I didn't call it the housing crisis. It

[55:54] wasn't my wording. I'm just quoting.

[55:56] >> All right, that's fine.

[55:57] >> Okay,

[55:58] >> let me know that she's quoting housing

[56:00] crisis and [laughter]

[56:03] >> there are many who call it a crisis. No,

[56:05] but responding to your comments, Mr. M,

[56:06] with all due respect, Mr. Chair, I

[56:08] disagree. First of all, the Larmy area

[56:11] growth plan is an adopted land use plan

[56:14] and as Mr. Gers pointed out, it's being

[56:17] implemented every day just as the

[56:19] comprehensive plan is. Now there are

[56:21] other things that could be done to

[56:23] implement it by say reszoning the county

[56:27] but it stands as a fully authorized

[56:30] statement by the county commission

[56:33] saying this is how we want this to grow

[56:35] like any other land use plan. So it is

[56:38] in incorrect to say it is not being

[56:40] implemented. There's more one could do.

[56:42] If the county commissioners wanted to

[56:44] renounce the thing they could do that by a simple vote. So it is incorrect to

[56:49] say that the Larameir growth plan is

[56:50] irrelevant to our decisions. It is in

[56:52] fact one of our guiding documents.

[56:55] Furthermore and perhaps more importantly

[56:59] we have the comprehensive plan itself

[57:01] that does not contemplate this being

[57:02] commercial. In fact describes it as PGA3

[57:05] which is it's largely residential and

[57:07] large lot residential. We have PGAS one

[57:10] and two that are part of the plan. This

[57:13] isn't part of that. we have the existing

[57:15] zoning as we see on our map. So to

[57:18] suggest that that the lur area growth

[57:21] plan is the only reason not to to just

[57:24] simply reszone things uh as some

[57:27] applicant comes forward that's I say

[57:30] that's just incorrect. Now as far as the

[57:31] staff analysis I'm not arguing that they

[57:33] did an inadequate analysis but but

[57:35] virtually everything in that analysis is

[57:37] completely subjective.

[57:39] They didn't say here's this and here's

[57:41] this and add two and we end up with

[57:43] four. Their opinion was that this was

[57:45] compatible. My opinion is that it is not

[57:48] compatible particularly given 57 acres

[57:51] and particularly given the general land

[57:53] use patterns of the area where we have

[57:55] commercial and industrial uh uses

[57:58] concentrated on the west side of 28 of Soldier Springs Road and the

[58:04] railroad. We have residential areas and

[58:06] open areas that we value highly in this

[58:08] county extending completely to the crest

[58:11] of the mountain if we'd look to the

[58:13] east. We are fully capable and

[58:16] authorized to assess compatibility and I

[58:19] encourage my fellow commissioners to

[58:21] assess that compatibility to be

[58:23] represented by the existing zoning

[58:26] backed up by the comprehensive plan the

[58:28] larary growth plan if you care to use

[58:30] it. but it does not stand or fall on the status of the Laria growth plan.

[58:35] So, I would encourage a a favorable vote

[58:37] on my motion. Thank you.

[58:41] I

[58:42] >> I'll just push back on one thing. Uh I

[58:44] think it's clear that the plan provided

[58:47] to us by the consultants and adopted by

[58:49] the county envision implementation as a

[58:51] plan into regulation.

[58:54] Uh and with that, I've said everything I feel like I wanted to say. Is there

[58:59] any further discussion?

[59:01] >> The other thing I'd like to add is we

[59:02] did

[59:04] a couple months ago we were talking

[59:05] about on Two Rivers Road where we

[59:08] actually allowed

[59:11] to be smaller lots and part of their

[59:14] argument or their presentation was we

[59:17] need to have more available areas for

[59:20] putting housing in. Um lowcost housing

[59:24] is an oxymoron.

[59:27] uh it doesn't exist anymore with current

[59:29] costs, but having property that is

[59:32] residentially zoned gives people the

[59:35] opportunity to say, I want to live on

[59:37] the north side of town or I want to live

[59:38] on the south side. And if we do away

[59:41] with that, we are closing

[59:44] we're closing down housing to people who

[59:46] would who may want to move here and make

[59:50] their lives here and their families

[59:51] lives.

[59:53] Um,

[59:56] >> that's all I had to say. Anyone else?

[1:00:00] Okay. Well, fair enough. We will conduct

[1:00:02] a vote. Roll call. Barb, how about you?

[1:00:05] >> Do we need to read?

[1:00:06] >> Uh, I I vote to deny the

[1:00:08] >> Wait, we need to read the actual

[1:00:11] >> Yes, we do. Thank you, Mor.

[1:00:13] >> You're welcome.

[1:00:14] >> Would you care to read that?

[1:00:15] >> I will do that.

[1:00:16] >> Yeah, I my motion included that, Mr.

[1:00:18] Chair.

[1:00:20] >> Uh, it won't hurt to reread the motion

[1:00:22] in any way. Go ahead and and if you

[1:00:24] agree with this then we'll move forward.

[1:00:26] >> Okay.

[1:00:26] >> Yeah. It it it certainly won't hurt you.

[1:00:28] Make sure we don't Yeah. To make your

[1:00:31] life easy, uh, we [clears throat]

[1:00:34] recommend to the board of county

[1:00:35] commissioners deny the Kadori zoning

[1:00:38] district amendment ZDA0326

[1:00:42] based upon the applicant's failure to

[1:00:44] demonstrate that the proposed zoning

[1:00:46] district amendment complies with the

[1:00:48] criteria specific uh to ACZL chapter 3

[1:00:53] section 5. Um and I don't know which

[1:00:56] subsection is this but as follows this

[1:00:59] is all um this is a residential area or

[1:01:05] zone residential and converting it into

[1:01:08] commercial or it's reduce housing uh

[1:01:11] potential for the county.

[1:01:15] >> Okay. Any questions about the motion?

[1:01:17] >> No. All right. Matt, uh, that does not

[1:01:20] get to any required finding, which is

[1:01:23] your basis for approval.

[1:01:24] >> Okay. I'm sorry, Bernie, you had the the

[1:01:28] correct

[1:01:29] >> the the motion that's on the the floor.

[1:01:31] as we can craft it otherwise was I move

[1:01:34] that ZDA 0326 be recommended for denial

[1:01:39] based on incompatibility with the

[1:01:41] comprehensive plan with the growth plan

[1:01:44] and with land uses in the great majority

[1:01:47] of the surrounding area

[1:01:50] >> is that okay match

[1:01:52] >> okay so

[1:01:57] » so Barb how do you vote

[1:02:01] » [clears throat]

[1:02:02] >> I vote to deny the proposal.

[1:02:05] >> Burn.

[1:02:08] >> I vote yes on the motion which is to

[1:02:10] deny the proposal.

[1:02:12] >> We understand. Craig,

[1:02:13] >> I vote yes.

[1:02:15] >> Rough.

[1:02:15] >> Yes.

[1:02:16] >> And I vote no. So that motion carries.

[1:02:18] Uh and thank you for everyone for your

[1:02:21] input.

[1:02:22] >> Thank you.

[1:02:24] >> Do we feel we need a break?

[1:02:27] >> No, we don't feel we need a break. All

[1:02:28] right. In that case, we will move on to

[1:02:30] the next item which is the item we

[1:02:33] inserted

[1:02:34] uh which we will have a bit of a

[1:02:37] discussion on data centers.

[1:02:40] Uh this is not there's no form or

[1:02:43] pattern or anything to this. So

[1:02:47] we will just have a open discussion for

[1:02:50] as long as I feel like we're

[1:02:51] accomplishing something [clears throat]

[1:02:52] and then I'll call.

[1:02:55] >> Okay. Um,

[1:02:57] >> David, is is there by any chance?

[1:03:00] >> Is there anything you'd like to lead off

[1:03:02] with?

[1:03:04] >> Um, may I put you on the spot so you

[1:03:07] don't have to

[1:03:08] >> for data center stuff?

