[0:04] Okay.
[0:07] » All right. Uh, I call to order the
[0:11] August 12th, 2026 Alb County Planning on
[0:14] Commissioners Regular Meeting. Um, roll
[0:17] call. Greg here. Ralph
[0:20] >> here.
[0:20] >> Barb
[0:22] >> here.
[0:23] >> Burn
[0:25] >> here. Can you hear me?
[0:26] >> We can hear you. And I'm here. record,
[0:29] we will note that Vern's in Spain right
[0:30] now.
[0:33] Okay, so we're all here. Um, move on to
[0:36] approval of the agenda. Is there anyone
[0:38] who would like to uh
[0:41] um move to amend the agenda or or also
[0:43] approve it?
[0:44] >> Uh, I would like to amend the agenda to
[0:47] add a discussion after we deal with
[0:50] everything about uh what we learned
[0:52] about data centers on the last few days.
[0:55] >> Is there a second?
[0:56] >> I second.
[0:57] >> All right. And uh we will do that if we
[1:00] approve this uh right above item six
[1:02] staff updates. Um so all those in favor
[1:05] say I.
[1:06] >> I.
[1:08] >> That motion carries. Um may I have a
[1:10] motion to approve the minutes for July
[1:12] 8th 2026?
[1:14] >> I move that we approve the minutes from
[1:17] last meeting. I read fine to me.
[1:23] [clears throat]
[1:23] >> Uh all those in favor say I.
[1:25] >> I.
[1:26] I that motion carries also. Uh Greg,
[1:29] do you have anything to disclose?
[1:31] >> No.
[1:34] >> None. Thank you.
[1:36] >> Barb,
[1:37] >> no.
[1:40] >> Yeah.
[1:41] >> I will just mention that I had a
[1:44] friendly talk with Dr. Kuri
[1:47] um out at his storage site back in early
[1:51] June. Uh that was before I was aware of
[1:53] this application or the purchase of this
[1:56] property that we're going to take a look
[1:57] at later. Um and there were no conflicts
[2:00] of interest. Uh but I just want to
[2:01] mention that.
[2:03] Uh in that case, we will move on to the
[2:05] Kaduri zoning district amendment ZDA
[2:08] 03-26. David.
[2:14] » Yeah, Mr. Chair
[2:17] >> Commission. Um Dr. Kaduri is the
[2:20] applicant for this um project. Um he's
[2:25] requesting to change 57 acres from
[2:27] ranchet to commercial. The location of
[2:30] this property is along Soldier Springs
[2:32] Road and Rosedale Road. Property is
[2:34] addressed 147 or 37 um Rosedale Road.
[2:40] The area includes a mix of ranch at
[2:42] commercial and agricultural zoning.
[2:44] There's a mix of residential,
[2:45] commercial, and agricultural land uses
[2:47] in the area. Um the buildings on the
[2:50] south, there are buildings on the south
[2:51] end of the property and then there's a
[2:52] drainage that crosses the northeast um
[2:55] portion of the property.
[2:57] Um a number of folks
[3:00] reviewed this. Um I'll just kind of go
[3:03] through the ones that stood out. Larry
[3:05] Rivers Conservation District, Martin
[3:07] Curry, senior resource specialist, um
[3:10] noted that land owners should take care
[3:12] to minim minimize disturbance of the
[3:14] property. Um, disturbed areas should be
[3:18] reclaimed quickly using native grass and
[3:21] shrub species.
[3:23] The Larman Rivers Conservation District
[3:25] can provide recommendations for
[3:26] appropriate native grass species and
[3:28] planting methods. And USDA soil web soil
[3:33] survey [snorts] information indicates
[3:36] that the lower elevation portions of the
[3:38] property are rated very limited for
[3:40] building development due to the shallow
[3:42] groundwater and seasonal surface water
[3:44] flows. I'm guessing is that's being
[3:47] talked about that northeast portion
[3:48] where that drainage goes across. Yeah.
[3:50] >> Um and then any other
[3:54] >> Yeah. information on that that that
[3:58] review was included. Um the Wyoming Game
[4:02] and Fish, Will Schultz, habitat
[4:04] protection supervisor, noted the areas
[4:06] outside of delineated crucial habitat.
[4:09] He did recommend avoiding fencing that
[4:12] restricts big game or using of wildlife
[4:15] friendly fencing.
[4:17] Um he also noted to um mitigate any
[4:21] invasive species in the area to clean
[4:23] vehicles and equipment before
[4:25] construction and coordinate with the
[4:27] weeden pests to plan um on a plan to
[4:32] assess, treat and monitor invasive
[4:34] species.
[4:35] Um, city of Laramie planning manager
[4:39] Philip Gavatuler
[4:41] um provided comments as well
[4:42] recommending denial based on the future
[4:45] development
[4:46] um saying that the f future development
[4:48] of the property should follow a state
[4:50] residential future land use designation
[4:53] of lar growth area plan. Um, so my
[4:57] analysis,
[4:58] so the the commercial zoning district
[5:01] would allow uses that are compatible
[5:03] with the surrounding commercial
[5:04] development that's already in the area.
[5:06] The property does have direct access to
[5:08] a paved county road. Um, it's maintained
[5:11] by the county. Um, it's also in close
[5:15] proximity to Laramie, so that provides
[5:18] efficient access to emergency services.
[5:21] um fire department,
[5:25] um the sheriff's office, all of that.
[5:28] So, and then um the applicant addressed
[5:31] the potential impacts associated with
[5:33] the zoning amendment, allowed uses are
[5:35] generally compatible with the
[5:36] surrounding land uses, minimizing
[5:38] potential conflicts, and supporting a
[5:40] logical growth plan pattern.
[5:43] So the comprehensive plan um the
[5:46] proposal is generally consistent with
[5:48] the comprehensive plan goals of economic
[5:50] development, growth, efficiency,
[5:52] commercial zoning would support
[5:54] additional business investment and
[5:56] potential expansion or exp potentially
[5:59] expand the county tax base. Um prior to
[6:02] growth area three is where this is
[6:05] located and identifies potential for
[6:08] small convenience orientated oriented
[6:10] commercial uses. Um also the rural rural
[6:14] commercial land use. The property has
[6:16] access to uh paved countymaintained road
[6:20] and is near future major arterial
[6:22] intersection. Domestic wells and small
[6:24] wastewater systems can provide um that
[6:28] those services that are needed for rural
[6:31] commercial development out there. The
[6:33] proposal also supports a logical
[6:35] expansion of commercial development is
[6:37] generally consistent with the intent of
[6:39] rural commercial designation.
[6:42] Um the Larman growth area growth area
[6:44] plan. So although the designation is
[6:47] estate residential, the property is
[6:50] adjacent to neighborhood commercial and
[6:52] would provide a logical extension of
[6:54] that area. um land use or that the
[6:57] proposed extens proposal extends an
[7:00] existing commercial development pattern
[7:02] rather than creating an isolated
[7:04] commercial use and is compatible with
[7:06] surrounding land uses.
[7:08] Um staff recommends approval of this
[7:12] application
[7:14] um and would be happy to answer any
[7:16] questions.
[7:19] >> Uh Mark, you have anything?
[7:23] >> Yes, I have a question. Um the proposal
[7:26] is um proposing uh a few bathrooms uh
[7:31] for the septic system and not a dump
[7:33] station or anything like that as part of
[7:35] the the construction.
[7:39] >> So this is this is a request for
[7:41] commercial
[7:42] um zoning. So that information would be
[7:46] provided at the time that they developed
[7:48] um the property and they built the
[7:50] buildings and and went that that way
[7:52] forward. My my assumption would be um
[7:56] and I'm not sure if applicant is here um
[8:00] is that they would use waste a small
[8:02] wastewater system a septic system um for
[8:05] domestic sewage that's created on the
[8:07] property. So
[8:09] >> okay thank you.
[8:11] >> Can I follow up on Bob's question?
[8:14] [clears throat] One of the uh neighbors
[8:16] that is opposing this or send us a
[8:18] letter opposing this mentioned the need
[8:21] to empty uh the uh sewage storage within
[8:26] RVs that would be brought for storage.
[8:28] Uh that seems like it would be a big may
[8:32] be a big uh require a big wastewater
[8:36] system
[8:39] that
[8:39] >> did you get?
[8:42] So, at the um the zoning district
[8:45] amendment, we're just considering
[8:48] commercial,
[8:50] you know, abstractly. We're not
[8:51] considering a specific development or a
[8:54] specific land use, but really any land
[8:57] use that could potentially be within the
[8:59] commercial zoning district that any use
[9:01] of it would be at the zoning um
[9:04] certificate stage. So, and I would just
[9:07] follow up, you know, if if they went
[9:09] forward to develop something like that.
[9:12] Um, they would need to talk with the
[9:14] county and potentially the state on on,
[9:18] you know, taking care of the the
[9:19] wastewater, but but yeah, as Matt said,
[9:22] we're not really looking at that at this
[9:23] stage. But if this were approved and
[9:26] permits started coming in, those are the
[9:27] questions would need to be answered.
[9:31] >> Anything else, Barb?
[9:33] No. All right.
[9:36] >> I'm good. Thank you.
[9:39] >> Ralph,
[9:41] >> so my question is I didn't understand
[9:43] from the maps that
[9:46] there's a plan for converting the entire
[9:49] 57 acres so that the whole 57 acres will
[9:54] become commercial.
[9:55] >> The proposal is for the entire lot. Yes.
[9:57] Of 57 acres.
[9:58] >> It's a very large area.
[10:00] >> It is a large area. That's That is true.
[10:02] Yeah. [clears throat]
[10:04] Is that all?
[10:05] >> That's it.
[10:07] >> Um the opposing letter, if they're going
[10:11] to put up an 80 by 200 foot building, 20
[10:13] ft tall,
[10:14] >> there's no once this is approved,
[10:17] there's nothing saying they can't put up
[10:19] 10 of those or 15 of those. And that
[10:21] seems to be the concern here. Is there a
[10:24] restriction on that or
[10:25] >> Well, they'll have to get a zoning
[10:26] certificate and go through that process.
[10:29] what the use whatever they're using it
[10:32] for has to conform to um the allowed
[10:35] standards in a commercial zoning
[10:38] district. Um if it doesn't, it may be a
[10:41] conditional use and then in that case
[10:42] they would come back to you. But if it is allowed, it would be just a
[10:47] zoning certificate to to do that. So
[10:49] they wouldn't have to come before you
[10:51] and and there really isn't a limitation.
[10:53] No.
[10:56] >> Thank you.
[10:58] Uh I don't have any questions. Um I just
[11:01] want to note uh that something you
[11:03] mentioned I do believe that
[11:05] northeast corner if I right of the
[11:08] parcel it's in fact it could include
[11:10] some sort of wetland.
[11:11] >> Mhm.
[11:11] >> Um I just wondered about that. So is the
[11:14] applicant here or if it's
[11:16] representative?
[11:19] Uh in that case I'm going to suggest we
[11:21] table this uh for next month. Um, going
[11:26] back in time about a year ago, I'm not
[11:29] positive if I have the right application
[11:31] in mind, but I think it was a Wil
[11:32] wholesome application
[11:34] um, up north of town. Neither applicant
[11:37] or a representative was present. We went
[11:39] and considered that. After the fact, I
[11:42] thought that was the wrong decision that
[11:44] I should have moved to table it and and
[11:47] that's why I suggest we do now. So, is
[11:49] there a motion to dispose this for the
[11:51] time being? Uh, to table it. I motion
[11:53] that we table this for the time being.
[11:55] Is there a second?
[11:56] >> I second.
[11:58] >> I'll conduct a roll call vote then.
[12:01] >> Could we discuss the motion or is it
[12:03] table?
[12:04] >> Yes, we can. Absolutely.
[12:05] >> But I mean unless that's a nonable
[12:07] motion.
[12:08] >> Do you have something you want to say?
[12:09] >> Um we this is scheduled for public
[12:11] hearing. So you'll need to hear from the
[12:13] public before it's tabled.
[12:14] >> Okay. Fair enough. Um so we will hear
[12:18] from the public and then we'll we'll
[12:20] discuss the motion. I burn. Okay. Uh, we
[12:23] will conduct a public hearing now. So,
[12:25] any member of the public who is here who
[12:27] wishes to make a comment on this
[12:28] application, you may step forward.
[12:35] » I guess I'd like to ask some questions
[12:37] about it.
[12:38] >> Please step forward and tell us who you
[12:39] are and where you're from.
[12:40] >> Altha Garson. I have um property that's
[12:43] right just south of the radio station
[12:46] and borders this piece. have a large
[12:48] concern about this. Um, just with the
[12:51] amount of people and that that will be
[12:53] there. Bought a place so I could be out
[12:55] of town.
[12:57] I know you guys think there's no
[12:58] wildlife there. When I was living there,
[13:00] I rented out.
[13:01] >> Don't make any assumptions about that.
[13:03] >> Okay, [laughter]
[13:04] >> we might have very diverse opinions
[13:06] about whether wildlife out there or not.
[13:07] >> Rabbits, I mean,
[13:10] some antelope. There's wildlife on that
[13:13] place. And I think that if you go in and
[13:16] make it all concrete, you're going to
[13:18] take away their habitat.
[13:20] Um concerned about where they're going
[13:22] to put the sewage and water development.
[13:26] My water comes from a well, [snorts] and
[13:28] if they're going to have their sewer
[13:29] right there feeding into my water,
[13:31] that's not um ideal for for myself or
[13:35] the people living there.
[13:38] I guess just a lot of questions. I did
[13:40] read the letter on the on the um that
[13:43] they wrote and I know that they're going
[13:45] to start small and then build, but I
[13:47] never did understand which side they're
[13:48] going to start on. Are they going to
[13:50] start on the south or the west or
[13:57] » we can answer those questions for you? U
[14:00] if that's your comment.
[14:02] >> You can't answer those questions.
[14:03] >> No, we can't. Well, David, my comment
[14:06] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I would just say the
[14:08] proposal is to change the zoning of the
[14:10] property. So, there's not any
[14:12] development
[14:14] um proposal at this time. I mean, they mentioned it in their application,
[14:19] but the application is to change the
[14:21] zoning only. So, any development would
[14:24] be from further permits in the future.
[14:26] >> So, they will have to come through and
[14:28] ask you guys again. Um
[14:29] >> well, they'll come to Yeah. the planning
[14:31] department to ask about those things. um
[14:33] they'd have to get a permit for any
[14:35] wastewater or buildings on the property.
[14:38] >> It wouldn't necessarily have to be in
[14:40] the public form.
[14:42] >> So, this is my last chance to Can I Can
[14:46] I write a letter on opposing?
[14:49] >> Absolutely.
[14:50] >> So, just to the planning department.
[14:53] >> Yes. Yes.
[14:55] >> Thank you for your time.
[14:56] >> Thank you.
[14:58] >> Is there any other member of the public
[15:00] who wishes to comment? Please step
[15:01] forward. Okay. My name is Roger
[15:03] Schaefer. We're the owner of the
[15:05] property that KBB sits on, which is on
[15:09] the edge of this. Oh,
[15:10] >> okay. Right.
