Variance and vehicles

Before their regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on April 10 at the Saratoga Town Hall, the Saratoga Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding an application for a variance from the Saratoga Hot Springs Resort in regard to a sign that had been installed on their property. The commission also held a discussion with the owners of property in Saratoga, of which the commission had received complaints, as well as further discussing chapter 18.57 of the town municipal code.

Dimension X

While the public hearing was intended for any public comment in support of or opposition to the Saratoga Hot Springs Resort sign, those in attendance also commented on vermin coming from the building as well as the building being placed on the National Historic Registry. Jon Nelson, chairman of the planning commission, reminded those in attendance that any comment during the public hearing was to be specific to the sign.

As reported in the Saratoga Sun on March 14 and 21, the resort had replaced the sign on the green building located at the corners of Bridge Ave. and Southeast River St. without first acquiring a permit. It was also suspected the sign was over the 120 square foot limit as dictated in section 18.63.040 in the Town of Saratoga’s municipal code.

A representative from the resort was not present. Chris Shannon, a resident of Saratoga, informed the commissioners that Scott Randall, manager of the resort, was unable to attend due to surgery. Lacking a proper representative for the business, Nelson relied upon a photo of the sign that had appeared in the March 14 edition of the Saratoga Sun before it had been removed at the request of the commission during last month’s planning commission meeting.

“Thanks to some gumshoe detectives at the Saratoga Sun, we have a record,” said Nelson.

Nelson added he was hesitant to recommend the Saratoga Town Council approve a variance for the sign without a limit on the dimensions exceeding 120 square feet.

“Once a variance is granted without an upper limit,” Nelson said, “then they wouldn’t have to come back for a new variance to increase it.”

“Theoretically,” added Will Faust, town council representative on the planning commission, “if we approve the variance then next thing you know you could have a building wrap around the entire thing.”

Faust also said that he believed, despite lacking dimensions on the sign, if the majority of the neighbors approved of the sign the commission could recommend to the council that the variance for the sign pictured in the Sun be approved without any further expansion.

Nelson agreed and the public hearing was closed. Later, in the regular meeting, the motion was made and seconded for the commission to recommend the council approve the variance for the sign. The commissioners also stressed the need for the correct dimensions of the sign on the variance application as well as proof that more than 50 percent of the neighbors had given their approval for the variance.

Cars

The commission then moved onto property owned by Gene McDowell that had been the source of public complaints addressed to the planning commission. Nelson informed the other commissioners and those in attendance of the background regarding McDowell’s property.

“There was a courtesy letter mailed on Feb. 22 with a 10 day response requested. I believe that the response was met,” said Nelson. “There was a discussion at the town council meeting following that letter. However, to my knowledge, I don’t know that anything has been done either since the courtesy letter or since the Notice of Abatement was sent on March 15 to address the violation.”

McDowell prefaced his address to the commission by apologizing for the “verbal abuse that they (the town council and planning commission) took on my behalf.” Following his apology, McDowell informed the commission he had presented a list to Dan Ferrin, zoning officer, of the vehicles currently on the property adding that the majority of them were antiques or classics between the years of 1926 and 1967. He also informed the commission that he felt he needed more time so that he could remove parts from junk vehicles.

Nelson thanked McDowell and his wife for being present at the meeting and informed them that, since the courtesy letter had been mailed out, 47 days had elapsed.

“What I hear from you as far as asking for an extension from us is you need time to salvage and that we’re talking about using a residential lot as an auto salvage operation,” said Nelson.

Faust asked McDowell if there was another location he could use to remove the parts he needed before having the vehicles removed. According to McDowell, the only location he could do that was in the town of Wamsutter. McDowell also informed the commissioners that many of the vehicles he had on the property were complete and that he estimated having a total value of over $100,000.

“They might be valuable to you, they might be valuable cars, they might be valuable to the buyers. I don’t feel like they’re valuable to your neighbors and the people in the neighborhood in terms of what they are looking at. I think we have an obligation, as the planning commission, to enforce the zoning ordinances and the town code,” Nelson said.

