Frequently Asked Questions

Alternatives

1.A. Wildlife movement and habitat should be integrated into development (close to status quo).

1.B. Local experts report wildlife population are healthy.

1.C. Few, if any, human wildlife conflicts occur (e.g. wildlife-vehicle collisions).

1.D. Wildlife are not reliant on humans (e.g. wildlife feeding, bears in trash) (status quo).

Solutions

Direction: Use the best available science to permit development in a way that protects sufficient habitat and connectivity to reduce human wildlife conflicts and promote native species resiliency.

Alternatives

2.A. Wildlife habitat should limit the location of allowed development (e.g. a setback from an eagle nest) (status quo).

2.B. Wildlife habitat should limit the amount of allowed development (height, size, scale, use, etc.).

2.C. Standards to protect wildlife habitat should vary by zoning district.

2.D. Standards should be more restrictive the more valuable the habitat is.

Solutions

Direction: The presence of wildlife habitat on a property should affect the location of allowed development and the allowance for Conditional Uses. The extent of the effect should depend on how valuable the habitat is and the intent of the underlying zoning district; in some instances incentives may be more appropriate than restrictions.

Alternatives

3.A. Set water-body and wetland buffers to protect their function as wildlife habitat (status quo).

3.B. Set water-body and wetland buffers to protect water quality (status quo).

3.C. Set water-body and wetland buffers to protect scenic values.

3.D. Set water-body and wetland buffers based on recreational values.

3.E. Emphasize water-bodies as corridors through Town.

Solutions

Direction: Water-body, groundwater, and wetland protections should focus on water quality and habitat function. Protection of water quality and habitat function in the context of water dependent recreation should be achieved through a combination of these standards and the limitations on Conditional Uses directed in Question 2.

Alternatives

4.A. Study the site when many habitats exist.

4.B. Study sites known to have very valuable habitat.

4.C. Only study the site to determine the exact location of a resource so a buffer can be applied (e.g. wetland delineation).

4.D. Study any site where there might be valuable habitat (status quo).

4.E. Never

Solutions

Direction: The Focal Species Habitat Map, and/or other best available science, should be the basis of any evaluation of a site’s natural resources. In addition, a boots-on-the-ground, site-specific study of varying level of detail is needed when multiple habitat values need to be compared, relatively valuable habitat exists, or when a specific natural resource boundary needs to be identified. Site-specific, boots-on-the-ground studies should be as consistent as possible.

Alternatives

5.A. Mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat (status quo).

5.B. Mitigate impacts to rivers, creeks, streams, ponds.

5.C. Mitigate impacts to wetlands (status quo).

5.D. Mitigate impacts to the buffer areas around water-bodies and wetlands.

5.E. Mitigate impacts from everyday use of a residential lot (e.g. tree cutting for firewood or improved views).

Solutions

Direction: Impacts to habitat, water, wetlands, and setbacks around water and wetlands should be mitigated.

Alternatives

6.A. No, a developer should mitigate on-site or be responsible for coordinating off-site mitigation (status quo).

6.B. Yes, the County should accept fees in-lieu of mitigation and use them to fund and monitor public restoration projects.

6.C. Yes, the County should accept fees in-lieu of mitigation and then direct those funds to the Land Trust, Conservation District, Game and Fish, or other entity for restoration projects that they are responsible for monitoring.

Solutions

Direction: The County should have a habitat restoration and mitigation bank program, but still prioritize on-site mitigation. The preference is for a third party program that does not require County administration.

Alternatives

7.A. Exempt flood control and other public works projects to protect health and safety.

7.B. Exempt development on land under conservation easement.

7.C. Exempt development on “grandfathered” properties that are not currently subject to natural resource protections.

7.D. Exempt agricultural operations.

7.E. Exempt a driveway, water line, sewer line, power line, or other “essential” utility.

7.F. Exempt development dependent on the natural resource, such as a boat ramp or stream restoration.

