“It’s been a long, hard process,” said Natrona County Commission Chairman Ed Opella last week, following a vote to adopt controversial new “junk car" regulations in the county.
While opposition to the new regulations remains strong from some antique car buffs and other quarters, the revised rules attempt to ease a prohibition against rural residents having any inoperable, unlicensed vehicles in public view on their property. Under the new rules, one “unlicensed” vehicle is allowed in most zoning districts, and more can be added, under what’s being called a “collector car” variance.
“To have people come up here and say that they got absolutely nothin’ out of this whole thing really bothers me,” Commissioner Rob Hendry said about the number of vehicles allowed under the new rules. “Because where we started from is you could have none, zero. That’s where we started from ... and as long as you screen them so everybody doesn’t have to live with them, you can have whatever you want, whatever will fit on that piece of property ... that’s a tremendous victory.”
Some 40 people turned out for the hearing and, as in previous sessions on the matter, most remained opposed, often on the grounds the regulations were excessive or incomplete.
“We just want a legitimate answer why we’re discriminated against on the bigger trucks,” said collector Dana Jones, noting the commissioners supported equipment exemptions for farm and ranches. “They’re very collectable, they’re very desirable, they fit in exactly with collector items and antique cars.”
“They’ve made this text amendment a policing action,” said Evansville resident John Stevenson, noting to be eligible for a car variance, a person’s property first has to be in compliance with all zoning codes.
“There’s a lot folks that are in the county that aren’t very rich people, and so along the lines they built a chicken coop, and it doesn’t meet code compliance. They’ve built a shed, not code compliant. They did their own electrical work, not code compliant ... We all know there’s no way, there’s absolutely no way they’re going to be able to get a conditional use permit. You know it, and I know it.”
“It seems there are so many hoops to apply for a permit that it makes it, dare I say, impossible to achieve a permit for a lot of these properties that have very large assortments of cars,” said Bar Nunn resident Ryan Owen. “Some see ‘em as junk, but in actuality, they’re not junk.”
“Where in the Wyoming constitution does it give the legislature the authority, to give you the authority, that I have to ask your permission to rebuild a car on my property?” asked another resident.
As part of the process, the commissioners had put together a car ordinance review committee, made up of three “collector” car supporters, three concerned landowners and members of the County Planning and Zoning Board.
At last week’s meeting, the “collector” car committee members complained that many of their recommendations were ignored.
“I was on the original committee,” said Jones. “There were three people opposing, there were three people for, and those of us in opposition were heard very little, and I would appreciate somewhere along the way that we could be heard. We weren’t listened to, the opposing team was listened to greatly, and we were just totally ignored.”
“We’re close, but no cigar yet, there’s some things we need to work on,” said Stan Goodwin, a car committee member. “We have a lot of law abiding citizens out there that they’re going to say, ‘Well, I’m going to step outside the law, I don’t think I want to do this.’ So, are we making law abiding citizens conform to not being law abiding citizens?”
“I feel like I’ve been slighted,” said John Stevenson, who was also on the committee, noting no one on the Planning and Zoning Board had spoken with him, and only two commissioners. “The only discussion we’ve had is when I’ve been speaking into a microphone at one of these meetings.”
Even a newly appointed member of the County Planning and Zoning Board, George Tillman, was concerned that the commissioners didn’t support the board’s official recommendation on the variance fee.
“We recommended to you that the conditional use permit fee be reduced from the normal $300 to $100 for collector car storage conditional use permits, and that those fees be waived for the first year,” Tillman said. “I believe, from the adoption of the text amendment, that was an effort to get people to voluntarily comply with coming in and obtaining the necessary permits.”
While fewer in number at the meeting, public supporters of the bill said they were generally satisfied that something was beginning to be done to clean up the county and stop a lowering of property values.
“This reminds me an awful lot of what’s going on in Washington D.C.,” commented former state legislator and car committee member Dick Sadler, in a lighter vein. “I think we’ve got a pretty good compromise here. Like I say I didn’t get everything, Mr. Goodwin didn’t get everything, but I think it’s a good start, and I would hope that you would approve it.”
“I’m in favor of what you’re doing,” said another committee member, Don Wolcott. “It’s a hell of a project you’re taking on, and I respect the good work and the good nature that you guys have worked toward. I support your program.”
While the proceedings were generally civil, three sheriff’s deputies were in attendance, and at one point Chairman Opella asked them to remove one audience member. The exchange happened during the public comment period when Opella was being questioned about the vehicle size limit being set at 1 1/2 tons.
“What about the ones over 1 1/2 tons?” asked Jones during his turn at the lectern.
“That’s the limit,” said Opella.
“Why?” asked Jones.
“I’m sorry we can’t make everybody happy, so thank you,” Opella stated. “Next.”
That’s when Dick Gilbert, of Bison Wrecker Service, commented from the audience. “Sounds like Adolph Hitler to me ... just like Adolph Hitler in the ‘20s and ‘30s, you guys.”
“I’ll let you get away with that once, twice, that’s enough,” Opella said to Gilbert. “After that you can just leave.”
“I can leave, too,” Gilbert replied.
“Officer, would you escort him out,” Opella immediately told one of the sheriff’s deputies. “We’ll have a civil meeting here. I want to listen to everybody’s thoughts.”
Gilbert left peacefully, but not before smiling and giving a “V” sign with his hand as he got onto the elevator.
Later in the meeting, the vehicle size limit was eliminated in an amendment supported by Commissioners Terry Wingerter, Matt Keating and Rob Hendry.
Commissioners Opella and Bill McDowell opposed the change, with McDowell concerned that “we’re talking about the potential for garbage trucks, collectable dump trucks, collectable concrete trucks, a lot of vehicles ... above and beyond what the original intent of this amendment was.”
The revised regulations are a culmination of an 18-month effort by the commissioners to clean up the county, and start enforcing nuisance ordinances that had been little-used for nearly 40 years.
The controversy played out county-wide, as at one point letters were sent to all rural residents asking for compliance (even though most weren’t in violation). The matter also became an issue in last November’s election, further fueled after incumbent Commissioner Barb Peryam made a comment about wanting to “sic” code enforcement on one vocal resident. Peryam lost her re-election bid, but not before switching her position to become an ardent opponent of the proposed new regulations, as well as the commission.
Peryam was unable to attend last week’s meeting, but had her comments read into the record, saying the commissioners had exceeded their authority, and ending with:
“You have made this personal, and all the while claiming the contrary. Publicly you state you considered the politically correct answer, privately you rant and rave about getting back at those citizens ... when passed, this amendment will tie people up 24-7, 365 days a year, to defend their property rights. I’m ashamed of you as commissioners for allowing what could have been a worthwhile amendment to descend to this level. There’s an old saying, ‘boys will be boys’, but I prefer men to be men.”
Following the vote, Opella said there was still opportunity for fine points to be worked out, now that the basic ordinance was passed.
“There’s always room for improvement, so as things come forward we’ll probably look at them,” Opella said.
One of the caveats still to be considered is the grace period, where the application fee for the variance would be waived until residents get familiar with the new rules.
“At the next work session, we’re going to talk about a time period to forgive people the $300 if it’s [the variance application] made in a timely manner. We still need to discuss it, we didn’t want to do that tonight because we didn’t know if it [the new ordinance] would pass or not,” Opella said.
Even though the ordinance is now approved, Jones, who’s a key opponent of the measure, said he had retained legal counsel but hadn’t yet decided whether to challenge it in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment