Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners deny reconsideration of Settlers Place rezone after applicant fails to show standing
Summary
The Board denied an applicant’s request to reconsider a recent approval that rezoned Settlers Place from rural residential to IR (Industrial Research), concluding the requester lacked the 'affected person' standing required under county code; the hearing highlighted concerns about sewer connections, groundwater risk and the development agreement's permitted‑use language.
Teton County commissioners on Aug. 11 denied a request to reconsider a recent zone change that rezoned Settlers Place from LA‑35 (rural) to IR (Industrial Research), concluding the person who filed the request had not demonstrated the legal standing required for reconsideration under the county land development code.
Applicant Cindy Bridal asked the Board to revisit what she described as a ‘‘sloppy approval’’ and asked that the Board require the developer to connect to the Driggs sewer line before industrial uses are allowed. “This development should be required to connect to that sewer line,” Bridal told commissioners, arguing that municipal sewer, not septic systems, is appropriate for industrial or high‑use commercial activities and would protect groundwater and the Teton River watershed.
Planning staff and the applicant walked through the background: Planning & Zoning had recommended the rezone, the Board adopted it at a later public hearing and a development agreement was prepared and signed. Opponents and technical witnesses, including a groundwater hydrologist, urged stricter limits on permitted uses and clearer safeguards for water and wastewater to prevent future contamination risks and to address traffic and proportionate road‑share requirements.
Brent Crowther, counsel for the applicant, explained that the development agreement used county templates and sought to clarify which narrower uses would be allowed within broader IR categories. He said the applicant had water rights and domestic‑use wells and had applied to Driggs for sewer service; Driggs returned a ‘will‑not‑serve’ letter in the first pass though staff reported the city characterized the response in ways that warranted follow‑up.
After extensive public comment and technical testimony, county counsel advised the Board that a request for reconsideration must be filed by the applicant or an “affected person” as defined in county code. The Board voted to deny the reconsideration request on standing grounds. Commissioners said they nonetheless shared concerns about development‑agreement clarity and road‑share and water protections and directed staff to consult legal counsel on whether the county may pursue further changes by agreement with the developer or other procedural options.
The Board’s denial was procedural — not a substantive endorsement of the rezone — and commissioners signaled they will pursue follow‑up to ensure the development agreement and permit review processes include appropriate public‑health and public‑infrastructure safeguards.
