[0:01] All right, let's bring today's meeting to order. It is October 7, 2025, and we will bring

[0:11] the meeting of the Teton County Commissioners meeting to order. And if you could join us

[0:17] in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[0:18] to

[0:21] the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, and one God, in the result of the liberty and justice for all.

[0:32] All

[0:37] right. Can I get a motion to adopt today's agenda, please?

[0:41] Mr. Chairman, I would move to adopt today's agenda as presented.

[0:47] Second.

[0:48] Great. Motion by Commissioner Macker, second by Commissioner Carlman.

[0:51] And Mr. Chairman, Acting Chairman, Vice Chair, which is note that the Chairman is absent.

[0:56] Yes, thank you.

[0:58] And all those in favor of adopting the agenda, please say aye.

[1:02] Aye.

[1:03] Aye, aye, thank you.

[1:05] Approval minutes.

[1:07] Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the minutes for the meeting,

[1:09] stated September 8th, September 9th, September 15th, September 16th, and

[1:15] September 22nd, 2025.

[1:17] Second.

[1:18] Motion by Commissioner Macker.

[1:20] Second by Commissioner Carmelman, all those in favor, please say aye.

[1:23] Do you have a motion to-

[1:27] Sorry, the second September 16th was a special meeting, so I need to also move to approve the special meeting minutes on the 16th.

[1:36] That's a second meeting.

[1:37] I second the motion to approve the special meeting minutes of September 16th as well.

[1:44] Great, good catch, thank you, and we'll let the eyes stand there.

[1:48] Moving on to the consent agenda.

[1:50] I

[1:53] moved to place the following matters from staff on the consent agenda to consideration of purchase compact tractor replacement three consideration of purchase of replacement toolcats.

[2:03] Five consideration of amended agreement for water services and grant of easement to Raft or J improvement service district seven consideration of employee housing lease at WSK12.

[2:15] eight consideration of employee housing lease, a WSK 18, nine consideration of Adams Canyon,

[2:22] Bunkhouse, primary lease, ten consideration of WEA grant and contract, and

[2:29] 11 consideration of administration building HVAC upgrades.

[2:33] Second.

[2:35] Motion by Commissioner Mackers, second by Commissioner Carmelman.

[2:39] All those in favor, please say aye.

[2:41] Okay,

[2:44] is there a motion to approve those items on the consent agenda?

[2:47] I move to approve the consent agenda with the motions as stated in the respective staff reports.

[2:52] Second.

[2:53] Great, thank you.

[2:54] Motion by Commissioner Mackers, second by Commissioner Carman, although it's in favor, please say aye.

[2:58] All right.

[3:01] The correspondence report, Mr.

[3:07] Chair.

[3:07] Yes, sir.

[3:08] While you're tallying the correspondence report, if that's the order, just a couple items of note.

[3:15] We've had some correspondence regarding the replacement of or

[3:19] shoring up an eventual replacement of the bridge over Fish Creek in Wilson.

[3:23] That's caught the public's attention.

[3:25] And I just like to highlight that White Outs resident engineer Bob Hammond has been

[3:31] very active and really helpful correspondent in that giving good background information to people.

[3:36] And that kind of coordination is just great to see.

[3:39] And then we got a terrific bit of correspondence.

[3:43] It's not in this report, but arrived yesterday from Mickey Babcock up in Buffalo Valley,

[3:49] thanking us for our work on the Turpan Metal Ranch project.

[3:52] Great, thanks for pointing those out.

[3:55] Commissioner Coleman, I would concur, and I would also add that our chair has done an admirable job of communicating with the public on, especially on the Wilson project as well.

[4:06] So 35 items, and noting that, we'll move on to public comment.

[4:14] This is a time for the public to comment for any items that are not on the agenda today.

[4:21] Anything online?

[4:23] Go ahead, let's.

[4:24] Okay, great.

[4:25] Thank you.

[4:27] And we will move on to matters from commission and staff, consideration of the wildfire camera

[4:33] system.

[4:45] We've been talking about this one for a little while, a little long process, which we did and kind of did some research, so I don't know where you two left with it, but yeah, Stanford, or any questions?

[4:59] Thank you. Redmond, thank you for this work. It's exciting to see this move forward. Why three cameras? Why not six or nine or a hundred?

[5:49] Okay good so after you've done three you wouldn't hesitate to come back and ask for more if it makes if it improves

[6:09] It's a little more high-tech than having a fire warden in a tower.

[6:19] Let's hope it works really well.

[6:21] Thank you.

[6:21] other

[6:23] questions? Great I would just yeah thanks it's having passive eyes on the

[6:34] forest makes lot of sense and look forward to seeing how this how this system

[6:42] evolves over time and look forward to getting our foot in the door and

[6:46] appreciate you bringing it to us and keeping it relatively small while we work out

[6:51] the case. So, great. Do I have a motion?

[6:57] Public comment.

[6:58] Oh, public comment on this item. Thank you.

[7:02] Seeing none, I'm looking for a motion.

[7:05] Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agreement with Alert West for an early detection

[7:09] wildfire camera system, including a one-time purchase of camera equipment, a $41,232

[7:16] dollars, and the year one annual license and support costs of $41,400.

[7:23] Second.

[7:24] I have a motion from Commissioner Probe, the second from Commissioner Carman.

[7:28] All those in favor, please say aye.

[7:30] Aye.

[7:31] Aye.

[7:31] Motion carries unanimously.

[7:34] Moving on to number four, consideration of cooperative partnership with USGS for

[7:38] Water Quality Analysis and Summary.

[7:40] Today,

[7:47] to be said,

[8:02] long-turing to engage in long-turing, this meets several of our criteria

[8:06] for long-turing abuse establish, long-term monitoring to establish baseline conditions.

[8:12] Long-turing is a early warning for sensitive folks, service and groundwater.

[8:17] Staff is worked really hard with USGS to craft this proposal that has been seen in front of us.

[8:24] This proposal has come in front of the Water Quality Advisory Board and will see back

[8:29] I can comment, it has received a recommendation to proceed with this.

[8:34] As you know, our federal partners are currently working, so normally would have had our federal partner present today, but unfortunately it has no.

[8:47] So how do you oppose there, having a question?

[8:52] Questions for Chris?

[8:56] Yes, sir, Mr. Kronner.

[8:57] Thank you, Vice Chair Gardner, Chris, it's great to see you this morning.

[9:03] Water quality is a great community concern for us, and just thanks to you, thanks to the

[9:11] United States Geological Service, our survey, I always call them service, but it's a USGS

[9:16] survey for making some forward progress and doing some monitoring.

[9:21] If we don't know what the status is and don't have good data on that, it's hard to know

[9:26] So where to put our efforts to maintain and improve water quality here.

[9:30] So I'm grateful for the teamwork and partnership with this agency of the federal government.

[9:35] And I look forward to them being back in business and able to work with us on it.

[9:39] So thank you.

[9:42] Yeah, Mr. Commissioner, perhaps just a question.

[9:47] I haven't read the entire contract and maybe somebody has that can answer this, but I'm sure you have.

[9:53] What happens if the water missionary at U.S.G.S. is terminated, do we get our money back?

[10:21] Okay. So we pay as it's delivered.

[10:24] Okay, great.

[10:27] Other questions?

[10:31] I have a couple.

[10:32] Chris, can you walk me through what we should expect or what we could expect at the end

[10:40] of this. What kind of asset or what kind of what what we have in hand as far as data

[10:49] goes. What exactly are we doing with this?

[10:52] Mr. Chair, thanks. I really, this would be a question you're able to make to

[11:04] Miller.

[11:04] In

[11:09] summary, information along the St. Petersburg water quality information,

[11:15] this information has been summarized and published in chunks for specific projects that the USGS has here.

[11:25] To date, a cumulative review of all this information has not been done to determine what is the water quality in the state.

[11:36] I mean, in Tucson County, what's sort of impact might see with those breaches.

[11:45] So the goal for this project is to gather all the existing data and apply modern statistical

[11:53] techniques to some sort of gains and understanding.

[11:56] Right now we have information, but we're needing the next step, if that information into a form

[12:03] where we can use it to make decisions and that understanding piece is really what's the goal of this project.

[12:10] So a specific product that will come out of this is a scientific investigations report.

[12:16] USGS produces lots of these.

[12:17] We rely on them heavily for our work here in County across the United States,

[12:22] as really the baseline most likely accepted piece of information that we all point to,

[12:30] to determine, as best we can, what is the ground truth?

[12:40] Great, so thank you for that, very good answer.

[12:44] So this is not to collect new data.

[12:47] This is to kind of bring all the data that we,

[12:52] that has been collected over the years together into one format,

[12:56] in one place, so that we can use that to understand

[13:02] And the last decades worth of data and then to create a baseline, I would assume also

[13:11] to create a baseline so that we can move forward with, I guess the question I have is what's

[13:20] our strategy for new data collection?

[13:22] And then is that strategy wedded to the format that we're going to receive in this scientific

[13:29] study?

[13:29] So,

[13:33] I would just clarify that this project isn't the one that's working up strategizing for new information.

[13:43] This project really is to establish what has been done.

[13:49] Many of the characteristics that are listed in this table one,

[13:55] might co-vary in that they change at the same rate as other bits of information.

[14:04] So what has been happening over the many years of these sites have been collecting data

[14:11] is that they've collected maybe things about inorganic metals or nutrients or turbidity.

[14:19] So that's great information, but to take it to understanding like what should we measure going forward.

[14:25] It's important to know how these variables interact and how they vary together, so that maybe going forward,

[14:32] we can focus on the most important variables so we get the most bank for the buck.

[14:39] Yeah, that's very helpful, thank you.

[14:41] Any other questions for Mr. Peltz?

[14:46] Great. Any public comment on this item?

[14:48] Thank you, Mr. Pals.

[14:49] Thank you.

[14:53] Seeing none, looking for a motion.

[14:56] Mr. Chair, I move to approve the joint funding agreement with the United

[15:00] The State's Geological Survey for Water Quality Analysis and Summary for an amount not to exceed $50,000.

[15:07] Motion by Commissioner Pro, second by Commissioner Macker. All those in favor, please say aye.

[15:12] Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

[15:14] Thank you.

[15:16] Moving on to number 12, consideration of Owner's Rep Services and Funding for

[15:21] Corner's Office Project Work Order 9.0.

[15:25] I'm sorry, consideration of designation of county supervisor of roads, number six.

[15:32] Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair, commissioners, Heather, overhulser, director of public works.

[15:38] I'm very happy to be here in front of you today for your consideration of designating Tony Havill as the county supervisor of roads.

[15:49] Pursuant to Wyoming Statute 24-1-104, all Teton County Road shall be under the supervision, management and control of the Board of County Commissioners, which shall be assisted by a Teton County Supervisor of Roads, a pointed pursuant to Wyoming Statute 18-3-705.

[16:08] As you will know, Dave Gustafson, our former road and levy manager, retired in September,

[16:14] and we hired Mr. Havill.

[16:18] Tony has been the road and levy construction coordinator for 11 years.

[16:23] And prior to that, has loads of experience doing construction and road projects and you

[16:30] name it.

[16:31] He is very qualified for this position, and we're very happy to have him here with us.