Solutions

Direction: Agricultural operations and bona fide habitat restoration should be exempt from all natural resource protection standards including environmental analysis and mitigation. Partial exemptions for other types of development discussed by the Natural Resources Stakeholder Group should be used as direction to inform the tiered system of regulations.

Alternatives

8.A. Ensure an expansion does not make the existing impact worse.

8.B. The location and amount of expansion should be reviewed against current natural resource protections as if the existing impact does not exist. (status quo).

8.C. The expansion should only be allowed if the existing building is relocated so that the original impacted natural resource can be returned to its natural state.

8.D. The expansion must be designed to lessen the existing impact.

8.E. The expansion proposal must include mitigation for the existing impact.

Solutions

Direction: Natural resource protections should acknowledge existing impacts and allow for by-right expansion that does not increase the existing impact, including intensity of use. There should be some consideration for the use of incentives and that the expansion be designed to reduce the existing impact when possible, especially related to water quality.

Alternatives

9.A. Clarify current standards (updated status quo).

9.B. Option 9.A, except reduce the agricultural exemption threshold to 35 acres for fencing.

9.C. Option 9.A or 9.B, except that the exemption would not apply if in a wildlife migration corridor.

9.D. Remove all exemptions and require any structural repair or replacement to come into compliance.

Solutions

Direction: Sites classified as “agricultural” by the Assessor that are at least 70 acres should be generally exempt from wildlife friendly fencing standards. Create a working group to identify a collaborative approach to allowing continued permeability and migration through development.

Alternatives

10.A. Current incentives + provide bonus development to projects that provide additional natural resource restoration.

10.B. Current incentives + create a fund to pay landowners for preservation or restoration.

Solutions

Direction: In addition to the existing conservation incentives (PRDs and Floor Area Option), development flexibility should be provided to projects that provide additional natural resource protection. A fund should also be created to pay landowners for preservation and restoration of natural resources.

Alternatives

1.A. Year-round, full-time employees, whether they work in one job or many.

1.B. Alternative 1.A. plus seasonal employees (status quo).

Solution

Direction: Mitigate for year-round, full-time employees, whether they work in one job or many (Alternative 1.A).

Alternatives

2.A. Mitigate for 100% of the workforce that cannot afford housing (households making about 200% or less of median income).

2.B. Mitigate for the lowest earning workforce households (for example, about 75% of workforce households make less than 120% of median income (status quo).

2.C. Calculate the mitigation using Alternative 2.A. or 2.B., then reduce the requirement to avoid barriers to development.

Solution

Direction: Mitigate for the entire income range of households that cannot afford housing (about 0-200% of median income), but focus the requirements on the lower income households with greater need. (part of Alternative 2.A)

Direction: Mitigate to the maximum, legal extent to meet the community’s housing goal. Include with the draft Housing Mitigation LDRs and draft zoning for Character Districts 3-6, an analysis of how incentives would have to perform if the mitigation requirement were decreased. (part of Alternative 2.A)

Alternatives

3.4.5.A. Inclusionary requirement for year-round employees and employee generation requirement for seasonal employees applied progressively through the approval process (status quo).

3.4.5.B. Alternative 3.4.5.A. except that the inclusionary requirement would be applied to lodging development in addition to residential development.

3.4.5.C. Employee generation requirement for year-round and seasonal employees applied progressively through the approval process.

Solution

Direction: Utilize an employee generation requirement (part of Alternative 3.4.5.C) with an implementation approach designed to be consistent with the overall policy direction.

Alternatives

6.A. Residential units with:

• Occupancy limits (maximum people by number of bedrooms)
• Minimum features (bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, storage, etc.)
• Minimum size (minimum square feet by number of bedrooms)

6.B. Alternative 6.A plus allow lodging units for seasonal employees with same limits and minimums as 6.A. (Closest to status quo).

6.C. Alternative 6.A or 6.B plus maximum size and feature standards.

Solution

Direction: Required housing shall be a residential unit with the following minimum design standards (Alternative 6.A modified). A minimum number of bedrooms per person required to be housed. Minimum livability features such as kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and storage.