[1:03:10] >> Um, I know you attended the city meeting

[1:03:12] or the joint meeting yesterday,

[1:03:14] >> right? Um, I would just say that the

[1:03:16] public um, showed up um, and it was a

[1:03:20] good meeting. I think there's some good

[1:03:21] information they're provided by city

[1:03:23] staff. Um both city and county staff

[1:03:26] obviously provided information about

[1:03:28] where we are in our regulations and what

[1:03:31] we can and can't do when it comes to

[1:03:33] data centers. Um both both entities need

[1:03:37] to work on those I believe. Um

[1:03:41] and I think we just heard a lot of good feedback on data centers. Um the

[1:03:49] things that the public do not like about

[1:03:51] them and some of the things that the

[1:03:52] public do like about them. Um, and I

[1:03:55] would just mention that that county

[1:03:57] staff is working on um potential

[1:04:00] regulatory changes um which you will see

[1:04:04] here in the next

[1:04:06] meeting. Just depends on if we can get

[1:04:09] some of the details figured out which

[1:04:11] we're working diligently on and

[1:04:14] hopefully moving forward that. So,

[1:04:16] >> okay. Uh, and Burn and Raf, either one

[1:04:20] of you, uh, you all both, as I

[1:04:21] understand, attended a meeting hosted by

[1:04:23] someone from the Sierra Club local

[1:04:24] chapter.

[1:04:25] >> I would like to add Yeah, I would like

[1:04:27] to add some Oh,

[1:04:28] >> sure. Go ahead.

[1:04:29] >> to what uh the meeting last night was

[1:04:31] about. Uh, so as uh Dave mentioned, uh,

[1:04:36] sorry, Mr. Burge, [laughter]

[1:04:39] uh, the room was packed. Well, it uh was

[1:04:43] standing room only and even standing

[1:04:45] room

[1:04:46] was packed. The room was absolutely

[1:04:49] packed. Uh the uh main

[1:04:55] things that came uh uh in the meeting is

[1:05:00] that within the city limits of Laramie

[1:05:03] there is not a really good site for a

[1:05:06] data center. We are not talking about

[1:05:08] the the University of Wyoming computer

[1:05:11] or not even the superco computer. We're

[1:05:13] talking about hypers scale data centers.

[1:05:15] That's a concern of people and there is

[1:05:18] just not enough land within the city of

[1:05:21] Larmy to accommodate a hypers scale this

[1:05:24] data center which is something that we

[1:05:26] have known. So basically the

[1:05:29] responsibility for regulating the data

[1:05:32] centers falls on to Albany county

[1:05:36] commissioners.

[1:05:38] And why is that? We have the space and

[1:05:43] um there is a potential loophole in the

[1:05:47] state regulation, the state statutes

[1:05:50] that transfers the responsibility to um

[1:05:55] to the county and that is by creating by

[1:05:59] us creating a zoning category called

[1:06:02] indust industrial park.

[1:06:05] And in our uh uh current statutes, if

[1:06:11] you have an industrial park in Albany

[1:06:14] County,

[1:06:16] you uh have the right

[1:06:20] then the the uh the right to build uh a

[1:06:24] data set, hypers scale data set on that

[1:06:27] parcel without going through the

[1:06:30] industrial sighting of the state.

[1:06:34] And that is the thing that caused a lot

[1:06:37] of grief and aggravation to people in

[1:06:41] the audience. Uh most of the

[1:06:44] presentations

[1:06:46] that we heard last night were in

[1:06:49] opposition to data to settle. Uh few uh

[1:06:53] were in support

[1:06:54] >> presentations or comments?

[1:06:56] >> Comments from the public.

[1:06:57] >> Yeah,

[1:06:58] >> the staff did not. Uh the staff

[1:07:00] presented very as Dave mentioned very

[1:07:02] nice. I'll just uh add something that uh I heard from M uh Director

[1:07:08] Smith, the water department, but I'll

[1:07:10] mention it in a minute. Most of the

[1:07:11] public comments were in opposition, a

[1:07:14] few were in support largely because of

[1:07:16] the potential uh revenue and income from

[1:07:20] uh something like that. But the main

[1:07:22] concerns that people in addition to

[1:07:24] being concerned about uh being concerned

[1:07:28] about the uh power, the electricity, the

[1:07:32] water, um discussion of what is a a

[1:07:35] closed cooling system, yes or no. People

[1:07:38] also talked about uh uh the fact that we

[1:07:42] don't we can't trust these large

[1:07:44] corporation. People brought examples

[1:07:47] from other places in the United States

[1:07:49] and abroad of cases where this

[1:07:52] corporation lied about what they're

[1:07:55] going to do, got permits based on that

[1:07:57] and then did something else. So there

[1:07:59] were a lot of uh there was a lot of

[1:08:01] stress and aggravation.

[1:08:03] The bottom line of that I don't I'm not

[1:08:05] going to repeat all these. I'm just

[1:08:07] going to say that uh at the end of the

[1:08:11] uh public hearing, the public comments,

[1:08:15] city council, the mayor asked the staff

[1:08:19] to consider a moratorum.

[1:08:23] They said that uh they want to learn

[1:08:26] more and they wanted to learn more about

[1:08:30] uh what are the implications for the

[1:08:33] community. One of the things that

[1:08:36] director Smith has brought up and this

[1:08:39] is something that I have been talking

[1:08:41] about before we talked about this data

[1:08:44] center is uh water availability and

[1:08:47] delivery. If you all remember the

[1:08:50] presentation I gave to you several in

[1:08:52] April about water problems that we may

[1:08:56] face. uh uh director Smith said that his

[1:09:00] concern is whether we will be able to

[1:09:02] supply water for the city of Larmy if we

[1:09:06] have data centers coming to the valley

[1:09:10] and he said I don't want to think about

[1:09:11] this year I want you to think about the

[1:09:14] next 10 years and uh as Bern knows uh I

[1:09:19] have been very concerned about water and

[1:09:22] the aquifer not so much the river uh

[1:09:26] because there are no regulations that uh

[1:09:32] can stop any industrial and it's not

[1:09:34] necessarily data center. There are no

[1:09:37] regulations that say when do you stop

[1:09:40] drawing water from the aquifer. So we

[1:09:43] have the overlay zone and the overlay

[1:09:45] zone is mostly protecting from

[1:09:47] contamination and that's why I put the

[1:09:50] lot sizes and the Supreme Court

[1:09:52] supported that. that really anyone can

[1:09:55] go to the state engineers's office and

[1:09:58] ask for a permit to drill a well and

[1:10:01] just drain the aquifer down. Now, we

[1:10:05] have a really nice aquifer. No, no

[1:10:08] concerns at the current use, but these

[1:10:12] data centers are uh huge. Even with

[1:10:16] closed loop systems, I've seen values

[1:10:19] that are unimaginable with what we have.

[1:10:23] And so what I my next step would be and

[1:10:28] hopefully we can discuss that further is there a level of the aquifill draw

[1:10:33] down where we say stop

[1:10:36] drawing water for industrial use. It's

[1:10:38] all going to go to human consumption.

[1:10:42] But that's in in a thing and and

[1:10:44] [clears throat] director Smith basically

[1:10:46] addressed that in his concern. Now the

[1:10:50] city can put any moratoriums they want.

[1:10:53] No one is going to build a hypers scale

[1:10:55] data center within city limits. So

[1:10:58] basically this comes to us to the county

[1:11:02] and that's something that we need to

[1:11:04] discuss and decide on. Do we want to

[1:11:08] take responsibility for monitoring and

[1:11:11] regulating a hypers scale data center or

[1:11:14] multiple data centers in Alburn County?

[1:11:17] Do we have the capacity to monitor noise

[1:11:20] pollution? Do we have the capacity to

[1:11:23] monitor traffic? Do we have the capacity

[1:11:26] to monitor heat? And the truth of the

[1:11:29] matter is we don't even have money for

[1:11:33] our road and bridge. [laughter]

[1:11:36] So to add stress on to what we can do

[1:11:41] doesn't seem logical to me. Um but we

[1:11:44] need to discuss this further and uh

[1:11:46] that's why I suggest and would suggest

[1:11:49] to the county commissioners

[1:11:51] uh to put a moratorum in the county in

[1:11:55] parallel to what the city council is

[1:11:58] planning on to make sure that we

[1:12:01] understand what can happen and how can

[1:12:05] we monitor what happens in an industrial

[1:12:09] park.

