On Jan. 17, 2025, the Wyoming Senate Committee of the Whole voted to recommend passage of Senate File 40, a bill arising from the Regulatory Reduction Task Force intended to change how zoning protests are counted and to expedite certain development decisions in cities and towns.

The bill matters because it changes the threshold rule for neighborhood protests against zoning changes: instead of requiring three-quarters of a governing body to override a protest supported by owners with a specified nexus, the revised language would allow a majority vote to carry the change when protesters meet the statutory threshold. Sponsors said the change is aimed at preventing a single owner or small group from indefinitely blocking developments while preserving a way for neighbors with a demonstrable local harm to voice objections.

Senator Giroux, who presented the bill, said the task force’s goal was to “uphold landowner rights as neighbors, but also give some rights to people that are developing property.” The draft initially established a 500-foot radius to identify adjacent owners who could join a protest; the Appropriations Committee trimmed that to 300 feet in its standing committee amendment. Giroux explained the compromise as trying to find a “sweet spot” between protecting nearby owners and reducing impediments to development. “Lowering that to 50% and to show a simple majority of the city council… you have to come with a specific complaint and a specific reason that this is harming your property,” Giroux said, describing the intended balance.

The bill’s text, as discussed on the floor, would allow a protest against a zoning change to be signed by owners who can demonstrate a concrete and particularized harm or who own 50% or more of the area of lots included in the proposed change area or who comprise 50% or more of owners immediately adjacent within the statutory radius (now 300 feet under the amendment). The statute excludes owners on the other side of an intervening street or alley from the adjacency count.

Questions on the floor addressed whether the measure applies only to cities and towns (the bill text references “cities and towns”) and whether counties were considered; Giroux said the committee discussed counties and that he would “get you an answer.” Senator Pappas asked who would adjudicate the harm; Giroux said the language came from a national legal outfit the task force consulted and that the regulatory body would initially judge whether a demonstrable harm exists, with judicial review available afterward.

Senators debating the bill voiced competing concerns. Supporters cautioned that the current statutory regime allows a single neighbor or a small group to halt projects indefinitely; opponents worried the change could make it harder for dispersed or absentee owners to coordinate legitimate protests. Senator Rafas highlighted the risk that absentee out‑of‑state owners might be harder to reach, while Senator Kolb asked whether the change could be used to create new impediments to desired local zoning outcomes.

The standing committee amendment reducing the radius from 500 feet to 300 feet was adopted by voice vote. The Committee of the Whole reported Senate File 40 “do pass amended.”

The bill now proceeds with the committee’s recommendation; transcript discussion did not record a roll-call tally for the amendment or final committee recommendation.