Alternatives

7.A. Prioritize location through clear preference for:

1. Any on-site unit
2. Any off-site unit (new, existing, credit)
3. Land dedication
4. Payment of a fee

7.B. Prioritize production through clear preference for:

1. Any new unit
2. Any existing unit or credit
3. Land dedication
4. Payment of a fee

7.C. Clear preference for (closest to status quo):

1. New on-site unit
2. New off-site unit
3. Any existing units
4. Use of a banked unit
5. Land dedication
6. Payment of a fee

7.D. Define allowed methods without preference:

• New unit (on-site or off-site)
• Existing unit
• Banked unit
• Land dedication
• Payment of a fee

Solution

Direction: Prioritize production of units by the developer through standards that clearly establish the following order of preference and prohibit any method of meeting the housing mitigation requirement that is not on the list (Alternative 7.B modified):

1. Any new unit
2. Land dedication
3. Use of a banked credit
4. Restriction of an existing unit
5. Payment of a fee

Alternatives

8.A. Only exempt what legally has to be exempt (existing development, already mitigated development, development with no impact).

8.B. Alternative 8.A plus residential units restricted to be workforce housing, even if they are not restricted to be affordable.

8.C. Alternative 8.A plus nonresidential development with minimal impact (agriculture, public/semi-public).

8.D. All of the above (status quo).

Solution

Direction: Exempt the list of development types below, which include development that is legally required to be exempt, residential development that provides affordable workforce housing, and nonresidential development with minimal impact (Alternative 8.D):

• a. Existing development, unless it is razed, at which point any rebuild will be considered new development
• b. Development that has already provided housing mitigation
• c. Development that does not generate employees
• d. Housing that is deed-restricted to provide affordable, workforce housing, even if the restriction does not meet the rules and regulations
• e. Housing provided as part of a workforce housing incentive (example: Town floor area bonus incentive)
• f. Mobile home unit
• g. Accessory residential unit
• h. Dormitory or group home
• i. (County only) Single-family homes less than 2,500 square feet (or a lower threshold)
• j. Agriculture
• k. Public or semi-public
• l. Home uses

Alternatives

9.A. Structured independent calculation relief (County status quo).

9.B. Structured independent calculation plus variance relief.

Solution

Direction: Allow structured, independent calculation as the only method to seek relief from the housing mitigation requirements (Alternative 9.A). Structured, independent calculation addresses the legal need to have a relief

Alternatives

10.A.The requirements applicable at the time of a project’s first approval apply until the project is complete or expires (status quo).

10.B. A project is subject to updated requirements if the calculation of the requirement is older than seven years or a substantial amendment is requested.

Solution

Direction: A project with an existing approval should have to recalculate its housing mitigation requirement if a substantial amendment to the existing approval is proposed. Future approvals should require that housing mitigation requirements be calculated phase-by-phase based on the standard applicable at the time the phase is approved (part of Alternative 10.B).

Status Quo

A member of the household must be locally employed at least 30 hours per week (or 1,560 hours per year).

Alternatives

1.A. The status quo.

1.B. Includes 1.A, except retirees must be 62-years-old.

1.C. Includes 1.A, except one member of the household must work an average of 40 hours per week or 1,920 hours per year.

1.D. Includes 1.B + 1.C

Solution

At least one person in the household must work at least an average of 30 hours per week (1,560 hours per year). Remove the ability for retirees to qualify to purchase or rent a restricted home. Remove the requirement that at least one person in the household must be a U.S. Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident for rental units (Alternative 1.B with changes).

Status Quo

Affordable / Attainable: Assets limits are based on income category and include cash, investments, vested life insurance policies, vehicle equity, and real estate, but do not include qualified retirement accounts. Ownership of improved residential property within 150 miles of Teton County is prohibited.

Employment-Based: No asset limit, but ownership of real estate within 150 miles of Teton County prohibited.

Alternatives

2.A. The status quo.

