Okay.
» All right. Uh, I call to order the
August 12th, 2026 Alb County Planning on
Commissioners Regular Meeting. Um, roll
call. Greg here. Ralph
>> here.
>> Barb
>> here.
>> Burn
>> here. Can you hear me?
>> We can hear you. And I'm here. record,
we will note that Vern's in Spain right
now.
Okay, so we're all here. Um, move on to
approval of the agenda. Is there anyone
who would like to uh
um move to amend the agenda or or also
approve it?
>> Uh, I would like to amend the agenda to
add a discussion after we deal with
everything about uh what we learned
about data centers on the last few days.
>> Is there a second?
>> I second.
>> All right. And uh we will do that if we
approve this uh right above item six
staff updates. Um so all those in favor
say I.
>> I.
>> That motion carries. Um may I have a
motion to approve the minutes for July
8th 2026?
>> I move that we approve the minutes from
last meeting. I read fine to me.
[clears throat]
>> Uh all those in favor say I.
>> I.
I that motion carries also. Uh Greg,
do you have anything to disclose?
>> No.
>> None. Thank you.
>> Barb,
>> no.
>> Yeah.
>> I will just mention that I had a
friendly talk with Dr. Kuri
um out at his storage site back in early
June. Uh that was before I was aware of
this application or the purchase of this
property that we're going to take a look
at later. Um and there were no conflicts
of interest. Uh but I just want to
mention that.
Uh in that case, we will move on to the
Kaduri zoning district amendment ZDA
03-26. David.
» Yeah, Mr. Chair
>> Commission. Um Dr. Kaduri is the
applicant for this um project. Um he's
requesting to change 57 acres from
ranchet to commercial. The location of
this property is along Soldier Springs
Road and Rosedale Road. Property is
addressed 147 or 37 um Rosedale Road.
The area includes a mix of ranch at
commercial and agricultural zoning.
There's a mix of residential,
commercial, and agricultural land uses
in the area. Um the buildings on the
south, there are buildings on the south
end of the property and then there's a
drainage that crosses the northeast um
portion of the property.
Um a number of folks
reviewed this. Um I'll just kind of go
through the ones that stood out. Larry
Rivers Conservation District, Martin
Curry, senior resource specialist, um
noted that land owners should take care
to minim minimize disturbance of the
property. Um, disturbed areas should be
reclaimed quickly using native grass and
shrub species.
The Larman Rivers Conservation District
can provide recommendations for
appropriate native grass species and
planting methods. And USDA soil web soil
survey [snorts] information indicates
that the lower elevation portions of the
property are rated very limited for
building development due to the shallow
groundwater and seasonal surface water
flows. I'm guessing is that's being
talked about that northeast portion
where that drainage goes across. Yeah.
>> Um and then any other
>> Yeah. information on that that that
review was included. Um the Wyoming Game
and Fish, Will Schultz, habitat
protection supervisor, noted the areas
outside of delineated crucial habitat.
He did recommend avoiding fencing that
restricts big game or using of wildlife
friendly fencing.
Um he also noted to um mitigate any
invasive species in the area to clean
vehicles and equipment before
construction and coordinate with the
weeden pests to plan um on a plan to
assess, treat and monitor invasive
species.
Um, city of Laramie planning manager
Philip Gavatuler
um provided comments as well
recommending denial based on the future
development
um saying that the f future development
of the property should follow a state
residential future land use designation
of lar growth area plan. Um, so my
analysis,
so the the commercial zoning district
would allow uses that are compatible
with the surrounding commercial
development that's already in the area.
The property does have direct access to
a paved county road. Um, it's maintained
by the county. Um, it's also in close
proximity to Laramie, so that provides
efficient access to emergency services.
um fire department,
um the sheriff's office, all of that.
So, and then um the applicant addressed
the potential impacts associated with
the zoning amendment, allowed uses are
generally compatible with the
surrounding land uses, minimizing
potential conflicts, and supporting a
logical growth plan pattern.
So the comprehensive plan um the
proposal is generally consistent with
the comprehensive plan goals of economic
development, growth, efficiency,
commercial zoning would support
additional business investment and
potential expansion or exp potentially
expand the county tax base. Um prior to
growth area three is where this is
located and identifies potential for
small convenience orientated oriented
commercial uses. Um also the rural rural
commercial land use. The property has
access to uh paved countymaintained road
and is near future major arterial
intersection. Domestic wells and small
wastewater systems can provide um that
those services that are needed for rural
commercial development out there. The
proposal also supports a logical
expansion of commercial development is
generally consistent with the intent of
rural commercial designation.
Um the Larman growth area growth area
plan. So although the designation is
estate residential, the property is
adjacent to neighborhood commercial and
would provide a logical extension of
that area. um land use or that the
proposed extens proposal extends an
existing commercial development pattern
rather than creating an isolated
commercial use and is compatible with
surrounding land uses.
Um staff recommends approval of this
application
um and would be happy to answer any
questions.
>> Uh Mark, you have anything?
>> Yes, I have a question. Um the proposal
is um proposing uh a few bathrooms uh
for the septic system and not a dump
station or anything like that as part of
the the construction.
>> So this is this is a request for
commercial
um zoning. So that information would be
provided at the time that they developed
um the property and they built the
buildings and and went that that way
forward. My my assumption would be um
and I'm not sure if applicant is here um
is that they would use waste a small
wastewater system a septic system um for
domestic sewage that's created on the
property. So
>> okay thank you.
>> Can I follow up on Bob's question?
[clears throat] One of the uh neighbors
that is opposing this or send us a
letter opposing this mentioned the need
to empty uh the uh sewage storage within
RVs that would be brought for storage.
Uh that seems like it would be a big may
be a big uh require a big wastewater
system
that
>> did you get?
So, at the um the zoning district
amendment, we're just considering
commercial,
you know, abstractly. We're not
considering a specific development or a
specific land use, but really any land
use that could potentially be within the
commercial zoning district that any use
of it would be at the zoning um
certificate stage. So, and I would just
follow up, you know, if if they went
forward to develop something like that.
Um, they would need to talk with the
county and potentially the state on on,
you know, taking care of the the
wastewater, but but yeah, as Matt said,
we're not really looking at that at this
stage. But if this were approved and
permits started coming in, those are the
questions would need to be answered.
>> Anything else, Barb?
No. All right.
>> I'm good. Thank you.
>> Ralph,
>> so my question is I didn't understand
from the maps that
there's a plan for converting the entire
57 acres so that the whole 57 acres will
become commercial.
>> The proposal is for the entire lot. Yes.
Of 57 acres.
>> It's a very large area.
>> It is a large area. That's That is true.
Yeah. [clears throat]
Is that all?
>> That's it.
>> Um the opposing letter, if they're going
to put up an 80 by 200 foot building, 20
ft tall,
>> there's no once this is approved,
there's nothing saying they can't put up
10 of those or 15 of those. And that
seems to be the concern here. Is there a
restriction on that or
>> Well, they'll have to get a zoning
certificate and go through that process.
what the use whatever they're using it
for has to conform to um the allowed
standards in a commercial zoning
district. Um if it doesn't, it may be a
conditional use and then in that case
they would come back to you. But if it is allowed, it would be just a
zoning certificate to to do that. So
they wouldn't have to come before you
and and there really isn't a limitation.
No.
>> Thank you.
Uh I don't have any questions. Um I just
want to note uh that something you
mentioned I do believe that
northeast corner if I right of the
parcel it's in fact it could include
some sort of wetland.
>> Mhm.
>> Um I just wondered about that. So is the
applicant here or if it's
representative?
Uh in that case I'm going to suggest we
table this uh for next month. Um, going
back in time about a year ago, I'm not
positive if I have the right application
in mind, but I think it was a Wil
wholesome application
um, up north of town. Neither applicant
or a representative was present. We went
and considered that. After the fact, I
thought that was the wrong decision that
I should have moved to table it and and
that's why I suggest we do now. So, is
there a motion to dispose this for the
time being? Uh, to table it. I motion
that we table this for the time being.
Is there a second?
>> I second.
>> I'll conduct a roll call vote then.
>> Could we discuss the motion or is it
table?
>> Yes, we can. Absolutely.
>> But I mean unless that's a nonable
motion.
>> Do you have something you want to say?
>> Um we this is scheduled for public
hearing. So you'll need to hear from the
public before it's tabled.
>> Okay. Fair enough. Um so we will hear
from the public and then we'll we'll
discuss the motion. I burn. Okay. Uh, we
will conduct a public hearing now. So,
any member of the public who is here who
wishes to make a comment on this
application, you may step forward.
» I guess I'd like to ask some questions
about it.
>> Please step forward and tell us who you
are and where you're from.
>> Altha Garson. I have um property that's
right just south of the radio station
and borders this piece. have a large
concern about this. Um, just with the
amount of people and that that will be
there. Bought a place so I could be out
of town.
I know you guys think there's no
wildlife there. When I was living there,
I rented out.
>> Don't make any assumptions about that.
>> Okay, [laughter]
>> we might have very diverse opinions
about whether wildlife out there or not.
>> Rabbits, I mean,
some antelope. There's wildlife on that
place. And I think that if you go in and
make it all concrete, you're going to
take away their habitat.
Um concerned about where they're going
to put the sewage and water development.
My water comes from a well, [snorts] and
if they're going to have their sewer
right there feeding into my water,
that's not um ideal for for myself or
the people living there.
I guess just a lot of questions. I did
read the letter on the on the um that
they wrote and I know that they're going
to start small and then build, but I
never did understand which side they're
going to start on. Are they going to
start on the south or the west or
» we can answer those questions for you? U
if that's your comment.
>> You can't answer those questions.
>> No, we can't. Well, David, my comment
>> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would just say the
proposal is to change the zoning of the
property. So, there's not any
development
um proposal at this time. I mean, they mentioned it in their application,
but the application is to change the
zoning only. So, any development would
be from further permits in the future.
