Dear editor:

In Zac Taylor’s article “Smaller crowd raises concerns on land use regs” in the Aug. 7 issue I, Margaret Lohman was quoted, “some wording on the powers allowed by the planning and zoning director and staff were ‘opening the doors to a police state,’ and the Game and Fish Department was being given powers to regulate that it shouldn’t have.” I did say these things, but I also backed those ideas up, which I would like to clarify.

I read 150 pages of the 309 pages of Phase One of the Land Use Plan. It’s been a busy summer, and I couldn’t get to the other half. Phase One was supposed to be cleaning the language up and not changing a lot. I am not sure if what I commented on was there before, but I doubt it. 

In Chapter 3 there are a lot of powers granted to the planning and zoning director including deciding if something is hazardous. My comment was “not only are you granting a lot of power to an unelected position that is not accountable directly to the public, but why do you, as the County Commission Board, believe you have the authority to grant this kind of power to the P and Z director?” I then suggested all language referring to the P and Z director should be taken out.

My next comment was about a headline called Referral Agencies. I said, “Apparently you are openly opening a door to creating a police state. The P and Z department can use this as a tool to delay indefinitely and create added expense indefinitely. It is ultimate broad sweeping power and it’s not well defined.” 

In the same section Game and Fish is named as one of the referral agencies. I said, “Game and Fish Department are not a regulating agency. You are granting them regulation power when you force people to ask them for something. You again do not have the authority to grant this power to Wyoming Game and Fish.” I suggested striking the entire section about referral agencies.

My last comment was under a headline called consideration and had to do with the statement “Review … in order to not endanger the general health, safety or welfare of the public.” I said, “This is a claim the county cannot make. You can’t guarantee health, safety or welfare. Please strike this language.” 

Because the public is only allowed two minutes to speak, I had to submit another comment in writing, so it didn’t make the paper. On the Engagement Hub under FAQs the first paragraph states: In terms of regulation, Park County only has authority in the unincorporated area of the county, which does not include any of the municipalities. Park County’s rules do not apply to properties within municipalities, and the rules of the municipalities do not apply to properties in the unincorporated area. My comment was “If the municipalities do not abide by the unincorporated area’s rules, why do they have a say in what rules are applied to the unincorporated areas?” In simple terms why are the people in the towns getting to tell the people in country what to do when we in the country don’t get to tell the people in the towns what to do? I’ve asked this question at many public hearings and have never been answered.

Respectfully,

Margaret Lohman

Cody