2.B. Includes 2.A plus remove the non-liquid business assets from the asset calculation.

2.C. Includes 2.A plus mobile homes should be included as part of the residential properties.

2.D. Includes 2.A, except allow households to qualify for affordable units and own residential property anywhere including Teton County, contingent upon verification that the asset limit is not exceeded.

2.E. Includes 2.A, except change the current asset cap of two-times a four-person household income for the income category to an amount that is based on comparable community asset caps.

2.F Includes 2.A, except allow for increases in net asset caps to allow for increases in retirement savings for households with retirees.

2.G. Some combination of B, C, D, E, and F.

Solution

Allowed assets are anything of value more than $500, funds in retirement accounts are not included, residential property must be sold, and the asset limit is twice the income limit for a four-person household. Only liquid business assets are counted. Employment-based units have no asset limit and may never own residential real estate within 150 miles of Teton County. Mobile homes are considered the same as residential property (Alternative 2.B and C).

Status Quo

Ten months for affordable, nine months for attainable, ten months for employment-based.

Alternatives

3.A. The status quo.

3.B. Standardize all units, all restriction types: 9 months per year.

3.C. Standardize all units, all restriction types: 10 months per year.

3.D. Standardize all units, all restriction types: 11 months per year.

Solution

Standardize all units ten months out of a calendar year (Alternative 3.C).

Status Quo

Minimum and maximum livable area, storage requirements, natural light requirements for all unit types.

Alternatives

4.A. The status quo.

4.B. Inclues 4.A, except require the same minimum square footage for rental and ownership units.

4.C. Inclues 4.A, except increase or decrease minimum square footage for rental and ownership units.

4.D. Inclues 4.A plus require all appliances be Energy Star certified or the equivalent.

4.E. Evaluate how requirements for interior spaces, interior materials, responsible building practices, and quality assurances are different from standard market unit requirements to determine if there is a straightforward way to comply through existing building and design standards that apply to market rate units.

4.F. Adopt livability requirements that provide minimums for each feature:

• Closets and storage areas
• Finish and fixture specifications
• Floor coverings
• Heating and hot water
• Including lineal feet of cabinets
• Kitchen
• Laundry
• Room sizes and shapes
• Unit size
• Windows or noise mitigation

4.G. Some combination of B, C, D, E, and F.

Solution

Minimum size requirements should be removed and livability standards should be adopted (Alternative 4.F).

Status Quo

Pricing and income limits are set so that 30% of income is spent on housing.

Alternatives

5.A. The status quo.

5.B. Includes 5.A plus include a minimum debt to income ratio

5.C. Includes 5.A, except remove debt to income ratio limit.

5.D. Includes 5.A, except increase the percentage of gross income a household may use toward housing costs.

5.E. Some combination of B, C, and D.

Solution

Thirty precent of a household’s income should be spent on housing (Alternative 5.A).

Status Quo

The current status quo:

• Buyers of affordable and attainable units qualify at the purchase of the home and are not required to requalify thereafter.
• Buyers of employment-based units are required to requalify annually. The Housing Department verifies that homeowners are still employed full-time at a local business, the household is collectively earning at least 75% of its income locally, and that the household does not own any property within 150 miles of Teton County, Wyoming.
• For rental units, tenants must re-qualify annually. The income limit is 120% of area median income (“Category 3”).

Alternatives

6.A. The status quo.

6.B. Incluedes 6.A plus standardize requalification requirements for ARU, Employee, and Employment-based (rental and ownership) in the Rules and Regulations and refer to the Rules and Regulations in the deed restriction.

6.C. Includes 6.A, except requalify Affordable ownership households every two years. Use an income threshold that is higher than the original qualification. For example, a Category 2 unit will requalify using Category 4 or 5 criteria.

6.D. B plus C.

Solution

Rental units should qualify at the time of their lease renewal. Employment-based units should continue to provide employment and income verification annually. Annual check-in with households in ownership affordable units to verify employment and occupancy. Standardize annual qualifications for ARU, Employee and Employment-based units (Alternative 6.D with changes).

