Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Natrona County planning staff propose broad zoning amendments; commissioners debate industrial‑siting and 'nuclear' language
Summary
Planning staff presented text amendments to the 2022 zoning resolution to clarify diagrams, consolidate wireless and PUD sections, update signage, and add industrial‑siting coordination. Commissioners debated whether the county should require Industrial Siting Division approvals before local hearings and whether to explicitly allow or prohibit 'n
County planning staff summarized proposed amendments to the 2022 zoning resolution meant to clarify multiple cross‑references, combine repeated sections (wireless communications, PUDs, wind/solar), remove or replace an unclear landscaping provision, and add buffering/screening and updated definitions.
Sabrina, lead planner, told commissioners the changes aim to make the code easier to navigate and to correct contradictions that have caused confusion among applicants. "We're trying to streamline where you have to flip back and forth in the code," she said, noting updated tables of allowable uses and clarified definitions for breweries, extractive‑industry buffers and meteorological towers.
Commissioners engaged at length over a proposal to add an "industrial siting" section that would (1) require the county to invite and consult the 19 state agencies listed by statute when large projects (50 acres or more) are proposed and (2) set a process for pre‑application meetings and concurrent state/county review. Commissioner Nickolaisen said that inviting state experts early is productive, citing Carbon County's experience; Commissioner Nicholas warned that the county should not duplicate or contradict state Industrial Siting Division (ISD) authority and that any additional requirements must withstand legal scrutiny.
A particularly charged line of questioning focused on newly added language referencing "nuclear manufacturing" under heavy industrial uses. Commissioners asked whether the draft should explicitly permit, prohibit or simply define the term, and whether any local zoning change would be meaningful absent state and federal regulatory approvals. Sabrina agreed to refine the language and said she would revisit the ISD wording and the process flow so it is clear when and how county reviews occur relative to ISD reviews.
The board directed planning staff to return with tightened language and examples from other counties, and asked legal counsel to identify any statutory constraints on adding requirements that could conflict with state ISD rules. No formal vote was taken on the amendments; commissioners requested that the planning department bring back a revised packet at the next scheduled workshop.