>> So, they will have to come through and
ask you guys again. Um
>> well, they'll come to Yeah. the planning
department to ask about those things. um
they'd have to get a permit for any
wastewater or buildings on the property.
>> It wouldn't necessarily have to be in
the public form.
>> So, this is my last chance to Can I Can
I write a letter on opposing?
>> Absolutely.
>> So, just to the planning department.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
>> Is there any other member of the public
who wishes to comment? Please step
forward. Okay. My name is Roger
Schaefer. We're the owner of the
property that KBB sits on, which is on
the edge of this. Oh,
>> okay. Right.
>> And so we're uh the only concern we have
uh we're in the process right now of
renegotiate or renegotiating a lease
with KB for another 5 years. The only
concern we would have, you know, there's
radio, there's towers there, right? And
so we would be concerned about the
transmission of the towers and and I
have above my pay grade talk about
whether whether it would be any effects
on transmission or not. That would have
to be something that you know the radio
engineers or whatever could talk about.
That would be our biggest concern just
if that was a problem.
>> Well, uh I'm glad you're here to express
that concern because I'm sure Dave's
paying attention. Okay, that's all I
could say. Anyone else? Thank you, sir.
Hearing and seeing no one else, uh, may
I have a motion to close the public
hearing?
>> I move the close of public hearing.
>> I second. Any further discussion? All
those in favor say I.
>> I.
That motion carries. Okay. Burn. Uh,
we will discuss our motion to table this
until next month.
>> Yeah. um uh assuming that the motion to
table is debatable and I don't mean to
debate it much but just to be to clarify
the the way that sequence came down it
was strongly implied that your motion to
table was because the applicant neither
the applicant nor his representative is
there is that is that the intent of the
tableing was
correct
>> okay just so then they're on notice to
do that and then the public is on notice
that we will take this up again and they
should reappear and we will have a
proper wide ranging debate if I
understand correctly. Is that the idea?
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Hey David,
>> Dr. Kaduri is coming in the house.
>> The house. Okay. Well, we've just been
informed that Dr. Kaduri is on his way
in. So,
>> uh we will not get the move to
>> Yeah. So, yeah. Very good.
>> Back and forth.
>> Formally withdraw the motion. Yeah, I'm
withdrawing the motion.
If we now hear from the applicant, does
that mean we should reopen the public
hearing again?
>> I think you should.
>> Okay, we'll do that. Very good. Um, so
Dr. Guri, uh, we have heard staff u give
the report and we have perhaps some
questions for you.
>> Okay. So, would you please have
questions?
>> Yeah. Um, and we will begin with.
>> Thanks.
Thank you. Uh my question is about
actually the intent of 57 acres is a
huge area. Um and I understand that you
want to make it into a storage of boats
and RVs and uh so on and so forth. And
so uh have and and there is a wetland at
the north uh um end of or south end of
the property.
>> The northeast side of the property.
>> Yeah. Um so my question is you're aware
of the fact that you may need
>> a very large wastewater system there to
deal with emptying RVs [snorts] and all
that.
>> Oh no, no. Like I don't plan on doing
like an RV park or anything. My intent
is to just store like like dry storage.
That's my intent. Maybe one or two
buildings with the steel buildings on
the facing the soldier spring road that
could be used more like indoor storage
and uh like everything else should be
just like dry storage like most of my
friends in the city they park their
stuff in the side of the streets and it
becomes unsafe because when we are
driving around we can't see who is
crossing. So, I have several friends
that requested to park stuff in the the
15 acres and I can't say no to them. A
lot of them are parking like like in
that 15 acres. It's just overwhelming
the situation. So, that's what I thought
I should just like ask for permission if
that's okay to park there instead of
here. So, a lot of people are using that
15 acres like the Skyland Bike Road, the one we built the steel buildings. I
left a big parking lot there. Every time
I go there, like there is like an RV and
a boat and everything parked there. And
I ask one of the tenants, okay, what
who's is this? And they say, oh, one of
my friends is begging to just park
overnight and all that. So I I just felt
like maybe if I don't overwhelm that
space and use the other space if if
approved by you guys would be better
space than disturbing the businesses and
all that that are currently running over
the sky.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> That's all.
>> So you have no intention. Let's let's go
around. Oh, I'm sorry.
Oh, maybe Barb,
>> I don't have any questions.
>> Um, Bernard,
>> um, yeah, just a couple. When did you
buy this property?
>> Uh, like around 3 months ago.
>> Oh, and and why did you buy it?
>> I just bought it as an investment. Like,
uh, like I want to park my money for my
retirement.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Great. So you don't have any you don't
have any intention of having people come
out there empty their
>> No no no no
>> they have to have that done before they
get there to
>> yeah this is like storing stuff that
they don't use not parking in the city
streets instead I have at least like uh
10 people that are [clears throat] using
the business park right now they are
parking on the side like right now their
RVs and stuff
>> and uh like uh I don't want them to park
there and uh they said oh like we'll pay
you and all that. I said 40 bucks a
month or whatever, but I said, you know,
it's just overwhelming because there's
like 20 tenants using that 10 acres or 8
acres of space. I just thought this is
like reasonable to ask if if this is not
a big pain. And then I know there are a
few concerns from my neighbors. I would
like to also address their concerns
about um the gas stations and stuff. I
have no intent of like signing up to
anything because I'm also busy doing
some things. I just don't want to run a
day-to-day business like operating there
sitting there full-time.
>> Me and my wife both are pediatricians.
We are very conservative in terms of not
disturbing the place. We always want to
leave a place better than what we found.
Never have intend to like cause trouble
to the neighbors or anything. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
uh I might have a question here. Um
[clears throat]
and you I'm going to give you permission
to not have to answer this question if
you want to because we're actually only
supposed to be considering the zoning
itself, not any actual purpose, but
that's supposed to be a spectac purpose.
But you do have a site plan on your map.
And just so
>> again, [clears throat] you'll have to
answer this if you want to. Right now,
your intent is to build a building. And
then the site plan shows basically a
ring road that's a story. Correct. All
right. Well, thank you for answering
that. That's all I have.
>> Okay. Um
so, uh we will conduct another public
hearing for anyone who now that Dr.
Feduri is here would like to make a
comment again.
Do either the two people who spoke
earlier wish to speak again?
» Go ahead.
Sir,
>> I understand. However, you are allowed
to make a comment. You're not here to
ask questions.
>> I can't ask questions.
>> Okay. If you want to go you need to go
up to them.
>> Um
I guess I'm I I live out there on
Soldier Springs just south of and excuse
me.
>> You have to address us.
>> Does you can come closer.
>> Well, I want him to be able to hear
because I am talking to him.
>> Well, I would ask you to stand up also.
Can I stand?
>> She'll be able to hear you.
>> Okay. Um just south of the um road
stations, my place. I'm concerned about
>> I'm sorry. Excuse me. I want you to
address the commission.
>> You have to address the commission by by
law.
>> I understand you want to talk to and
maybe he'll talk to you after the fact,
but you need to address us.
>> Okay. [clears throat] Concerned about um
the the wildlife that's in that area. Um
I guess the proximity of um just
everything. I um um if you're storing um
RVs, you're going to have some that are
dripping oil and some that are dripping
gas and um if they don't get everything
drained really good, they're going to be
draining septic. And I guess that's I
just concerned with the environment out
there and um the health of the soul.
>> Thank you.
Uh, in surveys, you also like to
interview.
» I'm Brad Schaer with Shaper Place LLC
and we actually, like I say, we have the
property of the radio station. We're
just mostly concerned of possible uh
building anything that might hinder the
transmission
of the from the towers dependent upon
how close they are. uh the building
might be uh to those towers and uh
because we are negoti currently ne
renegotiating a lease with uh town
square media for another 5 years and we
want to make sure that we don't have
issues with the transmission of cuz all
of a sudden they built something that
might interfere with that and uh so
that's kind of [clears throat] where we
stand with this thing as far our
concerns. So,
>> okay. Thank you again.
>> I have a question.
>> Sure. Yes.
>> Uh would you if the plan for the
development comes back and it shows that
you it won't hurt your operation, would
you have any objections to it? Well, the
one thing we don't know is we really,
like my brother said, uh we don't know
what would interfere with their
transmissions. I mean, if they built a
building real close there and it was and
they had towers on that building, would
that interfere with the transmission of
there's three large radio towers there?
And and if it depend upon how close they
build, what they build, how high it is,
and everything. We don't know. You would
have to probably talk with Towns Square
Media. their engineers might have a
better idea what what might cause
problems with the their transmissions
and uh but uh you know we don't know I
mean we we own the property but but
those towers are what broadcast their
radio station and we don't know what
would potentially cause problems. Uh, so
I don't uh we we did inform them of this
situation that it had been acquired and
they were trying to uh change it the
zoning on it to commercial and so we so
that they knew what was going on and I
don't know like I said I didn't know if
they would have a representative here to
uh state their case or not it either and
maybe maybe they will if we go further
with this or whatever. So,
>> well, I'll just say uh I'll suggest that
uh any concerns I may have and you may
have take them up with our plan
director.
>> Okay.
>> And uh you'd be the appropriate person
to discuss.
>> Yeah. I mean, like I say, we we're a
little lost with it. We're just kind of
helping. Like I say, we're in
negotiations with them, but we don't
really know what it could how it could
affect them, if at all. But, um you
[clears throat] know, so that's where we
stand. So,
>> Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you.
>> Is there anyone else who would like to
make a comment?
» Uh, please come forward. Tell us who you
are.