Status Quo

Sales price is based on a 30-year mortgage at 7.5% with 5% down, rent is based on 70% of median income for JTCHA owned rentals and HUD calculated Fair Market Rents for privately owned Employee Housing Rentals.

Alternatives

7.A. The status quo.

7.B. Includes 7.A, except for Employee Housing units, calculate max rents based on 30% of the household income at the low end of each category.

7.C. Includes 7.A, except allow for multi-unit developments to have an additional increase in initial sales price if certain criteria are met.

7.D. Includes 7.A, except base the mortgage interest rate on the 20-year average and recalculate each year.

7.E. Includes 7.A, except for sales price calculation use 8% instead of 5% toward HOA dues, taxes, and insurance and 22% toward mortgage.

7.F. Includes 7.A, except for JTCHA-owned rentals use the midrange for each income Category (Cat 1 = 70% AMI; Cat 2 = 90% AMI; Cat 3 = 110% AMI)

7.G. Some combination of B, C, D, E, plus F.

Solution

Base the rental rates for JTCHA owned units and Employee housing units on 30% of the low end of the category. Base maximum sales prices using 30% of a household’s income toward housing (22% toward principle and interest, 8% toward HOA dues, taxes and insurance). Use a 30-year mortgage with 5% down, 20 year rolling average interest rate, and income at middle of the income range. (Alternative 7.B, 7.D, 7.E, and 7.F)

Status Quo

All new restrictions allow 2.5% appreciation annually.

Alternatives

8.A. The status quo.

8.B. Includes 8.A plus include a depreciation factor within the calculation of resale value.

8.C. Includes 8.A plus set out a list of specific capital improvements that are allowed to be included in resale valuation calculation, and those that are not.

8.D. Includes 8.A, except base the annual appreciation to be added on the Consumer Price Index capped at 3% determined annually.

8.E. Includes 8.A, except base the annual appreciation on the actual wage increase for Teton County each year using Median Family Income as calculated by HUD, capped at 3% annually.

8.F. Some combination of B, C, D, and E.

Solution

Homes should appreciate using the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI capped at 3% (Alternative 8.D).

Status Quo

Generally prohibited.

Alternatives

9.A. The status quo.

9.B. Includes 9.A, except allow for the rental of units that are in the active process of being sold by the owner, particularly in situations where the homeowner has an urgent need to move.

9.C. Includes 9.A, except allow owners to rent rooms to individuals who are employed in Teton County as long as the total household income does not exceed the income limit for the Category of home, the number of individuals living in the home does not exceed Town or County occupancy requirements, and the owner of the home still occupies the unit.

9.D. B plus C.

Solution

Consensus on this issue was not reached between the Council and the Commissioners. The Town Council and County Commissioners voted on an alternative that was not presented by staff.

Status Quo

The current status quo includes:

• Attainable homes: owner identifies a buyer and the Housing Department qualifies the buyer.
• Affordable and Employment-based homes: Housing Department facilitates the transaction and receives a 2% fee from the seller’s proceeds; the buyer is selected through a tiered lottery.

Alternatives

10.A. The status quo.

10.B. Includes 10.A plus give preference to households who are renting restricted units.

10.C. Includes 10.A plus give preference for retirees that can verify employment for 10 or more years in Teton County immediately prior to retiring.

10.D. Includes 10.A plus give top preference for households that have repeatedly submitted for the lottery unsuccessfully for a minimum period of time.

10.E. Includes 10.A, except remove preference for qualifying households to purchase homes that are located within the neighborhood that they currently reside.

10.F. Includes 10.A, except draw lottery in a public meeting.

10.G. Includes 10.A, except use a point system lottery for all ownership units.

10.H. Includes 10.A, except remove preference for Critical Services Providers.

10.I. Includes 10.A plus include preference for Town and County employees

10.J. Includes 10.A plus require households to pay fees for the following: lottery entry, annual requalification, and review of capital improvements.

