Teton County officials and planning staff used a July 15 joint work session to narrow priorities and agree on a process for updating the county's Land Development Code (LDC), with staff saying they will return to the commissions with a phased schedule and public engagement plan.

Planning staff member Joshua told the joint meeting that the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board need clearer direction to establish a workable scope so public engagement and staff work don't become "never ending." He said the county had received a public redline of the LDC but recommended treating that submission as one input rather than letting it immediately drive the update timetable.

Joshua said the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff have already identified recurring problem areas and recommended concentrating initial effort on a few topics: wetlands rules, the wildfire hazard overlay (WUI), wildlife overlays and the family land-division/short-plat processes. He also flagged grading and erosion rules, subdivision landscaping and outdoor-lighting guidance as areas that could be addressed during the update.

Why it matters: The LDC governs when and how land can be divided and developed in Teton County, and changes affect private property owners, developers, public safety officials and the county's ability to manage habitat, water resources and wildfire risk. Staff and commissioners said an orderly, prioritized approach and clearer application requirements will reduce incomplete applications, speed reviews and make enforcement and permitting more predictable.

Meeting participants repeatedly urged practical fixes to make the code usable. Commissioners and staff discussed the wildfire overlay’s rigid setbacks — including a common 200-foot buffer that they said can lead to impractical workarounds such as wider roads — and the absence of an accessible variance or exception path. Several participants said some overlay standards compete with landscaping or other design rules, producing inconsistent results on the ground.

On wetlands, staff said the county is receiving more permit applications under the new rules and should consider distinguishing wetland types or values rather than treating all wetlands identically. The Planning staff suggested looking at other jurisdictions as examples to determine whether a differentiated approach would reduce confusion and delay.

Family land divisions drew sustained attention. Participants said earlier versions of the county code contained family-division or one-time division provisions and asked staff to evaluate whether a restored or modified process could address longstanding concerns about dividing large parcels by heirs or family members without triggering full subdivision requirements.

Participants also raised operational fixes: clarifying the checklist of materials that make an application “complete,” tightening thresholds for when grading and erosion reviews are required, and improving cross-references and explanatory tables in the LDC so applicants and staff can find requirements more easily. Several speakers proposed outreach formats such as town halls, open houses or a contractor-focused evening to explain new requirements to builders and reduce repeat resubmissions.

Joshua said he would prepare a review schedule focused on the key chapters and bring that schedule to the Planning & Zoning Commission; staff will then provide the board with the schedule and opportunities for input. The group agreed to break the work into manageable chunks (Joshua suggested starting with the chapters that house overlays and land-division processes) and to hold additional work sessions as needed. No formal action or vote was taken at the meeting.

Participants noted timing context: staff and several commissioners said the county’s comprehensive plan dates to 2012, and that a refreshed comp plan could inform later, broader changes to zoning policy and density. Staff advised not to pursue major rezonings or density changes through the LDC update without comp-plan direction and broader public engagement.

Next steps outlined in the meeting: staff will draft a phased review schedule, Planning & Zoning will discuss that schedule at its next meeting and the commissions will set regular work sessions and targeted public outreach (open houses/town halls) for the prioritized topics. Staff also committed to producing clearer application checklists to reduce incomplete filings and to coordinate with building, public works and fire staff where overlays intersect with safety and infrastructure standards.

No ordinances, resolutions or formal motions were adopted during the session; participants described the meeting as a planning and direction-setting step to produce concrete drafts and public-review materials for later formal hearings.