[16:38] So I'm happy to answer any questions about this.

[16:44] Questions for Director Overholzer.

[16:48] Mr. Gingrich, just to, this got pulled because the chair had some things.

[16:53] So I'll try to tell you what chairman Newcombe's issues were.

[16:57] So to see you know how this works a little bit, and normally this would have to stay on consent.

[17:02] but we wanted to highlight a few things.

[17:05] The supervisor of roads is also the person who is designated in the statute.

[17:11] It'll say local authority and so you're designated him as also what is known as the local authority.

[17:17] So that's the person who sets the maximum speed limits on all our county roads.

[17:22] In placement of traffic control devices and signals, so when a stop sign or some type of signage goes up, that will be Mr.

[17:28] have all that's making those decisions.

[17:31] The one that is coming up, and so with the closure of the bridge over Fish Creek and

[17:40] Wilson, the traffic will be diverted through Wilson.

[17:46] There will be a either, and by doing this, either the supervisor of roads, Mr.

[17:53] travel will be able to just issue an order himself, or we're considering bringing back the resolution directly in front of you.

[18:01] We can do it either way.

[18:02] But what Mr. Havel is looking at is regulating not only weights, because right now 60,000 is the past, but

[18:11] also regulating type of vehicle, meaning during that period of time where the road is closed,

[18:17] or the bridges closed, that we would not allow anything of length.

[18:23] And Mr. Havel can actually describe that I can, but the difficulty is that some of those corners are really tight going through this and

[18:32] having anything of great length going through there.

[18:36] So the Chair, Chairman Newcombe, wanted me to highlight that to you.

[18:40] That either Mr. Havel, now through this authority, you just granted him that Mr.

[18:44] Gushson used to have, that Mr. Havel will have.

[18:46] He will do it through a memo, and you're sort of used to seeing these memos.

[18:50] They come out every spring on weight limits on certain roads.

[18:54] You see Mr. Guffsson used to do those every spring, especially on certain particular roads that the water levels underneath the roads have an impact.

[19:05] And so I just wanted you to be aware that it may be either a resolution coming in front of you or Mr.

[19:11] the cattle may be issuing it, but regulating the type of units,

[19:15] type of vehicles being able to access through, and those are county roads.

[19:19] So all those roads through Wilson are county roads.

[19:24] And so that would come under the direct authority of Mr.

[19:27] Howell, if that helps any.

[19:29] Yes, thank you.

[19:32] Congratulations, Mr. Howell.

[19:34] I would say welcome.

[19:35] Sounds like you've been here a while.

[19:36] Great.

[19:37] Right?

[19:40] That's true.

[19:41] Mr. Chair.

[19:42] Yes, sir.

[19:42] Thank you.

[19:44] Tony, it's great to see you.

[19:46] As you know, you have very big shoes to fill.

[19:51] And from the look of you, you've got one of them already in size extra large.

[19:57] But Dave was respected and trusted and cherished leader in our county.

[20:04] taking care of our roads.

[20:05] You've got a great history with us in our community and with our road and

[20:09] levy department and I'm really glad you're here to step into those shoes.

[20:13] Thank you and guide us.

[20:15] There are definitely big shoes to fill.

[20:17] I mean Dave was a great asset to this county.

[20:20] He has a great boss, as well as a great friend, but I'll try every day to put the shoes on and

[20:27] make everybody proud here to talk to him.

[20:30] Thank you.

[20:35] I do have one, so what happens when a truck, a semi comes over the pass and how do we communicate that they're going to have problems once they get over the pass?

[20:48] White ought is working with us extensively, as far as getting the word out, as far as the press release.

[20:54] We're going to do a joint press release with both WIDOT and Teton County as well as issue the memo directly through Teton County.

[21:03] So as far as press release, I feel it will get out as well as say like Buck Rail and other media outlets.

[21:12] There will be a message board sign on each end alerting over sized vehicles of the closure that they will have to go around.

[21:21] similar to the trailer traffic that would take effect on November 15th through

[21:28] Y-DOT. The message board as well over on the Idaho State Line will state that as

[21:35] well that it's closed to anything but passenger vehicles and critical service

[21:41] vehicles. That definition of critical service vehicles will be defined in the

[21:47] the memo that I will issue, dragging my feet on issue in that memo, there is a pre-construction

[21:53] meeting with White Ought tomorrow, so we'll have a schedule, a timeline, and really hone

[21:59] in on the particulars of this closure. The closures anticipated to last between eight

[22:05] to 12 days. There is talk that potentially shorten it up between six to eight days, so every

[22:12] day is valuable. On that contract, they do have a penalty for beyond 12 days. That's a reputable contractor

[22:20] completing the work, so I truly feel the maximum closure would be 12 days.

[22:27] Remind me, is there a sign? Is there anything at like Swan Valley that we can, I'm just worried people are going to get pretty far along their path before they realize that they can't

[22:39] With that, you know, I mean, we're working with YDOT, potentially in tomorrow's meeting, see if there's potential to reach out to IDOT, you know, Idaho Department of Transportation to put up a message boards signed there in Swan Valley. I think that is a great idea.

[22:55] I will definitely do the like work to see if I can make that happen.

[22:58] Great. Thank you. Any public comment on this item?

[23:04] Seeing none, I'm looking for a motion.

[23:07] Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the resolution designating Mr. Tony Havill as the county supervisor of roads.

[23:12] Second. Great. Motion from Commissioner Macker, second from Commissioner Carlmond. All those in favor?

[23:18] Please say aye.

[23:19] Aye.

[23:20] Vote carries unanimously. Thank you. Now moving on to number 12.

[23:24] consideration of owner's representative services and funding for

[23:28] corner's office project work order 9.0.

[23:31] Thank you, Dr. Blue.

[23:32] Vice Chairman Gardner, commissioners, I'm Dr.

[23:36] Brent Blue, Teton County corner.

[23:38] This request is for an owner's rep and to hire an architectural firm and

[23:45] do some basic site evaluation for a dedicated Teton County morgue.

[23:51] As you know, the current morgue is the Weed and Pest Department's old two car garage and has been modified and is inadequate in many ways and that is the reason we're asking for this and I'll be glad to entertain any questions questions for Dr. Blue or I see Tom Ferenc is here as well owners wrap who's been on this project so questions.

[24:20] Just to give you more information here.

[24:22] So here's what we have done in the past about we have entered into a five year agreement with Wembers.

[24:29] So normally what we used to do, any time we had a building project, we would do an RFP for an owner's rep.

[24:37] And each time it might have been a different company being the OR.

[24:41] We decided to do a five year agreement with Wembers, so we have a master agreement.

[24:46] And that's actually attached here.

[24:47] Then what we do is we do a work order.

[24:50] Each time we do a separate construction project.

[24:53] So there'll be a work order for the Justice Center.

[24:57] There was a work order for the General Services Building.

[25:00] So each time Wembers helping us with something,

[25:03] we do a separate work order that comes

[25:04] under that master agreement.

[25:06] So essentially what you're agreeing to today

[25:08] is a work order with Wember to work on this project.

[25:14] And so that's what's in front of you.

[25:17] I will tell you, because you're missing your 18 today, both the clerk and the administrator are both out today.

[25:26] See, you get me, the B team.

[25:28] I will tell you what they both have told me, and just so you're aware of this.

[25:33] If you look under the physical impact section, you all, for whatever reason, and

[25:40] And I don't quite understand what happened during your budget review process.

[25:43] This did not actually, the clerk had scheduled some time to discuss this.

[25:48] For whatever reason, you guys did not actually get to the point of discussing it.

[25:54] So you actually never discussed during your budgeting process this year the budgeting

[25:58] for this project, whether or not you even wanted to move forward with it, how much

[26:02] you wanted to budget for it.

[26:04] And so there was a discussion of budgeting 500,000 for it.

[26:09] what you did not do that, and so there is money to find just the 95,000.

[26:17] What I think the clerk wanted me to emphasize to you is this is potentially an $8.2 million project, I believe is what they were saying.

[26:28] What happens with many county projects is once you spend the first dollar, it's hard to stop a project going forward.

[26:39] So, you're not only agreeing to doing this first step, you're sort of agreeing on a longer progression.

[26:50] There was some discussion as to the general services building sort of went from a small idea to a much bigger idea.

[26:57] How do we get there?

[26:59] It sort of starts at this type of point.

[27:01] And so I just wanted to make sure I clarified to you all where you're at in the process.

[27:07] So that if you can, if you're committed to this project, you want to move forward with it.

[27:14] This sort of moves you forward.

[27:15] If you want some more time to think about it, more importantly, if you wanted to wait till your 18s back and have some more conversation specifically with the clerk as to potential funds in the future to pay for this project.

[27:29] The other issue that comes up sometimes is once you do a design and then you don't have the funds for

[27:36] the actual construction. The design goes on a shelf. Then by the time you have your construction money and you're ready, the design may be not as applicable anymore.

[27:49] So you want to, and this is something you may want to talk with Mr. Farrens about is when this, in this, my understanding, they're trying to do this as a design build, which will save you some money.

[27:59] Will the design be still ripe when you find your construction money potentially when you do spet in 2028?

[28:11] I'm not sure where you're getting money prior to spet 28, which really means money coming in 2930 unless you had some other source of funding coming from somewhere else.

[28:22] So, anyway, I was just sort of repeating what the clerk and the administrator

[28:29] chatted with me about and you may want to talk with Mr. Farron some more,

[28:32] because I know he's spent some time on this and he could give you some more knowledge on that subject matter.

[28:39] Okay, appreciate that.

[28:41] Can I address those issues?

[28:44] We estimate this building to cost in the $3 to $4 million range.

[28:49] We're talking about 3,500 square feet on a pretty simple building.

[28:53] We don't really need a great deal of equipment to put into the building.

[28:59] We do not have to purchase any land.

[29:02] We've identified two spots in Adam's Canyon where this building can go.

[29:07] There was some discussion about whether the county would want to put some employee housing on top of the building on a second floor and that sort of thing.

[29:16] But as far as what the need for the actual morgue is, we're talking about a $3 to $4 million

[29:23] event.

[29:27] Although we have talked informally with some of the commissioners and with the administrator

[29:35] that some of this could probably come out of general funds as opposed to having to wait

[29:39] for a spec tax issue.

[29:42] but the need is now. Actually, the need has been there for quite some time.

[29:47] And I truly don't know what happened to the $500,000 thing

[29:52] that I think I may have been part of my not being here for the meeting,

[29:56] but just because I didn't know about it.

[29:59] but, uh...

[30:00] I think that that, I don't, I've never heard an $8 million number before, ever.

[30:06] Great, thank you. Questions for Dr. Blue or Mr. Farons? Mr. Chair. I'd be grateful to hear from Mr. Farons as well, just for his additional insight and background.

[30:22] Yeah, thank you, Tom Farons with Wimber. We had done a previous work order to do a feasibility study to identify sites.

[30:32] work with Dr. Blue and at the time Sarah man on identifying the site and as part of our study we came to kind of a 1a and 1b situation and then that that time we recommended bringing on the design team to make some more detailed decision making to decide on that site and at that time it was also brought up about the possibility of including employee housing or county housing as part of this project.