>> Darren stays. Um, I wasn't really
planning on talking about this. This is
the first I heard about it, but I do own
property in the county and um, I have
had property in the county shared with
my mother since 2011 and I lived in
Laram. Was raised and born and raised in
Laram. went to school here and now came
back to the university. Since moving to
the county and we only have a very small
portion of property, we've seen
increasing development in the area and
it's not close to this. It's in a
different part of the county, but
accompanying any increasing development,
even private homes on as small as half
an acre, we've seen a radical increase
in invasive plants. And so I would
advocate um to be cautious about any new
development disturbances driving um
building because we've seen Russian
napweed, we've seen tumble weeds, we've
seen yellow toad flax. Um we
particularly live in our area because we
are trying to avoid exposure to
pesticides. My father died of pesticide
exposure. Um, and so we don't use
pesticides to combat the invasive
species, invasive plants on our
property. I go out every summer and I
hand pull and in 10 years it has
improved so much so that um, the county
will threaten to come out and use
pesticides on my property. Um, I keep it
under control, but um, I would be
cautious of approving development that
could increase that anywhere in our
counties. Thank you.
>> Is there anyone else who like to
comment?
Thank you. So I did get this concern
about the radio towers uh from like one
of my friends and I did do some due
diligence of what would cause trouble
and all that did speak to like one of
the radio engineers and he said since
this particular radio station broadcasts
towards north and I don't own any
property towards the north so it should
not interfere anything but this is like
a preliminary kind of report I have And
like I said, I don't have any intention
to hurt anybody including my neighbors.
So I think I'll be reasonable to with
them not to build anything anywhere
close to any.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
May close the public hearing.
>> I move we close public.
>> I second the motion. All those in favor
say I. I. I.
Bern.
I I vote I also that motion carries.
Okay. So, uh I believe now we are
prepared to discuss this item.
>> Bern, why don't you begin?
>> Um yeah, Mr. Chair, given that I'm
coming in remotely and sometimes I feel
a little fractured. I just I've kind of
prepared a statement. Is that
appropriate? I'll just go through that
and see where we and we actually hear
you quite well. So, uh that's good. Um u
I think the the the visual that goes
along with this is the zoning map and
that's what this is all about. So as far
as I don't know what you guys are seeing
but I'd like you to be looking at the
zoning map that was included in the
packet. Is that whether that needs to be
broadcast to all the rest of us or not
but does that make sense since that's
talk about those surrounding zones and
so forth. I was wondering if
>> Jory can you bring that map up?
>> Yeah we'll do it bring that map up.
>> Continue talking. uh as much as you can
anyway. And David's trying to bring that
up now.
>> Okay.
» Yeah. The one I'm thinking of is is
starts with Dr. Kadur's recently
reszoned property and then runs on south
through this one.
Yeah. Okay. Good. This is the one I want
to look at. Okay. So, um
just quick background. Planning and
zoning is about developing a long-term
vision for the county. That's the
planning part. and then turning that
into land use maps and regulations.
That's the zoning part. Our job here
today is to advise the county commission
on the zoning part.
Um, we also look at the specific plan,
we also look at specific land use
applications. That's not what we're
doing here, but like subdivisions and there all the heavy lifting is done
by our staff and the engineers make sure
that the grades of the road are correct
and that there's access to the acres and
the drainage has been discussed and so
forth. So most of the the assessment of
a of a specific application is done by
staff and u as long as the applicant is
within the parameters of their zoning we
have much much more restricted
discretion in terms of our approval to
denial and my point of that is that is
the zoning decisions is really where the
rubber meets the road and that's the the
place where I think we were all
appointed to bring our our various
backgrounds and input into the advising
of the of the county commissioners. Um,
so we have a wide discretion in our
subjective judgments on how and where
the county guides development and
there's no cookbook criteria or scoring
sheet that says you're in if this and
you're out if that. It is really largely
quite subjective in terms of how a
particular application uh conforms with
our our our land use plans. Um and and
so here we are talking about drawing
lines in the zoning. And the general
concept of zoning is that the county has
stood back and said we want to do
residential over here, we want to do
commercial over here, we want to do
industrial over there. And in order to advance the county development in in
an orderly and systematic way for the
welfare of our citizens, uh then if we
can draw a line, of course, you have to
decide where one land use stops and
another one starts. And and that's often a challenge. You got to
draw the line somewhere and that's true
of regulations and that's always
difficult but that is what is before us
in this application. So the first point
I'd make is one that we've emphasized
before. We are not being asked to
approve an RV storage facility within an
existing commercial zone. We are being
asked to redraw the existing line
between commercial land uses and
residential agricultural land uses to
move 57 acres from residential to
commercial use. So, we should remind
ourselves that a commercial zoning, this
is picking up on a statement was made
earlier, allows by right and and you
don't get a second bite at the apple.
So, we don't get to say, "Oh, we didn't
really like that particular proposal. If
it's within the parameters of the zone,
then then it's a it's one has the right
to do that with very little uh
modification from us. You look at our
land use table in commercial zones
includes recorder services. I'm just
quoting from the land use table. Bowling
alleys, nurseries, hotels, lumber yards,
TV stations, supermarkets,
uh, vet clinics, RV parks, and not
necessarily RV storage facilities. Um,
and and all of that is what is then
encompassed within a commercial
designation. And all of that is what we
are potentially improving. Interesting
that Mr. Kaduri just bought this this
land three months ago. He could walk out
of the meeting today and and sell it to
someone with very very different plans.
So we need to make that decision based
on the zoning. Now where do we look for
guidance for that decision is to our
land use plans. Those are guidance not
commandments as our staff points out to
it. But the point is that the county has
addressed these kinds of issues in a in
a general sense before and come up with uh guidance from which when I do
that I come up with the opposite
conclusion from staff. Uh so let's let's
just go through those quickly. The first
thing to consider is our existing
zoning. At some point the county tagged
this parcel as most appropriately
developed for residential use. Now to be
fair that that wasn't part of a comp
plan. Our zoning precedes our comp plan
or at least portions of it do. So it's
something of a stretch to say we thought
it all very carefully through and and
tagged this as as residential. It was
more of an inventory. But still there
was a policy statement made that the
county liked things the way they were
and let's hang on to that unless we have
a good reason to change it
and we should have that change. The the residential and a zones should not
be just considered holding patterns
until we come up with something better
to do with the with the parcel. Those
are an affirmative statement of what we
think is best what the county thinks is
best used. Now I thought it was
interesting that the application the
applicant himself identified the value
of the existing zoning for quoting from
the application anything left over from
the development of the 57 acres quote
will be preserved in its natural state
maintaining wildlife habitat natural
drainage patterns and rural open space
character. Good points all. So why are
we offering to change those good points?
Mr. Kaduri bought the land under
residential zoning.
From last month's important Wyoming
Supreme Court decision, I'll quote, "An
expectation that property may be
subdivided or reszoned in the future is
not a vested property right. One has a
property right only in existing land
uses and not in prospective land uses.
So, we are not depriving the applicant
of anything that they have by leaving
the zoning as is. Okay. Now, let's look
at the comp plan. That's a more formal
statement, an affirmative statement of
what the county goals and objectives
were. As Mr. Gers pointed out, this is
in priority growth area three. Quote,
will be generally large lots, single
family homes, possibly with small
convenienceoriented commercial uses. A
57 acre RV and boat storage facility is
not a small convenienceoriented use in
my book.
Now, the comp plan
identifies some rural commercial land
use nearby as a possibility, but there
again, it's for small commercial
businesses that cater primarily to users
from the surrounding areas. I'm quoting
from the report. Buildings should be
small scale to relate to to surrounding
residences. Again, this does not
describe a 57 acre reszoning from
residential to commercial.
Third, we have the area growth plan
which adopted by the county a couple
years ago. I guess in that plan, the
county affirmatively tagged this area as
appropriate for estate residential.
Now, the staff report notes that there
in the growth plan also talks about
neighborhood commercial in the area to
the west. But even so, this is not
neighborhood commercial project.
Finally, the staff report points out
that the major street plan approved by
the county foresees a someday extension
of 15th Street south in the direction of
this property. That's true, but this
parcel would lie east and south of that
extension. and 15th 15th Street like
Soldier Springs and the railroad is a
logical and orderly place to transition
from commercial uses to the west and
then residential
uh uses to the east. So all this goes to
the compatibility with the previously
adopted land use plans and to
compatibility with the surrounding land
use. The staff report points to a couple
of small commercially zoned lots nearby.
Those are the red ones on the map you're
looking at. And says the majority of the
north half of the property abuts
commercial zone property to the west.
Well, that that's not even correct as
written. If you chop the the north half
off, it's there's a piece that's
commercial, it's residential, and
agricultural. When I run the numbers on
abuing properties, 78% of the abuing
property is either residential or
agricultural. Agriculture, the biggest
piece, the one off to the to the east
there, uh, is far and away the the
biggest one.
Then I would also point out that if if
touching a particular zone is
adequate reason to do the reszone, then
you really don't have any lines at all.
You just set yourself up for a a step by
step chewing through the county. This
one's commercial. That justifies the
next one being commercial. That
justifies the next one being commercial.
And all you've done instead of drawing
lines between your commercial industrial
areas and your residential areas is say
we're going to to move that line piece
by piece like like Pac-Man chew and his
way through the county. Uh now the staff
report has chosen to stand on this
particular parcel and look west across
Soldier Springs Road and across railroad
tracks where one finds arguably
compatible use. But if one stands on the
property and looks east or north or
south, they see open ground just the
sort of land in its natural state that
the applicant himself praises.
Finally, I would point out that we are
faced with a very we were faced with
very similar much smaller application by
this applicant just last October. In
that case, it was anchored by a small
piece of commercial, the mini golf
course there on the corner of 15th and
Skyline, and he asked to reszone the 12
acres immediately south of that from
residential to commercial. And that's
that kind of Utah shaped piece that's
just one parcel removed north of the one
we're looking at. This commission split
two two on the application and one of
the reasons I was interested in
attending the meeting was so that we'd
avoided a a potential tie which was
inconvenient for everybody. One side in
that discussion was looking at our land
use plans and the existing city
neighborhood on South 18th Street. Uh
that's the part in gray that you see off
to the east there. And we argued that
the 15th Street was the logical break in
zoning. the other side noting that the
commercial zoning had already jumped
15th Street with the golf course. 12
acres wasn't that big a deal and the
county commission ultimately went along
with the reszoning.