[1:12:11] Do you want me to continue on what

[1:12:13] happened the week before [laughter] or

[1:12:16] >> would you like to say anything about

[1:12:17] what last week's meeting first or not?

[1:12:20] >> Oh, just just a couple of thoughts to

[1:12:21] add and we don't need to belver it. One

[1:12:24] was

[1:12:25] been hearkening back to something that

[1:12:27] I've said when we brought this first

[1:12:28] before our commission is we need to

[1:12:30] define data centers. So I'm encouraged

[1:12:31] by the fact that the discussion now are changing the term. They're talking

[1:12:35] about hypers scale data centers and and

[1:12:38] AI data centers. So, I haven't heard

[1:12:40] clear lines drawn, but I'm encouraged

[1:12:42] that people who are working on this are

[1:12:44] cognizant of the fact that, you know,

[1:12:47] two guys in the bottom with a gaming

[1:12:48] computer ain't a data center, and we're

[1:12:50] only talking about the big ones. So,

[1:12:51] that's that's an encouraging move

[1:12:53] forward. Um,

[1:12:56] a question that was asked at the meeting

[1:12:57] I attended, which I thought was a good

[1:12:58] one, is if you're going to have a

[1:12:59] moratorum, you need to decide what

[1:13:01] you're going to do with it. Uh, there's

[1:13:03] a tendency to just have a moratorum

[1:13:04] because we're nervous. So I would

[1:13:06] encourage anything that anyone's

[1:13:08] thinking about a moratorum that they be

[1:13:10] challenged to say okay I'll give you a

[1:13:12] year what are you going to do most

[1:13:13] constructively with the year what is it

[1:13:15] that you need to have resolved to move

[1:13:18] forward so I don't think we should be

[1:13:20] applying uh moratoriums casually or

[1:13:24] kicking the can down the road if we did

[1:13:26] that at all and that's what's really

[1:13:27] missing now and is beginning to mature

[1:13:29] in the discussion is what are the

[1:13:31] realistic issues both pro and on the

[1:13:36] other thing that we hear very little

[1:13:37] about that I I if we're going to be

[1:13:39] decision makers, it's balancing is is

[1:13:41] what what do these things bring to the

[1:13:42] community? Are the tax structures such

[1:13:45] that they they will improve the quality

[1:13:47] of our schools and our roads and and

[1:13:49] retire our our infrastructure needs? Is

[1:13:51] that realistic? What is it that we're

[1:13:53] weighing their very real impacts

[1:13:55] against? And I would not prejudge that their uh impacts exceed the

[1:14:01] benefits. We need to research both sides

[1:14:04] of that equation. That's my only two

[1:14:06] bits worth.

[1:14:08] >> Would you like to add anything about

[1:14:10] that meeting?

[1:14:11] >> Yes.

[1:14:11] >> Then we'll go around and take some other

[1:14:13] time.

[1:14:13] >> Sure. Absolutely. So, so uh one thing

[1:14:17] that have been brought up in both

[1:14:20] meetings is what is called community

[1:14:22] benefits agreements. And everybody I

[1:14:25] think in both meetings was very much in

[1:14:28] favor. In fact, in the Wednesday

[1:14:31] meeting, uh people came up with a a

[1:14:35] great list of excellent proposals for

[1:14:38] what if if someone comes to us, what are

[1:14:41] we going to require from them in in

[1:14:44] order to approve a data center. So I

[1:14:47] think there is a a great uh progression

[1:14:51] in that and people are people are

[1:14:54] thinking and another thing about the

[1:14:56] mortorium of the city. The city asked

[1:14:58] the mayor asked the staff to tell what

[1:15:02] length of moratorum and what kind of

[1:15:05] data they need to collect in order to so

[1:15:07] that was super uh um informative for you

[1:15:13] know the city is not going to put a

[1:15:15] moratorum without knowing exactly what

[1:15:18] data points they're going to collect. I

[1:15:20] think that's excellent. I'll make one

[1:15:22] comment and then go to Greg and Bern I

[1:15:24] mean Barb for anything you might want to

[1:15:26] say as we continue around with regards

[1:15:28] to city moratorum. I just think it's

[1:15:29] interesting given the fact there's no

[1:15:31] place in the city where a hyper be

[1:15:33] built. So what's the point? I mean there

[1:15:36] might be some point in satisfying some

[1:15:38] citizen

[1:15:41] that's going to be built within city

[1:15:42] limits or even adjacent city. Uh so

[1:15:46] [laughter]

[1:15:47] all right uh with that any thoughts

[1:15:49] you'd like to offer?

[1:15:51] >> Just that we need to balance things very

[1:15:52] carefully on this. Uh I've seen articles

[1:15:56] that they're going to put huge solar

[1:15:58] farms next to the data centers. So the

[1:16:02] data center is not going to run at

[1:16:03] night.

[1:16:05] I mean it's just something to think

[1:16:06] about. We need to not rush into this

[1:16:09] places that have have had some very

[1:16:11] adverse effects on their communities.

[1:16:15] So please think about it and let's not

[1:16:19] just do the oh it's going to be a great

[1:16:21] thing. We need to think about it and

[1:16:25] moratorium should not be a well no nope

[1:16:28] data centers for the next 50 years. It's

[1:16:30] ridiculous. We need to set a realistic

[1:16:33] time span of all right there's a

[1:16:35] moratorum for 18 months or 24 months

[1:16:38] until data can be put together to pro

[1:16:40] disprove your theories of or your fears

[1:16:44] or to prove that it's a manageable

[1:16:46] problem whether it's water power land

[1:16:49] the whole thing. We need to think about

[1:16:52] this very carefully and we need to

[1:16:55] really

[1:16:57] we need to get as much input as we can

[1:16:59] from reliable sources.

[1:17:02] That's it. Barb, you have a comments you

[1:17:04] like to make?

[1:17:07] >> Well, I'm all for bringing, you know,

[1:17:09] economic development into uh the area,

[1:17:12] but wi with caution. So, you know, I'd

[1:17:15] be concerned about power structure, uh,

[1:17:17] use of our water resources, and also

[1:17:20] hazardous waste, which has been some

[1:17:23] things that the Cheyenne Breley area

[1:17:25] have had to, uh, you know, battle

[1:17:28] recently. So, there's there's real

[1:17:30] concerns about um, those structures.

[1:17:35] » Anything else?

[1:17:36] >> Can I just add something?

[1:17:38] >> Sure.

[1:17:40] >> Uh, the chair is correct. There is

[1:17:41] absolutely no place within city limits

[1:17:44] because what we're talking about right

[1:17:46] now for hypers scale data centers is 600

[1:17:50] acres

[1:17:52] >> of building of building not even in the

[1:17:54] surrounding area. They build them on 600

[1:17:58] and more acres. So there's no 600 acres.

[1:18:01] >> It's a it's a square mile.

[1:18:03] >> Yeah. Basically. [laughter]

[1:18:06] >> So yeah. So ch is correct in a a

[1:18:09] mortorium in a city is not going to do

[1:18:11] anything. It's it's basically the ball

[1:18:14] in our court.

[1:18:17] >> Well um I think some public would like

[1:18:20] to make comments.

[1:18:21] >> I am going to actually first go to

[1:18:22] someone else. I am noting it that

[1:18:24] Commissioner Jones is here with us. Uh

[1:18:25] Terry, is there anything you like to

[1:18:27] say?

[1:18:28] >> Sure.

[1:18:35] Um I think it's important to note that

[1:18:39] if

[1:18:40] um we use the industrial sighting and we

[1:18:45] use their option

[1:18:48] to do um industrial park.

[1:18:52] That park is still regulated by

[1:18:55] industrial sighting. And to imply that

[1:18:58] industrial sighting is not part of that

[1:19:01] industrial park is absolutely wrong.

[1:19:04] Industrial sighting is in this whole

[1:19:06] thing through the whole process.

[1:19:10] Nobody's skipping out on anything.

[1:19:13] And you need to get your pro your uh

[1:19:16] information correct.