[30:59] And so Dr. Blue is correct, the just for the coroner's portion of the billion is a little bit smaller.

[31:05] But as part of our feasibility study, we looked at if we added employee housing to this.

[31:10] And that would drive the costs to the larger amount.

[31:16] And about how many units, Tom?

[31:18] It would depend on type of unit.

[31:21] What we did, we looked at basically as if we took the coroner's office and did a second level.

[31:25] So if you did studio apartments, you could add four or five if you just did one or two better and they would all depend on kind of how the design laid out and such.

[31:35] Thank you.

[31:37] Other questions?

[31:40] I have just an observation.

[31:42] I was a guest of the corners earlier this year, touring, seeing the old garage to get oriented to all of our county facilities.

[31:53] and I agree with the corner blue that upgrading this is way overdue.

[32:01] It's a place where families sometimes need to go to identify a decedent,

[32:09] and it's kind of a side room in a garage.

[32:13] I don't think we need to go as fancy as a funeral home for this,

[32:17] but it's just not up to snuff.

[32:20] And he advised me that although there now is a drain in the floor when he took over the facility, there wasn't.

[32:28] And I'm not sure you had running water at the time even.

[32:31] So, you know, we're making progress in the ol' garage, but it's not good enough.

[32:37] So, I look forward to getting a new morgue at a reasonable cost.

[32:46] I think at this point, we'll open it up for a public comment.

[32:49] Seeing

[32:54] none, I'm bringing it back to the board for discussion.

[33:00] I'm happy to say my piece.

[33:06] I need to be a guest to the corner and I look forward to touring the current facility.

[33:15] Well, I want to make sure I'm a living guest to the corner and I appreciate the fact

[33:24] that Dr. Blue, you know, our member in my introduction three years ago, he brought this up and

[33:30] so I appreciate that this is a problem that's, that you've identified for at least the

[33:38] three years I've been here. I am torn because on one hand I think that we need to have

[33:49] an adequate site for the corner to work and that respects the job that he does for all of

[34:00] us at some point.

[34:02] And on the other hand, I appreciate Mr. Gingry's reminding us of how these things tend to go,

[34:16] And how are we asking this?

[34:21] I don't think he asked directly, but I would ask how are we going to fund this?

[34:26] It's probably going to be about $4 million.

[34:29] And we are fighting, we've not allowed staff to travel out of state for training.

[34:38] So we're really cutting what you would call pennies in the budget.

[34:42] it, and 4 million is a lot of pennies, so I'm torn, I feel like this is, however, I

[34:51] will say that I feel like this is a conversation that is a little out of context at the moment.

[34:56] Not for the need, the need is there, the need is obvious, but in context of the budget, it

[35:05] It is at an awkward moment and so I am of the mind that we should, at the very least, bring this back when we have our quote-unquote A team.

[35:20] I love working in a county where Mr. Gingrich is the B team and at least postponing it for a week so that we can get the A team back in the room to communicate with us there.

[35:35] thoughts. And I'm frankly more of the mind that this is something that needs to be considered in the 2027 budget cycle along with other large capital projects.

[35:53] I do recognize that we're only being asked for 95,000 a day, but I am concerned that if we take this first step,

[36:03] We may find ourselves taking many more after, without really locking down how we're going to fund the project.

[36:15] Other thoughts,

[36:18] please.

[36:19] Sure, Vice Chair, appreciate your context.

[36:24] I think I have no issue waiting a week, I think generally I see the need to move the project forward.

[36:32] And I'm committed to doing this project.

[36:34] I'm just not committed to a timeline yet on what that is.

[36:37] So I see the value in having some of this information related to phase one and getting

[36:45] done what we can, but I think we appreciate your contextualizing that we have to be realistic

[36:51] about the budget overall.

[36:53] So I guess what I want to say to the corners, I don't want you to feel like you need to justify

[36:58] the need for this project.

[36:59] I think that we've heard the justification for the need and that our efforts to find the funding and fit it into the funding are relevant and urgent.

[37:11] So, thank you for staying and continuing to bring it up.

[37:16] Mr. Probes, thank you.

[37:19] I think you both make good points.

[37:21] I'm happy to vote today.

[37:22] I can support this.

[37:23] I'm happy to wait a week and get some more context.

[37:24] I think that it's important to note that if we do vote today or next week that I'm voting for $95,000 to answer questions we have.

[37:35] And we might decide to fund it out of general revenue, we might decide to fund it out of spet.

[37:40] We might decide that given some design issues that it just waits indefinitely.

[37:43] But I won't answer to these questions so that we would be prepared in 2028 to go to the voters for a spet.

[37:51] So I'm happy to wait a week or I'm happy to vote today.

[37:55] I feel like I know enough to move this along, no one that I'm not voting for the final three to eight million, of course.

[38:07] Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, I'm curious, I appreciate everybody's points of view on this.

[38:14] We're going to get more information in due course whether it's from the A team or from

[38:36] I'm not sure what the procedure is if it looks like there are two of us who want to move today and I think it would take a vote of three to move forward.

[38:45] So on that basis, I think the respectful thing to do is to push this off a week, and I'm happy to modify the draft motion to do that, if you'd like to hear it.

[39:02] Two weeks,

[39:05] five, sorry Brent, two weeks.

[39:20] Mr.

[39:24] Ganger, is this something that we can continue or do we need to change the motion?

[39:28] You can just move to continue the item until the next regular meeting on the, I believe, our next regular meeting is the 21st.

[39:34] Okay.

[39:34] Okay, great.

[39:35] Do I have a motion?

[39:37] Mr. Chair, I move to continue item number 12, consideration of owner's representative services and funding for the coroner's office project work order 9.0 to our next regular county commissioners meeting on October 21st, 2025.

[39:55] So again, I have a motion from Commissioner Carlman, a second from Commissioner Macker, all those in favor, please say aye.

[40:01] Aye.

[40:03] Motion carries unanimously, thank you all.

[40:06] Number 13, moving on, consideration of authorization to begin 45-day comment period to amend the

[40:12] Teton County Planning and Building Services Department's schedule of fees.

[40:19] Morning, Vice Chair Gardner, commissioners, Chris Newbecker, Planning Director, Teton County

[40:24] Planning and Building Services Department has not updated our fees since 2021.

[40:29] And so we all know that there's been quite a bit of inflation since that time.

[40:34] So we've done an analysis of our fee structure, and we are recommending an increase in those fees.

[40:40] However, there's a requirement to do a 45-day comment period.

[40:44] And so we're looking for the authorization to start that 45-day comment period.

[40:48] And then we would come back to this board with the recommended fees.

[40:51] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[40:55] Questions for Chris?

[40:56] Yes,

[40:59] I did pull this, and I guess my concern is that it's just kind of a general concern

[41:13] that it's getting really expensive to do projects in Teachers and County, and I recognize

[41:22] that a lot of that has to do with market forces, cost of labor, cost of goods,

[41:30] but some of

[41:32] it has to do with fees as well.

[41:33] So, I guess my question is how

[41:40] do you have like a goal as far as your fee collection goes?

[41:46] What's the frequency with which you look at your fees and what's the trigger point to say hey you know what these fees aren't high enough?

[42:03] Does it have to do? Is it based on staff time? Is it based on other communities fees?

[42:11] Like, how do you rationalize the fee increases?

[42:14] Commissioner Gardner, it is based both on trying to do some cost recovery, but we're not at full cost recovery.

[42:20] And it is all also looking at just comparative communities in terms of what is considered fair and what they're charging.

[42:27] I fully realize that it's very expensive to build here and some of that may have to do with fees.

[42:33] Some of it's the market in terms of cost and materials, cost of labor, but

[42:38] we're not covering our fees fully, which means that the applicant is not fully paying the cost of the services.

[42:48] We could raise the fees if we're trying, if the goal is to have full cost recovery, we could do an analysis of that, but

[42:56] But we recognize that, you know, based upon past boards have decided not to do that.

[43:01] The alternate is that somebody's out there doing a project, and you and I are paying for it.

[43:07] So if we want to do full cost recovery so that the applicant is paying 100% of that,

[43:13] we can find that way without doing that.

[43:15] We're essentially asking the community to pay for the cost of some private developer.

[43:21] That is a policy decision of this board.

[43:23] and when I first started here we had a discussion, we did update the fees in

[43:30] 21 but there was a kind of a question about what is the policy direction of

[43:35] this board and I think at that time it was recognizing that things are

[43:40] expensive.

[43:42] So there was not a direction to do full cost recovery but that is

[43:47] certainly an option. We would have to consider things like long-range planning, for

[43:52] For example, that I would expect might be a community wide expense, but

[43:56] current planning, which is the development review of permits and

[44:00] the building permits and inspections, I think would be reasonable for that to be covered by the applicant.

[44:06] But I think it's definitely a policy question for this board to answer at some point.

[44:11] Yeah, appreciate that answer, appreciate the way you frame that.

[44:16] Essentially, without that, the community subsidizing development.

[44:22] Correct. And in some communities, that's a goal. They want to see more development. They need more jobs. They need more of

[44:28] everything. And so I think that's the question is what do we need more of and what do we need less of?

[44:33] And if we subsidize it or create a fee structure around that, you may be able to achieve that that policy goal.

[44:41] For example, some communities would waive the fees on affordable housing. Just an example.

[44:47] But if it's a big hotel, should we have low fees because we're trying to have more hotels?

[44:54] I don't know if that's the same comparison.

[44:58] Other questions for Chris?

[45:00] I have a one or two more.

[45:12] Some we have private partners who are helping us with design review

[45:21] and plan review, and I would assume that some of this increase is due to increase costs

[45:29] of those relationships.

[45:34] There is an additional cost to having private company doing the plan review.

[45:40] West Coast Code Consulting does our plan reviews the past two full years.

[45:45] It's cost over $200,000 to do those plan reviews.

[45:49] That's more expensive than it is to have an onsite plans examiner.

[45:54] It's just been very hard to fill that position.

[45:56] We recently, well, six, eight months ago, this board authorized a restructuring increase in grade of that position.

[46:05] We do have a good candidate that we're talking to or about to talk to, which is good, but I've had that conversation before, and it hasn't worked out.

[46:14] But yes, it is more expensive to have a firm that's doing this.

[46:19] now the advantage of the firm is that they've gotten an expert in electrical and structural

[46:23] and plumbing as opposed to having somebody doing all the plan review at a house.

[46:30] So there's definitely some give and take, but it is more expensive.

[46:34] And finally, how much does it strikes me that as the codes get more complicated, their

[46:41] reviews have to be more complicated?

[46:43] Is that a fair assessment?

[46:46] I would think so, yes.

[46:47] Yes, and more complicated means more expensive.

[46:52] So if the code's more complicated and has more bells and whistles in it, then the reviewer

[47:00] has a greater onus, a greater responsibility to check more boxes.

[47:08] More boxes means more time to review.

[47:13] are some of these increases due to the fact that we've adopted codes that are now more

[47:21] onerous and create more need for review. For example, we're reviewing things now that

[47:30] we didn't have to review a year ago when the old codes weren't effect. Is that correct?

[47:36] Mr. Gardner, I wouldn't say that it gets that much more complicated.

[47:41] Most of these fees are for inspections, for planning.