I continue to think that Soldier Springs
Road and the railroad and the present
and future 15th Street are logical and
appropriate boundaries for commercial
and industrial zones to the west and
residential zones to the east. Um the earlier testimony by Mr. was a
little bit disappointing to me in that
it seems so casual. He's having
difficulty maintaining discipline of who
parks on the 15 acres north. So, let's
go ahead and throw in another 57 acres
of commercial property. Now, maybe I'm
casting that as too casual, but I did
not hear in that any compelling reason
that we should take 57 acres out of
residential zoning and turn it into
commercial zoning. So, consistent with
the existing zoning, with the adopted
county comprehensive plan, with the
adopted clermy area growth plan, and I
would argue even with the adopted major
street plan, I agree with comments we've
received from both the neighbors who
attended here this evening and those
who've written to us. Uh, and I would
point out that the city of Laram is
itself a very important neighbor in this
area. Uh, therefore, Mr. Chair, I move
that ZDA 0306 be recommended for denial
based on incompatibility with the
comprehensive plan, the growth plan, and
the land uses in the great majority of
the surrounding area. Thank you for your
patience.
>> Okay. Uh well, is there a second for
this motion?
>> A second.
Okay, we will have further discussion.
Dan, having a motion on the table that
has been seconded. Um,
Rob,
>> yes, I have a question for the staff.
[snorts] Um, [clears throat]
the thing that jumped to me uh as a
problematic was the 50 the size the 57
although that's a huge area. Uh, even
for parking hundreds and hundreds of
RVs. Uh, what are the chances of a
subdivision?
Well, is there a way to
um subdivide the lot to make it only
partial commercial? What what what's the
options?
>> Um yeah, absolutely. They could request
a subdivision. Right now, the way that
it stands, they could actually get 11
lots out of out of that ranch at area.
um which again is not just to point out
that that wouldn't meet the what the
growth plan is is purporting. They're wanting to have um three three
dwellings per lot which it wouldn't meet
that. So, you know, just just point that
out. Um but but yeah, they could divide
it. Yeah, that's that's something that
they could do. Um obviously have to do
engineering and surveying and all that
stuff and do the reports that are
required to do that. Um and then
obviously has to go through this process
and be approved formally by the board of
county commissioners. But that's an
option.
>> That's an option. Okay.
>> Anything else?
>> Barb,
>> uh I agree with Moras and Ashley Burn.
Um for one, I think that's a huge lot to
uh develop commercially.
» Anything else?
>> No.
Correct.
>> I think it is way too much to develop
commercially and it's a huge change over
the area. Um,
it was originally residential. It's a
residential now. That's what people are
used to and I'm not sure I have the right view on
this, but I do believe that I'm here to
represent what I hear from the people
and the public and what what I see and
what I think is right and wrong.
I don't think this entire 57 acres is a
good idea to have it commercial.
If it was a smaller portion, it might be
more manageable from the standpoint of
how many large buildings. What one of
the concerns was they're putting an 80
by 200 foot building. It's 20 ft high
now and it says for starters or
something along those lines. I can
understand not wanting to see 25 or 30
buildings out there on 57 acres or even
more. So I I think I think this is too
much land to change over
to commercial.
Anything else? No, I'm good.
Well,
I'm going to offer a slightly different
perspective.
Um,
I'll say that had this come before us 12
months ago or even six months ago, uh, I
would inclined to automatically say
or recommend denial of this based purely
on a land rate growth area plan. So, it
shows is a state residential,
but
there's a problem with that.
growth plan was adopted three years ago
and at some point it either needs to be
implemented or not and at some point
enough time has passed by when if it's
not implemented I question whether it
has any applicable validity today
and um so I I wonder about that and it
was three years ago right I think it was
adopted in August three years ago
>> sure
>> I think it's right [clears throat]
>> well I'm looking to you if I'm wrong.
[laughter]
You have to look it up. And the last
significant action that I can remember
having been taken on the plan was an IG
agreement that went to the county
commissioners for either approval or
acceptance or decline. They declined to
sign that document
and as far as I'm aware, nothing has
happened since then. I mean, is that
more or less correct, David? I mean, has
there been any work on of UIG either
from the county or the city.
>> Um, no, it's still being talked about
from time to time.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, and you know to your point that
the implementation hasn't necessarily
occurred. We are using it to analyze
these projects that come come through
the through the door. So, it's not that
it's not being used.
>> Well, the plan is originally conceived
was in three parts. The basic first part
was the conceptual plan which was
adopted.
the IGA which is supposed to follow on
which is supposed to lead to
implementation in the regulations and a
granular analysis of a map to determine
exactly where these different zonings
actually physically you know were
delineated by Brazilian property
boundaries. Right now we have a
conceptual map where like the Caduri
property is clearly in the middle of a
state residential but we don't know
where that state's residential zoning
area actually ends.
Um, and I'll come back to that.
Um, I mean, have the county
commissioners at all given you any kind
of direction to approval the plan or do
anything at all in the past year?
>> No.
And have you heard anything from
senior leadership from the city, which I
don't include to be city manager,
mayor, or city council?
>> Nothing like official.
>> Yeah.
Um,
so I mean if nothing sub substantive has
happened in over a year now
and there's nothing on going right now
and there's no realistic prospect
anything's going to happen soon
or even the next year or two or three
years. Uh, I wonder how we can use a
plan in an adverse manner for a property
owner who does enjoy property rights.
And I'll point out two problems that
exist as things stand right now because
this has not been implemented
regulation. Um you can compare property
that's in the middle of one of these
zings in this case Dr. Converge property
which clearly in the library growth area
plan identified as future estate
residential versus a similar property at
the edge of this zoning district. And
how do you determine whether or not
that's in or out?
It's pretty clear to me that those two
properties would be handled in a
potentially disparit manner. They would
have to be and I don't think that's
fair.
And then if this plan were fully imp
implemented at some point in the future,
there would be in regulation some
process for amending this map and
revising it. That's mentioned in the
conceptual part of the plan. It's been
talked right now by the city and the
council. But presumably there would also
be an element or mechanism whereby a
property owner could seek relief for an
amendment on the map as well just like
as we have now you know to do the same
with the zoning district amendment in
our current resolution for county
property right now there's no no
prospect of that so if Dr. Gadori will
want to invent the map right now or some
other property owner seeking to gain
approval for some sort of development.
What do they do? They're in limbo. And
again, I see that as quite unfair.
And again, I I just as I started out,
had it been six months ago or 12 months
ago, I would have still had faith that
something might happen. And I have been
as big a proponent of polar rhyth.
But nothing but realistically nothing is
happening. And there's no realistic
chance anytime soon.
>> I am holding on. I'm just letting you
know I have something to say.
>> Yeah. Um
[clears throat]
and I'll just say personally I think
were up to me. I would reserve this
property for us. I I identify as
property near to town. Uh once 15th
Street is extended all the way out. Uh
it's an easy commute on bike or I won't
say easy on foot but anyway on bike or
whatn not to the center of town and I
think a storage facility like this could
be just as well positioned five or 10
miles out somewhere where community
times don't matter
but uh if I set aside growth area plan
as a reason to look at this adversely
then I'm left with the findings
and you've made the findings and you
said all the findings been satis I
thought your analysis was thorough and
on point.
And I will ask Matt,
I presume you review all these
applications and you look at the staff
analysis.
>> I did in this instance. Yeah,
>> you did. And did you have any any
problems or qualms with the findings
that whether they're met or not?
» Yeah, those are really the policy
determinations that are that are up to
planning and zoning commission and the
board. Now, well, my view was the
analysis was was was solid and that uh
the application was an excellent
application and we we've seen a lot of
applications and and some are frankly
fairly crude. Uh but this is quite
detailed
and I look at the findings and I think
the findings are all met and therefore
I believe we should recommend approval
of this.
You're going to go ahead.
>> Thank you. So when we look at the growth
plan, we look at what we are facing as a
community, I think we need to take into
account that we are facing a housing
crisis.
And every parcel of land that we convert
from potential housing
into something that is not housing, we
are betraying our community.
We are taking a lot of people say what
can county commissioners do for housing
and my uh response to people who ask me
that is the county doesn't own a
[laughter] lot of land. We can't
allocate land for housing. We can't
build housing co-ops like they do in
Teton County and other places. Alvin
County, the county doesn't own land. The
only thing we can do is we can change
the zoning to uh to to be uh more commen
uh possible
development as housing. And this is a
classic case where we have the
opportunity to um turn a parcel of land
into ranchets. not high density, taking
into account the neighbor's concerns,
but also addressing some of the city of
Laramie and Albany County
uh housing crisis. So uh just based on
that I would say we should uh deny this
application and encourage the to think
about how can we uh do something for h
for the to address the housing crisis.
And just as an aside we are working on
creating these co-ops right now in
Albony County and the city of Larmy and
trying to get funding mechanisms for
them. So it may be a better approach for
disposal. Thank you.
>> Well,
one more thing and then I'll recognize
you. How about that? Um I think prices
is a little bit overall. I would say
housing problem and and otherwise agree
with you and I also point out that state
residential is not an opposed to
affordable housing. So that's not going
to solve much of anything in terms of
affordable housing. Burn, please go
ahead.
>> I didn't call it the housing crisis. It
wasn't my wording. I'm just quoting.
>> All right, that's fine.
>> Okay,
>> let me know that she's quoting housing
crisis and [laughter]
>> there are many who call it a crisis. No,
but responding to your comments, Mr. M,
with all due respect, Mr. Chair, I
disagree. First of all, the Larmy area
growth plan is an adopted land use plan
and as Mr. Gers pointed out, it's being
implemented every day just as the
comprehensive plan is. Now there are
other things that could be done to
implement it by say reszoning the county
but it stands as a fully authorized
statement by the county commission
saying this is how we want this to grow
like any other land use plan. So it is
in incorrect to say it is not being
implemented. There's more one could do.