[15:10] >> And so we're uh the only concern we have
[15:14] uh we're in the process right now of
[15:16] renegotiate or renegotiating a lease
[15:18] with KB for another 5 years. The only
[15:21] concern we would have, you know, there's
[15:23] radio, there's towers there, right? And
[15:25] so we would be concerned about the
[15:27] transmission of the towers and and I
[15:30] have above my pay grade talk about
[15:33] whether whether it would be any effects
[15:35] on transmission or not. That would have
[15:37] to be something that you know the radio
[15:39] engineers or whatever could talk about.
[15:42] That would be our biggest concern just
[15:44] if that was a problem.
[15:46] >> Well, uh I'm glad you're here to express
[15:47] that concern because I'm sure Dave's
[15:49] paying attention. Okay, that's all I
[15:53] could say. Anyone else? Thank you, sir.
[15:59] Hearing and seeing no one else, uh, may
[16:01] I have a motion to close the public
[16:02] hearing?
[16:03] >> I move the close of public hearing.
[16:05] >> I second. Any further discussion? All
[16:08] those in favor say I.
[16:10] >> I.
[16:12] That motion carries. Okay. Burn. Uh,
[16:15] we will discuss our motion to table this
[16:18] until next month.
[16:20] >> Yeah. um uh assuming that the motion to
[16:22] table is debatable and I don't mean to
[16:24] debate it much but just to be to clarify
[16:27] the the way that sequence came down it
[16:29] was strongly implied that your motion to
[16:31] table was because the applicant neither
[16:35] the applicant nor his representative is
[16:37] there is that is that the intent of the
[16:39] tableing was
[16:41] correct
[16:42] >> okay just so then they're on notice to
[16:44] do that and then the public is on notice
[16:46] that we will take this up again and they
[16:49] should reappear and we will have a
[16:52] proper wide ranging debate if I
[16:54] understand correctly. Is that the idea?
[16:56] >> Okay. Thank you.
[16:58] >> Hey David,
[16:59] >> Dr. Kaduri is coming in the house.
[17:01] >> The house. Okay. Well, we've just been
[17:03] informed that Dr. Kaduri is on his way
[17:04] in. So,
[17:06] >> uh we will not get the move to
[17:11] >> Yeah. So, yeah. Very good.
[17:14] >> Back and forth.
[17:17] >> Formally withdraw the motion. Yeah, I'm
[17:20] withdrawing the motion.
[17:22] If we now hear from the applicant, does
[17:24] that mean we should reopen the public
[17:26] hearing again?
[17:27] >> I think you should.
[17:28] >> Okay, we'll do that. Very good. Um, so
[17:31] Dr. Guri, uh, we have heard staff u give
[17:35] the report and we have perhaps some
[17:37] questions for you.
[17:38] >> Okay. So, would you please have
[17:40] questions?
[17:41] >> Yeah. Um, and we will begin with.
[17:46] >> Thanks.
[17:48] Thank you. Uh my question is about
[17:52] actually the intent of 57 acres is a
[17:56] huge area. Um and I understand that you
[18:00] want to make it into a storage of boats
[18:03] and RVs and uh so on and so forth. And
[18:07] so uh have and and there is a wetland at
[18:11] the north uh um end of or south end of
[18:14] the property.
[18:16] >> The northeast side of the property.
[18:18] >> Yeah. Um so my question is you're aware
[18:22] of the fact that you may need
[18:25] >> a very large wastewater system there to
[18:28] deal with emptying RVs [snorts] and all
[18:30] that.
[18:31] >> Oh no, no. Like I don't plan on doing
[18:33] like an RV park or anything. My intent
[18:35] is to just store like like dry storage.
[18:38] That's my intent. Maybe one or two
[18:40] buildings with the steel buildings on
[18:42] the facing the soldier spring road that
[18:45] could be used more like indoor storage
[18:48] and uh like everything else should be
[18:50] just like dry storage like most of my
[18:53] friends in the city they park their
[18:56] stuff in the side of the streets and it
[18:58] becomes unsafe because when we are
[19:00] driving around we can't see who is
[19:01] crossing. So, I have several friends
[19:03] that requested to park stuff in the the
[19:06] 15 acres and I can't say no to them. A
[19:10] lot of them are parking like like in
[19:12] that 15 acres. It's just overwhelming
[19:14] the situation. So, that's what I thought
[19:16] I should just like ask for permission if
[19:19] that's okay to park there instead of
[19:21] here. So, a lot of people are using that
[19:24] 15 acres like the Skyland Bike Road, the one we built the steel buildings. I
[19:30] left a big parking lot there. Every time
[19:32] I go there, like there is like an RV and
[19:34] a boat and everything parked there. And
[19:36] I ask one of the tenants, okay, what
[19:38] who's is this? And they say, oh, one of
[19:40] my friends is begging to just park
[19:42] overnight and all that. So I I just felt
[19:46] like maybe if I don't overwhelm that
[19:49] space and use the other space if if
[19:52] approved by you guys would be better
[19:55] space than disturbing the businesses and
[19:57] all that that are currently running over
[19:59] the sky.
[20:02] >> Okay. Thank you.
[20:04] >> That's all.
[20:06] >> So you have no intention. Let's let's go
[20:08] around. Oh, I'm sorry.
[20:11] Oh, maybe Barb,
[20:14] >> I don't have any questions.
[20:17] >> Um, Bernard,
[20:18] >> um, yeah, just a couple. When did you
[20:20] buy this property?
[20:22] >> Uh, like around 3 months ago.
[20:26] >> Oh, and and why did you buy it?
[20:29] >> I just bought it as an investment. Like,
[20:31] uh, like I want to park my money for my
[20:33] retirement.
[20:36] >> Okay. Thank you.
[20:38] >> Great. So you don't have any you don't
[20:41] have any intention of having people come
[20:42] out there empty their
[20:44] >> No no no no
[20:45] >> they have to have that done before they
[20:46] get there to
[20:47] >> yeah this is like storing stuff that
[20:49] they don't use not parking in the city
[20:52] streets instead I have at least like uh
[20:55] 10 people that are [clears throat] using
[20:56] the business park right now they are
[20:58] parking on the side like right now their
[21:01] RVs and stuff
[21:03] >> and uh like uh I don't want them to park
[21:06] there and uh they said oh like we'll pay
[21:08] you and all that. I said 40 bucks a
[21:11] month or whatever, but I said, you know,
[21:14] it's just overwhelming because there's
[21:15] like 20 tenants using that 10 acres or 8
[21:19] acres of space. I just thought this is
[21:22] like reasonable to ask if if this is not
[21:24] a big pain. And then I know there are a
[21:28] few concerns from my neighbors. I would
[21:30] like to also address their concerns
[21:32] about um the gas stations and stuff. I
[21:36] have no intent of like signing up to
[21:39] anything because I'm also busy doing
[21:41] some things. I just don't want to run a
[21:44] day-to-day business like operating there
[21:47] sitting there full-time.
[21:48] >> Me and my wife both are pediatricians.
[21:50] We are very conservative in terms of not
[21:54] disturbing the place. We always want to
[21:56] leave a place better than what we found.
[21:59] Never have intend to like cause trouble
[22:02] to the neighbors or anything. Yeah.
[22:04] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[22:08] uh I might have a question here. Um
[22:12] [clears throat]
[22:14] and you I'm going to give you permission
[22:15] to not have to answer this question if
[22:16] you want to because we're actually only
[22:19] supposed to be considering the zoning
[22:20] itself, not any actual purpose, but
[22:23] that's supposed to be a spectac purpose.
[22:25] But you do have a site plan on your map.
[22:27] And just so
[22:28] >> again, [clears throat] you'll have to
[22:29] answer this if you want to. Right now,
[22:31] your intent is to build a building. And
[22:33] then the site plan shows basically a
[22:35] ring road that's a story. Correct. All
[22:38] right. Well, thank you for answering
[22:39] that. That's all I have.
[22:41] >> Okay. Um
[22:43] so, uh we will conduct another public
[22:46] hearing for anyone who now that Dr.
[22:48] Feduri is here would like to make a
[22:50] comment again.
[22:52] Do either the two people who spoke
[22:53] earlier wish to speak again?
[22:58] » Go ahead.
[23:00] Sir,
[23:01] >> I understand. However, you are allowed
[23:03] to make a comment. You're not here to
[23:05] ask questions.
[23:06] >> I can't ask questions.
[23:08] >> Okay. If you want to go you need to go
[23:11] up to them.
[23:12] >> Um
[23:14] I guess I'm I I live out there on
[23:16] Soldier Springs just south of and excuse
[23:19] me.
[23:19] >> You have to address us.
[23:21] >> Does you can come closer.
[23:23] >> Well, I want him to be able to hear
[23:24] because I am talking to him.
[23:25] >> Well, I would ask you to stand up also.
[23:29] Can I stand?
[23:30] >> She'll be able to hear you.
[23:31] >> Okay. Um just south of the um road
[23:35] stations, my place. I'm concerned about
[23:37] >> I'm sorry. Excuse me. I want you to
[23:39] address the commission.
[23:40] >> You have to address the commission by by
[23:42] law.
[23:42] >> I understand you want to talk to and
[23:44] maybe he'll talk to you after the fact,
[23:45] but you need to address us.
[23:46] >> Okay. [clears throat] Concerned about um
[23:49] the the wildlife that's in that area. Um
[23:53] I guess the proximity of um just
[23:56] everything. I um um if you're storing um
[24:02] RVs, you're going to have some that are
[24:04] dripping oil and some that are dripping
[24:07] gas and um if they don't get everything
[24:10] drained really good, they're going to be
[24:12] draining septic. And I guess that's I
[24:14] just concerned with the environment out
[24:16] there and um the health of the soul.
[24:21] >> Thank you.
[24:24] Uh, in surveys, you also like to
[24:25] interview.
[24:32] » I'm Brad Schaer with Shaper Place LLC
[24:34] and we actually, like I say, we have the
[24:36] property of the radio station. We're
[24:38] just mostly concerned of possible uh
[24:42] building anything that might hinder the
[24:44] transmission
[24:46] of the from the towers dependent upon
[24:49] how close they are. uh the building
[24:52] might be uh to those towers and uh
[24:56] because we are negoti currently ne
[24:59] renegotiating a lease with uh town
[25:02] square media for another 5 years and we
[25:05] want to make sure that we don't have
[25:07] issues with the transmission of cuz all
[25:11] of a sudden they built something that
[25:12] might interfere with that and uh so
[25:16] that's kind of [clears throat] where we
[25:18] stand with this thing as far our
[25:20] concerns. So,
[25:22] >> okay. Thank you again.
[25:23] >> I have a question.
[25:24] >> Sure. Yes.
[25:26] >> Uh would you if the plan for the
[25:31] development comes back and it shows that
[25:36] you it won't hurt your operation, would
[25:39] you have any objections to it? Well, the
[25:41] one thing we don't know is we really,
[25:43] like my brother said, uh we don't know
[25:47] what would interfere with their
[25:49] transmissions. I mean, if they built a
[25:51] building real close there and it was and
[25:55] they had towers on that building, would
[25:57] that interfere with the transmission of
[26:00] there's three large radio towers there?
[26:03] And and if it depend upon how close they
[26:06] build, what they build, how high it is,
[26:09] and everything. We don't know. You would
[26:11] have to probably talk with Towns Square
[26:13] Media. their engineers might have a
[26:15] better idea what what might cause
[26:18] problems with the their transmissions
[26:21] and uh but uh you know we don't know I
[26:25] mean we we own the property but but
[26:28] those towers are what broadcast their
[26:31] radio station and we don't know what
[26:33] would potentially cause problems. Uh, so
[26:37] I don't uh we we did inform them of this
[26:42] situation that it had been acquired and
[26:44] they were trying to uh change it the
[26:46] zoning on it to commercial and so we so
[26:50] that they knew what was going on and I
[26:53] don't know like I said I didn't know if
[26:55] they would have a representative here to
[26:58] uh state their case or not it either and
[27:01] maybe maybe they will if we go further
[27:03] with this or whatever. So,
[27:05] >> well, I'll just say uh I'll suggest that
[27:08] uh any concerns I may have and you may
[27:10] have take them up with our plan
[27:12] director.
[27:13] >> Okay.
[27:13] >> And uh you'd be the appropriate person
[27:15] to discuss.
[27:16] >> Yeah. I mean, like I say, we we're a
[27:18] little lost with it. We're just kind of
[27:20] helping. Like I say, we're in
[27:22] negotiations with them, but we don't
[27:24] really know what it could how it could
[27:26] affect them, if at all. But, um you
[27:31] [clears throat] know, so that's where we
[27:32] stand. So,
[27:33] >> Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you.
[27:35] >> Is there anyone else who would like to
[27:37] make a comment?
[27:41] » Uh, please come forward. Tell us who you
[27:43] are.
[27:46] >> Darren stays. Um, I wasn't really
[27:47] planning on talking about this. This is
[27:49] the first I heard about it, but I do own
[27:51] property in the county and um, I have
[27:54] had property in the county shared with
[27:56] my mother since 2011 and I lived in
[27:59] Laram. Was raised and born and raised in
[28:01] Laram. went to school here and now came
[28:03] back to the university. Since moving to
[28:06] the county and we only have a very small
[28:08] portion of property, we've seen
[28:09] increasing development in the area and
[28:11] it's not close to this. It's in a
[28:13] different part of the county, but
[28:15] accompanying any increasing development,
[28:17] even private homes on as small as half
[28:20] an acre, we've seen a radical increase
[28:23] in invasive plants. And so I would
[28:26] advocate um to be cautious about any new
[28:30] development disturbances driving um
[28:33] building because we've seen Russian
[28:35] napweed, we've seen tumble weeds, we've
[28:38] seen yellow toad flax. Um we
[28:41] particularly live in our area because we
[28:43] are trying to avoid exposure to
[28:45] pesticides. My father died of pesticide
[28:48] exposure. Um, and so we don't use
[28:50] pesticides to combat the invasive
[28:52] species, invasive plants on our
[28:54] property. I go out every summer and I
[28:56] hand pull and in 10 years it has
[28:59] improved so much so that um, the county
[29:02] will threaten to come out and use
[29:03] pesticides on my property. Um, I keep it
[29:06] under control, but um, I would be
[29:09] cautious of approving development that
[29:12] could increase that anywhere in our
[29:14] counties. Thank you.
[29:16] >> Is there anyone else who like to
[29:18] comment?
[29:22] Thank you. So I did get this concern
[29:25] about the radio towers uh from like one
[29:29] of my friends and I did do some due
[29:31] diligence of what would cause trouble
[29:34] and all that did speak to like one of
[29:36] the radio engineers and he said since
[29:39] this particular radio station broadcasts
[29:41] towards north and I don't own any
[29:44] property towards the north so it should
[29:47] not interfere anything but this is like
[29:49] a preliminary kind of report I have And
[29:53] like I said, I don't have any intention
[29:56] to hurt anybody including my neighbors.
