Teton County commissioners on Monday pressed staff and the Northern South Park applicant over the shape and management of proposed park land that would be dedicated to the county as a park exaction under the county Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

The discussion — recorded as a "known matter for discussion" on the meeting agenda — focused on whether several narrow, interconnected parcels the applicant had labeled as park would be suitable for county ownership and operation. ‘‘This is out of process,’’ said Amberlee Baker, who identified herself as representing the applicant, when commissioners questioned whether Parks and Recreation review should precede public hearings. Baker asked the county to allow Planning Commission review to proceed before the county made substantive determinations.

County attorneys and staff said the issue is slightly unusual because the county would be taking land as a landowner in addition to acting in a regulatory role. ‘‘There are two different hats — your regulatory hat and your landowner hat — and the question is whether this configuration is something the county wants to own and manage,’’ Deputy County Attorney Keith Gengary told commissioners. He said Parks and Recreation staff raised concerns about the long, snake-like configuration and whether it would be manageable for operations and maintenance.

Why it matters: the LDRs require that park exactions maintain the county’s parks-and-recreation level of service as growth occurs and state that dedicated land must be acceptable to the county, compatible with the comprehensive plan and the parks-and-recreation strategic plan. Planning Director Chris Newbacher confirmed the public hearing schedule: Planning Commission is advertised for Feb. 24 and the Board of County Commissioners for March 18; staff reports are usually available about a week before each hearing.

Parks and Recreation project manager Max Brandt said his department found early review with the applicant useful. ‘‘Getting ahead of this now is probably the best opportunity we have,’’ Brandt said, adding that Parks and Rec wants to avoid a later dispute that would require the applicant to redesign the master plan.

The applicant’s planning representative, Susan Johnson, said the master site plan must respond to many comment streams — engineering, wildlife and planning — and that the application is intended as a single, holistic submission. Johnson said the applicant can present a short explanation of how it arrived at the park configuration but reiterated that the full PRC (plan review committee) and Planning Commission processes must be allowed to proceed.

County staff and commissioners emphasized the stated purpose of a park exaction under the LDRs: to make sure new development does not degrade public access to parks and to ensure land dedicated is suitable for public recreational use. Neubecker and Parks and Rec staff summarized options under the LDRs, including accepting the land as county-owned parkland, accepting it as private park or requiring payment in lieu of land if suitability standards are not met.

Next steps: commissioners and staff encouraged interested commissioners and members of the public to review the staff reports when they become available, attend the Planning Commission hearing on Feb. 24 and the county commission hearing on March 18, and to submit written comments to planning staff.

The board treated the item as discussion only on Monday; no final decision or exaction acceptance was made.