If the county commissioners wanted to
renounce the thing they could do that by a simple vote. So it is incorrect to
say that the Larameir growth plan is
irrelevant to our decisions. It is in
fact one of our guiding documents.
Furthermore and perhaps more importantly
we have the comprehensive plan itself
that does not contemplate this being
commercial. In fact describes it as PGA3
which is it's largely residential and
large lot residential. We have PGAS one
and two that are part of the plan. This
isn't part of that. we have the existing
zoning as we see on our map. So to
suggest that that the lur area growth
plan is the only reason not to to just
simply reszone things uh as some
applicant comes forward that's I say
that's just incorrect. Now as far as the
staff analysis I'm not arguing that they
did an inadequate analysis but but
virtually everything in that analysis is
completely subjective.
They didn't say here's this and here's
this and add two and we end up with
four. Their opinion was that this was
compatible. My opinion is that it is not
compatible particularly given 57 acres
and particularly given the general land
use patterns of the area where we have
commercial and industrial uh uses
concentrated on the west side of 28 of Soldier Springs Road and the
railroad. We have residential areas and
open areas that we value highly in this
county extending completely to the crest
of the mountain if we'd look to the
east. We are fully capable and
authorized to assess compatibility and I
encourage my fellow commissioners to
assess that compatibility to be
represented by the existing zoning
backed up by the comprehensive plan the
larary growth plan if you care to use
it. but it does not stand or fall on the status of the Laria growth plan.
So, I would encourage a a favorable vote
on my motion. Thank you.
I
>> I'll just push back on one thing. Uh I
think it's clear that the plan provided
to us by the consultants and adopted by
the county envision implementation as a
plan into regulation.
Uh and with that, I've said everything I feel like I wanted to say. Is there
any further discussion?
>> The other thing I'd like to add is we
did
a couple months ago we were talking
about on Two Rivers Road where we
actually allowed
to be smaller lots and part of their
argument or their presentation was we
need to have more available areas for
putting housing in. Um lowcost housing
is an oxymoron.
uh it doesn't exist anymore with current
costs, but having property that is
residentially zoned gives people the
opportunity to say, I want to live on
the north side of town or I want to live
on the south side. And if we do away
with that, we are closing
we're closing down housing to people who
would who may want to move here and make
their lives here and their families
lives.
Um,
>> that's all I had to say. Anyone else?
Okay. Well, fair enough. We will conduct
a vote. Roll call. Barb, how about you?
>> Do we need to read?
>> Uh, I I vote to deny the
>> Wait, we need to read the actual
>> Yes, we do. Thank you, Mor.
>> You're welcome.
>> Would you care to read that?
>> I will do that.
>> Yeah, I my motion included that, Mr.
Chair.
>> Uh, it won't hurt to reread the motion
in any way. Go ahead and and if you
agree with this then we'll move forward.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. It it it certainly won't hurt you.
Make sure we don't Yeah. To make your
life easy, uh, we [clears throat]
recommend to the board of county
commissioners deny the Kadori zoning
district amendment ZDA0326
based upon the applicant's failure to
demonstrate that the proposed zoning
district amendment complies with the
criteria specific uh to ACZL chapter 3
section 5. Um and I don't know which
subsection is this but as follows this
is all um this is a residential area or
zone residential and converting it into
commercial or it's reduce housing uh
potential for the county.
>> Okay. Any questions about the motion?
>> No. All right. Matt, uh, that does not
get to any required finding, which is
your basis for approval.
>> Okay. I'm sorry, Bernie, you had the the
correct
>> the the motion that's on the the floor.
as we can craft it otherwise was I move
that ZDA 0326 be recommended for denial
based on incompatibility with the
comprehensive plan with the growth plan
and with land uses in the great majority
of the surrounding area
>> is that okay match
>> okay so
» so Barb how do you vote
» [clears throat]
>> I vote to deny the proposal.
>> Burn.
>> I vote yes on the motion which is to
deny the proposal.
>> We understand. Craig,
>> I vote yes.
>> Rough.
>> Yes.
>> And I vote no. So that motion carries.
Uh and thank you for everyone for your
input.
>> Thank you.
>> Do we feel we need a break?
>> No, we don't feel we need a break. All
right. In that case, we will move on to
the next item which is the item we
inserted
uh which we will have a bit of a
discussion on data centers.
Uh this is not there's no form or
pattern or anything to this. So
we will just have a open discussion for
as long as I feel like we're
accomplishing something [clears throat]
and then I'll call.
>> Okay. Um,
>> David, is is there by any chance?
>> Is there anything you'd like to lead off
with?
>> Um, may I put you on the spot so you
don't have to
>> for data center stuff?
>> Um, I know you attended the city meeting
or the joint meeting yesterday,
>> right? Um, I would just say that the
public um, showed up um, and it was a
good meeting. I think there's some good
information they're provided by city
staff. Um both city and county staff
obviously provided information about
where we are in our regulations and what
we can and can't do when it comes to
data centers. Um both both entities need
to work on those I believe. Um
and I think we just heard a lot of good feedback on data centers. Um the
things that the public do not like about
them and some of the things that the
public do like about them. Um, and I
would just mention that that county
staff is working on um potential
regulatory changes um which you will see
here in the next
meeting. Just depends on if we can get
some of the details figured out which
we're working diligently on and
hopefully moving forward that. So,
>> okay. Uh, and Burn and Raf, either one
of you, uh, you all both, as I
understand, attended a meeting hosted by
someone from the Sierra Club local
chapter.
>> I would like to add Yeah, I would like
to add some Oh,
>> sure. Go ahead.
>> to what uh the meeting last night was
about. Uh, so as uh Dave mentioned, uh,
sorry, Mr. Burge, [laughter]
uh, the room was packed. Well, it uh was
standing room only and even standing
room
was packed. The room was absolutely
packed. Uh the uh main
things that came uh uh in the meeting is
that within the city limits of Laramie
there is not a really good site for a
data center. We are not talking about
the the University of Wyoming computer
or not even the superco computer. We're
talking about hypers scale data centers.
That's a concern of people and there is
just not enough land within the city of
Larmy to accommodate a hypers scale this
data center which is something that we
have known. So basically the
responsibility for regulating the data
centers falls on to Albany county
commissioners.
And why is that? We have the space and
um there is a potential loophole in the
state regulation, the state statutes
that transfers the responsibility to um
to the county and that is by creating by
us creating a zoning category called
indust industrial park.
And in our uh uh current statutes, if
you have an industrial park in Albany
County,
you uh have the right
then the the uh the right to build uh a
data set, hypers scale data set on that
parcel without going through the
industrial sighting of the state.
And that is the thing that caused a lot
of grief and aggravation to people in
the audience. Uh most of the
presentations
that we heard last night were in
opposition to data to settle. Uh few uh
were in support
>> presentations or comments?
>> Comments from the public.
>> Yeah,
>> the staff did not. Uh the staff
presented very as Dave mentioned very
nice. I'll just uh add something that uh I heard from M uh Director
Smith, the water department, but I'll
mention it in a minute. Most of the
public comments were in opposition, a
few were in support largely because of
the potential uh revenue and income from
uh something like that. But the main
concerns that people in addition to
being concerned about uh being concerned
about the uh power, the electricity, the
water, um discussion of what is a a
closed cooling system, yes or no. People
also talked about uh uh the fact that we
don't we can't trust these large
corporation. People brought examples
from other places in the United States
and abroad of cases where this
corporation lied about what they're
going to do, got permits based on that
and then did something else. So there
were a lot of uh there was a lot of
stress and aggravation.
The bottom line of that I don't I'm not
going to repeat all these. I'm just
going to say that uh at the end of the
uh public hearing, the public comments,
city council, the mayor asked the staff
to consider a moratorum.
They said that uh they want to learn
more and they wanted to learn more about
uh what are the implications for the
community. One of the things that
director Smith has brought up and this
is something that I have been talking
about before we talked about this data
center is uh water availability and
delivery. If you all remember the
presentation I gave to you several in
April about water problems that we may
face. uh uh director Smith said that his
concern is whether we will be able to
supply water for the city of Larmy if we
have data centers coming to the valley
and he said I don't want to think about
this year I want you to think about the
next 10 years and uh as Bern knows uh I
have been very concerned about water and
the aquifer not so much the river uh
because there are no regulations that uh
can stop any industrial and it's not
necessarily data center. There are no
regulations that say when do you stop
drawing water from the aquifer. So we
have the overlay zone and the overlay
zone is mostly protecting from
contamination and that's why I put the
lot sizes and the Supreme Court
supported that. that really anyone can
go to the state engineers's office and
ask for a permit to drill a well and
just drain the aquifer down. Now, we
have a really nice aquifer. No, no
concerns at the current use, but these
data centers are uh huge. Even with
closed loop systems, I've seen values
that are unimaginable with what we have.
And so what I my next step would be and
hopefully we can discuss that further is there a level of the aquifill draw
down where we say stop
drawing water for industrial use. It's
all going to go to human consumption.
But that's in in a thing and and
[clears throat] director Smith basically
addressed that in his concern. Now the
city can put any moratoriums they want.
No one is going to build a hypers scale
data center within city limits. So
basically this comes to us to the county
and that's something that we need to
discuss and decide on. Do we want to
take responsibility for monitoring and
regulating a hypers scale data center or
multiple data centers in Alburn County?
Do we have the capacity to monitor noise
pollution? Do we have the capacity to
monitor traffic? Do we have the capacity
to monitor heat? And the truth of the
matter is we don't even have money for
our road and bridge. [laughter]
So to add stress on to what we can do
doesn't seem logical to me. Um but we
need to discuss this further and uh
that's why I suggest and would suggest
to the county commissioners
uh to put a moratorum in the county in
parallel to what the city council is
planning on to make sure that we
understand what can happen and how can
we monitor what happens in an industrial
park.
