Park County pauses review of Yellowstone Reserve subdivision after mitigation‑notice timing issue

Park County commissioners paused consideration of the Yellowstone Reserve major commercial subdivision on May 27 to allow more time for public review of the applicant’s mitigation preference.

Planning staff said the applicant filed a mitigation preference on the Friday before the meeting but, because the preceding Monday was a holiday, the submission did not meet the two‑day advance expectation in a portion of the county’s subdivision regulations. ‘‘My recommendation is that you could hear from the applicants so they can present their preference for mitigation. You can take public comment for those that are here today and then recess the public hearing and the public comment portion till next Tuesday,’’ Planning staff member Mike Inman said.

The recommendation, and a separate request from the applicant’s representative that the presentation and public comment be postponed to next week, prompted commissioners to keep the public comment period open at the May 27 meeting and resume the hearing at the board’s next regular meeting. Bill Fanning, who identified himself as representing the applicant, asked the commissioners to postpone presentation and public comment until the next meeting so ‘‘people haven’t had a chance to review the materials thoroughly.’’

Several people spoke at the public comment portion on May 27. Michelle Franks Bailey, who said she and her husband are local business owners and have deep family ties to Livingston, described personal reasons for supporting a development that she said would ‘‘add value to the community.’’ Engineer Sean Higley of WWC Engineering said the applicant ‘‘is more than willing to kinda go the extra mile’’ on mitigation and welcomed questions.

Carrie Veil of the Park County Environmental Council asked whether the applicant’s mitigation strategies would be posted on next week’s agenda so the public could review them in advance: ‘‘would love to know if the mitigation strategies that have been submitted by the applicant would be included in next week's agenda so that the public can have a look at that and then be prepared to make comment next week.’’ Another commenter, who identified an address as 303 East Park Street and said they represent the Livingston Chamber, spoke in support of expanding an existing industrial park and said FEMA flood‑mapping expected in about two years could affect flood‑zone designations.

After public comment the board voted to pause the proceeding for one week; the motion was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote. Under the plan announced at the May 27 meeting, the public hearing will be recessed and resumed next Tuesday at 10:30 a.m., the applicants will present their mitigation preference at that session, and the public may comment both today and at the continued hearing. Planning staff noted the county remains within its 60‑working‑day review window and that the review period runs through June 16.

No formal decision on the subdivision application — approval, denial or conditions — was made at the May 27 meeting. Commissioners postponed deliberation and any action until after the applicant’s presentation and additional public comment at the continued hearing next Tuesday.

The county and applicants also noted the planning board reviewed the application at its May 15 meeting and provided a recommendation to the commissioners; planning staff referenced a section of the county’s subdivision regulations that permits applicants to submit a mitigation preference for the commission’s consideration.

Next steps spelled out at the May 27 meeting: planning staff will post the applicant’s mitigation preference ahead of next Tuesday’s session, the applicant will present the mitigation preference at the continued hearing, and the commissioners will then take up deliberation. The public may provide comment at the continued hearing.