Cody planning board tables conditional-use permit for large-scale home business at 235 Cooper Lane West

The City of Cody Planning and Zoning Adjustment Board on April 17 tabled consideration of a conditional-use permit application for a large-scale home occupation at 235 Cooper Lane West, citing unresolved concerns about noise, dust, truck deliveries and wildfire risk.

The permit application, described in the staff report as a large-scale home occupation for “processing and delivery” of firewood, was presented to the board by Mark Christensen of ADI, who summarized the code standard that requires on-site activities and storage to take place inside a dwelling, garage or accessory structure and noted one staff concern involving potential off-site impacts including traffic, noise, smoke, glare and odor.

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing said they regularly hear chainsaws, log splitters and other equipment from the property and worry about the volume and timing of operations, dust and commercial truck activity on narrow West Cooper Lane. One neighbor said in public comment that “constant noise from chainsaws, woodchoppers [is] significantly impacting the noise quality,” and described late-night lights and a commercial character in a residential area.

The applicant, identified in the agenda as the business operator, told the board that the business sometimes uses a gas-powered chainsaw and a wood splitter and a semi-truck that delivers logs “sporadically.” The applicant said electric equipment is used at times and estimated machinery use at about three to four hours a day, with the chainsaw running “an hour to an hour and a half” and the splitter about three hours. The applicant said most large deliveries are offloaded in a field beside the house and that they were working on moving operations indoors and installing a privacy fence.

Board members and staff questioned whether the existing on-site buildings could meet the code requirement that all on-premise work and storage take place inside an enclosed structure, and whether insulating the barn to reduce noise and controlling dust were feasible. Board member Dan (who spoke during deliberations) suggested a package of conditions that would require all operations inside a structure, limit operating hours, restrict deliveries to those hours, prohibit on-site burning of debris, require a six-foot privacy fence and require the applicant to transition operations into a fixed, enclosed structure within a specified time frame, with staff review for compliance. Another board member proposed an objective noise limit of 85 decibels at the property line; several members noted the city lacks dedicated equipment to enforce decibel limits and warned enforcement could be complaint-driven.

Board discussion repeatedly returned to whether the operation could be made compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood or whether the business would be better located in a commercially zoned area. One board member said, “a conditional-use permit in an R3 has to look like a home with a shop. It can't look like a business,” and said the current on-site operations appeared more commercial than accessory to a residence.

After discussion, a board member moved to table the item to the next meeting so staff could draft a clear list of conditions for the board to consider; the motion to table passed by voice vote.

The board did not take a final vote on the conditional-use permit; staff will return with proposed written conditions and any additional clarifications for the board’s next meeting.