[47:45] The fees that are paid for a building permit are based upon the valuation of the project.

[47:51] And so those projects are large and expensive.

[47:54] That fee is completely separate from this.

[47:57] That is based upon construction valuation numbers that we get from the International Code Council.

[48:04] And so, I mean, the main plan review fee is not even included within these numbers.

[48:11] That just gets updated once or twice a year based on new construction valuation data.

[48:18] So I don't know that there's significantly more regulation.

[48:23] I mean, for example, the natural resources overlay, that's a planning issue, those fees

[48:29] are within this list.

[48:31] But the building codes, when you're talking about technical complexity of building codes is excluded from these fees and is accounted for separately, because there's already a built-in fee structure to increase that when new building cost valuation data is published.

[48:55] All right, seeing no other questions, we'll open it up for public comment.

[49:04] Seeing none, looking for a motion, please.

[49:07] Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to make the motion and just, you know, what offer I think this 45-day

[49:11] period is a great time for us to hear from the community about that balance that we're

[49:16] trying to strike of recovering costs and also performing, you know, our services as government.

[49:23] So I encourage folks to weigh in on what they are, and that's the purpose of doing this in this way.

[49:30] So I move to authorize the 45-day period, beginning on October 15, 2025, for public review and comment on proposed amendments to the Teach on County Planning and Building Services Department Schedule of Fees, represented in the October 7, 2025 draft, with a public hearing for potential adoption of the Fees Schedule on December 2, 2025.

[49:49] 5.

[49:50] Second.

[49:50] Motion from Commissioner Mackers, second from Commissioner Coralman.

[49:54] All those in favor, please say aye.

[49:56] Aye.

[49:57] Motion carries unanimously.

[49:59] Thank you all.

[50:01] Yes, sir.

[50:02] Five minutes.

[50:03] Yeah, let's take a five minute break before we enter our matter for planning and development.

[50:08] Thank you.

[50:09] All right, great.

[50:10] We're back in session and Commissioner Macker reminded me that I failed to do the roll

[50:16] call.

[50:17] Also, just for the record, all commissioners are present except for Chair Newcombe.

[50:23] And with that, we'll move on to matters for planning and development.

[50:26] Ms. Monroe.

[50:32] Morning commissioners, Erin Monroe, Associate Long-Range Planner.

[50:36] I've not prepared a presentation.

[50:40] This morning, I'm bringing back before you, AMD 2025-0001.

[50:47] The applicant is Mountain Wyoming Capital LLC or Ridge Line

[50:52] Excavation and the applicant's agent is Alex Norton.

[50:57] So this item went before you last month on September 16th.

[51:02] I gave a presentation, the applicant gave a presentation, public comment was taken, and

[51:07] then the item was continued today to kind of review what the proposal was.

[51:12] it was to add to primary uses to what is allowed in the workforce home business zone or the

[51:22] zone that overlays hog island. It was going to limit those uses light and heavy industry

[51:29] to up to three acres and only on sites that are at least partially within 200 feet of highway

[51:37] way right of way.

[51:39] At the last hearing, we heard some questions from you all, from the commission, and kind

[51:47] of based on that, we went ahead and drafted some potential amendments this board, may

[51:56] find agreeable.

[51:58] So yeah, on the third page of the packet of the memo I prepared for today, we kind of staff

[52:07] kind of outlined some potential changes that could be made that either address the questions

[52:13] you asked and or are just clarifying edits to the proposed language. We shared this

[52:20] with the applicant, I think, a week and a half, two weeks ago. And they provided another

[52:27] small edit that kind of responds to, I believe, a comment from Chris Colligan that kind of spoke

[52:32] I hope to water quality issues and making sure that if these uses are allowed they consider water quality considerations.

[52:40] So anyway with that, I'm available for questions and I believe the applicant may have wanted to make a quick comment as well before we get back into this.

[52:56] Great.

[52:57] A question from Commissioner Macker.

[52:59] Thank you.

[53:00] Mr. Nrell, can you remind me because there is, I believe, this change to say all heavy equipment

[53:10] shall be stored in a fully enclosed structure is heavy equipment defined somewhere.

[53:20] Commissioner Macker, that's a great question.

[53:24] Let me check really quick.

[53:26] Heavy equipment is a listed instance of what is allowed under heavy industry.

[53:36] It says paving excavation, hauling, and other contracting services involving heavy equipment.

[53:42] So I guess the LDRs are alluding to heavy equipment being equipment used for paving excavation and hauling.

[53:49] Thank you.

[53:50] And Ms. Monroe, can you, there's a lot of colors in here.

[53:54] And can you walk me through what each color represents the, over we got first.

[54:00] Yeah, I can say that out loud too.

[54:03] So the text that's in red, that's just pulling from what the applicant proposed on their

[54:09] red line, which is the third item in this packet.

[54:12] They're most up-to-date red line proposal.

[54:14] And then in blue, those are all the edits staff made that are kind of up to this board's

[54:21] discretion if they want to consider those.

[54:25] Of note, the planning director is still recommending denial of this application.

[54:28] These were just edits that kind of got to your comments and just kind of clarify the text

[54:32] in case this commission decides to move forward to this proposal.

[54:37] So blue edits are from staff.

[54:39] And then there's a green at it, which is number eight,

[54:43] understanders, and that was something that the applicant wanted to add in.

[54:50] Great, thank you.

[54:51] Yes.

[54:52] And other questions for Aaron, or shall we hear from the applicant?

[54:56] Yes, commissioner.

[54:56] Just a couple of process questions.

[54:58] With these changes, I assume that these suggested amendments were not reviewed by the Planning Commission.

[55:06] Is that right?

[55:07] Right.

[55:07] Commissioner Prope's, good question.

[55:10] Yeah, the blue edits were not reviewed by the Planning Commission.

[55:12] This was staff kind of coming up with some edits that we found to be, that I had staff

[55:21] in legal review, planning staff in legal review, for this board to consider, just to avoid a situation

[55:27] where we're on the fly trying to come up with some of this language, but it was not reviewed

[55:31] by the Planning Commission for the PRC reviewers, yes.

[55:34] Yes.

[55:35] Mr. Carmel.

[55:37] Thank you, Vice Chair Gardner.

[55:39] Aaron, this is really directed to you.

[55:42] It's nice to see you.

[55:42] Thank you for being here.

[55:43] It's a process question, as well, for us.

[55:47] With these suggested changes, I know they're part of the staff report,

[55:52] which was made available to the public.

[55:56] But they weren't here when we last considered this and had public comment.

[56:00] So, I'm hoping that we will allow public comment today and get the benefit of, you know, people's input from in response to maybe new ideas.

[56:12] Is that agreeable to you?

[56:13] Yeah, that was certainly my intention.

[56:15] Great, thanks.

[56:19] Thanks, Eric.

[56:21] Applicant, we're going to speak.

[56:29] Thank you, Chair Gardiner, commissioners.

[56:31] Alex is much more eloquent about the nuances of planning than I am.

[56:35] So, I will try to make it quick, John Graham on behalf of the applicant.

[56:38] And I just want to make it clear first that I got roped into this by Representative Kirk originally,

[56:44] but this is a hat in hand asked from the applicant.

[56:48] You're never going to hear us say that you abused your discretion in denying or approving a zoning.

[56:54] So I'm just here to argue on the policy side, because you have absolute discretion to make this decision either way.

[57:03] I just wanted to highlight a couple of things that I think were lost in the last meeting.

[57:09] The one is we are asking for a new primary used to be added but light industrial and

[57:16] heavy industrial are already allowed as accessory uses and that's under the contractor business

[57:23] section of this.

[57:24] So if somebody's primary residence is on the site, they can have, you know, an enclosed

[57:35] structure with all their excavation equipment for their small excavation business.

[57:40] The flip occurs when you have employees housed on site instead of your primary residence.

[57:47] And that was, you know, part of the intent of the workforce home business when they created

[57:53] that zone, but it is important to keep in mind that with the backstop CUP review that you have

[58:00] here, you have a lot of discretion over the scale and size of these. So it's not necessarily

[58:06] implicating it, and in fact, a lot of the businesses that currently exist under the workforce,

[58:12] home business have a larger business footprint than home footprint in terms of the actual square

[58:19] footage that deciding factors to whether it's primary accessory is whether it's a primary

[58:24] residence or whether it's accessory workforce housing.

[58:28] So, we're not even asking for something that necessarily changes the footprint of what's

[58:32] allowed on the site.

[58:34] It's more than anything the people that are allowed to build there, or sorry, people that are

[58:39] allowed to live there.

[58:40] And, you know, I don't want to mislead it all.

[58:43] This amendment would allow more square footage, but you could walk that back with every

[58:48] We see the approval based on what you found was appropriate for the neighborhood at the time the CUP came in.

[58:55] So, on the ground, this can end up looking very similar to what's already out there.

[59:02] It's really just a change in who's in these residences that are obviously going to be on the site because that's consistent with the workforce home business goal overall.

[59:13] I also wanted to touch briefly on the comp plan.

[59:15] You know, I think something that was missed in the last time we went through this was the

[59:22] area description absolutely says it shouldn't transition into a full industrial

[59:28] like the business park, but it's also very clear in there and this is that exact quote,

[59:34] gravel and concrete and heavy governmental uses will continue to be appropriate.

[59:38] So it's already identified as a zone where this type of impact can possibly land

[59:45] And then you go to comp plan 6.2.d where the goal is to promote light industry and

[59:52] That's kind of where the rubber hits the road on this

[59:55] This is the only spot you have left besides the business park where there's even

[1:00:00] And kind of a general mention of any of these uses continuing to be appropriate. And if we're out of space, as they've gust of, they've gust of some told units comments about ham and told units comments, you know, where else are we going to put it? If we're following the comp plan with the goal of promoting light industry and not pushing that to adjacent counties and making all these services commuter services, which, you know, ties in very, very neatly with the discussion we're having about project calls.

[1:00:29] costs and expenses just a couple minutes earlier.

[1:00:33] So, you know, overall our pitch here to the commission is,

[1:00:38] oh, and the last thing I would say is, you know,

[1:00:40] there's been some discussion about the predictability

[1:00:43] from the 2020 rezone and how walking back a rezone

[1:00:47] so quickly after it occurred undermines predictability

[1:00:51] and reliance on the zoning.

[1:00:53] You know, I would also say that the opposite is true.

[1:00:57] So you rezone this in 2020, 2022, I apologize, and there are a number of pre-existing non-conformities

[1:01:06] out there.

[1:01:07] And I think what you see with the demand for this type of space is that none of these

[1:01:11] pre-existing non-conformities are going to get brought in from the cold to the current zoning.

[1:01:16] They're just going to be perpetuated because there's a need, there's a demand.

[1:01:21] So I would say that by acknowledging that and kind of seeing it after three years of the operative zoning,

[1:01:28] what you're doing is you're creating an opportunity for these businesses to come in from the cold,

[1:01:33] you know, potentially change the use a little bit because they now have this incentive structure

[1:01:38] where they can become a conforming use and that might give you more predictability and stability in the long term.

[1:01:47] So you know, it's very rare, I know some neighbors are opposed to this and I understand that, it's right in their backyard, I empathize with that.

[1:01:56] There are also a number of neighbors that are supportive.

[1:01:58] If you go back and watch the public comment, Philip Lanick's and Esther Judge, Aiden Hatfield, Kathy Robertson, all commented in support of this.

[1:02:07] It's very rare that you get a project for increased use, where some of the neighbors are in fact supportive of it and

[1:02:15] supportive enough to be willing to come up and say that and you have Dave Gustafson, Bob Hammond,

[1:02:21] all telling you that this is necessary for the community and these businesses need a landing place.

[1:02:27] So our hope is that we've brought something that's beneficial to the community as a whole.

[1:02:33] Even though we understand that some neighbors are going to be unhappy with it and

[1:02:37] that we can move this project forward to keep these services in Teton County and benefit the county as a whole.

[1:02:43] I'm happy to answer any questions or turn it over to Alex who, again, is much smarter than I am if there are any.

[1:02:48] Any questions from Mr. Graham?

[1:02:51] I think it's here for Alex.

[1:02:55] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:02:57] Commission, Alex Northern OPS strategies on behalf of the applicant, I'd like to thank staff for the work in preparing this memo with some revised language here.

[1:03:09] I think that in response to the question about the Planning Commission, while the Planning Commission didn't review this language, because they recommended denial, they didn't go through and talk about how they would change the actual language of the amendment, however, the topics that they discussed in their meeting around water quality and making sure that we're managing the size of the use and addressing the different property sizes are the same issues that you can see.

[1:03:39] you talked about in the original meeting a couple of weeks ago and that staff addressed

[1:03:44] in this potential language here so I do think these changes reflect that conversation.

[1:03:53] The one piece that I would point to you is in, is the language around storing equipment

[1:04:04] in fully enclosed structures, I would just say that I'm not sure that that is the best way to screen the impacts of heavy equipment.

[1:04:18] I think we've seen in a number of places that trying to get everything inside isn't always feasible, doesn't always work.

[1:04:26] and that potentially the landscaping requirement that's already been approved, proposed and in there is potentially a better way to do that while still maintaining open movement corridors through the area and actually increasing your screening over time as trees continue to grow.

[1:04:48] So they provide better and better screening over a time as opposed to a building.

[1:04:56] Everybody's experienced this and their garage seems to get smaller and smaller over time.

[1:05:02] And so I fully understand the proposal there and what staff is planning to do and

[1:05:10] just think that potentially the landscaping requirement is a better way to achieve that screening and

[1:05:15] is again, like John talked about something that you can review through the CUP process

[1:05:21] and make sure you've got that adequate screening so that you know that you're taking care

[1:05:26] of that over time and you can avoid another big building in the community when the goal

[1:05:32] is just to make sure we're not looking at park trucks.

[1:05:35] So, you know, ultimately, the applicant has reviewed this language and would be appreciative

[1:05:45] of a motion for approval that included this language, the staff included in their memo,

[1:05:53] but would also like you to consider removing the first sentence in number seven of the standards

[1:06:02] It's there that says that all heavy equipment shall be stored at the fully enclosed structure because we think that the landscaping requirement

[1:06:12] more adequately achieves the screening goals without limiting the very use that's needed in the community and that you're that is the purpose of the amendment.

[1:06:23] With that, I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have.

[1:06:27] Questions for Alex?

[1:06:32] Thank you, Mr. Chair, Gardner.

[1:06:36] Alex, we continued this item a few weeks ago in one of my ambitions, and I mentioned the applicant directly was some communication with the neighbors to kind of let them know what you were thinking and if there were ways to improve this that might address their needs and make them feel more comfortable with it.

[1:06:58] Did you have a chance to do any of that, or was the timing too short?

[1:07:02] Yeah, the applicant certainly had some conversations with neighbors and

[1:07:08] attempted to reach out to the direct neighbors who some of whom spoke in opposition to the proposal.

[1:07:16] Was enabled to connect with them in the time period.

[1:07:20] Not sure if additional time would aid in that connection or not.

[1:07:26] But definitely appreciate that suggestion and have talked to some of the neighbors, but not all of them.

[1:07:36] Okay, thank you.

[1:07:39] Other questions?

[1:07:44] Seeing none, thank you, Alex.

[1:07:48] Let's open it up for public comment on this item.

[1:07:56] And I'll remind the public as you make sure you mention your name and

[1:08:02] And please sign in on the sheet over here and please limit your remarks to three minutes.

[1:08:07] I was signed in before I start talking because I probably would be running when I'm done.

[1:08:32] Thank you, commissioners, for the opportunity to voice my opinion.

[1:08:37] Norse Brown, I live directly across from this mess.

[1:08:43] Which the only reason we're here today is because the county hasn't had a code compliance

[1:08:51] office for the six or seven years since I was last at a meeting when the neighbors

[1:08:57] across the street started the neighborhood business park idea and it's grown.

[1:09:04] So my point being is one of the gentlemen alluded to the character of what Kurt

[1:09:11] Hogan and Ridgeline wants to do really isn't that a character which you all have

[1:09:17] out to happen. I got a list of probably eight co-compliance officers since Jennifer Anderson was

[1:09:26] the last full-time one. And I looked back to Mr. Prope's comment a little while ago about the

[1:09:35] survey, the GS, and if they didn't perform, would you get your money back? Kind of hit home on this

[1:09:43] as a taxpayer. I haven't gotten my money's worth of my complaints. Jennifer Anderson assured

[1:09:53] me that when the the the Eastman started their project, they would not be given a occupancy

[1:10:01] permit for their cabins till they completed their pole barn and their equipment was inside.

[1:10:06] a flat out didn't happen ever. The list of co-compliance officers, Jennifer Anderson, William

[1:10:18] Hut, Susan Johnson, Olivia, Christie, Josh Chandler, will. You haven't had a full-time

[1:10:27] co-compliance officer that can even communicate to me the dates of your meetings.

[1:10:35] This is only

[1:10:37] happen because of lack of your oversight on the co-compliance that the all signed off on when they were given their permits.

[1:10:48] And I just ask you to look at, I'm not endorsing Kurtz project, just simply because the amount of traffic that's across is directly across the street.

[1:10:59] When my wife and my moved out of town, we built a home there 45 years ago.

[1:11:04] Now I have TLC haul and snow 24 or 7 in the winter time because the city is overbuilt.

[1:11:11] There's no snow storage in town.

[1:11:14] I have their hours that are not complied to.

[1:11:19] The Eastmen have failed to put their construction stuff inside.

[1:11:24] When I drive out my driveway, the first thing I see is a big Chinese container says,

[1:11:30] Hinge in. When I ask somebody, I ask where I live. I just tell them, just follow the

[1:11:34] dust from the rodeo stock, and when you see the junkyard, hang a left.

[1:11:43] The last time I was

[1:11:44] here, like I said, the Lennoxes and the Judds and Eastmans, I'll sign off. The Judds have

[1:11:50] never put their equipment inside. Of course, they endorse this project because it allows

[1:11:55] them, they don't even live there, they're just part-time residents.

[1:12:00] So I guess my, that's the gist of my complaint being here today, unfortunately I can't endorse

[1:12:06] Kurt's situation because of the the amount of traffic that it's going to, you know, create

[1:12:14] down there.

[1:12:15] There's no jake break, engine break, restrictions, hardly anywhere in Teetown County.

[1:12:19] So, when they come down and they go in there, TLC has processed top cell for six years.

[1:12:27] You probably all remember the pile that sat along the road.

[1:12:30] I mean, it's set there for eight months, and they continue to not follow the hours.

[1:12:39] So, that's my complaint right now, and that's why this is in front of you.

[1:12:43] If I took anybody that wanted to start a construction business and drove down there right now, you

[1:12:48] would think you could do it because of what has happened because of lack of compliance.

[1:12:56] So that's really the gist of my, you know, I've visited with Lenny before and I've visited

[1:13:04] with Nukem,

[1:13:08] but I was not in town the last couple meetings.

[1:13:13] So I thank you for hearing me out.

[1:13:17] I know there's a need.

[1:13:19] My gut feeling is that the next time Teton Village wants to put in some more stuff, you

[1:13:25] mandate some commercial light industrial somewhere.

[1:13:28] You force feed other parts of the county to deal with it.

[1:13:35] And when you look at the map, there's a lot of private property, the martin properties

[1:13:42] to the south.

[1:13:43] Well, it can't grow real big, it's not like this is going to take off and, you know, and continue up to the weed and pest or whatever.

[1:13:53] But you do have all the Robertson property which could be developed into this kind of stuff.

[1:13:58] So I just ask you to, you know, this is supposedly a scenic by way to the untrusted Jackson from the South.

[1:14:04] And it is not scenic right now, thank you.

[1:14:07] Good

[1:14:19] morning, county commissioners. My name is Elizabeth Eastman. I'm going to keep it brief.

[1:14:24] We're just urging the county commissioners for consistency and enforcement and interpretation

[1:14:30] of the comprehensive plan and the LDRs. 12 years ago, as I've stated previously, we approach

[1:14:37] the county with almost an identical ask. Neighbors and the county were very clear, even considering

[1:14:43] pre-existing non-conformities, the primary use must be residential, and that was also enforced

[1:14:50] during the most recent reason.

[1:14:53] We may not align with every single role that's applied to us, but we do live there full

[1:14:58] time.

[1:14:59] We're trying to...

[1:15:00] We can operate so that we are respective, our bare neighbors. We understand that it's a neighborhood. We bring our family there. I got married on my front porch because that's my home. We built that home. The change in primary use is pivotal to your decision today. To approve the primary use will ultimately of heavy industrial to add, sorry, to approve the primary use of industrial from residential.

[1:15:27] will ultimately change the appearance and use of Haab Island and will increase the issues

[1:15:34] that Norris Brown has highlighted. We're not here to point fingers anyone but we are asking for

[1:15:41] consistency and we're going to do our best to be a good neighbor and we would like to ensure

[1:15:46] that the county is a good neighbor to us and saying this is what we've enforced on you

[1:15:50] and we are going to carry that forward. Thank you for your time.

[1:15:55] Mr. Chair.

[1:15:56] Yes, sir.

[1:15:57] Mr. Brown.

[1:15:57] You might have asked the Mrs. Eastman a question.

[1:16:01] Go ahead.

[1:16:02] Thanks.

[1:16:02] And I had sort of had the same question for Mr. Brown, but he, in part, answered it without

[1:16:07] my even asking it.

[1:16:08] But you've recognized, too, that we have a real need in our community for

[1:16:15] light and industrial work.

[1:16:17] And I'm grateful every time, you know, I need a plumber or something that we still have a plumber

[1:16:22] in Teton County who can come help me out.

[1:16:24] And I'm grateful that we have cloud drivers

[1:16:26] in places for equipment and trucks

[1:16:28] and that's stuff to be that's not in Alpine or Victor.

[1:16:37] You're in this general business.

[1:16:40] So you know it as well as better than we do than I do for sure.

[1:16:45] One of the strong arguments that the applicant has made

[1:16:49] is 80 ton counting, they're not this blunt, but grow up.

[1:16:54] You've got lots of growth around you.

[1:16:56] You have a need for light industrial equipment and people and services.

[1:17:02] Where are you going to put them?

[1:17:04] And so that's on my mind.

