Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Tiger Paw PUD amid ownership and entitlement dispute; parties given time to negotiate
Summary
A contested PUD amendment that would convert duplexes and vacation suites into 29 single‑family lots was tabled to Oct. 6 after competing landowners and a buyer disputed who owns remaining entitlements. County attorneys said entitlement assignment is a civil matter between private parties; commissioners urged the parties to resolve ownership before the board acts.
The Board of County Commissioners on July 14 tabled a proposed amendment to the Skiing Paradise/Swiss Fairways PUD — the Tiger Paw Estates change that would replace previously approved duplexes and vacation suites with 29 single‑family lots — after a heated public exchange about who holds development entitlements.
Neighbor and property owner John Crocker told the board he renewedly objected, saying the underlying PUD was recorded in his name and that portions of density were sold or changed through past real‑estate transactions. The applicant and counsel responded that a 2020 civil action and subsequent settlement and purchase agreements resulted in ownership transfers and that the buyer (Mike Hurst / Tiger Paw) holds the relevant title. County legal staff confirmed the PUD is tied to the land and said disputes over entitlement allocation are a private civil matter between owners.
Commissioners debated options including denial, tabling to a date‑certain and re‑advertising. To avoid embroiling the county in a private title dispute, the board withdrew an earlier indefinite table motion and instead agreed to table the item to October 6 to give the parties time to attempt a negotiated settlement. Melanie, the county attorney, said that if the parties cannot agree the matter could return to the board with revised documents or the parties could seek adjudication in civil court. The board advised applicants to coordinate legal documents and exhibit amendments that clarify how the 29 lots are allocated prior to the next hearing.
Provenance: public testimony and legal explanations occurred across the zoning hearing (discussion began at SEG 1428 and extended over many segments).
