Commission hears two exemption requests from large-acre rules

Two very different requests came before the Crook County Commissioners last week from landowners hoping to sidestep the new regulations for large-acre subdivisions.

While the first was for a single chunk from a personal property that the owner would like to sell, the second was a subdivision containing more than 30 individual tracts that was completed by a developer around the time the new rules came into being.

In the first instance, the request was for a 36.7-acre parcel south of Pine Haven. Colt Massie explained that he had bought several parcels adjacent to one another and had decided to sell off one of them, retaining approximately 47 acres.

Tim Lyons, Planning Department Administrator, explained that, if an exemption was granted for the 36.7-acre parcel, “Everything that’s left there is going to be considered one tract.” This is because the 80 acres were “legally merged” during the acquisition as it occurred through a single deed.

Consequently, he said, if Massie opted to further divide the land in the future, he would be required to follow the appropriate county subdivision rules. For example, if he chose to split it into five-acre parcels, he would need to follow the minor subdivision regulations.

“Anything else that happens with the remaining 46, you’re going to have to comply,” he confirmed.

Alternatively, he noted, Massie could wait for ten years and use his family exemption, which allows a Wyoming landowner to gift or sale a portion of land to an immediate family member.

In response to a series of questions from County Attorney Joe Baron, Massie confirmed that the land has no covenants, no road maintenance agreement and little in the way of utility improvements. No campaign to sell the land began before the rules came into effect on December 1.

For this reason, said Baron, the land does not actually fit the criteria laid out in the new rules for large-acre subdivisions that would require Massie to obtain permission from the commissioners.

The commissioners therefore referred Massie to Lyons to proceed with his request administratively.

The second request put forth during the hearing was from Ethel Rabel of Pronghorn Development, developer of a subdivision located north of Hulett. Pine Island is a 1100-acre property that contains 31 tracts of land, each one above 35 acres in size, and was developed and promoted for sale before the rules kicked in on December 1.

A survey for the subdivision was recorded with the county in July, 2022, said Bruce Perryman of AVI Engineering, and four access routes have already been developed and installed. A strategic marketing campaign for the lots came online in late July and six of the tracts have now been sold.

When the survey was recorded, said Perryman, the developers were in full compliance with the county regulations and state statues that existed at that time.

Roads have been built at a cost of around $200,000, Perryman confirmed in response to questions from Baron. Each tract is responsible for its own water and septic system and access easements have been put in place for utilities.

Overhead electricity is already available on the north and south ends and a road maintenance agreement has been included in the covenants.

Lyons explained that he is not able to handle this request administratively as he cannot grandfather in the entire development. Even if he could, he said, “There are more tracts available than I can grant.”

Chairman Fred Devish stated his position that the development was started before December 1 and the developer had made investments and was advertising before the new rules were approved.

“They got caught in the window of inopportunity,” he said. “I wish they could comply with every one thing but I understand that they did at one time.”

The commissioners were happy to approve the request to make the subdivision exempt from the new rules. However, they did so on the condition that the road maintenance agreement be properly filed for the sake of clarity, so as to ensure that the new landowners would not be under the impression that the county could be asked to take on the responsibility.