[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6079746,"mediaKeyId","2954224-6ab92263e813330accf6914b3084a87c","parentId",2954224,"title","Commissioners debate Laramie growth‑area plan and IGA after county commission’s rejection; water, annexation and implementation questions dominate","audioSeconds",6480,"startMs",7096000,"endMs",13576000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2954224-6ab92263e813330accf6914b3084a87c&start=7096&end=13576","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2954224-6ab92263e813330accf6914b3084a87c/thumbnail_7096000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6079746/Albany-County/Wyoming/Commissioners-debate-Laramie-growtharea-plan-and-IGA-after-county-commissions-rejection-water-annexation-and-implementation-questions-dominate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6079746-e35f206921aa9b12d26ddd853e9530f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448091&Signature=KM9FgWrQgt~jBGS7eXy46gyouIgkKIQksqOCZmSSdzQ17uUjgp74~qTmKHDzYniXItHJbHpV9oulZ9co~3rW9-tPQ~hi2xFCxy~~6ghL4TkkjxaomYOWaJ-ImlrSG9rXWbCP2WSHZtbRTiB4M3x7LMdU6wmFeodBSjGvi3YQWTol7Y5l5j2XBdx4g~VHfHOcywP1sem~6dfcnj1HS4jw75wY-vTG2Qyx2lxgB2IdWAHmrLUfUYASpN7a9Vi95JpNroxkLl9u0DTpdqWDT6g3hUfbQiUyPthAw9qKvr~b-3992vwKqGkzu9heiTVvoGc9hVw~yISrI9ZXBoh72xU8Lg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Albany County WY","date","2025-04-10T15:20:26Z","article","The Albany County Planning and Zoning Commission devoted extended discussion to the Laramie Growth Area plan and a related intergovernmental agreement (IGA) after the county commissioners declined to sign the IGA at their most recent meeting. Commissioners, planning staff and public participants discussed what the county commission’s action means for implementing the growth plan, whether the city can or should guarantee water and sewer extension, and how any overlay or zoning changes would actually be enforced.

Key points from the discussion

City guarantee and the IGA: Planning staff and commissioners said the county commissioners’ decision to decline the IGA mainly reflected the city’s unwillingness to guarantee extensions of municipal water and sewer infrastructure. Planning staff and several commissioners agreed the city cannot reasonably guarantee open‑ended infrastructure investments (multi‑million dollar extensions) without specified projects and funding. Commissioners discussed three practical scenarios — a single homeowner, a group of private landowners, or a large developer — and concluded that the city’s refusal to guarantee pipe extensions does not make the growth plan unworkable. Rather, the plan is a policy tool: it guides where denser development should be encouraged but does not autonomously change county zoning.

Who controls what and annexation mechanics: Commissioners stressed that county land use authority remains with the county. The plan itself, as adopted by both jurisdictions, is guidance until the county adopts implementing regulations. If a property owner seeks a zoning change or subdivision that falls inside the growth‑area overlay, the county would apply overlay criteria; parcels contiguous to the city would commonly be routed for early discussion with city staff and could be candidates for annexation if both parties, and the applicant, pursue that course. Participants repeatedly noted that annexation into the city remains voluntary unless statutory criteria are met; the plan does not give the city unilateral control over county land unless the county agrees in an IGA or property owners pursue annexation.

Building codes and inspection capacity: Commissioners and staff discussed building‑code delegation and the county’s lack of inspection staff. Several commissioners said adopting a county building code would require a state delegation or staffing expansion; others noted local contractors have mixed views — some contractors favor uniform inspections and codes, while others see extra cost. Participants concluded that building‑code adoption is separate from the Laramie Growth Area plan and requires standalone policy and staffing decisions.

Implementation approach for the growth overlay: Commissioners discussed a two‑tier implementation concept: retain underlying zoning as the default, and specify overlay standards that apply if an applicant can demonstrate access to centralized water/sewer and meet overlay site standards. If an applicant cannot meet the overlay’s infrastructure criteria, the application reverts to the underlying zoning rules. Commissioners asked staff to continue drafting regulations and mapping at parcel scale so that the overlay’s practical effects and edge cases (e.g., where map brushstrokes create odd parcel outcomes) become clear.

Other planning topics raised during the meeting: staff gave brief updates and commission discussion included: (1) a placeholder for major‑street/transportation standards and the plan to draft zoning text to reserve rights‑of‑way; (2) potential regulations and safety questions about large battery energy storage systems (BESS) and whether they should be treated as a distinct land‑use category because of fire/chemical risks; (3) a county grant application to fund voluntary groundwater monitoring in parts of the aquifer protection area (a separate city‑led monitoring project was also under way); and (4) clarification of the large‑tract subdivision exemption process for 35–40 acre parcels created before 2008, which allows up to ten large lots under specific statutory conditions.

What comes next: Commissioners asked staff to continue drafting implementing regulations for the growth plan at a more detailed, parcel level and to return with options — including possible model language for a zoning overlay that would activate only when applicants demonstrate centralized utilities or meet other overlay criteria. Staff will also pursue technical follow‑ups on roads/right‑of‑way, public‑notice language and coordination with the city’s monitoring work where appropriate.

Ending: The IGA as drafted was declined by the county commissioners; commissioners agreed the growth plan itself is still a useful guidance document but said the next steps must be county‑led regulatory drafting, careful coordination with city staff where needed, and clear public outreach on what the plan would and would not change in practice.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Albany County Government - Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting - 04/09/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning commissioners discussed the Laramie Growth Area plan and the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) the county commission declined to sign, focusing on water/sewer guarantees, annexation mechanics, building‑code capacity and how any overlay would be implemented in practice.","taxTitle","Albany County, Wyoming","taxId",52001,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6079750,"Commission recommends approval of Barnhart zoning change to permit two 20‑acre parcels; moves to county commissioners",2301,3080000,5381000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2954224-6ab92263e813330accf6914b3084a87c&start=3080&end=5381","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2954224-6ab92263e813330accf6914b3084a87c/thumbnail_3080000.jpg","/articles/6079750/Albany-County/Wyoming/Commission-recommends-approval-of-Barnhart-zoning-change-to-permit-two-20acre-parcels-moves-to-county-commissioners","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6079750-e97bf1e833e1df64770af084b47e108e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448091&Signature=mb502pBL1kVwnGcnGmEQltwUFcQgA6IVFyvQxt9~AeU5pZtKQOFXNcRl92LoYRleXTa6InaHJV7JywRUe8RAWi77TucGwepvHiWzulxjp-l9awiEzXqOTd0PA6mU7lJEsZWOm0tRrqpJchQHFhISVQNlP2xMhRFdjk9B7I4yCNeyYasZgoGQ8wgFavIRJZYuqJN7kUvSXZPXIWysZzkJl9TQ4GcOc143Z~4VLuI~m7MYj7cQEWgOuZcozEEou3Ktm59nNyrmd82d4YQ4rwbnnCiYNYlfzX-6dL6fosHQoKSXTATLs-LYn5zJvkJzsT93QgGd3Uu2sO97gHXKMEs5bg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Albany County Planning and Zoning Commission on April 2025 recommended approval of a zoning‑district amendment for Roy and Tammy Barnhart (ZDA‑0225) that would change a 40.11‑acre parcel at 91 Twin Buttes Vista Drive from Agricultural to Agricultural‑Residential. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, which makes the final decision.

Planning staff presented the application and its supporting materials, noting that staff believes the proposal follows the Albany County Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant provided a complete application packet. The staff report incorporated comments from county GIS and the Laramie Rivers Conservation District regarding soils and potential impacts; staff recommended approval, adopting the staff analysis and findings.

Applicant Tammy Barnhart spoke at the hearing and said the Barnharts sought to split their 40.11‑acre lot roughly into two 20‑acre parcels for a residential division; she said the subdivision level had HOA approval and referenced similar splits in the subdivision. Several neighbors spoke at the hearing. Public commenters were split: some supported the Barnharts’ request and noted deed‑restriction/HOA provisions that allow splits to 10 acres if other conditions are met; others said they bought 40‑acre parcels for lower density and worried about incremental fragmentation and septic/water impacts.

Commissioners asked staff questions about prior consideration of the parcel, wildlife and Game and Fish comments, and how the agricultural‑residential zoning interacts with HOA covenants and county subdivision rules. Staff said an earlier, prior version of the proposal was previously denied at a different stage because of wildlife concerns; following follow‑up staff had engaged Wyoming Game and Fish and received no objection on the current record. Commissioners noted the agricultural‑residential designation limits potential density to two parcels for a 40‑acre parent parcel (minimum lot size and average requirements apply) and therefore does not enable the higher‑density small‑lot subdivision raised in other hearings.

The commission voted to recommend approval of ZDA‑0225 adopting staff analysis and findings. Commissioners recorded ayes and the motion carried; the planning commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners for final action. The record notes that this action is a recommendation only — the county commissioners will make the ultimate determination.

Ending: The Barnharts’ request will move forward to the county commissioners with the planning commission’s recommendation of approval; the county’s final decision will be scheduled on a future Board of County Commissioners agenda.","Planning staff recommended and the commission recommended approval of the Barnhart zoning‑district amendment (ZDA‑0225) to change a 40.11‑acre property at 91 Twin Buttes Vista Drive from Agricultural to Agricultural‑Residential to allow a two‑lot split; the commission will forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6079755,"Albany County planning commission tables Mitchell zoning change after neighbors, commissioners raise notice, density and road concerns",2056,129000,2185000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2954224-6ab92263e813330accf6914b3084a87c&start=129&end=2185","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2954224-6ab92263e813330accf6914b3084a87c/thumbnail_129000.jpg","/articles/6079755/Albany-County/Wyoming/Albany-County-planning-commission-tables-Mitchell-zoning-change-after-neighbors-commissioners-raise-notice-density-and-road-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6079755-32c74e5e8429473b5e36642ed0e61573/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448091&Signature=jmE31d~xkKpzYj0UIKYs3Om748XSpq0UJlJ8ZxJwaySgaPsOCBzNNquWB0Lvk39EssFQB2pSDS4F6g7OW-AOCsblHqIdqt2-y6dNRdLw1mJrswGmglK5VAoeiq3BlyfGf0HIO30Lj2W0g9AnlXMf65Qp~hUs4RHQ6wNMVCRt9Va~rdczJ1M0AsO6unQ7KBKhATxOvFZ1M2XDayhQ3VmyQeVUqoUhmHnP4E5nwCU6o7BfPA657cTAgYj7Yzriy7mEg0mfFbfRRCAxPL2VzjboR9RrWjT-81KYX~2EHfwPeohI9jYDCGy13~XzDM617V5JwCKsskQz23a6LRM3s4VfTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Albany County Planning and Zoning Commission on April 2025 voted to table a proposed zoning‑district amendment by applicant Jason Mitchell (ZDA‑0125) that would have changed a property at 38 West Street from Ranchette to Small‑Lot Residential. The commission asked county staff to work with the applicant on road/right‑of‑way and notice issues before the item returns.

The commission’s staff report said the application was complete and that planning staff believed the proposed zoning change ‘‘generally follows the suggestions of the Albany County comprehensive plan’’ and is compatible with surrounding residential land uses. The parcel’s legal description and application in the file identify the applicant as Jason Mitchell and the owner entity as JM Construction and Real Estate LLC.

At the public hearing neighbors and local professionals raised property‑specific concerns. Several nearby residents said they bought lots in the subdivision expecting lower density and said approval could set a precedent encouraging similar re‑zoning across the subdivision. Jerry Yend of West Street told the commission he purchased his lot for low‑density living and urged denial. Civil engineer Mark Rehwald, who described himself as the project civil engineer (not the project surveyor), explained how a historical plat and the right‑of‑way dedication reduced the parcel’s acreage on survey from an assessor listing near 10 acres to about 9.3 acres on the submitted survey.

Applicant Jason Mitchell told the commission he had invested in surveying, percolation tests and consultants based on assessor records and understood the parcel to be larger; he said his original intent was a two‑lot split rather than a higher‑density small‑lot subdivision. Commissioners and attendees pressed him on whether he plans two residences or a four‑lot split if the zoning change were approved; Mitchell said his present intention was to split into two lots and he had no buyer lined up.

Commission discussion focused on three issues: (1) whether the proposed zoning aligns with the Albany County Comprehensive Plan’s priority growth area designation and nearby zoning; (2) precedent and public‑interest concerns if a small‑lot designation appears in an otherwise larger‑lot neighborhood; and (3) notice and how road right‑of‑way was treated in certified property lists for mailed notices. Several commissioners and residents noted that the apparent discrepancy between assessor acreage and survey acreage derived from where roads were platted reduced the parcel below the 10‑acre threshold applicants had expected.

After public comment the commission moved to table the application and directed staff to work with the applicant and County offices on whether the road/right‑of‑way treatment, notice lists, or other options could resolve the applicant’s intent without creating a new small‑lot residential designation in that neighborhood. The motion to table was moved by a commissioner and seconded; the motion carried by voice vote and the item was tabled for follow‑up.

What happens next: the item will remain tabled until staff report back with potential fixes or alternatives (for example, a conventional subdivision option, road‑vacation discussion, or revised notice) and the commission places the matter back on an agenda. The transcript and staff packet list the application as ZDA‑0125, property address 38 West Street, and identify JM Construction and Real Estate LLC as owner.

Ending: Commissioners and nearby residents repeatedly returned to the same practical point: surveyed acreage, the legal effect of platted roads, and how the county’s notice lists are generated can materially change what a parcel owner can lawfully do. Staff was directed to pursue those technical follow‑ups before the commission considers the zoning change again.","The Albany County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to table a request by Jason Mitchell (ZDA‑0125) to change a 9.3‑acre parcel at 38 West Street from Ranchette to Small Lot Residential, directing staff to explore notice, road/right‑of‑way and alternative subdivision options with the applicant.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners debate Laramie growth‑area plan and IGA after county commission’s rejection; water, annexation and implementation questions dominate

Commission recommends approval of Barnhart zoning change to permit two 20‑acre parcels; moves to county commissioners

Albany County planning commission tables Mitchell zoning change after neighbors, commissioners raise notice, density and road concerns