[29:58] So I think I'll be reasonable to with
[30:01] them not to build anything anywhere
[30:04] close to any.
[30:06] >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
[30:09] May close the public hearing.
[30:12] >> I move we close public.
[30:14] >> I second the motion. All those in favor
[30:16] say I. I. I.
[30:21] Bern.
[30:23] I I vote I also that motion carries.
[30:27] Okay. So, uh I believe now we are
[30:29] prepared to discuss this item.
[30:32] >> Bern, why don't you begin?
[30:34] >> Um yeah, Mr. Chair, given that I'm
[30:37] coming in remotely and sometimes I feel
[30:39] a little fractured. I just I've kind of
[30:40] prepared a statement. Is that
[30:42] appropriate? I'll just go through that
[30:43] and see where we and we actually hear
[30:45] you quite well. So, uh that's good. Um u
[30:49] I think the the the visual that goes
[30:51] along with this is the zoning map and
[30:52] that's what this is all about. So as far
[30:54] as I don't know what you guys are seeing
[30:56] but I'd like you to be looking at the
[30:57] zoning map that was included in the
[31:00] packet. Is that whether that needs to be
[31:03] broadcast to all the rest of us or not
[31:04] but does that make sense since that's
[31:08] talk about those surrounding zones and
[31:10] so forth. I was wondering if
[31:12] >> Jory can you bring that map up?
[31:14] >> Yeah we'll do it bring that map up.
[31:16] >> Continue talking. uh as much as you can
[31:18] anyway. And David's trying to bring that
[31:19] up now.
[31:20] >> Okay.
[31:23] » Yeah. The one I'm thinking of is is
[31:25] starts with Dr. Kadur's recently
[31:27] reszoned property and then runs on south
[31:29] through this one.
[31:34] Yeah. Okay. Good. This is the one I want
[31:36] to look at. Okay. So, um
[31:39] just quick background. Planning and
[31:41] zoning is about developing a long-term
[31:44] vision for the county. That's the
[31:45] planning part. and then turning that
[31:47] into land use maps and regulations.
[31:49] That's the zoning part. Our job here
[31:51] today is to advise the county commission
[31:53] on the zoning part.
[31:56] Um, we also look at the specific plan,
[31:59] we also look at specific land use
[32:01] applications. That's not what we're
[32:02] doing here, but like subdivisions and there all the heavy lifting is done
[32:06] by our staff and the engineers make sure
[32:08] that the grades of the road are correct
[32:10] and that there's access to the acres and
[32:12] the drainage has been discussed and so
[32:14] forth. So most of the the assessment of
[32:17] a of a specific application is done by
[32:19] staff and u as long as the applicant is
[32:23] within the parameters of their zoning we
[32:25] have much much more restricted
[32:28] discretion in terms of our approval to
[32:30] denial and my point of that is that is
[32:32] the zoning decisions is really where the
[32:34] rubber meets the road and that's the the
[32:36] place where I think we were all
[32:38] appointed to bring our our various
[32:41] backgrounds and input into the advising
[32:43] of the of the county commissioners. Um,
[32:47] so we have a wide discretion in our
[32:51] subjective judgments on how and where
[32:53] the county guides development and
[32:54] there's no cookbook criteria or scoring
[32:56] sheet that says you're in if this and
[32:58] you're out if that. It is really largely
[33:00] quite subjective in terms of how a
[33:02] particular application uh conforms with
[33:05] our our our land use plans. Um and and
[33:09] so here we are talking about drawing
[33:12] lines in the zoning. And the general
[33:16] concept of zoning is that the county has
[33:18] stood back and said we want to do
[33:19] residential over here, we want to do
[33:20] commercial over here, we want to do
[33:22] industrial over there. And in order to advance the county development in in
[33:26] an orderly and systematic way for the
[33:28] welfare of our citizens, uh then if we
[33:31] can draw a line, of course, you have to
[33:32] decide where one land use stops and
[33:34] another one starts. And and that's often a challenge. You got to
[33:37] draw the line somewhere and that's true
[33:39] of regulations and that's always
[33:40] difficult but that is what is before us
[33:42] in this application. So the first point
[33:45] I'd make is one that we've emphasized
[33:46] before. We are not being asked to
[33:48] approve an RV storage facility within an
[33:52] existing commercial zone. We are being
[33:54] asked to redraw the existing line
[33:57] between commercial land uses and
[33:59] residential agricultural land uses to
[34:01] move 57 acres from residential to
[34:04] commercial use. So, we should remind
[34:06] ourselves that a commercial zoning, this
[34:09] is picking up on a statement was made
[34:11] earlier, allows by right and and you
[34:14] don't get a second bite at the apple.
[34:15] So, we don't get to say, "Oh, we didn't
[34:17] really like that particular proposal. If
[34:18] it's within the parameters of the zone,
[34:21] then then it's a it's one has the right
[34:24] to do that with very little uh
[34:27] modification from us. You look at our
[34:29] land use table in commercial zones
[34:31] includes recorder services. I'm just
[34:34] quoting from the land use table. Bowling
[34:36] alleys, nurseries, hotels, lumber yards,
[34:39] TV stations, supermarkets,
[34:41] uh, vet clinics, RV parks, and not
[34:44] necessarily RV storage facilities. Um,
[34:46] and and all of that is what is then
[34:49] encompassed within a commercial
[34:50] designation. And all of that is what we
[34:52] are potentially improving. Interesting
[34:54] that Mr. Kaduri just bought this this
[34:56] land three months ago. He could walk out
[34:58] of the meeting today and and sell it to
[35:00] someone with very very different plans.
[35:02] So we need to make that decision based
[35:04] on the zoning. Now where do we look for
[35:07] guidance for that decision is to our
[35:09] land use plans. Those are guidance not
[35:12] commandments as our staff points out to
[35:14] it. But the point is that the county has
[35:17] addressed these kinds of issues in a in
[35:19] a general sense before and come up with uh guidance from which when I do
[35:25] that I come up with the opposite
[35:27] conclusion from staff. Uh so let's let's
[35:30] just go through those quickly. The first
[35:32] thing to consider is our existing
[35:34] zoning. At some point the county tagged
[35:36] this parcel as most appropriately
[35:38] developed for residential use. Now to be
[35:41] fair that that wasn't part of a comp
[35:44] plan. Our zoning precedes our comp plan
[35:46] or at least portions of it do. So it's
[35:48] something of a stretch to say we thought
[35:50] it all very carefully through and and
[35:51] tagged this as as residential. It was
[35:55] more of an inventory. But still there
[35:57] was a policy statement made that the
[35:58] county liked things the way they were
[36:00] and let's hang on to that unless we have
[36:02] a good reason to change it
[36:04] and we should have that change. The the residential and a zones should not
[36:09] be just considered holding patterns
[36:11] until we come up with something better
[36:12] to do with the with the parcel. Those
[36:15] are an affirmative statement of what we
[36:17] think is best what the county thinks is
[36:19] best used. Now I thought it was
[36:22] interesting that the application the
[36:24] applicant himself identified the value
[36:27] of the existing zoning for quoting from
[36:30] the application anything left over from
[36:33] the development of the 57 acres quote
[36:35] will be preserved in its natural state
[36:38] maintaining wildlife habitat natural
[36:40] drainage patterns and rural open space
[36:42] character. Good points all. So why are
[36:46] we offering to change those good points?
[36:49] Mr. Kaduri bought the land under
[36:52] residential zoning.
[36:54] From last month's important Wyoming
[36:57] Supreme Court decision, I'll quote, "An
[37:00] expectation that property may be
[37:02] subdivided or reszoned in the future is
[37:04] not a vested property right. One has a
[37:07] property right only in existing land
[37:09] uses and not in prospective land uses.
[37:12] So, we are not depriving the applicant
[37:15] of anything that they have by leaving
[37:17] the zoning as is. Okay. Now, let's look
[37:21] at the comp plan. That's a more formal
[37:22] statement, an affirmative statement of
[37:24] what the county goals and objectives
[37:26] were. As Mr. Gers pointed out, this is
[37:28] in priority growth area three. Quote,
[37:32] will be generally large lots, single
[37:34] family homes, possibly with small
[37:36] convenienceoriented commercial uses. A
[37:39] 57 acre RV and boat storage facility is
[37:42] not a small convenienceoriented use in
[37:45] my book.
[37:48] Now, the comp plan
[37:51] identifies some rural commercial land
[37:53] use nearby as a possibility, but there
[37:55] again, it's for small commercial
[37:57] businesses that cater primarily to users
[38:00] from the surrounding areas. I'm quoting
[38:01] from the report. Buildings should be
[38:03] small scale to relate to to surrounding
[38:05] residences. Again, this does not
[38:07] describe a 57 acre reszoning from
[38:10] residential to commercial.
[38:13] Third, we have the area growth plan
[38:16] which adopted by the county a couple
[38:18] years ago. I guess in that plan, the
[38:20] county affirmatively tagged this area as
[38:23] appropriate for estate residential.
[38:26] Now, the staff report notes that there
[38:29] in the growth plan also talks about
[38:30] neighborhood commercial in the area to
[38:33] the west. But even so, this is not
[38:36] neighborhood commercial project.
[38:39] Finally, the staff report points out
[38:41] that the major street plan approved by
[38:42] the county foresees a someday extension
[38:44] of 15th Street south in the direction of
[38:47] this property. That's true, but this
[38:51] parcel would lie east and south of that
[38:53] extension. and 15th 15th Street like
[38:57] Soldier Springs and the railroad is a
[38:58] logical and orderly place to transition
[39:01] from commercial uses to the west and
[39:03] then residential
[39:05] uh uses to the east. So all this goes to
[39:08] the compatibility with the previously
[39:10] adopted land use plans and to
[39:12] compatibility with the surrounding land
[39:14] use. The staff report points to a couple
[39:19] of small commercially zoned lots nearby.
[39:21] Those are the red ones on the map you're
[39:23] looking at. And says the majority of the
[39:26] north half of the property abuts
[39:28] commercial zone property to the west.
[39:32] Well, that that's not even correct as
[39:34] written. If you chop the the north half
[39:37] off, it's there's a piece that's
[39:39] commercial, it's residential, and
[39:41] agricultural. When I run the numbers on
[39:44] abuing properties, 78% of the abuing
[39:47] property is either residential or
[39:51] agricultural. Agriculture, the biggest
[39:52] piece, the one off to the to the east
[39:54] there, uh, is far and away the the
[39:56] biggest one.
[39:59] Then I would also point out that if if
[40:01] touching a particular zone is
[40:05] adequate reason to do the reszone, then
[40:08] you really don't have any lines at all.
[40:10] You just set yourself up for a a step by
[40:12] step chewing through the county. This
[40:14] one's commercial. That justifies the
[40:16] next one being commercial. That
[40:17] justifies the next one being commercial.
[40:19] And all you've done instead of drawing
[40:21] lines between your commercial industrial
[40:23] areas and your residential areas is say
[40:26] we're going to to move that line piece
[40:28] by piece like like Pac-Man chew and his
[40:30] way through the county. Uh now the staff
[40:34] report has chosen to stand on this
[40:36] particular parcel and look west across
[40:38] Soldier Springs Road and across railroad
[40:40] tracks where one finds arguably
[40:43] compatible use. But if one stands on the
[40:45] property and looks east or north or
[40:48] south, they see open ground just the
[40:51] sort of land in its natural state that
[40:54] the applicant himself praises.
[40:58] Finally, I would point out that we are
[40:59] faced with a very we were faced with
[41:01] very similar much smaller application by
[41:03] this applicant just last October. In
[41:05] that case, it was anchored by a small
[41:08] piece of commercial, the mini golf
[41:10] course there on the corner of 15th and
[41:13] Skyline, and he asked to reszone the 12
[41:15] acres immediately south of that from
[41:17] residential to commercial. And that's
[41:19] that kind of Utah shaped piece that's
[41:21] just one parcel removed north of the one
[41:23] we're looking at. This commission split
[41:26] two two on the application and one of
[41:28] the reasons I was interested in
[41:29] attending the meeting was so that we'd
[41:31] avoided a a potential tie which was
[41:33] inconvenient for everybody. One side in
[41:35] that discussion was looking at our land
[41:37] use plans and the existing city
[41:39] neighborhood on South 18th Street. Uh
[41:43] that's the part in gray that you see off
[41:45] to the east there. And we argued that
[41:47] the 15th Street was the logical break in
[41:50] zoning. the other side noting that the
[41:53] commercial zoning had already jumped
[41:55] 15th Street with the golf course. 12
[41:57] acres wasn't that big a deal and the
[42:00] county commission ultimately went along
[42:01] with the reszoning.
[42:03] I continue to think that Soldier Springs
[42:05] Road and the railroad and the present
[42:08] and future 15th Street are logical and
[42:10] appropriate boundaries for commercial
[42:13] and industrial zones to the west and
[42:15] residential zones to the east. Um the earlier testimony by Mr. was a
[42:21] little bit disappointing to me in that
[42:23] it seems so casual. He's having
[42:24] difficulty maintaining discipline of who
[42:27] parks on the 15 acres north. So, let's
[42:29] go ahead and throw in another 57 acres
[42:32] of commercial property. Now, maybe I'm
[42:34] casting that as too casual, but I did
[42:36] not hear in that any compelling reason
[42:39] that we should take 57 acres out of
[42:41] residential zoning and turn it into
[42:43] commercial zoning. So, consistent with
[42:46] the existing zoning, with the adopted
[42:48] county comprehensive plan, with the
[42:50] adopted clermy area growth plan, and I
[42:53] would argue even with the adopted major
[42:55] street plan, I agree with comments we've
[42:58] received from both the neighbors who
[43:00] attended here this evening and those
[43:01] who've written to us. Uh, and I would
[43:03] point out that the city of Laram is
[43:05] itself a very important neighbor in this
[43:07] area. Uh, therefore, Mr. Chair, I move
[43:11] that ZDA 0306 be recommended for denial
[43:15] based on incompatibility with the
[43:17] comprehensive plan, the growth plan, and
[43:20] the land uses in the great majority of
[43:22] the surrounding area. Thank you for your
[43:24] patience.
[43:27] >> Okay. Uh well, is there a second for
[43:29] this motion?
[43:31] >> A second.
[43:32] Okay, we will have further discussion.
[43:34] Dan, having a motion on the table that
[43:36] has been seconded. Um,
[43:41] Rob,
[43:42] >> yes, I have a question for the staff.
[43:45] [snorts] Um, [clears throat]
[43:49] the thing that jumped to me uh as a
[43:52] problematic was the 50 the size the 57
[43:55] although that's a huge area. Uh, even
[43:58] for parking hundreds and hundreds of
[44:00] RVs. Uh, what are the chances of a
[44:05] subdivision?
[44:07] Well, is there a way to
[44:10] um subdivide the lot to make it only
[44:15] partial commercial? What what what's the
[44:18] options?
[44:19] >> Um yeah, absolutely. They could request
[44:21] a subdivision. Right now, the way that
[44:23] it stands, they could actually get 11
[44:26] lots out of out of that ranch at area.
[44:31] um which again is not just to point out
[44:34] that that wouldn't meet the what the
[44:35] growth plan is is purporting. They're wanting to have um three three
[44:41] dwellings per lot which it wouldn't meet
[44:43] that. So, you know, just just point that
[44:46] out. Um but but yeah, they could divide
[44:49] it. Yeah, that's that's something that
[44:51] they could do. Um obviously have to do
[44:54] engineering and surveying and all that
[44:56] stuff and do the reports that are
[44:57] required to do that. Um and then
[44:59] obviously has to go through this process
[45:01] and be approved formally by the board of
[45:03] county commissioners. But that's an
[45:05] option.
[45:05] >> That's an option. Okay.
[45:08] >> Anything else?
[45:10] >> Barb,
[45:13] >> uh I agree with Moras and Ashley Burn.
[45:15] Um for one, I think that's a huge lot to
[45:19] uh develop commercially.
[45:24] » Anything else?
[45:26] >> No.
[45:27] Correct.
[45:29] >> I think it is way too much to develop
[45:32] commercially and it's a huge change over
[45:35] the area. Um,
[45:38] it was originally residential. It's a
[45:41] residential now. That's what people are
[45:43] used to and I'm not sure I have the right view on
[45:48] this, but I do believe that I'm here to
[45:50] represent what I hear from the people
[45:52] and the public and what what I see and
[45:54] what I think is right and wrong.
[45:57] I don't think this entire 57 acres is a
[46:01] good idea to have it commercial.
[46:04] If it was a smaller portion, it might be
[46:07] more manageable from the standpoint of
[46:12] how many large buildings. What one of
[46:14] the concerns was they're putting an 80
[46:17] by 200 foot building. It's 20 ft high
[46:19] now and it says for starters or
[46:22] something along those lines. I can
[46:25] understand not wanting to see 25 or 30
[46:28] buildings out there on 57 acres or even
[46:31] more. So I I think I think this is too
[46:35] much land to change over
[46:37] to commercial.
[46:41] Anything else? No, I'm good.
[46:45] Well,
[46:47] I'm going to offer a slightly different
[46:49] perspective.
[46:52] Um,
[46:55] I'll say that had this come before us 12
[46:58] months ago or even six months ago, uh, I
[47:01] would inclined to automatically say
[47:03] or recommend denial of this based purely
[47:06] on a land rate growth area plan. So, it
[47:08] shows is a state residential,
[47:12] but
[47:14] there's a problem with that.
[47:17] growth plan was adopted three years ago
[47:20] and at some point it either needs to be
[47:22] implemented or not and at some point
[47:25] enough time has passed by when if it's
[47:27] not implemented I question whether it
[47:29] has any applicable validity today
[47:33] and um so I I wonder about that and it
[47:36] was three years ago right I think it was
[47:38] adopted in August three years ago
[47:42] >> sure
[47:42] >> I think it's right [clears throat]
[47:43] >> well I'm looking to you if I'm wrong.
[47:46] [laughter]
[47:46] You have to look it up. And the last
[47:49] significant action that I can remember
[47:52] having been taken on the plan was an IG
[47:56] agreement that went to the county
[47:58] commissioners for either approval or
[48:01] acceptance or decline. They declined to
[48:03] sign that document
[48:07] and as far as I'm aware, nothing has
[48:09] happened since then. I mean, is that
[48:11] more or less correct, David? I mean, has
[48:13] there been any work on of UIG either
[48:16] from the county or the city.
[48:18] >> Um, no, it's still being talked about
[48:20] from time to time.
[48:21] >> Yeah.
[48:22] >> I mean, and you know to your point that
[48:24] the implementation hasn't necessarily
[48:27] occurred. We are using it to analyze
[48:29] these projects that come come through
[48:32] the through the door. So, it's not that
[48:33] it's not being used.
[48:35] >> Well, the plan is originally conceived
[48:37] was in three parts. The basic first part
[48:39] was the conceptual plan which was
[48:41] adopted.
[48:42] the IGA which is supposed to follow on
[48:44] which is supposed to lead to
[48:46] implementation in the regulations and a
[48:48] granular analysis of a map to determine
[48:51] exactly where these different zonings
[48:54] actually physically you know were
[48:56] delineated by Brazilian property
[48:57] boundaries. Right now we have a
[48:59] conceptual map where like the Caduri
[49:02] property is clearly in the middle of a
[49:03] state residential but we don't know
[49:05] where that state's residential zoning
[49:08] area actually ends.
[49:10] Um, and I'll come back to that.
[49:13] Um, I mean, have the county
[49:16] commissioners at all given you any kind
[49:19] of direction to approval the plan or do
[49:21] anything at all in the past year?
[49:22] >> No.
[49:23] And have you heard anything from
[49:24] senior leadership from the city, which I
[49:27] don't include to be city manager,
[49:30] mayor, or city council?
[49:33] >> Nothing like official.
[49:35] >> Yeah.
[49:37] Um,
[49:38] so I mean if nothing sub substantive has
[49:41] happened in over a year now
[49:43] and there's nothing on going right now
[49:45] and there's no realistic prospect
[49:47] anything's going to happen soon
[49:49] or even the next year or two or three
[49:51] years. Uh, I wonder how we can use a
[49:54] plan in an adverse manner for a property
[49:57] owner who does enjoy property rights.
[50:01] And I'll point out two problems that
[50:03] exist as things stand right now because
[50:05] this has not been implemented
[50:06] regulation. Um you can compare property
[50:09] that's in the middle of one of these
[50:10] zings in this case Dr. Converge property
[50:12] which clearly in the library growth area
[50:15] plan identified as future estate
[50:16] residential versus a similar property at
[50:20] the edge of this zoning district. And
[50:22] how do you determine whether or not
[50:24] that's in or out?
[50:26] It's pretty clear to me that those two
[50:28] properties would be handled in a
[50:29] potentially disparit manner. They would
[50:32] have to be and I don't think that's
[50:34] fair.
[50:36] And then if this plan were fully imp
[50:38] implemented at some point in the future,
[50:41] there would be in regulation some
[50:43] process for amending this map and
[50:44] revising it. That's mentioned in the
[50:46] conceptual part of the plan. It's been
[50:47] talked right now by the city and the
[50:50] council. But presumably there would also
[50:52] be an element or mechanism whereby a
[50:54] property owner could seek relief for an
[50:56] amendment on the map as well just like
[50:58] as we have now you know to do the same
[51:00] with the zoning district amendment in
[51:01] our current resolution for county
[51:04] property right now there's no no
[51:06] prospect of that so if Dr. Gadori will
[51:09] want to invent the map right now or some
[51:11] other property owner seeking to gain
[51:13] approval for some sort of development.
[51:15] What do they do? They're in limbo. And
[51:17] again, I see that as quite unfair.
[51:20] And again, I I just as I started out,
[51:24] had it been six months ago or 12 months
[51:25] ago, I would have still had faith that
[51:27] something might happen. And I have been
[51:29] as big a proponent of polar rhyth.
[51:33] But nothing but realistically nothing is
[51:35] happening. And there's no realistic
[51:37] chance anytime soon.
[51:40] >> I am holding on. I'm just letting you
[51:42] know I have something to say.
[51:43] >> Yeah. Um
[51:47] [clears throat]
[51:48] and I'll just say personally I think
[51:50] were up to me. I would reserve this
[51:52] property for us. I I identify as
[51:55] property near to town. Uh once 15th
[51:58] Street is extended all the way out. Uh
[52:00] it's an easy commute on bike or I won't
[52:02] say easy on foot but anyway on bike or
[52:04] whatn not to the center of town and I
[52:06] think a storage facility like this could
[52:08] be just as well positioned five or 10
[52:10] miles out somewhere where community
[52:13] times don't matter
[52:15] but uh if I set aside growth area plan
[52:19] as a reason to look at this adversely
[52:23] then I'm left with the findings
[52:27] and you've made the findings and you
[52:28] said all the findings been satis I
[52:30] thought your analysis was thorough and
[52:32] on point.
[52:34] And I will ask Matt,
[52:37] I presume you review all these
[52:38] applications and you look at the staff
[52:40] analysis.
[52:42] >> I did in this instance. Yeah,
[52:44] >> you did. And did you have any any
[52:46] problems or qualms with the findings
[52:48] that whether they're met or not?
[52:53] » Yeah, those are really the policy
[52:55] determinations that are that are up to
[52:57] planning and zoning commission and the
[52:58] board. Now, well, my view was the
[53:02] analysis was was was solid and that uh
[53:06] the application was an excellent
[53:07] application and we we've seen a lot of
[53:09] applications and and some are frankly
[53:11] fairly crude. Uh but this is quite
[53:14] detailed
[53:15] and I look at the findings and I think
[53:18] the findings are all met and therefore
[53:21] I believe we should recommend approval
[53:22] of this.
[53:24] You're going to go ahead.
[53:26] >> Thank you. So when we look at the growth
[53:30] plan, we look at what we are facing as a
[53:35] community, I think we need to take into
[53:37] account that we are facing a housing
[53:40] crisis.
[53:42] And every parcel of land that we convert
[53:46] from potential housing
[53:48] into something that is not housing, we
[53:51] are betraying our community.
[53:54] We are taking a lot of people say what
[53:58] can county commissioners do for housing
[54:01] and my uh response to people who ask me
[54:04] that is the county doesn't own a
[54:07] [laughter] lot of land. We can't
[54:09] allocate land for housing. We can't
[54:12] build housing co-ops like they do in
[54:14] Teton County and other places. Alvin
[54:17] County, the county doesn't own land. The
[54:21] only thing we can do is we can change
[54:24] the zoning to uh to to be uh more commen
[54:30] uh possible
[54:32] development as housing. And this is a
[54:35] classic case where we have the
[54:38] opportunity to um turn a parcel of land
[54:43] into ranchets. not high density, taking
[54:47] into account the neighbor's concerns,
[54:49] but also addressing some of the city of
[54:53] Laramie and Albany County
[54:56] uh housing crisis. So uh just based on
[54:59] that I would say we should uh deny this
[55:04] application and encourage the to think
[55:08] about how can we uh do something for h
[55:12] for the to address the housing crisis.
[55:14] And just as an aside we are working on
[55:17] creating these co-ops right now in
[55:20] Albony County and the city of Larmy and
[55:23] trying to get funding mechanisms for
[55:25] them. So it may be a better approach for
[55:28] disposal. Thank you.
[55:31] >> Well,
[55:33] one more thing and then I'll recognize
[55:35] you. How about that? Um I think prices
[55:38] is a little bit overall. I would say
[55:39] housing problem and and otherwise agree
[55:42] with you and I also point out that state
[55:44] residential is not an opposed to
[55:46] affordable housing. So that's not going
[55:48] to solve much of anything in terms of
[55:50] affordable housing. Burn, please go
[55:51] ahead.
[55:52] >> I didn't call it the housing crisis. It
[55:54] wasn't my wording. I'm just quoting.
[55:56] >> All right, that's fine.
[55:57] >> Okay,
[55:58] >> let me know that she's quoting housing
[56:00] crisis and [laughter]
[56:03] >> there are many who call it a crisis. No,
[56:05] but responding to your comments, Mr. M,
[56:06] with all due respect, Mr. Chair, I
[56:08] disagree. First of all, the Larmy area
[56:11] growth plan is an adopted land use plan
[56:14] and as Mr. Gers pointed out, it's being
[56:17] implemented every day just as the
[56:19] comprehensive plan is. Now there are
[56:21] other things that could be done to
[56:23] implement it by say reszoning the county
[56:27] but it stands as a fully authorized
[56:30] statement by the county commission
[56:33] saying this is how we want this to grow
[56:35] like any other land use plan. So it is
[56:38] in incorrect to say it is not being
[56:40] implemented. There's more one could do.
[56:42] If the county commissioners wanted to
[56:44] renounce the thing they could do that by a simple vote. So it is incorrect to
[56:49] say that the Larameir growth plan is
[56:50] irrelevant to our decisions. It is in
[56:52] fact one of our guiding documents.
[56:55] Furthermore and perhaps more importantly
[56:59] we have the comprehensive plan itself
[57:01] that does not contemplate this being
[57:02] commercial. In fact describes it as PGA3
[57:05] which is it's largely residential and
[57:07] large lot residential. We have PGAS one
[57:10] and two that are part of the plan. This
[57:13] isn't part of that. we have the existing
[57:15] zoning as we see on our map. So to
[57:18] suggest that that the lur area growth
[57:21] plan is the only reason not to to just
[57:24] simply reszone things uh as some
[57:27] applicant comes forward that's I say
[57:30] that's just incorrect. Now as far as the
[57:31] staff analysis I'm not arguing that they
[57:33] did an inadequate analysis but but
[57:35] virtually everything in that analysis is
[57:37] completely subjective.
[57:39] They didn't say here's this and here's
[57:41] this and add two and we end up with
[57:43] four. Their opinion was that this was
[57:45] compatible. My opinion is that it is not
[57:48] compatible particularly given 57 acres
[57:51] and particularly given the general land
[57:53] use patterns of the area where we have
[57:55] commercial and industrial uh uses
[57:58] concentrated on the west side of 28 of Soldier Springs Road and the
[58:04] railroad. We have residential areas and
[58:06] open areas that we value highly in this
[58:08] county extending completely to the crest
[58:11] of the mountain if we'd look to the
[58:13] east. We are fully capable and
[58:16] authorized to assess compatibility and I
[58:19] encourage my fellow commissioners to
[58:21] assess that compatibility to be
[58:23] represented by the existing zoning
[58:26] backed up by the comprehensive plan the
[58:28] larary growth plan if you care to use
[58:30] it. but it does not stand or fall on the status of the Laria growth plan.
[58:35] So, I would encourage a a favorable vote
[58:37] on my motion. Thank you.
[58:41] I
[58:42] >> I'll just push back on one thing. Uh I
[58:44] think it's clear that the plan provided
[58:47] to us by the consultants and adopted by
[58:49] the county envision implementation as a
[58:51] plan into regulation.
[58:54] Uh and with that, I've said everything I feel like I wanted to say. Is there
[58:59] any further discussion?
[59:01] >> The other thing I'd like to add is we
[59:02] did
[59:04] a couple months ago we were talking
[59:05] about on Two Rivers Road where we
[59:08] actually allowed
[59:11] to be smaller lots and part of their
[59:14] argument or their presentation was we
[59:17] need to have more available areas for
[59:20] putting housing in. Um lowcost housing
[59:24] is an oxymoron.
[59:27] uh it doesn't exist anymore with current
[59:29] costs, but having property that is
[59:32] residentially zoned gives people the
[59:35] opportunity to say, I want to live on
[59:37] the north side of town or I want to live
[59:38] on the south side. And if we do away
[59:41] with that, we are closing
[59:44] we're closing down housing to people who
[59:46] would who may want to move here and make
[59:50] their lives here and their families
[59:51] lives.
