Citizen applicants and county planning staff engaged in a detailed workshop-style public hearing on proposed amendments to the Teton County Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that would change how grading, driveways and natural-resource overlay (NRO) areas are reviewed and managed.

Jared Smith (Fish Creek resident and lead applicant) and Bill Collins (co-applicant) presented a package of amendments—numbered in staff materials—that the applicants said address problems that arose after grading and a driveway were constructed near the Watercrest cabin on Fish Creek Road. Smith said the work there helped spawn this wider effort because similar situations could arise elsewhere in the county. The applicants identified four themes in their package: coordinated reviews across departments, context‑sensitive road standards, retaining‑wall designs to allow wildlife passage, and a return to base site area (BSA) for certain rural development calculations.

Applicants proposed that grading permits affecting NRO areas be filed and reviewed concurrently with any development permits (building, PRD, CUP) so staff and reviewers can evaluate driveway grading and the intended end use together. They also suggested clearer grading standards in the LDR grading chapter to make explicit that grading is subject to NRO protections (avoid, minimize, mitigate). The applicants asked for more rigorous review of alternatives and stronger retaining-wall standards and wildlife‑permeable driveway guidance.

Planning staff and the county attorney expressed concern about redundancy and potential statutory-interpretation issues if the same NRO language is repeated in multiple LDR sections. Planning staff pointed to existing NRO language (Section 5.2 / Division 521 and the environmental analysis process in Division 822) that they said already requires avoidance and site-specific analysis; staff cautioned that repeating language in grading standards could oversimplify and conflict with the more detailed NRO process. Deputy County Attorney Abigail Moore cautioned that singling out environmental prohibitions in general sections risks ambiguity in statutory interpretation.

Applicants and several commissioners said the Fish Creek example showed how the current process can fail to prevent high-impact grading before the development context is fully evaluated; applicants and some commissioners suggested procedural fixes such as requiring simultaneous submittal and review or creating a county-managed rotating consultant list or county‑contracted reviewer for environmental analyses.

The package also included a proposal to restore the “base site area” (BSA) calculation for specific development options (floor-area option and rural PRD) in some legacy rural zones. Staff opposed that change on the grounds it would weaken incentives designed into the 2015–2016 LDR changes and could further reduce the use of PRD as a conservation tool; applicants argued BSA better aligns with past practice and would make conservation results more meaningful. Commissioners asked for additional community engagement on the broader rural‑land rules and noted the proposal touches multiple, connected policy questions including family-exemption and PRD use.

At the close of the workshop the board voted to continue the public hearing to a date certain. Commissioner Carlin moved to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, March 4; Commissioner Macker seconded the motion. The board approved the continuation by voice vote.

The board asked staff and the applicants to return with refined language that addresses staff concerns about redundancy and statutory clarity, and noted related items (new NRO amendments) will be discussed at the board’s next meetings.