Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of LaDorenzo preliminary plat, citing inconsistencies and unproven 'workforce housing' claims
Summary
After extensive public comment, the commission voted to recommend denial of the LaDorenzo 14‑lot preliminary plat, finding the application inconsistent with the county comprehensive plan and county regulations and noting the developer provided insufficient, written assurances that the project would deliver the workforce housing promised to secure an earlier BOCC extension.
TETON COUNTY, Idaho — The Planning & Zoning Commission on Oct. 14 voted to recommend denial of the LaDorenzo preliminary plat, a proposed 14‑lot subdivision the applicant has presented as workforce housing.
The developer, Blakely Barnes, told the commission he intends to retain ownership of lots, construct housing units and rent them to local workers and first‑priority tenants such as nurses, school staff and first responders. He said the site would include a fire pond, native landscaping and shared amenity space. “Our leasing will be first priority to people that work in the Valley,” Barnes said.
But commissioners and many nearby residents raised multiple concerns. Neighbors and speakers who live near the property questioned whether the land is currently irrigated, whether water rights and Garden Water Company approvals have been secured, whether the claimed unit counts conform to the zoning and whether the developer’s workforce‑housing promises are enforceable without clear, written commitments in a development agreement or recorded covenants.
“Going off figures that are a few years old...it’s not feasible,” Marguerite Shaw (who asked to be called Maggie) said, urging the commission to apply the county’s newer Land Development Code and master plan standards rather than grandfathering the project under older rules. Other residents cited traffic and road‑maintenance issues, unfamiliar CCR language and missing financial guarantees.
Staff confirmed the project had earlier received a BOCC extension that allows the applicant to proceed under previous code provisions, but said the extension and the BOCC’s rationale did not give the commission authority to waive code requirements or accept vague representations about affordability. Staff also noted DEQ and public‑health review requirements and asked for documentation from Garden Water Company regarding surface‑water and irrigation claims.
Commissioners debated whether the application met the approval criteria in Title 9. Several found that the applicant’s materials were inconsistent with county regulations — notably the number and type of dwelling units described in the project materials exceed what the earlier zoning and code allowed — and that the workforce‑housing commitments relied on in the BOCC extension had not been documented in a way the commission could enforce.
Having concluded the application failed to satisfy the preliminary‑plat criteria, the commission voted to recommend denial and forwarded its findings and suggested conditions for board consideration.