10.K. Some combination of B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

Solution

The Council and Commissioners reached consensus on an alternative that was not presented by staff.

Status Quo

Exceptions for unique situations, appeals of Housing Manager decisions, and grievances for harm done by the Rules and Regulations.

Alternatives

11.A. The status quo.

11.B. Includes 11.A plus formalize the appeal process, including the appeal hearing, and model after the Wyoming Contested Case Rules.

11.C. Includes 11.A plus set out standards for making determinations on exceptions, appeals, and grievances.

11.D. B plus C.

Solution

Formalize the appeal process, including the appeal hearing, and model after the Wyoming Contested Case Rules. Set out standards for making determinations on exceptions, appeals, and grievances (Alternative 11.D).

Status Quo

New Rules and Regulations are only applied to existing units if existing restrictions defer to the Rules and Regulations.

Alternatives

12.A. The status quo.

12.B. Includes 12.A plus specify that the Rules and Regulations adopted at the time of resale will govern the sale of a restricted unit unless otherwise stated in the special restriction.

12.C. Includes 12.A plus new restrictions will be recorded at resale, unless the standard restriction is already in place. The standard restriction will refer to the Rules and Regulations where appropriate.

12.D. Includes 12.A plus for rental units, establish that the Rules and Regulations in effect at the time the rental agreement is entered will apply.

12.E. Some combination of B, C, and D.

Solution

Place new restrictions on units at resale. The standard restriction and/or lease agreement will refer to the Rules and Regulations where appropriate (Alternative 12.E).

Alternatives

1.A. Prioritize the addition of all 1,800 units to Town (closest to status quo).

1.B. Add less than 1,800 units in order to balance housing goals with other desired goals.

1.C. Add none of the 1,800 units to Town.

Solution

Direction: The Council does not have a predetermined number of additional units in mind at this time. Most agreed generally with Alternative 1.B but some noted that they leaned toward either the ‘low’ or high’ end of the 0 to 1,800 unit spectrum. Instead of choosing a number of units, the Council provided its preliminary direction on where additional units would be appropriate in Town, as well as what types of housing are desired. Once staff provides an estimate on how many additional units the Council’s direction would likely generate, the Council will then reconsider and finalize its direction on how many of the 1,800 units should be located in Town.

Alternatives

This question will not follow the multiple choice format of the other 7 policy questions. A “visual preference” exercise is provided that asks the public to identify which types of residential development they would prefer to see constructed in Districts 3 through 6 to provide the additional 1,800 units (or whatever number of additional units they support).

Solution

See the Policy Direction Subarea Map (JPG) and Policy Directions by Subarea documents. Review all Subarea Final Policy Directions (PDF).

Alternatives

3.A Calculate build-out by zoning potential (status quo for general build-out)

3.B Calculate build-out on an ‘as built’ basis (status quo for workforce housing bonus)

Solution

Direction: Alternatives 3.A and 3.B: The Council supports using zoning potential to estimate build-out for base zoning (3.A) but also use the “as built” method for any residential units constructed using a development incentive (3.B). This is the same dual system that the Town currently uses.

Alternatives

4.A. Require the same deed restriction rate for 1,800 units as currently required by the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) for new housing (status quo).

4.B. Require workforce deed restriction for all additional units.

4.C. The number of deed-restricted units should be based on meeting a specific community goal, such as the 65% local workforce housing goal.

Solution

Direction: Alternative 4.C: The purpose of adding the units is to provide workforce housing. Deed restrictions are an important tool and often preferred but are not reasonable or necessary in all cases. Market-based tools, such as those mentioned by the Planning Commission (e.g., limits on unit sizes, requiring a percentage to be rentals, requiring a mix of unit types, etc.), should also be considered.

Alternatives

5.A. We should keep commercial development potential at current levels (status quo). 5.B. We should try to reduce commercial development potential through incentives, but not require reductions. 5.C. We should allow the transfer of commercial development potential from one property to another.