[59:53] Um,
[59:56] >> that's all I had to say. Anyone else?
[1:00:00] Okay. Well, fair enough. We will conduct
[1:00:02] a vote. Roll call. Barb, how about you?
[1:00:05] >> Do we need to read?
[1:00:06] >> Uh, I I vote to deny the
[1:00:08] >> Wait, we need to read the actual
[1:00:11] >> Yes, we do. Thank you, Mor.
[1:00:13] >> You're welcome.
[1:00:14] >> Would you care to read that?
[1:00:15] >> I will do that.
[1:00:16] >> Yeah, I my motion included that, Mr.
[1:00:18] Chair.
[1:00:20] >> Uh, it won't hurt to reread the motion
[1:00:22] in any way. Go ahead and and if you
[1:00:24] agree with this then we'll move forward.
[1:00:26] >> Okay.
[1:00:26] >> Yeah. It it it certainly won't hurt you.
[1:00:28] Make sure we don't Yeah. To make your
[1:00:31] life easy, uh, we [clears throat]
[1:00:34] recommend to the board of county
[1:00:35] commissioners deny the Kadori zoning
[1:00:38] district amendment ZDA0326
[1:00:42] based upon the applicant's failure to
[1:00:44] demonstrate that the proposed zoning
[1:00:46] district amendment complies with the
[1:00:48] criteria specific uh to ACZL chapter 3
[1:00:53] section 5. Um and I don't know which
[1:00:56] subsection is this but as follows this
[1:00:59] is all um this is a residential area or
[1:01:05] zone residential and converting it into
[1:01:08] commercial or it's reduce housing uh
[1:01:11] potential for the county.
[1:01:15] >> Okay. Any questions about the motion?
[1:01:17] >> No. All right. Matt, uh, that does not
[1:01:20] get to any required finding, which is
[1:01:23] your basis for approval.
[1:01:24] >> Okay. I'm sorry, Bernie, you had the the
[1:01:28] correct
[1:01:29] >> the the motion that's on the the floor.
[1:01:31] as we can craft it otherwise was I move
[1:01:34] that ZDA 0326 be recommended for denial
[1:01:39] based on incompatibility with the
[1:01:41] comprehensive plan with the growth plan
[1:01:44] and with land uses in the great majority
[1:01:47] of the surrounding area
[1:01:50] >> is that okay match
[1:01:52] >> okay so
[1:01:57] » so Barb how do you vote
[1:02:01] » [clears throat]
[1:02:02] >> I vote to deny the proposal.
[1:02:05] >> Burn.
[1:02:08] >> I vote yes on the motion which is to
[1:02:10] deny the proposal.
[1:02:12] >> We understand. Craig,
[1:02:13] >> I vote yes.
[1:02:15] >> Rough.
[1:02:15] >> Yes.
[1:02:16] >> And I vote no. So that motion carries.
[1:02:18] Uh and thank you for everyone for your
[1:02:21] input.
[1:02:22] >> Thank you.
[1:02:24] >> Do we feel we need a break?
[1:02:27] >> No, we don't feel we need a break. All
[1:02:28] right. In that case, we will move on to
[1:02:30] the next item which is the item we
[1:02:33] inserted
[1:02:34] uh which we will have a bit of a
[1:02:37] discussion on data centers.
[1:02:40] Uh this is not there's no form or
[1:02:43] pattern or anything to this. So
[1:02:47] we will just have a open discussion for
[1:02:50] as long as I feel like we're
[1:02:51] accomplishing something [clears throat]
[1:02:52] and then I'll call.
[1:02:55] >> Okay. Um,
[1:02:57] >> David, is is there by any chance?
[1:03:00] >> Is there anything you'd like to lead off
[1:03:02] with?
[1:03:04] >> Um, may I put you on the spot so you
[1:03:07] don't have to
[1:03:08] >> for data center stuff?
[1:03:10] >> Um, I know you attended the city meeting
[1:03:12] or the joint meeting yesterday,
[1:03:14] >> right? Um, I would just say that the
[1:03:16] public um, showed up um, and it was a
[1:03:20] good meeting. I think there's some good
[1:03:21] information they're provided by city
[1:03:23] staff. Um both city and county staff
[1:03:26] obviously provided information about
[1:03:28] where we are in our regulations and what
[1:03:31] we can and can't do when it comes to
[1:03:33] data centers. Um both both entities need
[1:03:37] to work on those I believe. Um
[1:03:41] and I think we just heard a lot of good feedback on data centers. Um the
[1:03:49] things that the public do not like about
[1:03:51] them and some of the things that the
[1:03:52] public do like about them. Um, and I
[1:03:55] would just mention that that county
[1:03:57] staff is working on um potential
[1:04:00] regulatory changes um which you will see
[1:04:04] here in the next
[1:04:06] meeting. Just depends on if we can get
[1:04:09] some of the details figured out which
[1:04:11] we're working diligently on and
[1:04:14] hopefully moving forward that. So,
[1:04:16] >> okay. Uh, and Burn and Raf, either one
[1:04:20] of you, uh, you all both, as I
[1:04:21] understand, attended a meeting hosted by
[1:04:23] someone from the Sierra Club local
[1:04:24] chapter.
[1:04:25] >> I would like to add Yeah, I would like
[1:04:27] to add some Oh,
[1:04:28] >> sure. Go ahead.
[1:04:29] >> to what uh the meeting last night was
[1:04:31] about. Uh, so as uh Dave mentioned, uh,
[1:04:36] sorry, Mr. Burge, [laughter]
[1:04:39] uh, the room was packed. Well, it uh was
[1:04:43] standing room only and even standing
[1:04:45] room
[1:04:46] was packed. The room was absolutely
[1:04:49] packed. Uh the uh main
[1:04:55] things that came uh uh in the meeting is
[1:05:00] that within the city limits of Laramie
[1:05:03] there is not a really good site for a
[1:05:06] data center. We are not talking about
[1:05:08] the the University of Wyoming computer
[1:05:11] or not even the superco computer. We're
[1:05:13] talking about hypers scale data centers.
[1:05:15] That's a concern of people and there is
[1:05:18] just not enough land within the city of
[1:05:21] Larmy to accommodate a hypers scale this
[1:05:24] data center which is something that we
[1:05:26] have known. So basically the
[1:05:29] responsibility for regulating the data
[1:05:32] centers falls on to Albany county
[1:05:36] commissioners.
[1:05:38] And why is that? We have the space and
[1:05:43] um there is a potential loophole in the
[1:05:47] state regulation, the state statutes
[1:05:50] that transfers the responsibility to um
[1:05:55] to the county and that is by creating by
[1:05:59] us creating a zoning category called
[1:06:02] indust industrial park.
[1:06:05] And in our uh uh current statutes, if
[1:06:11] you have an industrial park in Albany
[1:06:14] County,
[1:06:16] you uh have the right
[1:06:20] then the the uh the right to build uh a
[1:06:24] data set, hypers scale data set on that
[1:06:27] parcel without going through the
[1:06:30] industrial sighting of the state.
[1:06:34] And that is the thing that caused a lot
[1:06:37] of grief and aggravation to people in
[1:06:41] the audience. Uh most of the
[1:06:44] presentations
[1:06:46] that we heard last night were in
[1:06:49] opposition to data to settle. Uh few uh
[1:06:53] were in support
[1:06:54] >> presentations or comments?
[1:06:56] >> Comments from the public.
[1:06:57] >> Yeah,
[1:06:58] >> the staff did not. Uh the staff
[1:07:00] presented very as Dave mentioned very
[1:07:02] nice. I'll just uh add something that uh I heard from M uh Director
[1:07:08] Smith, the water department, but I'll
[1:07:10] mention it in a minute. Most of the
[1:07:11] public comments were in opposition, a
[1:07:14] few were in support largely because of
[1:07:16] the potential uh revenue and income from
[1:07:20] uh something like that. But the main
[1:07:22] concerns that people in addition to
[1:07:24] being concerned about uh being concerned
[1:07:28] about the uh power, the electricity, the
[1:07:32] water, um discussion of what is a a
[1:07:35] closed cooling system, yes or no. People
[1:07:38] also talked about uh uh the fact that we
[1:07:42] don't we can't trust these large
[1:07:44] corporation. People brought examples
[1:07:47] from other places in the United States
[1:07:49] and abroad of cases where this
[1:07:52] corporation lied about what they're
[1:07:55] going to do, got permits based on that
[1:07:57] and then did something else. So there
[1:07:59] were a lot of uh there was a lot of
[1:08:01] stress and aggravation.
[1:08:03] The bottom line of that I don't I'm not
[1:08:05] going to repeat all these. I'm just
[1:08:07] going to say that uh at the end of the
[1:08:11] uh public hearing, the public comments,
[1:08:15] city council, the mayor asked the staff
[1:08:19] to consider a moratorum.
[1:08:23] They said that uh they want to learn
[1:08:26] more and they wanted to learn more about
[1:08:30] uh what are the implications for the
[1:08:33] community. One of the things that
[1:08:36] director Smith has brought up and this
[1:08:39] is something that I have been talking
[1:08:41] about before we talked about this data
[1:08:44] center is uh water availability and
[1:08:47] delivery. If you all remember the
[1:08:50] presentation I gave to you several in
[1:08:52] April about water problems that we may
[1:08:56] face. uh uh director Smith said that his
[1:09:00] concern is whether we will be able to
[1:09:02] supply water for the city of Larmy if we
[1:09:06] have data centers coming to the valley
[1:09:10] and he said I don't want to think about
[1:09:11] this year I want you to think about the
[1:09:14] next 10 years and uh as Bern knows uh I
[1:09:19] have been very concerned about water and
[1:09:22] the aquifer not so much the river uh
[1:09:26] because there are no regulations that uh
[1:09:32] can stop any industrial and it's not
[1:09:34] necessarily data center. There are no
[1:09:37] regulations that say when do you stop
[1:09:40] drawing water from the aquifer. So we
[1:09:43] have the overlay zone and the overlay
[1:09:45] zone is mostly protecting from
[1:09:47] contamination and that's why I put the
[1:09:50] lot sizes and the Supreme Court
[1:09:52] supported that. that really anyone can
[1:09:55] go to the state engineers's office and
[1:09:58] ask for a permit to drill a well and
[1:10:01] just drain the aquifer down. Now, we
[1:10:05] have a really nice aquifer. No, no
[1:10:08] concerns at the current use, but these
[1:10:12] data centers are uh huge. Even with
[1:10:16] closed loop systems, I've seen values
[1:10:19] that are unimaginable with what we have.
[1:10:23] And so what I my next step would be and
[1:10:28] hopefully we can discuss that further is there a level of the aquifill draw
[1:10:33] down where we say stop
[1:10:36] drawing water for industrial use. It's
[1:10:38] all going to go to human consumption.
[1:10:42] But that's in in a thing and and
[1:10:44] [clears throat] director Smith basically
[1:10:46] addressed that in his concern. Now the
[1:10:50] city can put any moratoriums they want.
[1:10:53] No one is going to build a hypers scale
[1:10:55] data center within city limits. So
[1:10:58] basically this comes to us to the county
[1:11:02] and that's something that we need to
[1:11:04] discuss and decide on. Do we want to
[1:11:08] take responsibility for monitoring and
[1:11:11] regulating a hypers scale data center or
[1:11:14] multiple data centers in Alburn County?
[1:11:17] Do we have the capacity to monitor noise
[1:11:20] pollution? Do we have the capacity to
[1:11:23] monitor traffic? Do we have the capacity
[1:11:26] to monitor heat? And the truth of the
[1:11:29] matter is we don't even have money for
[1:11:33] our road and bridge. [laughter]
[1:11:36] So to add stress on to what we can do
[1:11:41] doesn't seem logical to me. Um but we
[1:11:44] need to discuss this further and uh
[1:11:46] that's why I suggest and would suggest
[1:11:49] to the county commissioners
[1:11:51] uh to put a moratorum in the county in
[1:11:55] parallel to what the city council is
[1:11:58] planning on to make sure that we
[1:12:01] understand what can happen and how can
[1:12:05] we monitor what happens in an industrial
[1:12:09] park.
[1:12:11] Do you want me to continue on what
[1:12:13] happened the week before [laughter] or
[1:12:16] >> would you like to say anything about
[1:12:17] what last week's meeting first or not?
[1:12:20] >> Oh, just just a couple of thoughts to
[1:12:21] add and we don't need to belver it. One
[1:12:24] was
[1:12:25] been hearkening back to something that
[1:12:27] I've said when we brought this first
[1:12:28] before our commission is we need to
[1:12:30] define data centers. So I'm encouraged
[1:12:31] by the fact that the discussion now are changing the term. They're talking
[1:12:35] about hypers scale data centers and and
[1:12:38] AI data centers. So, I haven't heard
[1:12:40] clear lines drawn, but I'm encouraged
[1:12:42] that people who are working on this are
[1:12:44] cognizant of the fact that, you know,
[1:12:47] two guys in the bottom with a gaming
[1:12:48] computer ain't a data center, and we're
[1:12:50] only talking about the big ones. So,
[1:12:51] that's that's an encouraging move
[1:12:53] forward. Um,
[1:12:56] a question that was asked at the meeting
[1:12:57] I attended, which I thought was a good
[1:12:58] one, is if you're going to have a
[1:12:59] moratorum, you need to decide what
[1:13:01] you're going to do with it. Uh, there's
[1:13:03] a tendency to just have a moratorum
[1:13:04] because we're nervous. So I would
[1:13:06] encourage anything that anyone's
[1:13:08] thinking about a moratorum that they be
[1:13:10] challenged to say okay I'll give you a
[1:13:12] year what are you going to do most
[1:13:13] constructively with the year what is it
[1:13:15] that you need to have resolved to move
[1:13:18] forward so I don't think we should be
[1:13:20] applying uh moratoriums casually or
[1:13:24] kicking the can down the road if we did
[1:13:26] that at all and that's what's really
[1:13:27] missing now and is beginning to mature
[1:13:29] in the discussion is what are the
[1:13:31] realistic issues both pro and on the
[1:13:36] other thing that we hear very little
[1:13:37] about that I I if we're going to be
[1:13:39] decision makers, it's balancing is is
[1:13:41] what what do these things bring to the
[1:13:42] community? Are the tax structures such
[1:13:45] that they they will improve the quality
[1:13:47] of our schools and our roads and and
[1:13:49] retire our our infrastructure needs? Is
[1:13:51] that realistic? What is it that we're
[1:13:53] weighing their very real impacts
[1:13:55] against? And I would not prejudge that their uh impacts exceed the
[1:14:01] benefits. We need to research both sides
[1:14:04] of that equation. That's my only two
[1:14:06] bits worth.
[1:14:08] >> Would you like to add anything about
[1:14:10] that meeting?
[1:14:11] >> Yes.
[1:14:11] >> Then we'll go around and take some other
[1:14:13] time.
