Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teton County commissioners agree to reconsider Victor area-of-impact zoning and set public hearing
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners voted to reconsider zoning tied to four parcels in the City of Victor area of impact and to schedule a public hearing so the applicant can present evidence on a requested RN‑5 zoning; the reconsideration will not change the AOI boundary itself.
The Teton County Board of County Commissioners voted during a March 6 special meeting to reconsider zoning decisions tied to four parcels within the City of Victor area of impact and to schedule a public hearing so the applicant may present the case for rezoning.
The board’s vote was to accept the applicant’s request for reconsideration and set the matter for a follow‑up public hearing. Elizabeth Keckrick, land use counsel for the applicant, told commissioners that if they vote to reconsider “we have a whole second public hearing” at which the applicant can “make all of our arguments as to why RN‑5 makes a lot more sense on this property than RR‑20.” The applicant, Sean Litton, said he bought his land when the minimum parcel size was 2.5 acres and urged the board not to “lose all my property rights overnight.”
Why it matters: the reconsideration affects the zoning standard that will govern how many lots or how density is calculated when and if those parcels are subdivided or annexed into Victor. County staff and the City of Victor staff described different planning rationales: city staff said the AOI designation and RR‑20 recommendations reflect long‑running efforts to protect agricultural and natural resources and to avoid leapfrog development, while county staff and some commissioners emphasized property‑owner expectations and the impacts of changing development rights.
What the board heard: county planning staff and the city planner reviewed the procedural record. City staff said the AOI process produced written decisions that assumed a 20‑acre average‑density standard for the larger undeveloped parcels and that there is no documented record showing the city discussed RN‑5 for these specific parcels during the AOI proceedings. County planning administrator Joshua Chase and county counsel advised commissioners that spot‑zoning concerns were unlikely for an area of the size involved and recommended that any zoning change follow the usual rezone criteria and public hearing process.
Applicant comments and next steps: property owner Sean Litton told the board he has no immediate development plans, said the change reduces his development rights and asked that the county allow RN‑5 rather than RR‑20. Keckrick said the typical process after a motion to reconsider is to set a public hearing, allow the applicant to present, and then issue a written decision. The board voted to reconsider and to set the matter for a subsequent public hearing; the board directed staff to prepare the written findings and hearing notice. The applicant’s request and the city’s written materials will be part of that hearing record.
No final rezoning decision was made at the special meeting. The board’s action was procedural: to accept reconsideration and allow a later public hearing where the zoning question will be decided.
