Planning commission gets 'down in the dirt'

During their regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Oct. 9 at the Saratoga Town Hall, the Saratoga Planning Commission discussed several topics that have been brought to their attention recently.

The topics discussed included inconsistent language in chapter 18.48, which regulates solar zoning, further discussion regarding grading and excavation and chapter 18.58, which will cover the permitting of recreational vehicle (RV) parks in Saratoga. The commission also approved a sign variance for local business owner Chia Valdez-Schwartz to be hung at 112 E. Bridge Ave.

Here Comes the Sun

Following a public hearing about Schwartz’s request for a sign variance in which no objections or comments were heard, Planning Commission Chairman informed the few audience members of a discovery made by commission member Jim Beckmann, who joined via phone, in regards to chapter 18.48 of the Saratoga Municipal Code.

After the discussion about the language within the solar zoning code, which mainly centered around section 18.48.070 “variances,” Nelson asked Beckmann about the code itself.

“Would this be like if I wanted to make an investment and put a solar panel on my roof, I could apply for a solar access permit and then that would protect my neighbor, for example, from putting a second story roof on … or block the sun?” asked Nelson.

“If you do have the permit, your installation is protected from obstruction by other landowners on the neighboring properties,” replied Beckmann.

Beckmann then informed the other commission members that he would work on updating and clarifying the language in that section before the next meeting.

Grading the Code

The commission moved onto further discussion about grading and excavating. As was reported on page 3 of the Sept. 19 edition of the Saratoga Sun (“Grading, mobile homes”), the issue of grading and excavation permits came up during the September meeting of the planning commission. Will Faust, town council representative, stated during the previous meeting that the town code did not explicitly state that mining is not allowed in town and, because of that, a mining permit could be issued by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality within town limits, regardless of zoning.

At the October meeting, however, Nelson stated chapter 15.04 contains a section that adopts the Uniform Building Code (UBC) from the International Conference of Building officials. Appendix J of the UBC, in fact, deals specifically with grading, excavation and earthwork construction.

“We’ve adopted the Uniform Building Code (UBC) published by the International Conference of Building officials. Where we’re referencing grading in the code is Title 15. So if we go look in UBC, there is quite a bit of language and requirements for grading permits,” said Nelson. “We’ll have this discussion, but what I’m thinking is we may not need to amend or change the Title 15 definitions because Title 15 has adopted UBC and UBC has a lot of that stuff in it.”

Under J103.2 in the UBC, which lists exemptions to the requirement for a grading permit, it states there is an exemption for “mining, quarrying, excavating, processing or stockpiling rock, sand, gravel, aggregate or clay controlled by other regulations, provided such operations do not affect lateral support of, or significantly increase stresses in, soil on adjoining properties.”

Nelson asked Dan Ferrin, the town zoning officer, if he felt that, by the Town of Saratoga having adopted the UBC, the section on grading could be applied.

“It could. I thought maybe we’d just simplify it so it wasn’t so lengthy. For the most part we follow UBC, but there’s a lot of things that we don’t,” said Ferrin.

Following further discussion, Nelson then read proposed language for grading that had been provided by town clerk Suzie Cox. The language stated that, 30 days prior to any removal of sand, gravel or limestone from an area of less than 15 acres, a notification should be submitted to the director of public works and the town zoning officer, followed by a public notification published by the Town of Saratoga.

The commission felt trying to incorporate that language into the current code, stating that any thing in the town ordinance would supercede the UBC, would be a possible course of action. The discussion was then tabled with the expectation that it will be discussed at the next meeting.

Park it

The next item to be discussed by the commission was that of RV parks. During the process of rewriting chapter 18.57, which regulates the licensing of mobile home parks, the planning commission had made the decision to write a separate section in Title 18 concerning the licensing of RV parks, which will be chapter 18.58.

“We kind of talked about this last month, that I was going to be put together a draft that reflected closely what we did for 18.57, for mobile home parks. Recreational vehicle parks will be chapter 18.58,” Nelson said.

While there will be many similarities between 18.57 and 18.58, there will also be a fair share of differences. Some of those differences include density, where an RV park could have more units while a mobile home park needed fewer—with the distance between units being 15 feet between RVs versus 25 feet between mobile homes.

There was also discussion about whether or not RVs could be in mobile home parks or mobile homes could be in RV parks.

“There’s already language in the code that says you cannot occupy a recreational vehicle outside of a recreational vehicle park. So there’s not really a question of ‘can you have a recreational vehicle in a mobile home park?’ We know that’s not allowed,” said Nelson.

The exception, however, would be for places that were permitted as both an RV park and a mobile home park.

“No mobile home shall be permitted within a recreational vehicle park, unless the recreational vehicle park is dually permitted as both a mobile home park in accordance with section 18.57 and a recreational vehicle park in accordance with section 18.58,” read Nelson from the proposed language.

As that discussion neared an end, Nelson stated that he would continue working on the language for the proposed ordinance.

Zoning out

Following the RV park discussion, the planning commission moved onto the final subject of the night with the zone of influence. Sid Fox, Planning Director of Carbon County Planning and Zoning, was unable to make the meeting. In his place, however, was Sarah Hutchins, planner and Geographic Information System specialist. According to Nelson, he had spoken with Hutchins about possible difficulties with the current language of the zone of influence which could lead to bisected parcels—property inside town limits on one area but in county jurisdiction in another.

“If it’s bisecting parcels, how do you do that? How do you decide whether or not it’s something that deserves a referral or not if it’s zig-zagging all over the place,” said Nelson, adding, “In talking through that with Sid last week, the basic gist of what we decided to do was eliminate language that specifically says the distance.”

Nelson went on to state that, at this point, he felt that what the Memorandum of Understanding between Carbon County and the Town of Saratoga “is really about now is good partnership, good planning and how to designate a referral process.” The planning commission chairman stated that while the language referring to half mile and one mile distances would be removed, the municipality would still be respecting the wishes of those area residents who lived near the town, but did not want to be incorporated into the town.

Hutchins also clarified exactly when Carbon County Planning and Zoning would be reaching out the town on referrals or comment.

“If there’s anything, such as a building permit, if it doesn’t require public notice the way it is written currently, it will not be sent out for referral. Any action that has referral currently, such as a zoning change or a subdivision, that will be sent out for referral,” said Hutchins.

Along with the discussion of the zone of influence between the county and the municipality was a conversation in regards to where the Old Baldy Club (OBC) resides in that definition. Hutchins stated that the county has been having trouble with developing addresses for the OBC and that much of it was addressed through the assessor’s system but not through planning and zoning.

“That’s something that, at some point, we might want to get clarified and whether the town decides to do that or if the county should be responsible for addressing in that area,” Hutchins said.

The next meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission will be at 5:30 p.m. on Nov. 13 at the Saratoga Town Hall.