Developers asked to return with a development agreement after Planning & Zoning recommends industrial research rezoning for Settlers Place

Teton County commissioners continued a public hearing on a proposed zoning map amendment for Settlers Place on April 16 and asked the applicant to return with a completed development agreement and clearer use controls.

The owner requested changing nine lots (roughly 34 acres) from Lowland Agricultural (LA-35) zoning to Industrial Research (IR). Planning & Zoning recommended approval but attached conditions: a development agreement tying allowed uses and environmental protections to the subdivision, traffic and nutrient/pathogen (NP) reviews, a no-further-subdivision covenant recorded in the CCRs, and site- and landscaping controls suitable for the scenic corridor.

Planning staff told the board that the project area borders the Rocky Road industrial area and that some IR uses are a close fit for the developer’s intended service-oriented and light-manufacturing uses. But staff and multiple speakers warned the board that IR allows many uses by-right (for example certain agricultural processing, indoor shooting ranges, and some material-handling uses) that the subdivision parties do not intend and that could be incompatible with wetlands and nearby conservation land if left uncontrolled.

Developer Charlie Godet told the board the owners want a limited, high-quality business park and already propose restrictive covenants; they also said lots would be served by a community water system and fire pond, and that street and drainage standards will be addressed during platting and building permit review. Several speakers asked the board not to shortcut public protections by approving a zone change now without a detailed development agreement defining permitted and prohibited uses, subdivision limits and environmental safeguards.

After discussion the commissioners voted to continue the hearing to the May 12 meeting and directed the applicant to supply a draft development agreement with (at minimum) a use list, a no-further-subdivision restriction, landscaping and stormwater concepts, and results of the county’s traffic/NP reviews so the board can review a specific legal framework before taking a final rezoning vote.

Why this matters: rezoning now without an agreement could allow a broader set of industrial uses by-right and make it harder for the county to enforce site-specific protections; the board’s continuation seeks a legally enforceable path that reconciles the developer’s economic goals with local environmental and scenic concerns.