Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easement Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teton County Scenic Preserve Trust corrects building-envelope map, defers decision on relocated barn site
Summary
The Teton County Scenic Preserve Trust approved an amendment to clean up an historic building-envelope error on the Fish Creek subdivision easement but continued a separate request to relocate a barn site, asking staff for additional environmental and appraisal analysis before deciding.
The Teton County Scenic Preserve Trust on June 17 approved an amendment that clarifies and expands an existing building envelope known as Alternative No. 1 in the Fish Creek subdivision easement and deferred action on a separate proposal to relocate a barn-site building envelope.
The approved change enlarges Alternative No. 1 so that it correctly encompasses structures that staff reported had been permitted in 1991 but were not captured by the recorded building-envelope map. Planning staff said the map correction is intended to remedy an historical documentation error and does not expand developable area beyond already-built structures.
Why it matters: Trust easements restrict development to preserve open space, habitat and scenic resources. The trust’s decision to correct the mapping reduces ambiguity for future property transactions while preserving the easement’s stated conservation goals, staff said.
What trustees decided and why: Associate Long Range Planner Erin Monroe detailed the proposal from landowner Lee Beeman’s representatives: relocate two building envelopes (one of them a barn site) and expand the Alternative No. 1 envelope to match a 1991 permit footprint. The application’s net effect, staff reported, would be to reduce potential development east of Fish Creek and to cut overall building-envelope area by about 11,832 square feet.
Planning staff and outside reviewers — including Wyoming Game and Fish, the Teton Conservation District, and the county engineer — raised no objections to the mapping correction and recommended approval. One neighbor, represented by attorney Matt Turner, submitted an appraisal saying the landowner would realize roughly a $410,000 increase in value under the proposal and argued the barn relocation could harm wildlife and access. The applicant also submitted an appraisal that found no material financial benefit.
Trust action and next steps: Trustees voted to approve the mapping correction (Alternative No. 1) and to continue the separate question of relocating the barn-site building envelope for further study. The board asked county staff, with advice from the county attorney’s office, to collect additional appraisal and conservation analysis and to return to the trustees with recommendations. Staff indicated a target of roughly 90 days to report back; trustees asked staff to arrange a site visit as part of that work.
Quotations: Erin Monroe, associate long range planner, said the relocation would “remove development potential from the easement east of Fish Creek” and would “result in a clustered design” that the application argues strengthens conservation benefits. Neighbor Thomas Randgaard told trustees he observes elk and moose bedding in the area and warned that moving development westward would increase human-wildlife conflict near his property.
What remains unresolved: The barn-site relocation remains under review. Trustees asked staff to analyze the two competing appraisals and to solicit more environmental input; staff also suggested engaging county experts (including wildlife and conservation staff) before further action.
Ending: The mapping correction is now recorded; the barn-site relocation is continued to a later meeting so trustees can weigh additional technical and financial information.