[1:19:18] >> Thank you. I will. Um, I'm going to make

[1:19:22] a few comments and then I think how does

[1:19:25] the commission feel about taking some

[1:19:26] comments from the public?

[1:19:28] >> I'm in favor.

[1:19:29] Mark.

[1:19:32] >> Yeah.

[1:19:33] >> Bern,

[1:19:35] what's the question?

[1:19:38] >> You'll take a few comments from the

[1:19:39] public. We do have

[1:19:41] >> No, no, no, no. That's fine. Uh, if

[1:19:43] you've got the time, let's go for it.

[1:19:45] Then I'll make some comments and then

[1:19:46] we'll invite the public to uh step

[1:19:49] forward and say what they might like to

[1:19:51] say. Um I've taken in this past month

[1:19:55] since our last meeting some time to take

[1:19:57] a look at industrial sighting council

[1:20:00] and try to understand what they do, what

[1:20:04] sort of options we have in front of us

[1:20:05] and and what sort of the practicalities

[1:20:08] of what we're facing are. And I think I

[1:20:11] have a better understanding now. Um, and

[1:20:13] Matt, if I say something which you know

[1:20:15] is contrary to regulation, you can

[1:20:17] correct me. You will correct me.

[1:20:20] Um, but here is what I understand to be

[1:20:23] the case.

[1:20:25] The industrial sighting council and

[1:20:27] regulations kick in when a large scale

[1:20:29] project over a certain threshold of mon

[1:20:31] monetary expenditure is exceeded. Right

[1:20:33] now it's between 283 million and $29

[1:20:35] million. So something large.

[1:20:39] [clears throat] And the intent there to

[1:20:41] make sure that a large project receives

[1:20:44] a very careful

[1:20:47] amount of rigorous exhaustive scrutiny

[1:20:49] which may not be handled uh or be able

[1:20:52] to be handled by at least some of the

[1:20:53] counties and say the district won't have

[1:20:54] the staff or the resource to do that. So

[1:20:57] it is not something meant to subvert

[1:21:00] county planning and county regulation

[1:21:02] but to supplement it to make sure that

[1:21:05] this is something good uh you know if

[1:21:07] something's going to be approved and

[1:21:09] ultimately what they do uh is they would

[1:21:12] be the ones to use your construction

[1:21:13] permit. So that is the one thing that

[1:21:15] comes working with county as I

[1:21:16] understand it or the industrial science

[1:21:18] council for those projects but otherwise

[1:21:22] all of our regulations both zoning and

[1:21:24] other processes still apply and they all

[1:21:27] have to be satisfied by any application

[1:21:29] goes forward right now in the county and

[1:21:32] here you can correct me I think there

[1:21:34] are only a couple of large parcels of

[1:21:36] land some industrial and I can think of

[1:21:39] the municipal waste or the land dump um

[1:21:42] city water treatment plant. The land

[1:21:46] occupied by Mount Rocky Mountain Cement

[1:21:48] or Mountain Cement.

[1:21:50] And um there are two parcels of about

[1:21:54] 200 acres a piece south of I80 sort of

[1:21:58] northwest of town miles out that were

[1:22:01] and they still are uh zone industrial

[1:22:04] presumably because it's area of oil

[1:22:06] wells and some production facilities

[1:22:08] there. And I think that's it in terms of

[1:22:10] larger parcels and all of those I mean

[1:22:13] the largest would be the would be those

[1:22:15] two parcels put together four acres are

[1:22:18] in fact too small for what we're talking

[1:22:19] about for a hyper scale center mega

[1:22:22] center. So the reality is right now if a

[1:22:25] developer walked in the door and said we

[1:22:27] want to uh put up a hyper center and we

[1:22:30] collectively citizens staff this

[1:22:34] commission county commissioner said no

[1:22:36] hell no there's nothing they can do they

[1:22:38] they've got to get approval from us in

[1:22:41] addition to whatever happens at district

[1:22:42] council

[1:22:45] the loophole that exists for the wrong reasons in my mind

[1:22:49] and that would be if the county were to

[1:22:52] uh designate and um regulations to

[1:22:55] create industrial park that would

[1:22:57] actually create a site which is more

[1:22:59] shuttle ready for something happen which

[1:23:02] would bypass the industrial sighting

[1:23:04] council which if you were worried about

[1:23:07] bad things happening you would not want

[1:23:08] to happen.

[1:23:10] So that would be the kind of thing you

[1:23:12] would do if you wanted to expedite or

[1:23:15] speed up some large scale process

[1:23:17] because you or for whatever reason. Uh

[1:23:20] so uh if there was any you know urge to

[1:23:24] hastily designate some provisions in

[1:23:27] Arizona resolution to create industrial

[1:23:28] parks I don't think that'd be a great

[1:23:30] idea. Um and uh I will add on two other

[1:23:36] things which are uh here too if someone

[1:23:39] shows up in county mar and wants to

[1:23:41] build a hypers scale facility they're

[1:23:44] looking at very very long lead times

[1:23:47] they would have to work through walking

[1:23:48] mountain power walking on power today

[1:23:49] could not begin to satisfy their needs

[1:23:51] redundant power supply it's a very

[1:23:54] expensive process I mean not these you

[1:23:57] know things like that I google what I

[1:23:59] couldn't find it but it's very expensive

[1:24:01] it's lot of casual expenditure and again

[1:24:04] it takes a long time to get these things

[1:24:05] underway and it works.

[1:24:08] >> So I don't think we face anything urgent

[1:24:10] at all. I certainly don't see that we

[1:24:11] needed more toward it. I mean it doesn't

[1:24:13] accomplish anything because nothing's

[1:24:14] going to happen anytime soon. Um

[1:24:19] [sighs and gasps]

[1:24:22] yeah I'll just emphasize one more time.

[1:24:25] If you look at the permitting process,

[1:24:27] industrial signing council, you go

[1:24:28] online, you can look on actual permit.

[1:24:30] You can actually see like for instance

[1:24:31] the real time permit. You can look at

[1:24:33] the most current permit which is just

[1:24:34] approved January July 13th what these

[1:24:37] things are extremely rigorous. They're

[1:24:40] exhaustive. They've got to be expensive

[1:24:41] put together. Very time consuming. Uh

[1:24:44] there is a time limit by which the

[1:24:47] industrial sighting council is supposed

[1:24:48] to move an act on a permit. But from

[1:24:50] further reading I don't know if it's

[1:24:52] true or not it is often exceeded. Um,

[1:24:56] so, uh, yeah, I just don't think we face

[1:24:59] anything urgent that we've got to either

[1:25:01] do right now or tomorrow, otherwise

[1:25:02] we're screwed. So, with that, I'll be h

[1:25:05] Well, Matt, you want to say something?

[1:25:07] >> Yeah. Um,

[1:25:12] so I think that there

[1:25:16] are some clarifications that need to be

[1:25:18] made about the entire system in general.

[1:25:21] Um so wind energy is its own beast. Um

[1:25:26] in that instance the legislature passed

[1:25:29] statutory structure in which wind and

[1:25:32] solar energy facilities commercial

[1:25:34] anyway are concurrently

[1:25:38] um permitted by the counties uh and

[1:25:42] state industrial sighting council.

[1:25:45] Uh for anything that is under the

[1:25:48] jurisdiction of the Industrial Sighting

[1:25:50] Council, 3512115A

[1:25:55] states that no uh no local government

[1:25:59] may require any approval, consent,

[1:26:01] permit, certificate or other condition

[1:26:04] for the construction, operation or

[1:26:06] maintenance of a facility authorized by

[1:26:09] permit issued pursuant to this chapter.