[1:14:13] >> Sure. Absolutely. So, so uh one thing
[1:14:17] that have been brought up in both
[1:14:20] meetings is what is called community
[1:14:22] benefits agreements. And everybody I
[1:14:25] think in both meetings was very much in
[1:14:28] favor. In fact, in the Wednesday
[1:14:31] meeting, uh people came up with a a
[1:14:35] great list of excellent proposals for
[1:14:38] what if if someone comes to us, what are
[1:14:41] we going to require from them in in
[1:14:44] order to approve a data center. So I
[1:14:47] think there is a a great uh progression
[1:14:51] in that and people are people are
[1:14:54] thinking and another thing about the
[1:14:56] mortorium of the city. The city asked
[1:14:58] the mayor asked the staff to tell what
[1:15:02] length of moratorum and what kind of
[1:15:05] data they need to collect in order to so
[1:15:07] that was super uh um informative for you
[1:15:13] know the city is not going to put a
[1:15:15] moratorum without knowing exactly what
[1:15:18] data points they're going to collect. I
[1:15:20] think that's excellent. I'll make one
[1:15:22] comment and then go to Greg and Bern I
[1:15:24] mean Barb for anything you might want to
[1:15:26] say as we continue around with regards
[1:15:28] to city moratorum. I just think it's
[1:15:29] interesting given the fact there's no
[1:15:31] place in the city where a hyper be
[1:15:33] built. So what's the point? I mean there
[1:15:36] might be some point in satisfying some
[1:15:38] citizen
[1:15:41] that's going to be built within city
[1:15:42] limits or even adjacent city. Uh so
[1:15:46] [laughter]
[1:15:47] all right uh with that any thoughts
[1:15:49] you'd like to offer?
[1:15:51] >> Just that we need to balance things very
[1:15:52] carefully on this. Uh I've seen articles
[1:15:56] that they're going to put huge solar
[1:15:58] farms next to the data centers. So the
[1:16:02] data center is not going to run at
[1:16:03] night.
[1:16:05] I mean it's just something to think
[1:16:06] about. We need to not rush into this
[1:16:09] places that have have had some very
[1:16:11] adverse effects on their communities.
[1:16:15] So please think about it and let's not
[1:16:19] just do the oh it's going to be a great
[1:16:21] thing. We need to think about it and
[1:16:25] moratorium should not be a well no nope
[1:16:28] data centers for the next 50 years. It's
[1:16:30] ridiculous. We need to set a realistic
[1:16:33] time span of all right there's a
[1:16:35] moratorum for 18 months or 24 months
[1:16:38] until data can be put together to pro
[1:16:40] disprove your theories of or your fears
[1:16:44] or to prove that it's a manageable
[1:16:46] problem whether it's water power land
[1:16:49] the whole thing. We need to think about
[1:16:52] this very carefully and we need to
[1:16:55] really
[1:16:57] we need to get as much input as we can
[1:16:59] from reliable sources.
[1:17:02] That's it. Barb, you have a comments you
[1:17:04] like to make?
[1:17:07] >> Well, I'm all for bringing, you know,
[1:17:09] economic development into uh the area,
[1:17:12] but wi with caution. So, you know, I'd
[1:17:15] be concerned about power structure, uh,
[1:17:17] use of our water resources, and also
[1:17:20] hazardous waste, which has been some
[1:17:23] things that the Cheyenne Breley area
[1:17:25] have had to, uh, you know, battle
[1:17:28] recently. So, there's there's real
[1:17:30] concerns about um, those structures.
[1:17:35] » Anything else?
[1:17:36] >> Can I just add something?
[1:17:38] >> Sure.
[1:17:40] >> Uh, the chair is correct. There is
[1:17:41] absolutely no place within city limits
[1:17:44] because what we're talking about right
[1:17:46] now for hypers scale data centers is 600
[1:17:50] acres
[1:17:52] >> of building of building not even in the
[1:17:54] surrounding area. They build them on 600
[1:17:58] and more acres. So there's no 600 acres.
[1:18:01] >> It's a it's a square mile.
[1:18:03] >> Yeah. Basically. [laughter]
[1:18:06] >> So yeah. So ch is correct in a a
[1:18:09] mortorium in a city is not going to do
[1:18:11] anything. It's it's basically the ball
[1:18:14] in our court.
[1:18:17] >> Well um I think some public would like
[1:18:20] to make comments.
[1:18:21] >> I am going to actually first go to
[1:18:22] someone else. I am noting it that
[1:18:24] Commissioner Jones is here with us. Uh
[1:18:25] Terry, is there anything you like to
[1:18:27] say?
[1:18:28] >> Sure.
[1:18:35] Um I think it's important to note that
[1:18:39] if
[1:18:40] um we use the industrial sighting and we
[1:18:45] use their option
[1:18:48] to do um industrial park.
[1:18:52] That park is still regulated by
[1:18:55] industrial sighting. And to imply that
[1:18:58] industrial sighting is not part of that
[1:19:01] industrial park is absolutely wrong.
[1:19:04] Industrial sighting is in this whole
[1:19:06] thing through the whole process.
[1:19:10] Nobody's skipping out on anything.
[1:19:13] And you need to get your pro your uh
[1:19:16] information correct.
[1:19:18] >> Thank you. I will. Um, I'm going to make
[1:19:22] a few comments and then I think how does
[1:19:25] the commission feel about taking some
[1:19:26] comments from the public?
[1:19:28] >> I'm in favor.
[1:19:29] Mark.
[1:19:32] >> Yeah.
[1:19:33] >> Bern,
[1:19:35] what's the question?
[1:19:38] >> You'll take a few comments from the
[1:19:39] public. We do have
[1:19:41] >> No, no, no, no. That's fine. Uh, if
[1:19:43] you've got the time, let's go for it.
[1:19:45] Then I'll make some comments and then
[1:19:46] we'll invite the public to uh step
[1:19:49] forward and say what they might like to
[1:19:51] say. Um I've taken in this past month
[1:19:55] since our last meeting some time to take
[1:19:57] a look at industrial sighting council
[1:20:00] and try to understand what they do, what
[1:20:04] sort of options we have in front of us
[1:20:05] and and what sort of the practicalities
[1:20:08] of what we're facing are. And I think I
[1:20:11] have a better understanding now. Um, and
[1:20:13] Matt, if I say something which you know
[1:20:15] is contrary to regulation, you can
[1:20:17] correct me. You will correct me.
[1:20:20] Um, but here is what I understand to be
[1:20:23] the case.
[1:20:25] The industrial sighting council and
[1:20:27] regulations kick in when a large scale
[1:20:29] project over a certain threshold of mon
[1:20:31] monetary expenditure is exceeded. Right
[1:20:33] now it's between 283 million and $29
[1:20:35] million. So something large.
[1:20:39] [clears throat] And the intent there to
[1:20:41] make sure that a large project receives
[1:20:44] a very careful
[1:20:47] amount of rigorous exhaustive scrutiny
[1:20:49] which may not be handled uh or be able
[1:20:52] to be handled by at least some of the
[1:20:53] counties and say the district won't have
[1:20:54] the staff or the resource to do that. So
[1:20:57] it is not something meant to subvert
[1:21:00] county planning and county regulation
[1:21:02] but to supplement it to make sure that
[1:21:05] this is something good uh you know if
[1:21:07] something's going to be approved and
[1:21:09] ultimately what they do uh is they would
[1:21:12] be the ones to use your construction
[1:21:13] permit. So that is the one thing that
[1:21:15] comes working with county as I
[1:21:16] understand it or the industrial science
[1:21:18] council for those projects but otherwise
[1:21:22] all of our regulations both zoning and
[1:21:24] other processes still apply and they all
[1:21:27] have to be satisfied by any application
[1:21:29] goes forward right now in the county and
[1:21:32] here you can correct me I think there
[1:21:34] are only a couple of large parcels of
[1:21:36] land some industrial and I can think of
[1:21:39] the municipal waste or the land dump um
[1:21:42] city water treatment plant. The land
[1:21:46] occupied by Mount Rocky Mountain Cement
[1:21:48] or Mountain Cement.
[1:21:50] And um there are two parcels of about
[1:21:54] 200 acres a piece south of I80 sort of
[1:21:58] northwest of town miles out that were
[1:22:01] and they still are uh zone industrial
[1:22:04] presumably because it's area of oil
[1:22:06] wells and some production facilities
[1:22:08] there. And I think that's it in terms of
[1:22:10] larger parcels and all of those I mean
[1:22:13] the largest would be the would be those
[1:22:15] two parcels put together four acres are
[1:22:18] in fact too small for what we're talking
[1:22:19] about for a hyper scale center mega
[1:22:22] center. So the reality is right now if a
[1:22:25] developer walked in the door and said we
[1:22:27] want to uh put up a hyper center and we
[1:22:30] collectively citizens staff this
[1:22:34] commission county commissioner said no
[1:22:36] hell no there's nothing they can do they
[1:22:38] they've got to get approval from us in
[1:22:41] addition to whatever happens at district
[1:22:42] council
[1:22:45] the loophole that exists for the wrong reasons in my mind
[1:22:49] and that would be if the county were to
[1:22:52] uh designate and um regulations to
[1:22:55] create industrial park that would
[1:22:57] actually create a site which is more
[1:22:59] shuttle ready for something happen which
[1:23:02] would bypass the industrial sighting
[1:23:04] council which if you were worried about
[1:23:07] bad things happening you would not want
[1:23:08] to happen.
[1:23:10] So that would be the kind of thing you
[1:23:12] would do if you wanted to expedite or
[1:23:15] speed up some large scale process
[1:23:17] because you or for whatever reason. Uh
[1:23:20] so uh if there was any you know urge to
[1:23:24] hastily designate some provisions in
[1:23:27] Arizona resolution to create industrial
[1:23:28] parks I don't think that'd be a great
[1:23:30] idea. Um and uh I will add on two other
[1:23:36] things which are uh here too if someone
[1:23:39] shows up in county mar and wants to
[1:23:41] build a hypers scale facility they're
[1:23:44] looking at very very long lead times
[1:23:47] they would have to work through walking
[1:23:48] mountain power walking on power today
[1:23:49] could not begin to satisfy their needs
[1:23:51] redundant power supply it's a very
[1:23:54] expensive process I mean not these you
[1:23:57] know things like that I google what I
[1:23:59] couldn't find it but it's very expensive
[1:24:01] it's lot of casual expenditure and again
[1:24:04] it takes a long time to get these things
[1:24:05] underway and it works.
[1:24:08] >> So I don't think we face anything urgent
[1:24:10] at all. I certainly don't see that we
[1:24:11] needed more toward it. I mean it doesn't
[1:24:13] accomplish anything because nothing's
[1:24:14] going to happen anytime soon. Um
[1:24:19] [sighs and gasps]
[1:24:22] yeah I'll just emphasize one more time.
[1:24:25] If you look at the permitting process,
[1:24:27] industrial signing council, you go
[1:24:28] online, you can look on actual permit.
[1:24:30] You can actually see like for instance
[1:24:31] the real time permit. You can look at
[1:24:33] the most current permit which is just
[1:24:34] approved January July 13th what these
[1:24:37] things are extremely rigorous. They're
[1:24:40] exhaustive. They've got to be expensive
[1:24:41] put together. Very time consuming. Uh
[1:24:44] there is a time limit by which the
[1:24:47] industrial sighting council is supposed
[1:24:48] to move an act on a permit. But from
[1:24:50] further reading I don't know if it's
[1:24:52] true or not it is often exceeded. Um,
[1:24:56] so, uh, yeah, I just don't think we face
[1:24:59] anything urgent that we've got to either
[1:25:01] do right now or tomorrow, otherwise
[1:25:02] we're screwed. So, with that, I'll be h
[1:25:05] Well, Matt, you want to say something?
[1:25:07] >> Yeah. Um,
[1:25:12] so I think that there
[1:25:16] are some clarifications that need to be
[1:25:18] made about the entire system in general.
[1:25:21] Um so wind energy is its own beast. Um
[1:25:26] in that instance the legislature passed
[1:25:29] statutory structure in which wind and
[1:25:32] solar energy facilities commercial
[1:25:34] anyway are concurrently
[1:25:38] um permitted by the counties uh and
[1:25:42] state industrial sighting council.
[1:25:45] Uh for anything that is under the
[1:25:48] jurisdiction of the Industrial Sighting
[1:25:50] Council, 3512115A
[1:25:55] states that no uh no local government
[1:25:59] may require any approval, consent,
[1:26:01] permit, certificate or other condition
[1:26:04] for the construction, operation or
[1:26:06] maintenance of a facility authorized by
[1:26:09] permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
[1:26:13] I think that that is um pretty clear
[1:26:15] statutory language that if
[1:26:18] ISC is permitting an industrial
[1:26:20] facility,
[1:26:22] local government has no room for
[1:26:25] asserting its zoning regulations. Well,
[1:26:28] I read something different and I'll just
[1:26:30] read you what I've read and I'm not
[1:26:32] saying you're wrong and I'm not saying
[1:26:33] right. I'm just going to read you what I
[1:26:34] found. Uh two paragraphs. The Wyom
[1:26:36] Industrial Sighting Council evaluates
[1:26:38] regional social and economic impacts,
[1:26:40] but a project cannot proceed unless it
[1:26:42] also complies with all local zoning
[1:26:45] laws, building codes, and land use
[1:26:47] plans. And then addition to that, how
[1:26:50] the dual permitting authority work uh
[1:26:52] compliance mandate. Um this it's not
[1:26:55] really the word quite right, but anyway,
[1:26:57] under ISC rules, an industrial facility
[1:26:59] is only considered design in compliance
[1:27:02] if it meets all APA local zoning and
[1:27:04] health and safety ordinances.
[1:27:06] And um yeah, so but that was from the uh
[1:27:12] ISC's
[1:27:14] regulations.
[1:27:16] >> Uh this was quoted from I guess I'll say
[1:27:20] just a legal source or legal authority
[1:27:22] and not directly from actually some of
[1:27:24] this came from um the ISA website at
[1:27:28] DEQ. So it's a mix of stuff, man.
[1:27:31] >> Okay. because that that first
[1:27:34] um
[1:27:36] that first part that you quoted
[1:27:39] uh I have not seen that in anything
[1:27:41] outside of the context of wind
[1:27:43] >> and then I'll also add if you go and
[1:27:45] look I mean there's a whole bunch of
[1:27:46] permits online you can look at you can
[1:27:48] see where there are sections basically
[1:27:50] checklist where you know things need to
[1:27:52] comply with local zoning and and so on
[1:27:54] forth or not I mean so it's clearly
[1:27:57] being looked at
[1:27:58] >> it's being looked at
[1:28:00] >> but I'm not sure if that is a
[1:28:02] requirement,
[1:28:03] >> something that ISC will make a basis of
[1:28:05] denying.
[1:28:06] >> So I'm I'm saying I believe it is and
[1:28:08] I'm also saying I could be wrong.
[1:28:10] >> Okay.
[1:28:10] >> So there's an important qualifier. I
[1:28:12] admit that. But I believe this is
[1:28:15] correct.