Do you want me to continue on what
happened the week before [laughter] or
>> would you like to say anything about
what last week's meeting first or not?
>> Oh, just just a couple of thoughts to
add and we don't need to belver it. One
was
been hearkening back to something that
I've said when we brought this first
before our commission is we need to
define data centers. So I'm encouraged
by the fact that the discussion now are changing the term. They're talking
about hypers scale data centers and and
AI data centers. So, I haven't heard
clear lines drawn, but I'm encouraged
that people who are working on this are
cognizant of the fact that, you know,
two guys in the bottom with a gaming
computer ain't a data center, and we're
only talking about the big ones. So,
that's that's an encouraging move
forward. Um,
a question that was asked at the meeting
I attended, which I thought was a good
one, is if you're going to have a
moratorum, you need to decide what
you're going to do with it. Uh, there's
a tendency to just have a moratorum
because we're nervous. So I would
encourage anything that anyone's
thinking about a moratorum that they be
challenged to say okay I'll give you a
year what are you going to do most
constructively with the year what is it
that you need to have resolved to move
forward so I don't think we should be
applying uh moratoriums casually or
kicking the can down the road if we did
that at all and that's what's really
missing now and is beginning to mature
in the discussion is what are the
realistic issues both pro and on the
other thing that we hear very little
about that I I if we're going to be
decision makers, it's balancing is is
what what do these things bring to the
community? Are the tax structures such
that they they will improve the quality
of our schools and our roads and and
retire our our infrastructure needs? Is
that realistic? What is it that we're
weighing their very real impacts
against? And I would not prejudge that their uh impacts exceed the
benefits. We need to research both sides
of that equation. That's my only two
bits worth.
>> Would you like to add anything about
that meeting?
>> Yes.
>> Then we'll go around and take some other
time.
>> Sure. Absolutely. So, so uh one thing
that have been brought up in both
meetings is what is called community
benefits agreements. And everybody I
think in both meetings was very much in
favor. In fact, in the Wednesday
meeting, uh people came up with a a
great list of excellent proposals for
what if if someone comes to us, what are
we going to require from them in in
order to approve a data center. So I
think there is a a great uh progression
in that and people are people are
thinking and another thing about the
mortorium of the city. The city asked
the mayor asked the staff to tell what
length of moratorum and what kind of
data they need to collect in order to so
that was super uh um informative for you
know the city is not going to put a
moratorum without knowing exactly what
data points they're going to collect. I
think that's excellent. I'll make one
comment and then go to Greg and Bern I
mean Barb for anything you might want to
say as we continue around with regards
to city moratorum. I just think it's
interesting given the fact there's no
place in the city where a hyper be
built. So what's the point? I mean there
might be some point in satisfying some
citizen
that's going to be built within city
limits or even adjacent city. Uh so
[laughter]
all right uh with that any thoughts
you'd like to offer?
>> Just that we need to balance things very
carefully on this. Uh I've seen articles
that they're going to put huge solar
farms next to the data centers. So the
data center is not going to run at
night.
I mean it's just something to think
about. We need to not rush into this
places that have have had some very
adverse effects on their communities.
So please think about it and let's not
just do the oh it's going to be a great
thing. We need to think about it and
moratorium should not be a well no nope
data centers for the next 50 years. It's
ridiculous. We need to set a realistic
time span of all right there's a
moratorum for 18 months or 24 months
until data can be put together to pro
disprove your theories of or your fears
or to prove that it's a manageable
problem whether it's water power land
the whole thing. We need to think about
this very carefully and we need to
really
we need to get as much input as we can
from reliable sources.
That's it. Barb, you have a comments you
like to make?
>> Well, I'm all for bringing, you know,
economic development into uh the area,
but wi with caution. So, you know, I'd
be concerned about power structure, uh,
use of our water resources, and also
hazardous waste, which has been some
things that the Cheyenne Breley area
have had to, uh, you know, battle
recently. So, there's there's real
concerns about um, those structures.
» Anything else?
>> Can I just add something?
>> Sure.
>> Uh, the chair is correct. There is
absolutely no place within city limits
because what we're talking about right
now for hypers scale data centers is 600
acres
>> of building of building not even in the
surrounding area. They build them on 600
and more acres. So there's no 600 acres.
>> It's a it's a square mile.
>> Yeah. Basically. [laughter]
>> So yeah. So ch is correct in a a
mortorium in a city is not going to do
anything. It's it's basically the ball
in our court.
>> Well um I think some public would like
to make comments.
>> I am going to actually first go to
someone else. I am noting it that
Commissioner Jones is here with us. Uh
Terry, is there anything you like to
say?
>> Sure.
Um I think it's important to note that
if
um we use the industrial sighting and we
use their option
to do um industrial park.
That park is still regulated by
industrial sighting. And to imply that
industrial sighting is not part of that
industrial park is absolutely wrong.
Industrial sighting is in this whole
thing through the whole process.
Nobody's skipping out on anything.
And you need to get your pro your uh
information correct.
>> Thank you. I will. Um, I'm going to make
a few comments and then I think how does
the commission feel about taking some
comments from the public?
>> I'm in favor.
Mark.
>> Yeah.
>> Bern,
what's the question?
>> You'll take a few comments from the
public. We do have
>> No, no, no, no. That's fine. Uh, if
you've got the time, let's go for it.
Then I'll make some comments and then
we'll invite the public to uh step
forward and say what they might like to
say. Um I've taken in this past month
since our last meeting some time to take
a look at industrial sighting council
and try to understand what they do, what
sort of options we have in front of us
and and what sort of the practicalities
of what we're facing are. And I think I
have a better understanding now. Um, and
Matt, if I say something which you know
is contrary to regulation, you can
correct me. You will correct me.
Um, but here is what I understand to be
the case.
The industrial sighting council and
regulations kick in when a large scale
project over a certain threshold of mon
monetary expenditure is exceeded. Right
now it's between 283 million and $29
million. So something large.
[clears throat] And the intent there to
make sure that a large project receives
a very careful
amount of rigorous exhaustive scrutiny
which may not be handled uh or be able
to be handled by at least some of the
counties and say the district won't have
the staff or the resource to do that. So
it is not something meant to subvert
county planning and county regulation
but to supplement it to make sure that
this is something good uh you know if
something's going to be approved and
ultimately what they do uh is they would
be the ones to use your construction
permit. So that is the one thing that
comes working with county as I
understand it or the industrial science
council for those projects but otherwise
all of our regulations both zoning and
other processes still apply and they all
have to be satisfied by any application
goes forward right now in the county and
here you can correct me I think there
are only a couple of large parcels of
land some industrial and I can think of
the municipal waste or the land dump um
city water treatment plant. The land
occupied by Mount Rocky Mountain Cement
or Mountain Cement.
And um there are two parcels of about
200 acres a piece south of I80 sort of
northwest of town miles out that were
and they still are uh zone industrial
presumably because it's area of oil
wells and some production facilities
there. And I think that's it in terms of
larger parcels and all of those I mean
the largest would be the would be those
two parcels put together four acres are
in fact too small for what we're talking
about for a hyper scale center mega
center. So the reality is right now if a
developer walked in the door and said we
want to uh put up a hyper center and we
collectively citizens staff this
commission county commissioner said no
hell no there's nothing they can do they
they've got to get approval from us in
addition to whatever happens at district
council
the loophole that exists for the wrong reasons in my mind
and that would be if the county were to
uh designate and um regulations to
create industrial park that would
actually create a site which is more
shuttle ready for something happen which
would bypass the industrial sighting
council which if you were worried about
bad things happening you would not want
to happen.
So that would be the kind of thing you
would do if you wanted to expedite or
speed up some large scale process
because you or for whatever reason. Uh
so uh if there was any you know urge to
hastily designate some provisions in
Arizona resolution to create industrial
parks I don't think that'd be a great
idea. Um and uh I will add on two other
things which are uh here too if someone
shows up in county mar and wants to
build a hypers scale facility they're
looking at very very long lead times
they would have to work through walking
mountain power walking on power today
could not begin to satisfy their needs
redundant power supply it's a very
expensive process I mean not these you
know things like that I google what I
couldn't find it but it's very expensive
it's lot of casual expenditure and again
it takes a long time to get these things
underway and it works.
>> So I don't think we face anything urgent
at all. I certainly don't see that we
needed more toward it. I mean it doesn't
accomplish anything because nothing's
going to happen anytime soon. Um
[sighs and gasps]
yeah I'll just emphasize one more time.
If you look at the permitting process,
industrial signing council, you go
online, you can look on actual permit.
You can actually see like for instance
the real time permit. You can look at
the most current permit which is just
approved January July 13th what these
things are extremely rigorous. They're
exhaustive. They've got to be expensive
put together. Very time consuming. Uh
there is a time limit by which the
industrial sighting council is supposed
to move an act on a permit. But from
further reading I don't know if it's
true or not it is often exceeded. Um,
so, uh, yeah, I just don't think we face
anything urgent that we've got to either
do right now or tomorrow, otherwise
we're screwed. So, with that, I'll be h
Well, Matt, you want to say something?
>> Yeah. Um,
so I think that there
are some clarifications that need to be
made about the entire system in general.
Um so wind energy is its own beast. Um
in that instance the legislature passed
statutory structure in which wind and
solar energy facilities commercial
anyway are concurrently
um permitted by the counties uh and
state industrial sighting council.