[1:26:13] I think that that is um pretty clear

[1:26:15] statutory language that if

[1:26:18] ISC is permitting an industrial

[1:26:20] facility,

[1:26:22] local government has no room for

[1:26:25] asserting its zoning regulations. Well,

[1:26:28] I read something different and I'll just

[1:26:30] read you what I've read and I'm not

[1:26:32] saying you're wrong and I'm not saying

[1:26:33] right. I'm just going to read you what I

[1:26:34] found. Uh two paragraphs. The Wyom

[1:26:36] Industrial Sighting Council evaluates

[1:26:38] regional social and economic impacts,

[1:26:40] but a project cannot proceed unless it

[1:26:42] also complies with all local zoning

[1:26:45] laws, building codes, and land use

[1:26:47] plans. And then addition to that, how

[1:26:50] the dual permitting authority work uh

[1:26:52] compliance mandate. Um this it's not

[1:26:55] really the word quite right, but anyway,

[1:26:57] under ISC rules, an industrial facility

[1:26:59] is only considered design in compliance

[1:27:02] if it meets all APA local zoning and

[1:27:04] health and safety ordinances.

[1:27:06] And um yeah, so but that was from the uh

[1:27:12] ISC's

[1:27:14] regulations.

[1:27:16] >> Uh this was quoted from I guess I'll say

[1:27:20] just a legal source or legal authority

[1:27:22] and not directly from actually some of

[1:27:24] this came from um the ISA website at

[1:27:28] DEQ. So it's a mix of stuff, man.

[1:27:31] >> Okay. because that that first

[1:27:34] um

[1:27:36] that first part that you quoted

[1:27:39] uh I have not seen that in anything

[1:27:41] outside of the context of wind

[1:27:43] >> and then I'll also add if you go and

[1:27:45] look I mean there's a whole bunch of

[1:27:46] permits online you can look at you can

[1:27:48] see where there are sections basically

[1:27:50] checklist where you know things need to

[1:27:52] comply with local zoning and and so on

[1:27:54] forth or not I mean so it's clearly

[1:27:57] being looked at

[1:27:58] >> it's being looked at

[1:28:00] >> but I'm not sure if that is a

[1:28:02] requirement,

[1:28:03] >> something that ISC will make a basis of

[1:28:05] denying.

[1:28:06] >> So I'm I'm saying I believe it is and

[1:28:08] I'm also saying I could be wrong.

[1:28:10] >> Okay.

[1:28:10] >> So there's an important qualifier. I

[1:28:12] admit that. But I believe this is

[1:28:15] correct.

[1:28:16] >> Okay. Well then secondly, I think that

[1:28:20] loophole is

[1:28:24] a bit of a misnomer. Um loophole is

[1:28:28] generally defined as

[1:28:33] an ambiguity or omission uh in the text

[1:28:37] through which the intent of a statute

[1:28:39] may be evaded. Mhm.

[1:28:41] >> It was explicitly provided, which is the

[1:28:45] most readily apparent source of the

[1:28:47] intent of a statute, that non-mineral

[1:28:50] processing facilities to be constructed

[1:28:52] in existing industrial parks as

[1:28:55] designated by local governments are

[1:28:58] exempt from paying fees or from payment

[1:29:00] of fees and certification

[1:29:03] procedures, but shall furnish the

[1:29:04] information required

[1:29:07] uh under statute. So if it takes place

[1:29:10] in a local government designated

[1:29:13] industrial park, there is no ISC permit.

[1:29:17] The only thing that

[1:29:20] someone an industrial facility has to

[1:29:22] apply to or provide to ISC is a

[1:29:26] description of the nature and location

[1:29:28] of the facility, estimated time of

[1:29:31] commencement uh of construction and

[1:29:33] construction time, an estimated numbers

[1:29:36] and job classifications

[1:29:38] uh during the construction phase and

[1:29:40] operating life of the facility. And I I

[1:29:43] think in this context a loophole has

[1:29:45] been used as it's commonly used. If a

[1:29:47] corporation wished to escape permitting

[1:29:50] from the ISC, this would constitute a

[1:29:53] loophole. I think it's being used in

[1:29:54] that context.

[1:29:56] >> Well, it's explicitly allowed under law.

[1:29:58] >> Yeah.

[1:29:58] >> So, it's the intent of the law to allow

[1:30:00] it.

[1:30:02] >> Um, it's basically saying that guess the

[1:30:05] permitting shifts fully from ISC

[1:30:09] >> to the locality. This would be a way for

[1:30:11] a corporation to evade the ISC if they

[1:30:13] didn't want to move that process.

[1:30:15] >> Yes. And they are really not under the

[1:30:17] purview of industrial set.

[1:30:19] >> Yeah.

[1:30:20] >> Uh they're under the purview of DEEQ for

[1:30:23] whatever requirements they may have

[1:30:25] regarding air quality, water quality,

[1:30:28] anything like that. But ISC is largely

[1:30:31] out of the picture.

[1:30:32] >> So we're we're not really disagreeing

[1:30:34] here. No. Yeah.

[1:30:35] >> Just points of clarification.

[1:30:39] David.

[1:30:40] >> Yeah. Can I just add just kind of

[1:30:43] sort of along the same vein is that even

[1:30:46] if there's a process to create a

[1:30:50] industrial zone, I mean all that does is

[1:30:53] give the local governments the

[1:30:54] opportunity to decide whether that

[1:30:56] industrial park zone is is goes into

[1:31:01] effect or not.

[1:31:02] >> Right. So like if if it's if a data

[1:31:05] center wants to come here and they're

[1:31:07] hey we need to do this and it goes

[1:31:09] through the process the board of county

[1:31:10] commissioners can say well I don't want

[1:31:13] to establish this I'd rather have them

[1:31:15] go through industrial sighting. So just

[1:31:16] because there's a process to do it

[1:31:19] doesn't mean that the you know the

[1:31:21] elected officials the board of county

[1:31:22] commissioners is going to elect to do

[1:31:24] that.

[1:31:24] >> Of course not. So

[1:31:25] >> my point is it's just it puts things a

[1:31:28] little bit closer in terms of shovel

[1:31:29] ready than if it weren't in place.

[1:31:32] >> And if you were worried about nefarious

[1:31:34] things going up and bribes taking place,

[1:31:37] there's [laughter] three county

[1:31:38] commissioners. I don't know how much of

[1:31:39] a bribe it would take to bribe Terry to

[1:31:42] >> a lot more money.

[1:31:44] >> A lot.

[1:31:46] But that's my point.

[1:31:48] >> Do we need it? And I I don't say we need

[1:31:51] it. We're talking about data centers

[1:31:52] right now. We don't need it. a fool to

[1:31:54] have a data center. We can zone the

[1:31:56] land, you know, industrial because we

[1:31:58] think it's a good idea to do, but I

[1:32:00] mean, you can do it also.

[1:32:04] We're off. So I understand why we don't

[1:32:07] want to use the word loophole but I

[1:32:10] think that I support uh Chlat's uh idea

[1:32:15] that we do not move forward with

[1:32:17] creating industrial even if there is a

[1:32:22] lot of mechanisms we can use lateral to

[1:32:25] stop things that the public don't we

[1:32:27] work for the public um and if the

[1:32:30] majority of Albony County residents say

[1:32:32] we don't want a data

[1:32:35] Even if we think it's a great idea,

[1:32:38] that's not up to us. It's not us make.

[1:32:41] We are making the decision legally, but

[1:32:43] we need to listen to our constituents.

[1:32:47] And the point is why make our life

[1:32:50] difficult by creating an industrial

[1:32:52] talk. Let's go with a with a hard harder

[1:32:56] process where people can have input when

[1:33:00] people can tell us what they really want

[1:33:02] what they're worried about us finding

[1:33:04] out if this you know in 5 years there

[1:33:06] may not even be cooling systems with

[1:33:09] water you know I mean the field is

[1:33:11] moving very fast

[1:33:13] but we don't have you know it's it I

[1:33:17] feel it's our responsibility to listen

[1:33:20] to the people of Albany county and right

[1:33:24] now and you you're probably right, we

[1:33:27] don't have to worry about actually

[1:33:29] putting formal moratorum on there, but I

[1:33:32] think we should not make it any easier

[1:33:35] on anyone.

[1:33:36] >> Matt, did you have something else?

[1:33:41] » Do you?

[1:33:42] >> I don't think so.

[1:33:43] >> Let's sit down.

[1:33:44] >> Should I have something else?

[1:33:45] >> No. I'd like to make a comment.

[1:33:47] [laughter]

[1:33:48] >> Ma'am, please step to our recognize her

[1:33:50] for dinner.

