Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lander County commissioners direct staff to sync master plan map with recorded zoning after public hearing
Summary
At a public hearing on the 2026 Master Plan, commissioners heard competing public comments from landowners about future land‑use designations and directed staff to revise the draft land‑use map so it aligns with current county zoning records before returning for further review.
The Lander County Board of Commissioners on April 9 heard a lengthy public hearing on the county’s proposed 2026 Master Plan and directed staff to update the draft land‑use map to reflect current recorded zoning where appropriate, rather than finalize the document today.
Planning coordinator Shelby presented the draft plan, saying it updates data across the document, amends the conservation section to align with the county’s renewable‑energy facility ordinance and includes a “future land use” map that is intended to guide developers rather than impose current zoning. Shelby told commissioners the map “identifies not zoning. It doesn't specify the zoning of the property. It calls out future land use.”
Two landowners urged opposite approaches. Kimberly Buffington said recorded county documents show several parcels west of Allen Road had been changed from industrial to A‑3 (agricultural/residential) in 2012 and 2013 and submitted recording numbers as evidence; she asked the master plan map to reflect those recorded zone changes rather than label the parcels industrial. A different landowner urged retaining an industrial future‑use designation for his holdings, citing proximity to a planned rail park and potential freight access.
Commissioners and staff debated the practical effects. Several members noted that when staff or the planning commission reviews future zone‑change applications they rely on the master‑plan land‑use designation as a recommendation; Shelby said she checks the land‑use map early in any zone‑change review and that a mismatch between the map and the requested zoning can make it harder to recommend approval.
Given the competing arguments, the board opted not to approve the plan today. Instead commissioners instructed staff to update the land‑use map to reflect current county zoning where appropriate, make other edits discussed during the hearing and return a revised draft at a future meeting for final consideration.
The action was procedural: no final adoption occurred and commissioners said property owners will still have the ability to pursue zone‑change applications through the normal planning and public‑notice process.