Uh for anything that is under the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Sighting
Council, 3512115A
states that no uh no local government
may require any approval, consent,
permit, certificate or other condition
for the construction, operation or
maintenance of a facility authorized by
permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
I think that that is um pretty clear
statutory language that if
ISC is permitting an industrial
facility,
local government has no room for
asserting its zoning regulations. Well,
I read something different and I'll just
read you what I've read and I'm not
saying you're wrong and I'm not saying
right. I'm just going to read you what I
found. Uh two paragraphs. The Wyom
Industrial Sighting Council evaluates
regional social and economic impacts,
but a project cannot proceed unless it
also complies with all local zoning
laws, building codes, and land use
plans. And then addition to that, how
the dual permitting authority work uh
compliance mandate. Um this it's not
really the word quite right, but anyway,
under ISC rules, an industrial facility
is only considered design in compliance
if it meets all APA local zoning and
health and safety ordinances.
And um yeah, so but that was from the uh
ISC's
regulations.
>> Uh this was quoted from I guess I'll say
just a legal source or legal authority
and not directly from actually some of
this came from um the ISA website at
DEQ. So it's a mix of stuff, man.
>> Okay. because that that first
um
that first part that you quoted
uh I have not seen that in anything
outside of the context of wind
>> and then I'll also add if you go and
look I mean there's a whole bunch of
permits online you can look at you can
see where there are sections basically
checklist where you know things need to
comply with local zoning and and so on
forth or not I mean so it's clearly
being looked at
>> it's being looked at
>> but I'm not sure if that is a
requirement,
>> something that ISC will make a basis of
denying.
>> So I'm I'm saying I believe it is and
I'm also saying I could be wrong.
>> Okay.
>> So there's an important qualifier. I
admit that. But I believe this is
correct.
>> Okay. Well then secondly, I think that
loophole is
a bit of a misnomer. Um loophole is
generally defined as
an ambiguity or omission uh in the text
through which the intent of a statute
may be evaded. Mhm.
>> It was explicitly provided, which is the
most readily apparent source of the
intent of a statute, that non-mineral
processing facilities to be constructed
in existing industrial parks as
designated by local governments are
exempt from paying fees or from payment
of fees and certification
procedures, but shall furnish the
information required
uh under statute. So if it takes place
in a local government designated
industrial park, there is no ISC permit.
The only thing that
someone an industrial facility has to
apply to or provide to ISC is a
description of the nature and location
of the facility, estimated time of
commencement uh of construction and
construction time, an estimated numbers
and job classifications
uh during the construction phase and
operating life of the facility. And I I
think in this context a loophole has
been used as it's commonly used. If a
corporation wished to escape permitting
from the ISC, this would constitute a
loophole. I think it's being used in
that context.
>> Well, it's explicitly allowed under law.
>> Yeah.
>> So, it's the intent of the law to allow
it.
>> Um, it's basically saying that guess the
permitting shifts fully from ISC
>> to the locality. This would be a way for
a corporation to evade the ISC if they
didn't want to move that process.
>> Yes. And they are really not under the
purview of industrial set.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh they're under the purview of DEEQ for
whatever requirements they may have
regarding air quality, water quality,
anything like that. But ISC is largely
out of the picture.
>> So we're we're not really disagreeing
here. No. Yeah.
>> Just points of clarification.
David.
>> Yeah. Can I just add just kind of
sort of along the same vein is that even
if there's a process to create a
industrial zone, I mean all that does is
give the local governments the
opportunity to decide whether that
industrial park zone is is goes into
effect or not.
>> Right. So like if if it's if a data
center wants to come here and they're
hey we need to do this and it goes
through the process the board of county
commissioners can say well I don't want
to establish this I'd rather have them
go through industrial sighting. So just
because there's a process to do it
doesn't mean that the you know the
elected officials the board of county
commissioners is going to elect to do
that.
>> Of course not. So
>> my point is it's just it puts things a
little bit closer in terms of shovel
ready than if it weren't in place.
>> And if you were worried about nefarious
things going up and bribes taking place,
there's [laughter] three county
commissioners. I don't know how much of
a bribe it would take to bribe Terry to
>> a lot more money.
>> A lot.
But that's my point.
>> Do we need it? And I I don't say we need
it. We're talking about data centers
right now. We don't need it. a fool to
have a data center. We can zone the
land, you know, industrial because we
think it's a good idea to do, but I
mean, you can do it also.
We're off. So I understand why we don't
want to use the word loophole but I
think that I support uh Chlat's uh idea
that we do not move forward with
creating industrial even if there is a
lot of mechanisms we can use lateral to
stop things that the public don't we
work for the public um and if the
majority of Albony County residents say
we don't want a data
Even if we think it's a great idea,
that's not up to us. It's not us make.
We are making the decision legally, but
we need to listen to our constituents.
And the point is why make our life
difficult by creating an industrial
talk. Let's go with a with a hard harder
process where people can have input when
people can tell us what they really want
what they're worried about us finding
out if this you know in 5 years there
may not even be cooling systems with
water you know I mean the field is
moving very fast
but we don't have you know it's it I
feel it's our responsibility to listen
to the people of Albany county and right
now and you you're probably right, we
don't have to worry about actually
putting formal moratorum on there, but I
think we should not make it any easier
on anyone.
>> Matt, did you have something else?
» Do you?
>> I don't think so.
>> Let's sit down.
>> Should I have something else?
>> No. I'd like to make a comment.
[laughter]
>> Ma'am, please step to our recognize her
for dinner.
Thank you. Um I [clears throat] was at
that meeting last night. Um and I have
in the past been supportive of data
centers, not hypers scale data centers,
but I run the Wyoming State Science Fair
and ENCAR and the supercomputer have
been supporters for decades of that
program. Um I do see value in small
smaller scale computing. Um the climate
models that came out of those
supercomputers have been fantastic from
ENCAR and and very valuable. Um but I
want to just say ask you today or
implore you today to really consider the
basics of that are necessary for the
quality of human life for life in
general and for quality of human life
and that's clean water means water
without toxins in in it. It means ample
water supply, which we do have for the
population that we have now, but
probably not for growth. Um, it means
water that does not have microplastics
in it. It means clean air that we can
breathe um that we have not had that
this summer um because of wildfires, but
um but we have had that in the past and
maybe there's a chance that we can
continue to have some of the cleanest
air in the country. Um,
if you consider, I would say please
don't consider zoning any parts of the
county for industrial use. Um, once you
open the doors
to opportunities, it's really hard to
close and you can't say no as easily.
So, um, I think opening our county to
that possibility,
um, is harmful in the long run. Um
suppose that
is that door is opened and the
possibility is opened. Um seriously
consider strong restrictions and I don't
know at what level you could do this but
strong restrictions that should a data
center propose to come into the county
that they require that we require they
provide their own water not from our
aquifer not from the aquifer protection
area. um water that they find somewhere
else that they and that does not affect
our water that we need to support our
community, our life. Um I would suggest
that you um require that they produce
their own electricity and not from big
wind farms um like the rail tie, but
from solar panels on their own buildings
um if they are allowed. Again, I
advocate for no industrial sighting. um
zoning in the county period. I think we
need to prioritize our current citizens
um and our current um ranchers and
agriculture.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Nothing much to add. I think u I just
wanted to let you know I spoke to
somebody who runs or works for a data
center. The newest ones don't use water
at all like you mentioned like they're
running on glycol and all those things.
So, and then like you said, the power,
the solar power they harvest, they do
store it and use at night time. So, I
think there are a lot of things like
they have backup power and stuff like
that. And Wyoming has surplus power
obviously. It's not like energy
negative. We always have more than what
we use. So, I just want to let you know
the we currently produce more than we
use. When you're looking at gigawatt
data saying export power,
>> we export power now, but data centers.
>> Yeah. And they tend to eliminate that
extra.
>> Yeah. But they also have a plan in place
because they don't want to have no power
and operate like billions of dollars of
stuff. So they always have their own
source of producing it by solar or
whatever. Like like they won't just come
and say we'll take all your power or
something. So, and I would also
recommend like for the people here in
the committee that if you don't know
what you're voting on, I would like you
to not vote. But I just want you to go
back and learn things or table things,
not just make decisions like,
okay, I just don't like it because
whatever you're deciding is not going to
make anybody's life better if you are
doing it without knowing what you're
doing. I believe Larmy needs more like
businesses to come in. I think we need
to increase the economic activity, not
restrict things to a point where we are
still living 50 years behind everybody
else or something. I just want to make
sure if we are not sure, please don't
say no. Please say I don't know or
something. I just respectfully request.
We definitely all don't know everything
about everything but yeah I just want to
assure you that I mean I also want SL
let me to grow. It's not like and like
you mentioned you guys don't have a lot
of money the reason is you're beating
yourself up by not letting people to
develop anything because let's say if
somebody invests $5 million and they
don't make any money it's their problem.
The county has nothing to lose. But if
you are like saying I won't even give
permission to anybody to come to town or
do anything that's a problem. They will
go somewhere else. It's not like you
will restrict somebody's growth forever.
So
>> I'll just add that uh right now a lot of
governors are putting moratoriums for
example in Texas.
>> Yeah. And uh in Massachusetts they're
putting statewide moratoriums until we
figure things out. So it's not just us
that need to learn. I think all of us
need to learn.
>> I mean I mean I'm specifically saying at
one point in general I want you to have
an open mind to listen
>> and ask more questions. Take your time
and not things in two minutes like
there's no rush you know.
>> Well thank you. Please step forward.
>> Thank you.
>> And who are you?
>> Celeste Tenner.
>> All right Celeste. So, I have concerns
about the data centers. I have
>> We realize you're not alone. [laughter]
>> I don't realize that,
>> right?
>> The uh the county, most of us are not
people who were born and raised here. We
came here for the air. We came here for
the water. We came here for the open
spaces.
This is our savings, if you will. I
would hate to see us be rash with giving
it to someone who has no vested interest
in our community. Um, the hypers scale
data centers are insane as far as the
amount of water, the amount of
electricity.