[1:17:08] And you know this equation and you know where you live that we do have a lot of that stuff.

[1:17:13] Maybe it's because of failure of code compliance.

[1:17:16] But what's your advice to us?

[1:17:18] And my answer would be to memorialize what's in place.

[1:17:22] My understanding, and I would maybe defer to the county department,

[1:17:27] that the current zoning does not allow residential with an accessory use of industrial.

[1:17:35] I believe it's a home daycare landscaping, and there may be one other home business.

[1:17:43] It does not clearly stipulate that it could be industrial.

[1:17:47] We were told we were a grandfathered business allowing the conditional use of industrial.

[1:17:54] And so my recommendation would be to memorialize what's existing, where the owner has to live on site.

[1:18:01] That is huge.

[1:18:03] Us living there, we're there every day.

[1:18:05] We hear stoddards dump trucks coming and going at night, and it upsets us because we're not doing that.

[1:18:12] We want to respect our neighbors, we don't call snow in there.

[1:18:15] And so my focus is on the primary use change, I think maybe expanding work on business and giving small businesses the opportunity to build a home and build a business like we were able to do would give the opportunity to keep this

[1:18:35] kind of industry in the valley, but would also respect what's been existing and would be

[1:18:41] a compromise that would meet in the middle that I'm not going to speak for my brother-in-law.

[1:18:46] He may not agree. I think would be better. Having the owner live on site creates immediate

[1:18:54] accountability. You know, if the Code Compliance Officer comes to us and they say you can't

[1:19:00] operate anymore because you're not following the rules we gave you, we're there. We see it every day.

[1:19:05] we can adjust where it's just employees, you can kind of step back and say oh it's just my employees

[1:19:10] I told them what to do but they're not listening to me. So living on site having the owner there

[1:19:15] and having it be their residence I think is the crux of the work home business zoning and

[1:19:23] amending it to allow more uses I think would be good but keeping that primary use of residential as

[1:19:31] as it's been enforced for more than a decade, is key to not shifting Hog Island to a business park.

[1:19:42] Thank you, that was a very helpful answer, thank you.

[1:19:46] Other

[1:19:48] cup public comment?

[1:20:22] Good morning, I'm Bill Schreiber, I'm actually resident of Wilson, so I don't live near this, but I was thinking I'm just

[1:20:31] I just happened to see this article in the newspaper and felt that maybe I could help and

[1:20:36] make some suggestions about this application.

[1:20:39] So I'm going to sort of read this so I don't miss any points.

[1:20:44] As I mentioned, I live in Wilson, and I do understand a lot of what Len is saying.

[1:20:49] The need is there.

[1:20:51] And so really the question to me is that the devil is sort of in the details.

[1:20:55] I think the change in the Ellis Lane Development Regulations certainly is a very detailed and complex process.

[1:21:05] I commend Chris and his staff on all the work they've done on this application.

[1:21:10] It seems like they've really given it a lot of thought and added a lot of clarity to the regulations,

[1:21:14] which I think is really, really important to get the details right, so that makes sense.

[1:21:22] At any time we do uses and zoning changes, there are unintended consequences, and one of the things that I think is kind of interesting, I thought that these changes would probably increase the value of these areas where the zoning is changing, thus would probably increase the assessed value, therefore it would probably increase the taxes on the people that live there since this is an area where it's not just industrial where people, people are just businesses,

[1:21:50] is they actually live there, and that would just go on in perpetuity.

[1:21:55] My biggest concern, though, as someone who drives this corridor a lot, is that just

[1:22:00] the visuals of it, I think one thing is that trying to keep the corridor where you drive

[1:22:08] down, where you're going to the river or whatever, where the visuals are maintained is something

[1:22:14] that there's a lot of proposals in here that are trying to maintain that, but I don't think

[1:22:20] it goes quite far enough, so I can talk about that a little bit more.

[1:22:24] The next thing, of course, is that I think it's a little bit when I look at the language

[1:22:29] in the comprehensive plan that is talking about, what do you call it, District 7,

[1:22:35] so what it's called, District 7.

[1:22:37] I think that this goes a little contrary to that.

[1:22:40] And I know there was a ton of time spent on the comprehensive plan.

[1:22:43] And so, again, this gets back to this quarter along Highway 89 and trying to preserve

[1:22:49] of a lot of things that are outlined in the comprehensive plan.

[1:22:54] I do also think that the way it's written, I would ask that currently you deny the application just like staff is recommending denial, but if you don't deny it, some edits that I thought might help.

[1:23:12] First one was about the range of the zoning.

[1:23:19] There's in the area of where it says 200 feet minimum to 500 feet maximum.

[1:23:25] There's language that's used partially.

[1:23:27] Well, to me, as someone who's been on the T-Time Bill of Architectural Committee for decades,

[1:23:33] anytime partially, if it's undefined, I don't know.

[1:23:36] I would delete the word partially.

[1:23:37] I think that's something that should not be in there.

[1:23:41] The next thing is the times for operation.

[1:23:47] You know, to me, I used to live in Wilson Meadows and Wilson and I was near the seat in operation.

[1:23:55] And in the winter time, they start the vehicles 7, 630 and let them run to warm up.

[1:24:01] And so, to me, maybe you shorten that time a little bit.

[1:24:04] Maybe it starts at 730 and then in the evening it goes to 930.

[1:24:09] And maybe it's more related around noise rather than operation, so you can look at that.

[1:24:15] I do agree with Mr. Norton on his thoughts about screening, and how to make things look better.

[1:24:20] Where I think that to build big buildings in and close everything, probably not the way to go.

[1:24:26] I think if you do stuff where you have it, we're starting at the edge of the road easement.

[1:24:31] First you have landscaping, then you maybe have a building, and then parking and all stock piles go behind that.

[1:24:38] So maybe those are the kind of the details that could be tweaked to make it a little bit more efficient and a little bit more of solving the problem of the visuals.

[1:24:50] And then last, as I mentioned, I was on the architectural committee, that the noise issue, maybe you add something about the limits of noise.

[1:24:59] The Teton Village CCNRs have a really great section about noise limits.

[1:25:04] A lot of it words, the noise has reduced at 8 o'clock, but not necessarily the operation, right?

[1:25:10] Because that's a big part of the, I think the impact to neighbors.

[1:25:16] So with that, I thank you for your time.

[1:25:20] Thanks Bill.

[1:25:26] Hi, my name's Jen Evans.

[1:25:28] I'm advocacy director with Protect Our Water Jackson Hole.

[1:25:31] I submitted a letter along with Snake River Fund on this topic and so since I'm sure you've

[1:25:39] already read it, I'll just emphasize some of the main points being that Hog Island is

[1:25:45] home to some of the most pristine groundwater in southern Teton County and as a water quality

[1:25:53] protection group, we're of course worried about how industrial use could affect this, whether

[1:26:00] that's fuel leaks, spillage, it just does pose a concern and along with some of the topics

[1:26:12] that Snake River fund brought up, it's along the Snake River which is obviously a protected

[1:26:22] river.

[1:26:24] So we just want to emphasize those points and for you to take water quality and water

[1:26:28] protection. Just think about it when you're making this decision, so thank you.

[1:26:35] The

[1:26:42] public comment in the room.

[1:26:47] Yes, sir.

[1:26:48] I

[1:26:53] don't think that's, I don't think so, sorry.

[1:26:59] Any other public comment? Any online?

[1:27:03] Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion.

[1:27:10] Thoughts?

[1:27:14] Mr. Carman.

[1:27:14] Thank you, Vice Chair Cardiner.

[1:27:16] I don't want to put Mr. Hogan entirely on the spot, but a little bit.

[1:27:22] You've heard neighborhood concerns about the scale of the operation, hours of activity.

[1:27:33] And you heard the case made for the value of having the principal, the owner, living on site.

[1:27:40] rather than having light industrial B primary use that would not require the owner to live on site.

[1:27:48] You want to move into the neighborhood.

[1:27:53] What are you thinking about all that?

[1:27:55] And you can send anybody up you want.

[1:28:04] Thank you. Nobody asked me if I ever was going to live on site.

[1:28:08] That's what's funny about the whole thing.

[1:28:11] I haven't said I would, I haven't said I wouldn't, I don't know.

[1:28:14] I'm not opposed to it.

[1:28:17] I mean, obviously, if we were approved, we don't see a structure even going up for two years because of permitting and getting all of our conditionally permits.

[1:28:29] So, I haven't ruled it out.

[1:28:31] I mean, as I'm an empty nester in about six months, so I don't really need the house.

[1:28:36] I mean, I only need an apartment in the concern that we're not there.

[1:28:39] Well, I'm there from about 5.30 or 6 in the morning until about 9.30 at night.

[1:28:46] So I'm there more than anybody as it is right now at our office.

[1:28:50] So I am always there personally, kind of commanding it as far as our people.

[1:28:56] We don't leave the office till 7.30 and we're usually always back by 5.30 unless there's an emergency

[1:29:02] situation.

[1:29:04] So have I answered your question?

[1:29:06] Yeah. Yeah. I couldn't ask for a different answer or a better answer. That's where you are in your life.

[1:29:13] We have no intention of storing stockpiles of anything there. It's merely we're living on a

[1:29:20] postage stamp right now that we can't function. You know, in concerns to the water quality,

[1:29:26] there's a cesspool adjacent to the property. There's fuel tanks adjacent to the property. They're already

[1:29:32] there and all of our stuff is double containment concrete wall tanks, so but again, those are things that could be conditionally used out of our proposal, but there are neighboring ground water concerns already there.

[1:29:49] Thank you, and Mr. Graham seems eager to help us discuss this.

[1:29:56] Thank you, Commissioner Carman, commissioners, John Graham.

[1:30:00] I would also just highlight again that our goal here is really to just start the discussion. I think that under the CUP process, it would be absolutely appropriate for this board, for example, to say that, you know, a proposal where Mr. Hogan has the full three acres of site and doesn't include anything and uses every square engine has two small employee apartments,

[1:30:29] is going to unfairly burden the neighborhood.

[1:30:32] And I think, right, when you look at the definition of conditional use permit in planning,

[1:30:38] it is essentially a use that depending on scale, size, orientation restrictions may or may not be compatible with the neighborhood it's in.

[1:30:48] So I think there is really implied in all of this a close look at continuing compatibility.

[1:30:57] that's absolutely a standard that's going to be exercised and there will absolutely be

[1:31:02] proposals that come in front of you that don't meet the CUP standards for this neighborhood.

[1:31:08] I think this is the starting point for that conversation and then each individual site

[1:31:15] needs to be designed, planned, developed in a way where it doesn't adversely impact the

[1:31:23] in an unacceptable way.

[1:31:26] So, you know, I think that's the answer on the CP side,

[1:31:29] you know, I also wanted to highlight,

[1:31:31] there's a lot of discussion about enforcement

[1:31:33] and how this zone has gotten to this point.

[1:31:38] Again, I think that's almost why this broader catch

[1:31:41] is more important.

[1:31:43] You are bringing people in from the cold

[1:31:47] if they're pre-existing non-conformity.