[1:33:52] Thank you. Um I [clears throat] was at

[1:33:55] that meeting last night. Um and I have

[1:33:58] in the past been supportive of data

[1:33:59] centers, not hypers scale data centers,

[1:34:01] but I run the Wyoming State Science Fair

[1:34:03] and ENCAR and the supercomputer have

[1:34:06] been supporters for decades of that

[1:34:08] program. Um I do see value in small

[1:34:13] smaller scale computing. Um the climate

[1:34:16] models that came out of those

[1:34:17] supercomputers have been fantastic from

[1:34:19] ENCAR and and very valuable. Um but I

[1:34:23] want to just say ask you today or

[1:34:25] implore you today to really consider the

[1:34:28] basics of that are necessary for the

[1:34:31] quality of human life for life in

[1:34:33] general and for quality of human life

[1:34:34] and that's clean water means water

[1:34:37] without toxins in in it. It means ample

[1:34:40] water supply, which we do have for the

[1:34:42] population that we have now, but

[1:34:44] probably not for growth. Um, it means

[1:34:47] water that does not have microplastics

[1:34:49] in it. It means clean air that we can

[1:34:51] breathe um that we have not had that

[1:34:55] this summer um because of wildfires, but

[1:34:58] um but we have had that in the past and

[1:35:00] maybe there's a chance that we can

[1:35:02] continue to have some of the cleanest

[1:35:03] air in the country. Um,

[1:35:07] if you consider, I would say please

[1:35:10] don't consider zoning any parts of the

[1:35:12] county for industrial use. Um, once you

[1:35:16] open the doors

[1:35:18] to opportunities, it's really hard to

[1:35:21] close and you can't say no as easily.

[1:35:23] So, um, I think opening our county to

[1:35:27] that possibility,

[1:35:29] um, is harmful in the long run. Um

[1:35:34] suppose that

[1:35:36] is that door is opened and the

[1:35:38] possibility is opened. Um seriously

[1:35:40] consider strong restrictions and I don't

[1:35:43] know at what level you could do this but

[1:35:44] strong restrictions that should a data

[1:35:46] center propose to come into the county

[1:35:49] that they require that we require they

[1:35:52] provide their own water not from our

[1:35:54] aquifer not from the aquifer protection

[1:35:56] area. um water that they find somewhere

[1:35:58] else that they and that does not affect

[1:36:01] our water that we need to support our

[1:36:04] community, our life. Um I would suggest

[1:36:07] that you um require that they produce

[1:36:11] their own electricity and not from big

[1:36:14] wind farms um like the rail tie, but

[1:36:17] from solar panels on their own buildings

[1:36:20] um if they are allowed. Again, I

[1:36:23] advocate for no industrial sighting. um

[1:36:27] zoning in the county period. I think we

[1:36:30] need to prioritize our current citizens

[1:36:33] um and our current um ranchers and

[1:36:36] agriculture.

[1:36:37] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:36:40] >> Nothing much to add. I think u I just

[1:36:42] wanted to let you know I spoke to

[1:36:44] somebody who runs or works for a data

[1:36:47] center. The newest ones don't use water

[1:36:50] at all like you mentioned like they're

[1:36:52] running on glycol and all those things.

[1:36:54] So, and then like you said, the power,

[1:36:57] the solar power they harvest, they do

[1:37:00] store it and use at night time. So, I

[1:37:03] think there are a lot of things like

[1:37:04] they have backup power and stuff like

[1:37:06] that. And Wyoming has surplus power

[1:37:08] obviously. It's not like energy

[1:37:11] negative. We always have more than what

[1:37:13] we use. So, I just want to let you know

[1:37:17] the we currently produce more than we

[1:37:20] use. When you're looking at gigawatt

[1:37:23] data saying export power,

[1:37:26] >> we export power now, but data centers.

[1:37:29] >> Yeah. And they tend to eliminate that

[1:37:31] extra.

[1:37:32] >> Yeah. But they also have a plan in place

[1:37:34] because they don't want to have no power

[1:37:36] and operate like billions of dollars of

[1:37:38] stuff. So they always have their own

[1:37:41] source of producing it by solar or

[1:37:44] whatever. Like like they won't just come

[1:37:47] and say we'll take all your power or

[1:37:49] something. So, and I would also

[1:37:51] recommend like for the people here in

[1:37:54] the committee that if you don't know

[1:37:57] what you're voting on, I would like you

[1:37:59] to not vote. But I just want you to go

[1:38:02] back and learn things or table things,

[1:38:05] not just make decisions like,

[1:38:08] okay, I just don't like it because

[1:38:10] whatever you're deciding is not going to

[1:38:12] make anybody's life better if you are

[1:38:15] doing it without knowing what you're

[1:38:16] doing. I believe Larmy needs more like

[1:38:21] businesses to come in. I think we need

[1:38:23] to increase the economic activity, not

[1:38:26] restrict things to a point where we are

[1:38:29] still living 50 years behind everybody

[1:38:32] else or something. I just want to make

[1:38:35] sure if we are not sure, please don't

[1:38:37] say no. Please say I don't know or

[1:38:40] something. I just respectfully request.

[1:38:43] We definitely all don't know everything

[1:38:45] about everything but yeah I just want to

[1:38:49] assure you that I mean I also want SL

[1:38:52] let me to grow. It's not like and like

[1:38:54] you mentioned you guys don't have a lot

[1:38:57] of money the reason is you're beating

[1:38:59] yourself up by not letting people to

[1:39:02] develop anything because let's say if

[1:39:05] somebody invests $5 million and they

[1:39:08] don't make any money it's their problem.

[1:39:10] The county has nothing to lose. But if

[1:39:12] you are like saying I won't even give

[1:39:15] permission to anybody to come to town or

[1:39:17] do anything that's a problem. They will

[1:39:20] go somewhere else. It's not like you

[1:39:23] will restrict somebody's growth forever.

[1:39:25] So

[1:39:27] >> I'll just add that uh right now a lot of

[1:39:31] governors are putting moratoriums for

[1:39:33] example in Texas.

[1:39:35] >> Yeah. And uh in Massachusetts they're

[1:39:39] putting statewide moratoriums until we

[1:39:41] figure things out. So it's not just us

[1:39:43] that need to learn. I think all of us

[1:39:45] need to learn.

[1:39:46] >> I mean I mean I'm specifically saying at

[1:39:48] one point in general I want you to have

[1:39:50] an open mind to listen

[1:39:52] >> and ask more questions. Take your time

[1:39:55] and not things in two minutes like

[1:39:57] there's no rush you know.

[1:39:58] >> Well thank you. Please step forward.

[1:40:00] >> Thank you.

[1:40:00] >> And who are you?

[1:40:01] >> Celeste Tenner.

[1:40:03] >> All right Celeste. So, I have concerns

[1:40:06] about the data centers. I have

[1:40:08] >> We realize you're not alone. [laughter]

[1:40:10] >> I don't realize that,

[1:40:12] >> right?

[1:40:12] >> The uh the county, most of us are not

[1:40:16] people who were born and raised here. We

[1:40:19] came here for the air. We came here for

[1:40:21] the water. We came here for the open

[1:40:23] spaces.

[1:40:25] This is our savings, if you will. I

[1:40:29] would hate to see us be rash with giving

[1:40:32] it to someone who has no vested interest

[1:40:35] in our community. Um, the hypers scale

[1:40:39] data centers are insane as far as the

[1:40:41] amount of water, the amount of

[1:40:42] electricity.

[1:40:44] I live up in Centennial Valley this

[1:40:47] year. The people are taking the cattle

[1:40:49] off their summer summer rent cattle are

[1:40:52] off. The wells are growing dry. There is

[1:40:55] not enough water for us. Why on earth

[1:40:59] would we

[1:41:01] bring in something that would take as

[1:41:04] far as my research says

[1:41:07] a million gallons a day up to that. So

[1:41:10] point being moratorum I I know you don't

[1:41:14] particularly like that word but I also

[1:41:16] know Morra is dedicated to good

[1:41:18] research. We don't have to make any rash

[1:41:22] decisions and truly I feel we should do

[1:41:25] a lot of research before we get moving

[1:41:29] forward on anything like this. Yes,

[1:41:32] there there is some economic growth per

[1:41:34] se, but how many jobs you know interrupt

[1:41:37] you for a second?