Solution

Direction: Alternatives 5.B and 5.C: In mixed-use areas use incentives to encourage workforce housing to reduce commercial development where feasible. The transfer of commercial development rights from one property to another should be explored as well.

Alternatives

6.A. Apply Design Review only to commercial and multi-family buildings (three or more attached units) in Districts 3 through 6.

6.B. Apply Design Review to only commercial development in Districts 3 through 6 (closest to status quo).

6.C. Apply Design Review to commercial development and larger multi-family projects (e.g., 10 units or more) in Districts 3 through 6.

Solution

Direction: Alternative 6.A: Apply Design Review to commercial development and multi-family buildings of three or more units.

Alternatives

7.A. Sidewalks should be required primarily to connect commercial services with surrounding residential areas.

7.B. Sidewalks should be required for areas covered in Alternative 7.A and also between major residential neighborhoods.

7.C Additional sidewalks should not be required of private landowners but may be expanded by the Town using public funds where necessary.

Solution

Direction: Alternative 7.B: Sidewalks should be provided to connect commercial areas to surrounding residential areas, as well as between major residential neighborhoods.

Alternatives

8.A. We should incentivize connections as part of certain redevelopment and new projects (status quo).

8.B. We should require connections as part of certain redevelopment and new projects, likely as part of the subdivision process and/or development approval process.

8.C. The street network in Town is essentially set and adding new connections would not provide significant benefit.

Solution

Direction: Alternative 8.B: Town should require connections as part of certain redevelopment and new projects. Requirements would likely be part of the subdivision process and/or development review process.

The Land Development Regulations (LDR) are one of the tools to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The LDR contains more specific standards for how development can happen in specific areas, or zoning districts. These standards regulate more specifically how an individual lot can be developed including: allowable uses, building heights, fire safety, number of parking spaces, landscaping, signs, and other variables of site design. 

The updated Comprehensive Plan serves as a sound basis for subsequently updating the LDRs and for addressing other non-regulatory strategies for implementation. As of summer 2017, Town and County Planning Departments have carried out a number of updates to the LDRs that reflect the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. 

The Comprehensive Plan is an avenue for describing necessary updates to the LDR - regulatory strategies. It also can be the basis for addressing future programs, partnerships, funding mechanisms, and other such non-regulatory strategies.

The LDR is the set of regulations that govern development, zoning, and subdivision for the Town of Jackson and Teton County. They address zoning district regulations, natural, scenic resources, development standards, platting and land records and other development issues. They are not the same as the Comprehensive Plan, which is a policy document.

Each parcel in the county has the potential for some level of development, which is typically measured in residential dwelling units or commercial floor area, based on a zoning classification. The amount of development allowed on a parcel of land is commonly called a “development right”, and can be bought, sold, or transferred from a parcel.

A TDR Program separates the amount of development allowed on a parcel (typically measured in dwelling units) from the title of the property for the purpose of selling the development rights for use on another parcel. The development rights are removed from one property (known as the sending property) and used to increase the amount of development on another property (known as the receiving property). 

Such a transfer typically involves the relocation of development from an area undesirable for development (e.g., sensitive resource areas or agricultural lands) to an area suited for development (e.g., within a town).

Under a PDR Program, a landowner voluntarily sells his or her rights to develop a parcel of land to a public agency or a charitable organization, such as a land trust. Unlike a TDR program where rights are transferred (see above), a PDR program is intended to reduce the overall amount of development by “extinguishing” development rights. Land trusts in Teton County have been very active in securing conservation easements with private land owners through purchase of development rights.

A deed restriction is a legal document filed in the County’s official property records, placing restrictions on the use or sale of a property. A common deed restriction used in Teton County sets limitations on appreciation of affordable/workforce housing for the purpose of keeping the housing affordable in future sales.

Town-level density is that which would develop as town-like neighborhoods with paved streets, municipal water and sewer, and a full range of other public support services and infrastructure. The town has various levels of density that include single-family lots and multi-family units.