[1:31:50] you know, if they, if let's say, you know, TLC sells because that's one that's

[1:31:56] pointed to with the snow removal and everything. And, you know, another similar

[1:32:02] business wants to go down there, but you know, they want to change some of the

[1:32:06] operations. They might, as it's currently zoned, really try to continue that

[1:32:12] nonconforming use and not discontinue it so that they're not forced to be brought

[1:32:17] into conformity, if they have a reasonable CUP process, though, and they're considering

[1:32:21] some change in operations, that suddenly looks a lot more appealing.

[1:32:26] So again, I think it's twofold.

[1:32:27] I think that the individual CUP requirement for new projects requires minimization of impact

[1:32:35] on neighbors, and I think that the avenue for a CUP going forward is going to lead to better

[1:32:41] regulated business down there, even on sites where this kind of intrusive use has already

[1:33:00] I don't know if there are final thoughts, but I'm challenged really a lot by this because I understand the need and

[1:33:12] what's trying to be accomplished and the manner of going through RLDR process and trying to get there this way.

[1:33:21] But I also was here for some of the CEPs in the zone that we're talking about, and a lot

[1:33:29] of conversation about homes as the primary use was really the central focus of that.

[1:33:37] And this is a really challenging needle to thread in an area that just has a lot going

[1:33:47] on and I don't know that there is a singular way to clean it up and offer a change today

[1:33:57] that allows other properties to have a path forward.

[1:34:03] I think I'm also reminded that while the applicant and their proposed use and the work

[1:34:11] that they do in our community is very compelling that it's a zoning change that applies to

[1:34:16] multiple properties and that would be before us and is not about the specific person in

[1:34:21] front of us but is about the land use piece and so I, you know, I'm open to hearing

[1:34:28] discussion but for me I think maintaining the home as a primary use is still standing

[1:34:33] out for me with the work that we did previously here and most recently and in all the conversations

[1:34:42] about the neighborhood and what is happening there.

[1:34:44] Thank you, Mr. Proves.

[1:34:47] Thank you, like Natalie, I'm challenged by this.

[1:34:51] I don't feel like that what we did back in June of 2022 is the final word at all.

[1:34:57] I do agree with the perspective that home residents is a major part of this, but

[1:35:06] I'm not comfortable with either a yes or a no, frankly.

[1:35:09] And so I'm curious, just to help me think through this, if we were to deny this,

[1:35:17] and this is a question for Keith and our Chris, what are the options for the applicant?

[1:35:24] And what are the realistic options for us to maybe do something from the county side?

[1:35:34] Are they, is it a year-widen period or what's the, because I think with some continued

[1:35:43] discussion, maybe I could get to yes.

[1:35:46] I'm just not, I'm not really comfortable either place right now.

[1:35:56] Kirsten, you're back, our planning director.

[1:35:57] I believe it is a one-year-widen period off to verify that, but this board has identified

[1:36:04] business park or zoning and legacy zoning as a topic to be taken up.

[1:36:10] It hasn't been risen to the top in terms of being the most important.

[1:36:14] My recommendation, if this is something that this board would like us to look at, is to

[1:36:19] look at it more holistically.

[1:36:20] There may be other locations within the community that could accommodate this type of use.

[1:36:24] Maybe it's in Hogg Island, maybe it's someplace else.

[1:36:28] We would take a more holistic approach to this.

[1:36:31] We would mail notice to all of the property owners within whatever zone or something

[1:36:38] was changing.

[1:36:39] We would engage with the community like we did several years ago for the workforce

[1:36:42] home business rezoning and have a lot of meetings and have some discussions and have back and

[1:36:49] forth.

[1:36:50] That process is a little bit different than an applicant submitted application where we're

[1:36:55] required to send notice to certain folks.

[1:36:58] But the public engagement process is different.

[1:37:02] And so I think a more holistic approach would be to look at

[1:37:05] this location and look at potentially other locations

[1:37:09] that could accommodate this need.

[1:37:14] Mr. Chair, the other question that weighs on me in any moment,

[1:37:18] I might ask you for help is water quality.

[1:37:21] And we have this application in front of us today at the same time

[1:37:25] that we're not that far out thinking about water quality in that general neighborhood.

[1:37:32] I don't know what my question is, I mean, but I'm just curious if you have any thoughts on

[1:37:37] with the potential extension or potential addition to the municipal waste water treatment system

[1:37:46] in this neighborhood, if there's a way that we could actually improve water quality with

[1:37:51] There's a slower look than we would do if we approved this today.

[1:37:56] I know that's not a very articulate question, and I apologize for that.

[1:38:00] Amy Grammage, County Engineer, certainly there will be, I think you're referring to the

[1:38:06] Munger Mountain sewer addition that the county is considering.

[1:38:11] That larger question of how that will induce or not development in that area is a big

[1:38:20] question and I think that in general that I'm struggling a little bit because there's

[1:38:31] not a question there.

[1:38:32] Welcome to the call.

[1:38:33] I think that you will have to address that in the near future as this monger mountain

[1:38:39] sewer comes through the process which will be in the next few months.

[1:38:42] It certainly changes the calculation.

[1:38:45] And you know for this particular application I don't see a direct correlation of a real

[1:38:51] issue connecting to sewer, for example. I think that can easily be handled eventually

[1:38:56] in this area. But I do agree with what Mr. Hogan said about through a conditionally

[1:39:05] use process, you could absolutely deal with the individual concerns on a specific site

[1:39:11] related to water quality. And you'll probably continue to see that as this whole neighborhood

[1:39:18] Your hood comes through process in different applications where each site is different and will propose different types of uses related to water quality.

[1:39:28] Thank you, Mr. Carman.

[1:39:32] Mr. Vice Chair, thanks.

[1:39:35] I would love some guidance from our professional staff about the status of the Richline Enterprise.

[1:39:46] Otherwise, if we say no to this at this time, they're using the property now.

[1:39:54] Is there a need for some compliance, some enforcement?

[1:39:59] Does this upset their use?

[1:40:01] And I also want to say I'm really grateful for Commissioner Macker's observation that we're talking about an LDR change that applies more broadly than this location.

[1:40:10] but I'm also thinking small and particular about, you know, business, valuable use in a particular location.

[1:40:19] If we say no now, what happens to that?

[1:40:24] Mr. Newbecker, planning director, this site was subject to a code enforcement case.

[1:40:30] The applicant started to use the site without permission and violation of the LDRs.

[1:40:36] We submitted a, you know, contact with them issued a notice of violation.

[1:40:42] They did agree to remove the heavy equipment from the property.

[1:40:47] My understanding at the time was that there were some rocks or some other materials that were stored on the property.

[1:40:53] And we are waiting resolution of this application, and I'm not sure if the material is still on there.

[1:40:59] But my understanding is that the heavy equipment has been removed from the property and is no longer on the property today.

[1:41:07] So the business could continue the way it's currently being run, is that right?

[1:41:13] Wherever those vehicles are being operated, assuming it's someplace in the county that meets violence.

[1:41:18] As far as you know, it's the business proposition belongs to Mr. Hogan, of course.

[1:41:28] And Mr. Chair, I'd be grateful to hear from Mr. Hogan.

[1:41:31] I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

[1:41:34] I didn't really raise one, it was just directly to you, but it's, you know, what happens if we say no to your business?

[1:41:41] Can you continue to provide valuable services as you do in Teton County?

[1:41:47] Or is this-

[1:41:48] I'm probably not going to fight it anymore.

[1:41:50] I'm kind of done being a salmon swimming upstream.

[1:41:54] One more than likely down size.

[1:41:56] My contract for winter plowing with the county, except for the parking lots, ends this year.

[1:42:02] We'll probably not renew those just because that's about five pieces of equipment that have to sit somewhere.

[1:42:11] Because I don't use snow plows in the summer and vice versa.

[1:42:15] So I have to have a place to put them.

[1:42:17] We currently have no equipment down there.

[1:42:19] We have a stock problem material that was supposed to be spread on the property because it was under the 12,000 square feet of a conditional use permit to get some gravel down.

[1:42:29] We just stopped placing it, but it was under the 12,000 square feet require.

[1:42:35] But yeah, well probably I'm just, it's too expensive to try to operate on a pay, the place that we're on right now.

[1:42:45] And like when we look at the only other place that was even feasible was Mike's welding and I think it sold for six and a half million.

[1:42:52] We looked at the deer drive property that I think it sold for eight million or something that you can't, the numbers don't work for a construction company.

[1:43:01] they just they simply don't work and like I know fish creek are two biggest

[1:43:07] competitors fish creek in Westwood both are not on property they own either

[1:43:11] they're up against the same problem we're up against you know and so it's

[1:43:18] it's it's wearing me out a little bit and it's it's expensive to keep to keep

[1:43:25] Those two employed over there.

[1:43:28] So, any of my answer to your question, Mr.

[1:43:30] He did, thank you.

[1:43:31] And I'm grateful to you and to the Vice Chair for allowing this procedure.

[1:43:39] I guess all the way in, I was a little at sea for a moment to realize I wasn't here for the August 16th meeting.

[1:43:48] and so I am a resident game creek and we recently lost our plowers at its construction

[1:44:00] so they will no longer plow up where we live and we are struggling to find plows to plow

[1:44:07] roads and so it strikes me that here we are.

[1:44:16] I'm reminded of really one of the first hard decisions I had to make as a commissioner

[1:44:23] with the property just north of the melody entrance and really a lot of the same

[1:44:33] consternation that we had as commissioners for that project we're having again here.

[1:44:39] and that is that we have needs as any mountain community would for a light

[1:44:49] industrial, local light industrial and as a decision-maker it's hard to say

[1:44:58] Okay, yeah, that's well.

[1:45:00] Well, this is where we're going to put it. We've got to put it somewhere, and this is where we're going to put it. That's always a hard thing to say. I think that I'm trying to understand the nuances of the primary residence issue. I appreciate Miss Eastman's comments that when the owner is on site, it makes a huge difference. I also appreciate the applicants comments.

[1:45:28] that if it's my work, that's where I am, whether you live there or not.

[1:45:33] So I appreciate that logic that speaks to another business from one business owner to another, I understand that.

[1:45:47] I also have been one commissioner who has repeatedly when we're talking about long range planning,

[1:45:57] that we prioritize these legacy zones.

[1:46:00] I said during that meeting three years ago,

[1:46:06] I don't want to ever face another decision as a commissioner

[1:46:08] on how to resolve legacy zones, particularly.

[1:46:15] And so I appreciate Director Newbacker's thoughts

[1:46:21] around prioritizing what are we doing with legacy zones?

[1:46:26] And it's exactly for this reason because what we find is that those legacy zones are being

[1:46:33] stretched to accommodate light and even heavy industry.

[1:46:39] And I think it's easy to say, well, we don't like heavy industry, it's in some city it

[1:46:48] pollutes.

[1:46:48] You know, it's kind of got this sense attached to it, but if you want to drive your roads

[1:46:56] in the winter, you better have some industry around.

[1:46:59] Otherwise, we're going to be contracting out of Pindale, out of Alpine, and do we really

[1:47:07] want to have to contract, those contracts should be local.

[1:47:13] Not out of some nostalgic reason, but because we need plows locally, when two feet of snow falls at three o'clock in the afternoon, so that for me I can get up my road in Game Creek.

