Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Event Venue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves White Antelope Barn site plan with conditions after residents oppose venue in Mountain Shadow
Summary
After an hour of public testimony from Mountain Shadow neighbors who cited traffic, lighting, wells, septic, noise and covenant concerns, the board approved the White Antelope Barn event‑venue site plan with conditions including agency comments, a required north‑boundary fence, a traffic study and a detailed landscape/screening plan.
The Laramie County Board of Commissioners approved the White Antelope Barn site plan for a proposed event venue on Tract 33, Mountain Shadow, subject to conditions after an extended public hearing that drew numerous residents who opposed the project.
Justin Arnold, director of Laramie County Planning and Development, described the application: the proposal calls for a barn‑style event structure, phased cabins and a parking area on a 7.13‑acre parcel in the land‑use zone district. Staff recommended approval conditioned on resolution of agency comments and corrections to the site plan prior to issuance of a Certificate of Review.
More than a dozen residents from Mountain Shadow and surrounding subdivisions testified against the venue during a public hearing. Speakers said the proposal conflicts with recorded subdivision covenants (which they said prohibit commercial uses), and expressed concerns about increased traffic on Horse Creek/Happy Jack and local subdivision roads, lighting and light pollution from a 90‑space parking area, noise, emergency‑response times in a remote subdivision, water demand and septic impacts, and on‑site drainage. Several residents reported petitions and signatures from more than 50 property owners opposing the use.
After public comment and discussion, the board approved the site plan subject to the staff‑recommended condition that agency comments be addressed and corrections made to the plan before a certificate of review is issued. The board also adopted additional conditions in an amendment: a fence along the site’s north boundary, a traffic study, and a detailed planting/screening map and counts to show proposed containment of lights and views. Full‑cutoff (downward) lighting for parking areas was affirmed as a site‑plan requirement enforced at permitting.
Vote and viewpoints: The amended motion passed on roll call (Commissioners Heath, Hollingshead, Thompson and Chairman Maugham voted “aye”; Commissioner Zwanitzer recorded “no” on the amendment vote but the main motion as amended carried). Commissioner Zwanitzer explained he believed the project would “significantly impact surrounding residential uses”; Commissioner Thompson said the county’s current land‑use regulations treat the proposed use as allowable and his vote supported mitigation conditions rather than denial.
Why it matters: The approval authorizes the land‑use change embodied in the site plan with conditions intended to reduce neighbor impacts. Residents were urged to pursue covenant enforcement or other private remedies if deed‑restrictive covenants apply; county staff reiterated covenants are private agreements not enforced by the county.
Next steps: Applicants must address agency comments, complete required engineering and revise the site plan consistent with conditions before the county will issue a Certificate of Review and building/permitting approvals. The county also requires DEQ and City‑County Health reviews for septic and other environmental approvals.