[1:41:38] >> Nope. Nope. You can't interrupt me for

[1:41:39] >> Yes, I can because I'm chairman.

[1:41:41] [laughter]

[1:41:42] >> You you continue to talk, but just a

[1:41:44] question. Have we given you any

[1:41:45] impression at all that we are rushing

[1:41:47] into something or about to make a rash

[1:41:49] decision? No, I'm just telling you my

[1:41:50] opinion.

[1:41:50] >> Yeah. And were you at the meeting last

[1:41:53] night?

[1:41:53] >> I was not.

[1:41:54] >> You were not. Keep on going.

[1:41:55] >> I don't get to town as much as I'd like

[1:41:57] to.

[1:41:58] >> Point being, I just feel like the con we

[1:42:01] can watch. We can watch these other

[1:42:03] places with their data centers with

[1:42:05] their concerns with Cheyenne and the

[1:42:07] water pollution.

[1:42:08] We don't have to make a decision

[1:42:11] rationally. And I think that that's why

[1:42:13] we have you guys in place is so that you

[1:42:16] will listen to the people and down the

[1:42:20] pike perhaps perhaps it's a good thing

[1:42:22] and solar maybe they can have solar to

[1:42:25] be brutally honest my house is all solar

[1:42:27] and I have lights and computers and

[1:42:31] everything at night because it they work

[1:42:33] on batteries too. It's not just a

[1:42:34] daytime thing. It's a possibility,

[1:42:38] >> but um

[1:42:40] once these places are in place, what you

[1:42:44] know, when you say, "Oh, you know what?

[1:42:46] We don't have enough water for you to do

[1:42:47] that this year." I highly doubt that

[1:42:51] they're going to just go, "Okay." I mean

[1:42:53] the amount of money they have invested

[1:42:56] for them to have constraints. I would

[1:43:00] really like to see ironclad constraints

[1:43:04] if that were a situation.

[1:43:07] So there you have it.

[1:43:09] >> Well, thank you. We appreciate your

[1:43:10] comments. Please step forward.

[1:43:14] [clears throat]

[1:43:23] » No, seriously.

[1:43:24] >> I promised I wouldn't yell. I did last

[1:43:26] night. Jenny stays.

[1:43:27] >> All right.

[1:43:28] >> I share the house with my daughter. I

[1:43:32] share the property. It

[1:43:34] >> we co-own it together. And I would

[1:43:36] suggest that

[1:43:39] in the future if a data center or any

[1:43:42] other large large large large

[1:43:46] scale kind of development

[1:43:49] um proposed to be here that we say

[1:43:53] you pay your own water

[1:43:56] and you don't use our water. I would

[1:43:58] like our community first put first. You

[1:44:01] pay your own disposal.

[1:44:03] You pay your own toxic waste disposal.

[1:44:06] Glycol doesn't get out of the water.

[1:44:09] It's not one of those things that you

[1:44:11] can just put a red dye in and it's gone.

[1:44:14] It's toxic forever.

[1:44:17] I would suggest that you're going to

[1:44:19] bring the problem here. You take the

[1:44:21] problem away. We're not absorbing your

[1:44:25] problem.

[1:44:27] >> Thank you.

[1:44:28] >> Anyone else?

[1:44:32] » All right. Well, we've made a one round

[1:44:35] again. Uh, any of you like to comment

[1:44:37] any further? B, Barb,

[1:44:39] >> no.

[1:44:40] Greg,

[1:44:42] >> we're off.

[1:44:45] >> I just want to thank everybody who sat

[1:44:47] through all our previous discussion just

[1:44:49] to express the opinion. It's highly

[1:44:51] valuable and we appreciate it. It was uh

[1:44:54] heartening to see all the people last

[1:44:57] night and a week ago and I think that's

[1:45:00] great. And one thing that we might

[1:45:02] consider if we do face a request for a

[1:45:06] data center of a large industrial site

[1:45:09] is that we actually uh uh circulate a ballot around the county

[1:45:17] where the information is clear and trans

[1:45:22] transparent about the benefits and the

[1:45:24] costs and uh let the people of the

[1:45:27] county decide. not leave it to a

[1:45:31] discussion among my highly respected

[1:45:34] colleagues, all the county commissioners

[1:45:37] that we actually this is such a such a

[1:45:41] critical and important issue that we

[1:45:44] actually ask everybody in the county

[1:45:46] what they want. That would be my

[1:45:49] suggestion.

[1:45:50] >> Okay, with that

[1:45:53] discussion and we will move on to staff

[1:45:55] updates.

[1:45:56] >> Can we have a little break now? We can

[1:45:58] have a little break now.

[1:45:59] >> Okay. Uh [laughter]

[1:46:01] I will everyone be back in five minutes.

[1:46:03] >> Okay.

[1:50:42] social gym reporting. Ready to go?

[1:50:46] >> Okay. So, uh, our next item is staff

[1:50:48] updates. David, and why don't you begin

[1:50:51] with introducing our new staff?

[1:50:53] >> Sounds good.

[1:50:54] >> Um, since we have some new staff.

[1:50:56] >> Yeah, Jeremy, come up. This is Jeremy

[1:50:59] Grover. He is the new assistant planner

[1:51:01] for the planning department. Um started

[1:51:04] out approximately

[1:51:06] >> like three three two and a half three

[1:51:07] weeks ago

[1:51:08] >> weeks ago.

[1:51:09] >> July 20th was the first day

[1:51:11] >> came from Tennessee to go get away from

[1:51:13] the heat. Um I don't know actually for a

[1:51:16] job probably the humidity

[1:51:18] >> humidity but yeah um so you'll see more

[1:51:22] of him. He'll be working on some

[1:51:24] projects. I think he's got a project

[1:51:25] that to present next week. So,

[1:51:28] >> um, yeah.

[1:51:33] » Thank you.

[1:51:34] >> You have any questions for me?

[1:51:35] >> I don't.

[1:51:36] >> Tell [laughter] us a little bit about

[1:51:37] your background.

[1:51:38] >> I'm curious. So, I this past May, I

[1:51:42] recently graduated from Middle Tennessee

[1:51:43] State University, which is in

[1:51:45] Murphy'sboro, a you can call it a suburb

[1:51:47] of Nashville. Um, with a political

[1:51:50] science degree, uh, as well as a

[1:51:52] philosophy degree.

[1:51:54] >> Um,

[1:51:55] and my focus was to get into public

[1:51:57] policy of some kind, specifically

[1:51:59] planning.

[1:52:00] >> Um, urban regional planning has been

[1:52:03] something I've been interested in for

[1:52:04] quite some time. And living in

[1:52:06] Murphy'sboro, it has been in the top 50

[1:52:10] fastest growing cities in the country.

[1:52:12] The counties within the top 20 usually

[1:52:15] and the region was not at all prepared

[1:52:17] for it and seeing the strain on

[1:52:19] resources um and just everything. I mean

[1:52:24] the the city recently just hired on a

[1:52:27] couple of additional planners um to try

[1:52:29] to cope with it. But one of the best

[1:52:31] examples that I saw that they were

[1:52:32] unprepared for the level of growth that

[1:52:34] they saw that I want future places to be

[1:52:36] prepared for is Rutherford County

[1:52:38] schools had been opening a brand new

[1:52:40] high school that was supposed to help

[1:52:41] keep two like that school and another

[1:52:45] one under capacity for 5 years. Both

[1:52:48] schools were above capacity the day it

[1:52:50] opened

[1:52:52] >> because more growth happened. And

[1:52:55] doesn't seem like that may be a problem

[1:52:56] in in this uh county from what I've been

[1:52:59] able to see. But I want to help prevent

[1:53:00] that from happening just in case.

[1:53:03] >> Very good.

[1:53:04] >> Thank you.

[1:53:06] >> If we have any questions about

[1:53:07] Nashville, we'll expect you to answer

[1:53:08] them. [laughter]

[1:53:10] >> Didn't spend much time there. It was a

[1:53:11] bit too busy for me.