[1:28:16] >> Okay. Well then secondly, I think that
[1:28:20] loophole is
[1:28:24] a bit of a misnomer. Um loophole is
[1:28:28] generally defined as
[1:28:33] an ambiguity or omission uh in the text
[1:28:37] through which the intent of a statute
[1:28:39] may be evaded. Mhm.
[1:28:41] >> It was explicitly provided, which is the
[1:28:45] most readily apparent source of the
[1:28:47] intent of a statute, that non-mineral
[1:28:50] processing facilities to be constructed
[1:28:52] in existing industrial parks as
[1:28:55] designated by local governments are
[1:28:58] exempt from paying fees or from payment
[1:29:00] of fees and certification
[1:29:03] procedures, but shall furnish the
[1:29:04] information required
[1:29:07] uh under statute. So if it takes place
[1:29:10] in a local government designated
[1:29:13] industrial park, there is no ISC permit.
[1:29:17] The only thing that
[1:29:20] someone an industrial facility has to
[1:29:22] apply to or provide to ISC is a
[1:29:26] description of the nature and location
[1:29:28] of the facility, estimated time of
[1:29:31] commencement uh of construction and
[1:29:33] construction time, an estimated numbers
[1:29:36] and job classifications
[1:29:38] uh during the construction phase and
[1:29:40] operating life of the facility. And I I
[1:29:43] think in this context a loophole has
[1:29:45] been used as it's commonly used. If a
[1:29:47] corporation wished to escape permitting
[1:29:50] from the ISC, this would constitute a
[1:29:53] loophole. I think it's being used in
[1:29:54] that context.
[1:29:56] >> Well, it's explicitly allowed under law.
[1:29:58] >> Yeah.
[1:29:58] >> So, it's the intent of the law to allow
[1:30:00] it.
[1:30:02] >> Um, it's basically saying that guess the
[1:30:05] permitting shifts fully from ISC
[1:30:09] >> to the locality. This would be a way for
[1:30:11] a corporation to evade the ISC if they
[1:30:13] didn't want to move that process.
[1:30:15] >> Yes. And they are really not under the
[1:30:17] purview of industrial set.
[1:30:19] >> Yeah.
[1:30:20] >> Uh they're under the purview of DEEQ for
[1:30:23] whatever requirements they may have
[1:30:25] regarding air quality, water quality,
[1:30:28] anything like that. But ISC is largely
[1:30:31] out of the picture.
[1:30:32] >> So we're we're not really disagreeing
[1:30:34] here. No. Yeah.
[1:30:35] >> Just points of clarification.
[1:30:39] David.
[1:30:40] >> Yeah. Can I just add just kind of
[1:30:43] sort of along the same vein is that even
[1:30:46] if there's a process to create a
[1:30:50] industrial zone, I mean all that does is
[1:30:53] give the local governments the
[1:30:54] opportunity to decide whether that
[1:30:56] industrial park zone is is goes into
[1:31:01] effect or not.
[1:31:02] >> Right. So like if if it's if a data
[1:31:05] center wants to come here and they're
[1:31:07] hey we need to do this and it goes
[1:31:09] through the process the board of county
[1:31:10] commissioners can say well I don't want
[1:31:13] to establish this I'd rather have them
[1:31:15] go through industrial sighting. So just
[1:31:16] because there's a process to do it
[1:31:19] doesn't mean that the you know the
[1:31:21] elected officials the board of county
[1:31:22] commissioners is going to elect to do
[1:31:24] that.
[1:31:24] >> Of course not. So
[1:31:25] >> my point is it's just it puts things a
[1:31:28] little bit closer in terms of shovel
[1:31:29] ready than if it weren't in place.
[1:31:32] >> And if you were worried about nefarious
[1:31:34] things going up and bribes taking place,
[1:31:37] there's [laughter] three county
[1:31:38] commissioners. I don't know how much of
[1:31:39] a bribe it would take to bribe Terry to
[1:31:42] >> a lot more money.
[1:31:44] >> A lot.
[1:31:46] But that's my point.
[1:31:48] >> Do we need it? And I I don't say we need
[1:31:51] it. We're talking about data centers
[1:31:52] right now. We don't need it. a fool to
[1:31:54] have a data center. We can zone the
[1:31:56] land, you know, industrial because we
[1:31:58] think it's a good idea to do, but I
[1:32:00] mean, you can do it also.
[1:32:04] We're off. So I understand why we don't
[1:32:07] want to use the word loophole but I
[1:32:10] think that I support uh Chlat's uh idea
[1:32:15] that we do not move forward with
[1:32:17] creating industrial even if there is a
[1:32:22] lot of mechanisms we can use lateral to
[1:32:25] stop things that the public don't we
[1:32:27] work for the public um and if the
[1:32:30] majority of Albony County residents say
[1:32:32] we don't want a data
[1:32:35] Even if we think it's a great idea,
[1:32:38] that's not up to us. It's not us make.
[1:32:41] We are making the decision legally, but
[1:32:43] we need to listen to our constituents.
[1:32:47] And the point is why make our life
[1:32:50] difficult by creating an industrial
[1:32:52] talk. Let's go with a with a hard harder
[1:32:56] process where people can have input when
[1:33:00] people can tell us what they really want
[1:33:02] what they're worried about us finding
[1:33:04] out if this you know in 5 years there
[1:33:06] may not even be cooling systems with
[1:33:09] water you know I mean the field is
[1:33:11] moving very fast
[1:33:13] but we don't have you know it's it I
[1:33:17] feel it's our responsibility to listen
[1:33:20] to the people of Albany county and right
[1:33:24] now and you you're probably right, we
[1:33:27] don't have to worry about actually
[1:33:29] putting formal moratorum on there, but I
[1:33:32] think we should not make it any easier
[1:33:35] on anyone.
[1:33:36] >> Matt, did you have something else?
[1:33:41] » Do you?
[1:33:42] >> I don't think so.
[1:33:43] >> Let's sit down.
[1:33:44] >> Should I have something else?
[1:33:45] >> No. I'd like to make a comment.
[1:33:47] [laughter]
[1:33:48] >> Ma'am, please step to our recognize her
[1:33:50] for dinner.
[1:33:52] Thank you. Um I [clears throat] was at
[1:33:55] that meeting last night. Um and I have
[1:33:58] in the past been supportive of data
[1:33:59] centers, not hypers scale data centers,
[1:34:01] but I run the Wyoming State Science Fair
[1:34:03] and ENCAR and the supercomputer have
[1:34:06] been supporters for decades of that
[1:34:08] program. Um I do see value in small
[1:34:13] smaller scale computing. Um the climate
[1:34:16] models that came out of those
[1:34:17] supercomputers have been fantastic from
[1:34:19] ENCAR and and very valuable. Um but I
[1:34:23] want to just say ask you today or
[1:34:25] implore you today to really consider the
[1:34:28] basics of that are necessary for the
[1:34:31] quality of human life for life in
[1:34:33] general and for quality of human life
[1:34:34] and that's clean water means water
[1:34:37] without toxins in in it. It means ample
[1:34:40] water supply, which we do have for the
[1:34:42] population that we have now, but
[1:34:44] probably not for growth. Um, it means
[1:34:47] water that does not have microplastics
[1:34:49] in it. It means clean air that we can
[1:34:51] breathe um that we have not had that
[1:34:55] this summer um because of wildfires, but
[1:34:58] um but we have had that in the past and
[1:35:00] maybe there's a chance that we can
[1:35:02] continue to have some of the cleanest
[1:35:03] air in the country. Um,
[1:35:07] if you consider, I would say please
[1:35:10] don't consider zoning any parts of the
[1:35:12] county for industrial use. Um, once you
[1:35:16] open the doors
[1:35:18] to opportunities, it's really hard to
[1:35:21] close and you can't say no as easily.
[1:35:23] So, um, I think opening our county to
[1:35:27] that possibility,
[1:35:29] um, is harmful in the long run. Um
[1:35:34] suppose that
[1:35:36] is that door is opened and the
[1:35:38] possibility is opened. Um seriously
[1:35:40] consider strong restrictions and I don't
[1:35:43] know at what level you could do this but
[1:35:44] strong restrictions that should a data
[1:35:46] center propose to come into the county
[1:35:49] that they require that we require they
[1:35:52] provide their own water not from our
[1:35:54] aquifer not from the aquifer protection
[1:35:56] area. um water that they find somewhere
[1:35:58] else that they and that does not affect
[1:36:01] our water that we need to support our
[1:36:04] community, our life. Um I would suggest
[1:36:07] that you um require that they produce
[1:36:11] their own electricity and not from big
[1:36:14] wind farms um like the rail tie, but
[1:36:17] from solar panels on their own buildings
[1:36:20] um if they are allowed. Again, I
[1:36:23] advocate for no industrial sighting. um
[1:36:27] zoning in the county period. I think we
[1:36:30] need to prioritize our current citizens
[1:36:33] um and our current um ranchers and
[1:36:36] agriculture.
[1:36:37] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:36:40] >> Nothing much to add. I think u I just
[1:36:42] wanted to let you know I spoke to
[1:36:44] somebody who runs or works for a data
[1:36:47] center. The newest ones don't use water
[1:36:50] at all like you mentioned like they're
[1:36:52] running on glycol and all those things.
[1:36:54] So, and then like you said, the power,
[1:36:57] the solar power they harvest, they do
[1:37:00] store it and use at night time. So, I
[1:37:03] think there are a lot of things like
[1:37:04] they have backup power and stuff like
[1:37:06] that. And Wyoming has surplus power
[1:37:08] obviously. It's not like energy
[1:37:11] negative. We always have more than what
[1:37:13] we use. So, I just want to let you know
[1:37:17] the we currently produce more than we
[1:37:20] use. When you're looking at gigawatt
[1:37:23] data saying export power,
[1:37:26] >> we export power now, but data centers.
[1:37:29] >> Yeah. And they tend to eliminate that
[1:37:31] extra.
[1:37:32] >> Yeah. But they also have a plan in place
[1:37:34] because they don't want to have no power
[1:37:36] and operate like billions of dollars of
[1:37:38] stuff. So they always have their own
[1:37:41] source of producing it by solar or
[1:37:44] whatever. Like like they won't just come
[1:37:47] and say we'll take all your power or
[1:37:49] something. So, and I would also
[1:37:51] recommend like for the people here in
[1:37:54] the committee that if you don't know
[1:37:57] what you're voting on, I would like you
[1:37:59] to not vote. But I just want you to go
[1:38:02] back and learn things or table things,
[1:38:05] not just make decisions like,
[1:38:08] okay, I just don't like it because
[1:38:10] whatever you're deciding is not going to
[1:38:12] make anybody's life better if you are
[1:38:15] doing it without knowing what you're
[1:38:16] doing. I believe Larmy needs more like
[1:38:21] businesses to come in. I think we need
[1:38:23] to increase the economic activity, not
[1:38:26] restrict things to a point where we are
[1:38:29] still living 50 years behind everybody
[1:38:32] else or something. I just want to make
[1:38:35] sure if we are not sure, please don't
[1:38:37] say no. Please say I don't know or
[1:38:40] something. I just respectfully request.
[1:38:43] We definitely all don't know everything
[1:38:45] about everything but yeah I just want to
[1:38:49] assure you that I mean I also want SL
[1:38:52] let me to grow. It's not like and like
[1:38:54] you mentioned you guys don't have a lot
[1:38:57] of money the reason is you're beating
[1:38:59] yourself up by not letting people to
[1:39:02] develop anything because let's say if
[1:39:05] somebody invests $5 million and they
[1:39:08] don't make any money it's their problem.
[1:39:10] The county has nothing to lose. But if
[1:39:12] you are like saying I won't even give
[1:39:15] permission to anybody to come to town or
[1:39:17] do anything that's a problem. They will
[1:39:20] go somewhere else. It's not like you
[1:39:23] will restrict somebody's growth forever.
[1:39:25] So
[1:39:27] >> I'll just add that uh right now a lot of
[1:39:31] governors are putting moratoriums for
[1:39:33] example in Texas.
[1:39:35] >> Yeah. And uh in Massachusetts they're
[1:39:39] putting statewide moratoriums until we
[1:39:41] figure things out. So it's not just us
[1:39:43] that need to learn. I think all of us
[1:39:45] need to learn.
[1:39:46] >> I mean I mean I'm specifically saying at
[1:39:48] one point in general I want you to have
[1:39:50] an open mind to listen
[1:39:52] >> and ask more questions. Take your time
[1:39:55] and not things in two minutes like
[1:39:57] there's no rush you know.
[1:39:58] >> Well thank you. Please step forward.
[1:40:00] >> Thank you.
[1:40:00] >> And who are you?
[1:40:01] >> Celeste Tenner.
[1:40:03] >> All right Celeste. So, I have concerns
[1:40:06] about the data centers. I have
[1:40:08] >> We realize you're not alone. [laughter]
[1:40:10] >> I don't realize that,
[1:40:12] >> right?
[1:40:12] >> The uh the county, most of us are not
[1:40:16] people who were born and raised here. We
[1:40:19] came here for the air. We came here for
[1:40:21] the water. We came here for the open
[1:40:23] spaces.
[1:40:25] This is our savings, if you will. I
[1:40:29] would hate to see us be rash with giving
[1:40:32] it to someone who has no vested interest
[1:40:35] in our community. Um, the hypers scale
[1:40:39] data centers are insane as far as the
[1:40:41] amount of water, the amount of
[1:40:42] electricity.
[1:40:44] I live up in Centennial Valley this
[1:40:47] year. The people are taking the cattle
[1:40:49] off their summer summer rent cattle are
[1:40:52] off. The wells are growing dry. There is
[1:40:55] not enough water for us. Why on earth
[1:40:59] would we
[1:41:01] bring in something that would take as
[1:41:04] far as my research says
[1:41:07] a million gallons a day up to that. So
[1:41:10] point being moratorum I I know you don't
[1:41:14] particularly like that word but I also
[1:41:16] know Morra is dedicated to good
[1:41:18] research. We don't have to make any rash
[1:41:22] decisions and truly I feel we should do
[1:41:25] a lot of research before we get moving
[1:41:29] forward on anything like this. Yes,
[1:41:32] there there is some economic growth per
[1:41:34] se, but how many jobs you know interrupt
[1:41:37] you for a second?
[1:41:38] >> Nope. Nope. You can't interrupt me for
[1:41:39] >> Yes, I can because I'm chairman.
[1:41:41] [laughter]
[1:41:42] >> You you continue to talk, but just a
[1:41:44] question. Have we given you any
[1:41:45] impression at all that we are rushing
[1:41:47] into something or about to make a rash
[1:41:49] decision? No, I'm just telling you my
[1:41:50] opinion.
[1:41:50] >> Yeah. And were you at the meeting last
[1:41:53] night?
[1:41:53] >> I was not.
[1:41:54] >> You were not. Keep on going.
[1:41:55] >> I don't get to town as much as I'd like
[1:41:57] to.
[1:41:58] >> Point being, I just feel like the con we
[1:42:01] can watch. We can watch these other
[1:42:03] places with their data centers with
[1:42:05] their concerns with Cheyenne and the
[1:42:07] water pollution.