Following further discussion between Nelson and McDowell, Saratoga resident Cindy Bloomquist asked Nelson if the commission could put a timeline in place for the removal of the vehicles with a certain number of vehicles needing to be removed each week. Nelson again stressed to the other commissioners and those in attendance that a total of 47 days had elapsed since the initial courtesy letter had been mailed out.

Betty Snyder, who had filed the initial written complaint read at the planning commission meeting in March, was also present at the meeting. Snyder expressed her concern for the property, stating that the vehicles never should have been stored at the location in the first place. Nelson told Snyder he agreed with her.

“I drive by it four or five times a day and I’m sick of looking at it,” said Snyder.

Jim Beckmann, planning commission member, asked McDowell how much additional time he was requesting for the removal of the vehicles of the property. McDowell told Beckmann that, taking into consideration the Wyoming weather, he was asking for a maximum of 60 days. Faust added that, after having received the Notice of Abatement, the McDowell’s had requested a hearing in municipal court to be held at noon on May 3.

McDowell was informed by Nelson that he would not be granted any additional time. Nelson also advised McDowell to get as many of the vehicles removed from the property as he could before the municipal court date where he could then plead his case to the judge.

Options A & B

Following a brief explanation from Faust about the creation of a fee table, which would create a centralized location within Title 18 for residents to find application fees, the commissioners moved into the discussion about chapter 18.57. As had been discussed by the planning commission in March, Nelson had composed another draft for 18.57 that would serve as “option B” to Faust’s “option A.”

“For the most part, except for a couple words here and there, most of the sections in 18.57 are very similar to the revisions that Will had,” said Nelson. “Changing the health officer to the zoning officer, taking out any reference to the health department. I added some approvals from the Joint Powers Board as well as town council for any development or permitting of mobile home parks.”

Nelson added he had removed any reference to water supply sampling as any potential mobile home parks would be connected to the town’s water supply. According to Nelson, he then took a “hard right or a hard left or a nose dive, however you want to define it” from Faust’s draft. In “option B,” any reference to RVs within 18.57 would be removed to clean up the mobile home park ordinance.

“I think that there’s some work to be done on what I propose as a new chapter for a recreational vehicle park so that there’s a way to have a recreational vehicle park within a mobile home park, within RD 6000,” Nelson said.

After having presented “option B” and explaining his thought process, Nelson engaged in discussion with Faust concerning whether an RV park could or should be placed outside of the highway business district. Under section 18.33.040 of the town municipal code, RV parks or “travel trailer courts” are allowed within highway business following the approval of a special use permit.

Nelson argued that the creation of a chapter specifically for the permitting of an RV park would be beneficial in cases like that of Bill Schorer, who currently has an RV placed on his property on Spring Street, as well as the former RV park located at the corners of Pic Pike Road and Southeast River Street. Faust countered by pointing out that the Planned Use Development (PUD) was a tool that could be used to establish an RV park outside of the highway business district.

Both Faust and Nelson then asked the other two commissioners present, Beckmann and Tom Westring, their thoughts on the separate drafts. Faust also asked Westring if he would be willing to draft an “option C” which would combine aspects of Faust’s and Nelson’s proposals. Westring stated that he was beginning to lean more towards Faust’s proposal of establishing a mobile home (MH) district and rezoning areas with a high density of mobile homes.

In other business, Nelson updated the commission on contacting Scott Randall and Jerry Fluty. Nelson said that, with Randall being out due to surgery, his attempts were not fruitful and he would try again before the next meeting. Nelson did, however, get ahold of Jerry Fluty who assured Nelson that no further non-conformity of his property was taking place. Nelson told the commission he was satisfied with Fluty’s answer and no action was taken.

With no further business to conduct, the planning commission adjourned. The next Saratoga Planning Commission meeting will be at 5:30 p.m. on May 8 at the Saratoga Town Hall.