[1:53:15] >> Real quick announcement. I don't know if

[1:53:16] you burn left a message just saying

[1:53:19] he'll have to catch up with the

[1:53:21] discussion later.

[1:53:22] >> Yeah, that No, it's fine.

[1:53:24] >> The lead is close to 3:00 a.m. now.

[1:53:26] >> Preston joined us from Spain. I know.

[1:53:29] >> Uh so David, why don't we continue to

[1:53:31] step up?

[1:53:35] » Um so the last application last month

[1:53:38] that you guys approved was I think you

[1:53:41] made the recommendation for approval for

[1:53:44] the range acres subdivision final

[1:53:45] plaque. Um they were able to get all

[1:53:48] their information they needed together

[1:53:50] that were part of your conditions and

[1:53:51] get it approved by the board of county

[1:53:53] commissioners. So that's all done. Um

[1:53:58] yeah um just

[1:54:01] we're working on a couple of or few

[1:54:03] projects in our office. One of them has

[1:54:05] to do with the data centers. We're also

[1:54:07] working on um some regulatory amendments

[1:54:10] for

[1:54:12] because you brought I think we talked

[1:54:14] about some of the stuff that we were

[1:54:16] talking about before everybody build on

[1:54:18] the planning department. So, now that we

[1:54:20] have staff, again, we're working on um

[1:54:22] battery energy energy storage system

[1:54:25] regulations as well as this short-term

[1:54:28] rental um just some simple res

[1:54:31] regulations there just for you guys to to look at because I believe that was

[1:54:37] what we were directed to at one point in

[1:54:39] the past. So,

[1:54:40] >> um so we're moving these things forward.

[1:54:42] So,

[1:54:43] >> right. Can I just make a comment?

[1:54:45] >> Absolutely. Right. I mean, I guess I

[1:54:47] don't charge. [clears throat]

[1:54:48] >> A lot of people have been asking me

[1:54:50] about short-term rentals in my campaign,

[1:54:54] >> my second. So, this is great that we're

[1:54:57] moving forward with that. Thank you.

[1:55:00] >> Yeah.

[1:55:02] >> Um, by any chance, have you heard

[1:55:04] anything about heirloom?

[1:55:07] >> Oh, what about them?

[1:55:08] >> Have they actually built anything or

[1:55:10] >> Oh, yeah. I think it's up.

[1:55:11] >> Yeah. I was just curious. Yeah.

[1:55:13] >> Yeah. Is is that the experimental wind?

[1:55:15] Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

[1:55:17] >> I'm pretty sure it's up. I think I might

[1:55:19] have got an invite to the grand opening,

[1:55:21] but there was I had a conflict or

[1:55:23] something. So,

[1:55:24] >> but yeah, if you go drive out towards or

[1:55:27] past Rock River, I guess, see if you can

[1:55:30] see it.

[1:55:31] >> Should look like a

[1:55:33] safe for

[1:55:34] >> a weird thing going around. And

[1:55:36] >> what's that?

[1:55:36] >> Is that what you say for

[1:55:40] [clears throat]

[1:55:42] » anything else? I don't think so. Okay.

[1:55:46] Uh,

[1:55:47] do we have any other commissioner

[1:55:49] comments or we exhaust also our

[1:55:50] comments? Barb, you have anything you

[1:55:51] want to say?

[1:55:53] >> Nope, I'm good.

[1:55:54] >> Are you sure? We'd like a comment from

[1:55:56] you. [laughter]

[1:55:58] >> No, that's fine. Craig, how about

[1:56:00] yourself?

[1:56:01] >> I'm I've had enough comments tonight. I

[1:56:03] think I'm good.

[1:56:04] >> I'm good.

[1:56:05] >> Thank you.

[1:56:06] >> Matt, you've got something you like to

[1:56:07] say?

[1:56:08] >> Yeah. Um, I guess probably should have

[1:56:11] could have said it earlier, but uh a few

[1:56:15] months ago um at a county commissioners

[1:56:18] meeting there was a presentation on data

[1:56:20] center regulation uh from

[1:56:24] uh one of the the economic development

[1:56:28] coordinator for I guess whatever Laram

[1:56:32] County's economic development coalition.

[1:56:36] >> Leads. Yeah, leads or something like

[1:56:38] that.

[1:56:39] >> Um leads

[1:56:41] >> and uh we were directed um by the

[1:56:46] commission well staff was directed by

[1:56:48] the commissioners to develop

[1:56:51] uh regulations for industrial park

[1:56:54] permitting of

[1:56:56] data centers. So, we have been working

[1:56:59] on that uh for some time and I think

[1:57:02] that we'll have something polished

[1:57:04] enough to provide to the commission or

[1:57:07] to this commission um by the September

[1:57:09] meeting. Obviously, that is um it's up

[1:57:14] to you what you do with it,

[1:57:17] but

[1:57:18] we're following our directives.

[1:57:20] >> Well, that's exactly what you should

[1:57:21] have been doing. [laughter]

[1:57:22] >> Yeah. So, no worries. I'm glad to hear

[1:57:24] you're doing

[1:57:25] >> Yeah. what commissioners asked you to

[1:57:27] do.

[1:57:28] >> That's That's

[1:57:29] >> Oh, and I don't know if anyone didn't

[1:57:32] hear um

[1:57:36] that was like right when I got back. So,

[1:57:37] what was that? July 11th, thereabout.

[1:57:41] Yeah, it was the the day that I was

[1:57:43] coming back to work after being on

[1:57:46] paternity leave. Um the Wyoming Supreme

[1:57:50] Court uh yeah ruled in in

[1:57:52] [clears throat] favor of the county on

[1:57:54] the APO 2023 APS amendments.

[1:57:56] >> I have not heard that.

[1:57:57] >> Oh, okay.

[1:57:58] >> You haven't?

[1:58:00] [clears throat]

[1:58:01] >> Yeah. So, um

[1:58:02] >> that's why we have staff updates.

[1:58:04] >> Yeah.

[1:58:05] >> So, I know. [laughter]

[1:58:07] >> I even sent him I even sent him

[1:58:10] congratulations. They found that the um

[1:58:14] that the protection of the Casper

[1:58:16] aquifer through

[1:58:18] uh prohibiting land uses and restricting

[1:58:23] um lot sizes is within the county zoning

[1:58:26] authority. Um [clears throat]

[1:58:28] >> yeah,

[1:58:29] >> but yeah, I mean that's the that's

[1:58:31] acknowledge your great work there. Yes.

[1:58:33] Well,

[1:58:33] >> that's [laughter] great. It's a huge and

[1:58:36] thank you for all the work you put into

[1:58:37] it.

[1:58:38] >> It restarted

[1:58:41] or caused to resume from a stay that

[1:58:44] been put on um Warm Livestock's appeal

[1:58:48] of the December 2024 APS amendments. It

[1:58:52] was like the big update that we did um

[1:58:56] with the cap update based on the cap

[1:58:59] update and then um also the

[1:59:03] warm livestock's uh declaratory judgment

[1:59:06] action against the adoption of the cap

[1:59:08] update itself and then the the boundary

[1:59:11] amendments that occurred in January of

[1:59:14] 2024.

[1:59:16] Um, so I guess just just like anything

[1:59:20] with the aquifer, nothing is fully

[1:59:22] settled, but

[1:59:25] uh, oral argument will be in the

[1:59:27] district court on that appeal August

[1:59:31] 30th. 31st somewhere around there. So

[1:59:35] that's back to staff updates, but I

[1:59:38] [clears throat] don't have anything

[1:59:38] further. Sorry.

[1:59:40] >> No, nothing to be sorry for. Thank you

[1:59:42] for that.

[1:59:43] Well, in that case, uh, our next regular

[1:59:46] meeting is September 9th here at 5:00

[1:59:49] and I am

[1:59:51] >> I will be in Mongolia.

[1:59:53] >> Okay.

[1:59:54] >> And I will not have intellect. So just

[1:59:58] for

[2:00:01] purposes

[2:00:04] » and I

Albany County Government - County Commissioners Regular Meeting - 8/4/2026

Agenda

Transcript