[1:42:08] We don't have to make a decision
[1:42:11] rationally. And I think that that's why
[1:42:13] we have you guys in place is so that you
[1:42:16] will listen to the people and down the
[1:42:20] pike perhaps perhaps it's a good thing
[1:42:22] and solar maybe they can have solar to
[1:42:25] be brutally honest my house is all solar
[1:42:27] and I have lights and computers and
[1:42:31] everything at night because it they work
[1:42:33] on batteries too. It's not just a
[1:42:34] daytime thing. It's a possibility,
[1:42:38] >> but um
[1:42:40] once these places are in place, what you
[1:42:44] know, when you say, "Oh, you know what?
[1:42:46] We don't have enough water for you to do
[1:42:47] that this year." I highly doubt that
[1:42:51] they're going to just go, "Okay." I mean
[1:42:53] the amount of money they have invested
[1:42:56] for them to have constraints. I would
[1:43:00] really like to see ironclad constraints
[1:43:04] if that were a situation.
[1:43:07] So there you have it.
[1:43:09] >> Well, thank you. We appreciate your
[1:43:10] comments. Please step forward.
[1:43:14] [clears throat]
[1:43:23] » No, seriously.
[1:43:24] >> I promised I wouldn't yell. I did last
[1:43:26] night. Jenny stays.
[1:43:27] >> All right.
[1:43:28] >> I share the house with my daughter. I
[1:43:32] share the property. It
[1:43:34] >> we co-own it together. And I would
[1:43:36] suggest that
[1:43:39] in the future if a data center or any
[1:43:42] other large large large large
[1:43:46] scale kind of development
[1:43:49] um proposed to be here that we say
[1:43:53] you pay your own water
[1:43:56] and you don't use our water. I would
[1:43:58] like our community first put first. You
[1:44:01] pay your own disposal.
[1:44:03] You pay your own toxic waste disposal.
[1:44:06] Glycol doesn't get out of the water.
[1:44:09] It's not one of those things that you
[1:44:11] can just put a red dye in and it's gone.
[1:44:14] It's toxic forever.
[1:44:17] I would suggest that you're going to
[1:44:19] bring the problem here. You take the
[1:44:21] problem away. We're not absorbing your
[1:44:25] problem.
[1:44:27] >> Thank you.
[1:44:28] >> Anyone else?
[1:44:32] » All right. Well, we've made a one round
[1:44:35] again. Uh, any of you like to comment
[1:44:37] any further? B, Barb,
[1:44:39] >> no.
[1:44:40] Greg,
[1:44:42] >> we're off.
[1:44:45] >> I just want to thank everybody who sat
[1:44:47] through all our previous discussion just
[1:44:49] to express the opinion. It's highly
[1:44:51] valuable and we appreciate it. It was uh
[1:44:54] heartening to see all the people last
[1:44:57] night and a week ago and I think that's
[1:45:00] great. And one thing that we might
[1:45:02] consider if we do face a request for a
[1:45:06] data center of a large industrial site
[1:45:09] is that we actually uh uh circulate a ballot around the county
[1:45:17] where the information is clear and trans
[1:45:22] transparent about the benefits and the
[1:45:24] costs and uh let the people of the
[1:45:27] county decide. not leave it to a
[1:45:31] discussion among my highly respected
[1:45:34] colleagues, all the county commissioners
[1:45:37] that we actually this is such a such a
[1:45:41] critical and important issue that we
[1:45:44] actually ask everybody in the county
[1:45:46] what they want. That would be my
[1:45:49] suggestion.
[1:45:50] >> Okay, with that
[1:45:53] discussion and we will move on to staff
[1:45:55] updates.
[1:45:56] >> Can we have a little break now? We can
[1:45:58] have a little break now.
[1:45:59] >> Okay. Uh [laughter]
[1:46:01] I will everyone be back in five minutes.
[1:46:03] >> Okay.
[1:50:42] social gym reporting. Ready to go?
[1:50:46] >> Okay. So, uh, our next item is staff
[1:50:48] updates. David, and why don't you begin
[1:50:51] with introducing our new staff?
[1:50:53] >> Sounds good.
[1:50:54] >> Um, since we have some new staff.
[1:50:56] >> Yeah, Jeremy, come up. This is Jeremy
[1:50:59] Grover. He is the new assistant planner
[1:51:01] for the planning department. Um started
[1:51:04] out approximately
[1:51:06] >> like three three two and a half three
[1:51:07] weeks ago
[1:51:08] >> weeks ago.
[1:51:09] >> July 20th was the first day
[1:51:11] >> came from Tennessee to go get away from
[1:51:13] the heat. Um I don't know actually for a
[1:51:16] job probably the humidity
[1:51:18] >> humidity but yeah um so you'll see more
[1:51:22] of him. He'll be working on some
[1:51:24] projects. I think he's got a project
[1:51:25] that to present next week. So,
[1:51:28] >> um, yeah.
[1:51:33] » Thank you.
[1:51:34] >> You have any questions for me?
[1:51:35] >> I don't.
[1:51:36] >> Tell [laughter] us a little bit about
[1:51:37] your background.
[1:51:38] >> I'm curious. So, I this past May, I
[1:51:42] recently graduated from Middle Tennessee
[1:51:43] State University, which is in
[1:51:45] Murphy'sboro, a you can call it a suburb
[1:51:47] of Nashville. Um, with a political
[1:51:50] science degree, uh, as well as a
[1:51:52] philosophy degree.
[1:51:54] >> Um,
[1:51:55] and my focus was to get into public
[1:51:57] policy of some kind, specifically
[1:51:59] planning.
[1:52:00] >> Um, urban regional planning has been
[1:52:03] something I've been interested in for
[1:52:04] quite some time. And living in
[1:52:06] Murphy'sboro, it has been in the top 50
[1:52:10] fastest growing cities in the country.
[1:52:12] The counties within the top 20 usually
[1:52:15] and the region was not at all prepared
[1:52:17] for it and seeing the strain on
[1:52:19] resources um and just everything. I mean
[1:52:24] the the city recently just hired on a
[1:52:27] couple of additional planners um to try
[1:52:29] to cope with it. But one of the best
[1:52:31] examples that I saw that they were
[1:52:32] unprepared for the level of growth that
[1:52:34] they saw that I want future places to be
[1:52:36] prepared for is Rutherford County
[1:52:38] schools had been opening a brand new
[1:52:40] high school that was supposed to help
[1:52:41] keep two like that school and another
[1:52:45] one under capacity for 5 years. Both
[1:52:48] schools were above capacity the day it
[1:52:50] opened
[1:52:52] >> because more growth happened. And
[1:52:55] doesn't seem like that may be a problem
[1:52:56] in in this uh county from what I've been
[1:52:59] able to see. But I want to help prevent
[1:53:00] that from happening just in case.
[1:53:03] >> Very good.
[1:53:04] >> Thank you.
[1:53:06] >> If we have any questions about
[1:53:07] Nashville, we'll expect you to answer
[1:53:08] them. [laughter]
[1:53:10] >> Didn't spend much time there. It was a
[1:53:11] bit too busy for me.
[1:53:15] >> Real quick announcement. I don't know if
[1:53:16] you burn left a message just saying
[1:53:19] he'll have to catch up with the
[1:53:21] discussion later.
[1:53:22] >> Yeah, that No, it's fine.
[1:53:24] >> The lead is close to 3:00 a.m. now.
[1:53:26] >> Preston joined us from Spain. I know.
[1:53:29] >> Uh so David, why don't we continue to
[1:53:31] step up?
[1:53:35] » Um so the last application last month
[1:53:38] that you guys approved was I think you
[1:53:41] made the recommendation for approval for
[1:53:44] the range acres subdivision final
[1:53:45] plaque. Um they were able to get all
[1:53:48] their information they needed together
[1:53:50] that were part of your conditions and
[1:53:51] get it approved by the board of county
[1:53:53] commissioners. So that's all done. Um
[1:53:58] yeah um just
[1:54:01] we're working on a couple of or few
[1:54:03] projects in our office. One of them has
[1:54:05] to do with the data centers. We're also
[1:54:07] working on um some regulatory amendments
[1:54:10] for
[1:54:12] because you brought I think we talked
[1:54:14] about some of the stuff that we were
[1:54:16] talking about before everybody build on
[1:54:18] the planning department. So, now that we
[1:54:20] have staff, again, we're working on um
[1:54:22] battery energy energy storage system
[1:54:25] regulations as well as this short-term
[1:54:28] rental um just some simple res
[1:54:31] regulations there just for you guys to to look at because I believe that was
[1:54:37] what we were directed to at one point in
[1:54:39] the past. So,
[1:54:40] >> um so we're moving these things forward.
[1:54:42] So,
[1:54:43] >> right. Can I just make a comment?
[1:54:45] >> Absolutely. Right. I mean, I guess I
[1:54:47] don't charge. [clears throat]
[1:54:48] >> A lot of people have been asking me
[1:54:50] about short-term rentals in my campaign,
[1:54:54] >> my second. So, this is great that we're
[1:54:57] moving forward with that. Thank you.
[1:55:00] >> Yeah.
[1:55:02] >> Um, by any chance, have you heard
[1:55:04] anything about heirloom?
[1:55:07] >> Oh, what about them?
[1:55:08] >> Have they actually built anything or
[1:55:10] >> Oh, yeah. I think it's up.
[1:55:11] >> Yeah. I was just curious. Yeah.
[1:55:13] >> Yeah. Is is that the experimental wind?
[1:55:15] Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah.
[1:55:17] >> I'm pretty sure it's up. I think I might
[1:55:19] have got an invite to the grand opening,
[1:55:21] but there was I had a conflict or
[1:55:23] something. So,
[1:55:24] >> but yeah, if you go drive out towards or
[1:55:27] past Rock River, I guess, see if you can
[1:55:30] see it.
[1:55:31] >> Should look like a
[1:55:33] safe for
[1:55:34] >> a weird thing going around. And
[1:55:36] >> what's that?
[1:55:36] >> Is that what you say for
[1:55:40] [clears throat]
[1:55:42] » anything else? I don't think so. Okay.
[1:55:46] Uh,
[1:55:47] do we have any other commissioner
[1:55:49] comments or we exhaust also our
[1:55:50] comments? Barb, you have anything you
[1:55:51] want to say?
[1:55:53] >> Nope, I'm good.
[1:55:54] >> Are you sure? We'd like a comment from
[1:55:56] you. [laughter]
[1:55:58] >> No, that's fine. Craig, how about
[1:56:00] yourself?
[1:56:01] >> I'm I've had enough comments tonight. I
[1:56:03] think I'm good.
[1:56:04] >> I'm good.
[1:56:05] >> Thank you.
[1:56:06] >> Matt, you've got something you like to
[1:56:07] say?
[1:56:08] >> Yeah. Um, I guess probably should have
[1:56:11] could have said it earlier, but uh a few
[1:56:15] months ago um at a county commissioners
[1:56:18] meeting there was a presentation on data
[1:56:20] center regulation uh from
[1:56:24] uh one of the the economic development
[1:56:28] coordinator for I guess whatever Laram
[1:56:32] County's economic development coalition.
[1:56:36] >> Leads. Yeah, leads or something like
[1:56:38] that.
[1:56:39] >> Um leads
[1:56:41] >> and uh we were directed um by the
[1:56:46] commission well staff was directed by
[1:56:48] the commissioners to develop
[1:56:51] uh regulations for industrial park
[1:56:54] permitting of
[1:56:56] data centers. So, we have been working
[1:56:59] on that uh for some time and I think
[1:57:02] that we'll have something polished
[1:57:04] enough to provide to the commission or
[1:57:07] to this commission um by the September
[1:57:09] meeting. Obviously, that is um it's up
[1:57:14] to you what you do with it,
[1:57:17] but
[1:57:18] we're following our directives.
[1:57:20] >> Well, that's exactly what you should
[1:57:21] have been doing. [laughter]
[1:57:22] >> Yeah. So, no worries. I'm glad to hear
[1:57:24] you're doing
[1:57:25] >> Yeah. what commissioners asked you to
[1:57:27] do.
[1:57:28] >> That's That's
[1:57:29] >> Oh, and I don't know if anyone didn't
[1:57:32] hear um
[1:57:36] that was like right when I got back. So,
[1:57:37] what was that? July 11th, thereabout.
[1:57:41] Yeah, it was the the day that I was
[1:57:43] coming back to work after being on
[1:57:46] paternity leave. Um the Wyoming Supreme
[1:57:50] Court uh yeah ruled in in
[1:57:52] [clears throat] favor of the county on
[1:57:54] the APO 2023 APS amendments.
[1:57:56] >> I have not heard that.
[1:57:57] >> Oh, okay.
[1:57:58] >> You haven't?
[1:58:00] [clears throat]
[1:58:01] >> Yeah. So, um
[1:58:02] >> that's why we have staff updates.
[1:58:04] >> Yeah.
[1:58:05] >> So, I know. [laughter]
[1:58:07] >> I even sent him I even sent him
[1:58:10] congratulations. They found that the um
[1:58:14] that the protection of the Casper
[1:58:16] aquifer through
[1:58:18] uh prohibiting land uses and restricting
[1:58:23] um lot sizes is within the county zoning
[1:58:26] authority. Um [clears throat]
[1:58:28] >> yeah,
[1:58:29] >> but yeah, I mean that's the that's
[1:58:31] acknowledge your great work there. Yes.
[1:58:33] Well,
[1:58:33] >> that's [laughter] great. It's a huge and
[1:58:36] thank you for all the work you put into
[1:58:37] it.
[1:58:38] >> It restarted
[1:58:41] or caused to resume from a stay that
[1:58:44] been put on um Warm Livestock's appeal
[1:58:48] of the December 2024 APS amendments. It
[1:58:52] was like the big update that we did um
[1:58:56] with the cap update based on the cap
[1:58:59] update and then um also the
[1:59:03] warm livestock's uh declaratory judgment
[1:59:06] action against the adoption of the cap
[1:59:08] update itself and then the the boundary
[1:59:11] amendments that occurred in January of
[1:59:14] 2024.
[1:59:16] Um, so I guess just just like anything
[1:59:20] with the aquifer, nothing is fully
[1:59:22] settled, but
[1:59:25] uh, oral argument will be in the
[1:59:27] district court on that appeal August
[1:59:31] 30th. 31st somewhere around there. So
[1:59:35] that's back to staff updates, but I
[1:59:38] [clears throat] don't have anything
[1:59:38] further. Sorry.
[1:59:40] >> No, nothing to be sorry for. Thank you
[1:59:42] for that.
[1:59:43] Well, in that case, uh, our next regular
[1:59:46] meeting is September 9th here at 5:00
[1:59:49] and I am
[1:59:51] >> I will be in Mongolia.
[1:59:53] >> Okay.
[1:59:54] >> And I will not have intellect. So just
[1:59:58] for
[2:00:01] purposes
[2:00:04] » and I