[1:47:32] So I really appreciate the creativity of bringing this forward as an application as opposed to winding our way through and I appreciate Director Newbecker bringing up if we were to do this in a more from a county standpoint for you to bring this forward from as an LDR update.

[1:47:58] That's going to take a lot of time. That's going to take a lot of energy.

[1:48:03] And so I'm inclined to vote for the motion today. I understand that I'm fighting a strong

[1:48:14] headwind. I appreciate the language around water quality. I'm a little concerned about how

[1:48:25] How we, I'll just read it.

[1:48:27] As part of the conditional use permit application, the applicant shall demonstrate the use will

[1:48:31] not decrease water quality through measures such as best practices for storm water management,

[1:48:35] so storage, material storage and sewer connection is practical.

[1:48:40] Not that I reread it is pretty specific and yeah,

[1:48:46] I mean, I feel like I'm coming into this

[1:48:53] in the middle.

[1:48:54] But nonetheless, I recognize that this is trying to accomplish a change that's needed for this community.

[1:49:12] I appreciate Mr. Schreiber's concerns about property tax.

[1:49:18] I think you're right.

[1:49:19] Right, these properties are going to become more valuable.

[1:49:23] The applicant just spoke to the costs of similar properties, $68 million.

[1:49:31] That's likely to happen here too, so I really am torn.

[1:49:34] You're seeing me work through this in real time, right in front of you.

[1:49:38] That's not, I like to have these kind of things wrapped up before I start speaking, but I really am torn and I don't think I'm alone in this.

[1:49:46] So I would look to my colleagues for what, how do we want to deal with this, any thoughts?

[1:49:54] I have one further question before a voting thought.

[1:49:58] If we were to adopt this, we'd be setting up a conditional use permit process, is that correct, Chris?

[1:50:05] Well, that's correct, I mean, there is a conditional use process already identified in the code, but this would set some of the standards for what we would be looking for in that review.

[1:50:14] What would it take within this application to make one of the requirements that the owner of the company live

[1:50:24] on site? We've had a compelling case for that today. And does that defeat the whole purpose of this LDR

[1:50:31] amendment to insist that the owner live on site? Or can we tweak it so that that's included? And we don't

[1:50:38] to rely on a CUP process, a seriatim one after another, to raise that question.

[1:50:46] I want to now scale back up to where Commissioner Macker was directing my thinking.

[1:50:51] Well, the answer is you would write that as one of the standards that the owner shall live on site.

[1:50:55] Now, the question then becomes what's an owner when you're talking about a corporation, an LLC, et cetera, et cetera.

[1:51:10] Just the same trouble for all of you and my colleagues, for me, real time deliberations on this.

[1:51:24] I would like to have a stronger, more refined application that addresses this question before us.

[1:51:32] I would prefer if our County Planning Commission could work through this kind of stuff instead of having four county commissioners who are less expert in this.

[1:51:39] than we want our planning commissioners to be, but we didn't go that route.

[1:51:44] I also appreciate that applicants can't pay these two guys forever to advance their proposals.

[1:51:52] But I think we're close, the primary residency case is important to me.

[1:52:00] And if we can include that, then I'd want to say yes.

[1:52:03] Commissioner Probe, the chair has his hand up.

[1:52:04] I think in my six years on the commission that this four of us with the Chair absent have never all collectively expressed, you know, challenged, thinking this through on the fly.

[1:52:24] Could we, because of that, I'd like more time, frankly.

[1:52:30] Can we continue this?

[1:52:33] I'm not asking you, should we, but could we continue it or do we need the approval

[1:52:38] from the applicant?

[1:52:39] What's the story there?

[1:52:41] You don't need approval from the applicant to continue.

[1:52:45] Another option is you could either, if you agree on what the language would be,

[1:52:49] for example, the applicant or their owner shall live on site, if we can craft that.

[1:52:54] I just respond to that, I don't like doing that.

[1:52:56] I would much rather take a few weeks and in the other option.

[1:53:02] The other option, the commissioner approach would be if you really want this to go back to the planning

[1:53:06] commission, you could remand the application, you could go back to the planning commission.

[1:53:11] But if you think you're close, this board could either make a recommendation today with a change to the text or you could continue it.

[1:53:19] I'd like the idea of remanding it to the planning commission.

[1:53:22] I'd like to hear their thoughts on it.

[1:53:24] But I'd like to have more time for us to think through some options and maybe noodle on some different ways of dealing with it.

[1:53:32] That's where I would probably come down.

[1:53:33] But again, I'm challenged by this as usual term that Commissioner Mack are used.

[1:53:40] I'd like to give in that there have been somewhat significant change.

[1:53:49] I understand that the Planning Commission offered denial.

[1:53:54] It came to this board, my understanding is it came to this board, and then there were questions,

[1:54:00] there were changes brought forward by staff, and because the Planning Commission

[1:54:09] denied the application, it didn't go back to the planning application process, or the Planning Commission process.

[1:54:19] I think the changes are substantive enough, and they're causing consternation for this board.

[1:54:25] And I think that's reason enough to remand it to the Planning Commission in order to get their sense of the changes.

[1:54:39] The other commissioners, share that.

[1:54:43] I do.

[1:54:45] I do.

[1:54:48] I don't necessarily need that, but I don't mind asking the Planning Commission.

[1:54:54] I'm not going to oppose it going there.

[1:54:56] Okay, Dr. Newbecker.

[1:54:58] Yes, thank you.

[1:54:59] I will just point out that the issues that the Planning Commission discussed were more focused

[1:55:03] on the goals of the comprehensive plan, the goals for this community, the language and

[1:55:07] the comprehensive plan that advised against this.

[1:55:10] It wasn't necessarily about the detailed language of how can we make this work.

[1:55:15] Some of the changes that we've made today are clarifications, but substantially

[1:55:20] the exact same application.

[1:55:22] In my professional opinion, I don't think you're going to get a substantial

[1:55:25] difference out of the planning commission, but it's certainly your right to remand

[1:55:29] it if that's what the board wants to see.

[1:55:31] I could see remand in it with a request for them to dig a little deeper into the specifics

[1:55:37] instead of just floating at the consistency with the comp plan.

[1:55:41] I'm trying to think of how to make a motion to that effect.

[1:55:44] Maybe I just did, but no, that wasn't a motion, but it's, and it strikes, sorry, Commissioner.

[1:55:51] It strikes me that the comp plan also in 62D does suggest that this is the place for

[1:56:04] or a light industry, so or a place.

[1:56:08] So keeping that in mind, was there any discussion

[1:56:12] of that at the Planning Commission?

[1:56:16] I'll have to take a look at 62D, but they were very much focused

[1:56:20] on character area 7.2 hog island business,

[1:56:25] which specifically says this area is a stable area.

[1:56:28] It's a residential area.

[1:56:29] It does recognize some existing uses such as the state highway

[1:56:33] and the existing gravel operation, but the intent was not to transition into a business

[1:56:42] park type of situation. They talked about the idea that three years ago, this board directed

[1:56:49] staff to look at Hog Island and that we had significant public community engagement. And

[1:56:54] based upon that, we adopted the regulations that are written today.

[1:57:01] I believe that the applicant

[1:57:02] Again, brought up policy 6-2 in terms of the need for these types of services within the community.

[1:57:08] But at the time we were saying, well, if that's the need, then we should look at legacy zoning and

[1:57:13] look at this more comprehensively, rather than just being responsive to a property owner submitting an application.

[1:57:20] This would run.

[1:57:21] Commissioner Gardner, I just wanted to chime in and add some context as well.

[1:57:26] And the comp plan where it describes that this could be a location for light industry.

[1:57:32] The area in the comp plan that talks about this area really emphasizes that any the businesses

[1:57:40] are in vision there, but very much as accessory to residential use, that's very emphasized

[1:57:46] that this is supposed to be primarily residential, that the residential character should remain.

[1:57:51] And I also want to note that the applicant or the application you're considering today, I just

[1:58:00] heavy industry, and the applicant's business specifically is more in alignment with heavy

[1:58:08] industry.

[1:58:09] I just wanted to point that out, though the complaint mentions that light industry

[1:58:13] could maybe be appropriate, that heavy industry is different and more intense.

[1:58:19] Great.

[1:58:20] Thank you.

[1:58:22] Mr. Probes.

[1:58:23] I'm going to take a stab at a motion, if I may, and certainly up into suggestions, I'm

[1:58:30] with respect to this. I move to remand this item to the Planning Commission with a request

[1:58:37] for them to provide guidance on one, the proposed amendments that have been received

[1:58:44] since their recommendation to potential CUP conditions, three water issues, four history

[1:58:57] of compliance in the area, five alternatives for owners, for owner living on site,

[1:59:06] and six consistency with the comp plan.

[1:59:16] That's what I was writing that down.

[1:59:19] Second, and I'd like to offer an amendment to the motion.

[1:59:24] I'll certainly entertain an amendment.

[1:59:25] Thank you.

[1:59:27] With further direction to the planning commission to address the,

[1:59:34] Spatial limitations set forth in Romanet 2, paragraph 1 on, I don't know if you have the page number on this, sorry, part E, conditionally uses subpart C,

[1:59:53] Romanet 2, part 1, the refers to

[2:00:00] At a minimum, be partially within 200 feet, for the point, more than 500 feet, for the planning commission to address the use of the word partially, and the distances of 200 and 500 feet.

[2:00:18] Next, that they give attention to the hours of operation and consider limiting them to 730 AM to 930 PM.

[2:00:32] And last,

[2:00:36] to consider removing from paragraph seven, the first proposed sentence, all heavy equipment shall be stored in a fully enclosed structure.

[2:00:51] All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Probe.

[2:00:53] Do you accept the amendments?

[2:00:54] I accept the amendments with just the side comment that we are given the planning commission from homework to do.

[2:01:00] Okay, I have a motion from Commissioner Probe.

[2:01:02] It's a second from Commissioner Carlman.

[2:01:06] Mr. Vice Chair.

[2:01:08] I would ask maybe that in the original motion,

[2:01:12] I think it was number four,

[2:01:13] that whichever one was addressing compliance issues,

[2:01:16] I'm concerned that I don't know,

[2:01:18] we're asking the planning commission to do on that,

[2:01:21] and that maybe that one gets removed.

[2:01:24] That one was the one that I was,

[2:01:27] and I'm happy to remove it.

[2:01:29] Thank you.

[2:01:31] I'm glad to have that removed, I think that would have sort of escalated this particular question into a larger land use puzzle that we're not really set to finish.

[2:01:44] It's a, we're at a 500 piece puzzle problem right now, and that's a 2,000 piece.

[2:01:49] I accept that.

[2:01:51] Thank you, I had the same concern, any other discussion on this item.

[2:02:00] Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Proves, the second by Commissioner Carman.

[2:02:04] All those in favor, please say aye.

[2:02:06] Aye.

[2:02:07] All those opposed?

[2:02:09] Motion carries unanimously.

[2:02:12] Thank you for slogging through that with me, and do I have a motion to adjourn?

[2:02:19] Move to adjourn.

[2:02:20] Second motion by Commissioner Macker second by Commissioner Carlman to adjourn all those in favor please say aye

Oct 07, 2025 Regular Mtg

Agenda

Transcript