Cheyenne public hearing on city‑initiated annexation focuses on Y Fresh farm as residents urge postponement

The Cheyenne governing body on Feb. 9 heard more than two hours of public comment during a statutorily required hearing on a city‑initiated annexation of 16 parcels totaling about 49.4 acres, with much of the testimony centered on Y Fresh farm and its on‑site farm stand.

Tommy Nicely, owner of Y Fresh Farm, asked council to postpone the annexation and warned that city codes and development triggers could force expensive off‑site work —"curbs, gutters and sidewalk for over 1,600 feet"— that she said the small operation could not afford. She added that expanding the farm could trigger new requirements and said the certified mailed notice arrived late at the Nicelys' address.

The concern that unclear rules —not an immediate prohibition on farming— could harm the business was echoed by vendors and neighbors. "The harm comes through the unclear, unwritten city codes and ordinances," said Chelsea Hacker McCord, a small‑business owner who sells product through Y Fresh. Several residents, including Patricia McCoy, told the council the farm stand supplies local milk, eggs and produce and urged delay so city staff and the owners could document operational details.

Why it matters: The annexation is part of a larger city effort to clean up county “pockets” that are 100% surrounded by the city, addressing jurisdictional questions for public safety and utilities. But residents who run or supply Y Fresh said they need firm, written definitions of "urban farm" and clearer guidance on when expansion or changes would trigger road or utility upgrades and associated costs.

What staff said: Connor Way of the Planning and Development Department said the parcels are contiguous, inside the urban service boundary, and that staff is recommending an agricultural (AG) zoning designation for parcels that include active farming uses, which would allow existing farm and farm‑stand operations to continue as a use by right. Way also corrected a packet estimate, saying the annual property‑tax increase from annexation would be about $90, not a larger figure circulated earlier.

Legal and procedural notes: Staff and the mayor repeatedly told speakers that state law protects existing uses on city‑initiated annexations (citing Wyoming statutes governing annexation notice and protections for continuing uses). Sheriff Brian Kozak told the council the county could, in theory, keep officers as the primary responder in a county pocket under mutual‑aid agreements if the city did not annex.

Council response and next steps: After hearing roughly 30 public speakers, the mayor closed the hearing and referred the annexation ordinance to the public services committee. Council members asked staff to prepare a clear "urban farm" definition and administrative guidance to address questions raised at the hearing. Several council members said the public services committee and subsequent council meetings (the packet noted the next committee date) provide multiple chances for more public conversation and possible amendments, including the possibility of removing individual parcels from the ordinance.

Outcome: The public hearing fulfilled the state statute requirement and the council moved the item into the committee process rather than acting to postpone or adopt the annexation tonight. The record now includes the public testimony and a promise from staff to draft clarifying language for upcoming meetings.

The next procedural step: The ordinance will go to the public services committee; the council signaled additional meetings and public opportunities before any final annexation vote.