I live up in Centennial Valley this
year. The people are taking the cattle
off their summer summer rent cattle are
off. The wells are growing dry. There is
not enough water for us. Why on earth
would we
bring in something that would take as
far as my research says
a million gallons a day up to that. So
point being moratorum I I know you don't
particularly like that word but I also
know Morra is dedicated to good
research. We don't have to make any rash
decisions and truly I feel we should do
a lot of research before we get moving
forward on anything like this. Yes,
there there is some economic growth per
se, but how many jobs you know interrupt
you for a second?
>> Nope. Nope. You can't interrupt me for
>> Yes, I can because I'm chairman.
[laughter]
>> You you continue to talk, but just a
question. Have we given you any
impression at all that we are rushing
into something or about to make a rash
decision? No, I'm just telling you my
opinion.
>> Yeah. And were you at the meeting last
night?
>> I was not.
>> You were not. Keep on going.
>> I don't get to town as much as I'd like
to.
>> Point being, I just feel like the con we
can watch. We can watch these other
places with their data centers with
their concerns with Cheyenne and the
water pollution.
We don't have to make a decision
rationally. And I think that that's why
we have you guys in place is so that you
will listen to the people and down the
pike perhaps perhaps it's a good thing
and solar maybe they can have solar to
be brutally honest my house is all solar
and I have lights and computers and
everything at night because it they work
on batteries too. It's not just a
daytime thing. It's a possibility,
>> but um
once these places are in place, what you
know, when you say, "Oh, you know what?
We don't have enough water for you to do
that this year." I highly doubt that
they're going to just go, "Okay." I mean
the amount of money they have invested
for them to have constraints. I would
really like to see ironclad constraints
if that were a situation.
So there you have it.
>> Well, thank you. We appreciate your
comments. Please step forward.
[clears throat]
» No, seriously.
>> I promised I wouldn't yell. I did last
night. Jenny stays.
>> All right.
>> I share the house with my daughter. I
share the property. It
>> we co-own it together. And I would
suggest that
in the future if a data center or any
other large large large large
scale kind of development
um proposed to be here that we say
you pay your own water
and you don't use our water. I would
like our community first put first. You
pay your own disposal.
You pay your own toxic waste disposal.
Glycol doesn't get out of the water.
It's not one of those things that you
can just put a red dye in and it's gone.
It's toxic forever.
I would suggest that you're going to
bring the problem here. You take the
problem away. We're not absorbing your
problem.
>> Thank you.
>> Anyone else?
» All right. Well, we've made a one round
again. Uh, any of you like to comment
any further? B, Barb,
>> no.
Greg,
>> we're off.
>> I just want to thank everybody who sat
through all our previous discussion just
to express the opinion. It's highly
valuable and we appreciate it. It was uh
heartening to see all the people last
night and a week ago and I think that's
great. And one thing that we might
consider if we do face a request for a
data center of a large industrial site
is that we actually uh uh circulate a ballot around the county
where the information is clear and trans
transparent about the benefits and the
costs and uh let the people of the
county decide. not leave it to a
discussion among my highly respected
colleagues, all the county commissioners
that we actually this is such a such a
critical and important issue that we
actually ask everybody in the county
what they want. That would be my
suggestion.
>> Okay, with that
discussion and we will move on to staff
updates.
>> Can we have a little break now? We can
have a little break now.
>> Okay. Uh [laughter]
I will everyone be back in five minutes.
>> Okay.
social gym reporting. Ready to go?
>> Okay. So, uh, our next item is staff
updates. David, and why don't you begin
with introducing our new staff?
>> Sounds good.
>> Um, since we have some new staff.
>> Yeah, Jeremy, come up. This is Jeremy
Grover. He is the new assistant planner
for the planning department. Um started
out approximately
>> like three three two and a half three
weeks ago
>> weeks ago.
>> July 20th was the first day
>> came from Tennessee to go get away from
the heat. Um I don't know actually for a
job probably the humidity
>> humidity but yeah um so you'll see more
of him. He'll be working on some
projects. I think he's got a project
that to present next week. So,
>> um, yeah.
» Thank you.
>> You have any questions for me?
>> I don't.
>> Tell [laughter] us a little bit about
your background.
>> I'm curious. So, I this past May, I
recently graduated from Middle Tennessee
State University, which is in
Murphy'sboro, a you can call it a suburb
of Nashville. Um, with a political
science degree, uh, as well as a
philosophy degree.
>> Um,
and my focus was to get into public
policy of some kind, specifically
planning.
>> Um, urban regional planning has been
something I've been interested in for
quite some time. And living in
Murphy'sboro, it has been in the top 50
fastest growing cities in the country.
The counties within the top 20 usually
and the region was not at all prepared
for it and seeing the strain on
resources um and just everything. I mean
the the city recently just hired on a
couple of additional planners um to try
to cope with it. But one of the best
examples that I saw that they were
unprepared for the level of growth that
they saw that I want future places to be
prepared for is Rutherford County
schools had been opening a brand new
high school that was supposed to help
keep two like that school and another
one under capacity for 5 years. Both
schools were above capacity the day it
opened
>> because more growth happened. And
doesn't seem like that may be a problem
in in this uh county from what I've been
able to see. But I want to help prevent
that from happening just in case.
>> Very good.
>> Thank you.
>> If we have any questions about
Nashville, we'll expect you to answer
them. [laughter]
>> Didn't spend much time there. It was a
bit too busy for me.
>> Real quick announcement. I don't know if
you burn left a message just saying
he'll have to catch up with the
discussion later.
>> Yeah, that No, it's fine.
>> The lead is close to 3:00 a.m. now.
>> Preston joined us from Spain. I know.
>> Uh so David, why don't we continue to
step up?
» Um so the last application last month
that you guys approved was I think you
made the recommendation for approval for
the range acres subdivision final
plaque. Um they were able to get all
their information they needed together
that were part of your conditions and
get it approved by the board of county
commissioners. So that's all done. Um
yeah um just
we're working on a couple of or few
projects in our office. One of them has
to do with the data centers. We're also
working on um some regulatory amendments
for
because you brought I think we talked
about some of the stuff that we were
talking about before everybody build on
the planning department. So, now that we
have staff, again, we're working on um
battery energy energy storage system
regulations as well as this short-term
rental um just some simple res
regulations there just for you guys to to look at because I believe that was
what we were directed to at one point in
the past. So,
>> um so we're moving these things forward.
So,
>> right. Can I just make a comment?
>> Absolutely. Right. I mean, I guess I
don't charge. [clears throat]
>> A lot of people have been asking me
about short-term rentals in my campaign,
>> my second. So, this is great that we're
moving forward with that. Thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, by any chance, have you heard
anything about heirloom?
>> Oh, what about them?
>> Have they actually built anything or
>> Oh, yeah. I think it's up.
>> Yeah. I was just curious. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Is is that the experimental wind?
Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah.
>> I'm pretty sure it's up. I think I might
have got an invite to the grand opening,
but there was I had a conflict or
something. So,
>> but yeah, if you go drive out towards or
past Rock River, I guess, see if you can
see it.
>> Should look like a
safe for
>> a weird thing going around. And
>> what's that?
>> Is that what you say for
[clears throat]
» anything else? I don't think so. Okay.
Uh,
do we have any other commissioner
comments or we exhaust also our
comments? Barb, you have anything you
want to say?
>> Nope, I'm good.
>> Are you sure? We'd like a comment from
you. [laughter]
>> No, that's fine. Craig, how about
yourself?
>> I'm I've had enough comments tonight. I
think I'm good.
>> I'm good.
>> Thank you.
>> Matt, you've got something you like to
say?
>> Yeah. Um, I guess probably should have
could have said it earlier, but uh a few
months ago um at a county commissioners
meeting there was a presentation on data
center regulation uh from
uh one of the the economic development
coordinator for I guess whatever Laram
County's economic development coalition.
>> Leads. Yeah, leads or something like
that.
>> Um leads
>> and uh we were directed um by the
commission well staff was directed by
the commissioners to develop
uh regulations for industrial park
permitting of
data centers. So, we have been working
on that uh for some time and I think
that we'll have something polished
enough to provide to the commission or
to this commission um by the September
meeting. Obviously, that is um it's up
to you what you do with it,
but
we're following our directives.
>> Well, that's exactly what you should
have been doing. [laughter]
>> Yeah. So, no worries. I'm glad to hear
you're doing
>> Yeah. what commissioners asked you to
do.
>> That's That's
>> Oh, and I don't know if anyone didn't
hear um
that was like right when I got back. So,
what was that? July 11th, thereabout.
Yeah, it was the the day that I was
coming back to work after being on
paternity leave. Um the Wyoming Supreme
Court uh yeah ruled in in
[clears throat] favor of the county on
the APO 2023 APS amendments.
>> I have not heard that.
>> Oh, okay.
>> You haven't?
[clears throat]
>> Yeah. So, um
>> that's why we have staff updates.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I know. [laughter]
>> I even sent him I even sent him
congratulations. They found that the um
that the protection of the Casper
aquifer through
uh prohibiting land uses and restricting
um lot sizes is within the county zoning
authority. Um [clears throat]
>> yeah,
>> but yeah, I mean that's the that's
acknowledge your great work there. Yes.
Well,
>> that's [laughter] great. It's a huge and
thank you for all the work you put into
it.
>> It restarted
or caused to resume from a stay that
been put on um Warm Livestock's appeal
of the December 2024 APS amendments. It
was like the big update that we did um
with the cap update based on the cap
update and then um also the
warm livestock's uh declaratory judgment
action against the adoption of the cap
update itself and then the the boundary
amendments that occurred in January of
2024.
Um, so I guess just just like anything
with the aquifer, nothing is fully
settled, but
uh, oral argument will be in the
district court on that appeal August
30th. 31st somewhere around there. So
that's back to staff updates, but I
[clears throat] don't have anything
further. Sorry.
>> No, nothing to be sorry for. Thank you
for that.
Well, in that case, uh, our next regular
meeting is September 9th here at 5:00
and I am
>> I will be in Mongolia.
>> Okay.
>> And I will not have intellect. So just
for
purposes
» and I