Where’s the Middle Ground, Moose Creek Ranch?

In August 2019 a Teton Valley News article referenced a letter written by Moose Creek Ranch developers in which they acknowledged community concerns about their proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application. In response to the community concerns, the developers wrote that their intention was “to follow through on its previously stated desire to be a good neighbor in Teton County, Idaho,” and “As such, and pursuant to [their] postponement letter, [Moose Creek Ranch developers] goal [was] to work with the community and move forward with specific studies in an effort to find a good middle ground.” Developers expressed hope for a productive neighborhood meeting and promised to “deliver a new proposal with a far more limited added capacity and with a “phased approach” to allow for a trial period.” In November of 2019 the follow up CUP application was pulled by the applicant and the public hearing was subsequently cancelled.  

Over 2 years later, another CUP application for Moose Creek Ranch has yet to be submitted. After months and months of earth moving and drastic changes being made to Moose Creek Ranch land, the community and surrounding neighbors were left to question, what happened to the CUP process? What happened to “middle ground?” 

Well... it would seem the developer, and their now hired attorneys, have made their goal to fight for perceived entitlements, not ask for permission. The tables also seemed to have turned from being “a good neighbor” to seeking unauthorized, backdoor approvals from a former Planning and Zoning Administrator. 

When neighbors sought answers, leading them to reach out to the County Commissioners to request a public hearing, Moose Creek Ranch and their attorneys requested a denial of the Petition for Public Hearing and further demanded that staff be directed to issue pending building permits immediately. “Good Neighbor” ??

Commissioners held the public hearing on October 25th with the purpose of collecting factual testimony about the present and historic uses of the Moose Creek Ranch property. The hearing will be continued on Monday, November 22nd.  

At a minimum, two things can be accomplished moving forward:

1) actual extent of grandfathered uses at Moose Creek Ranch can be determined, 

and

2) a CUP can be required for uses that are not grandfathered. 

While the history of Moose Creek Ranch goes back much further, as we heard from many community members during the October 25th hearing, VARDs most recent interactions with the current developers were back 2019 when their first CUP application was submitted. We met with the new property owners, walked the property, talked about the developers visions and we expressed our concerns that included:

• the potential influx of people into a sensitive habitat area, 
• the fact that it’s bear conflict area, 
• infringement on winter wildlife along the creek, 
• concerns with any development on the south side of the creek, 
• and the desire of the community and surrounding neighbors to protect and preserve the Moose Creek area. 
  
  
  
  
  During the time Moose Creek Ranch submitted their CUP application there was another application in the works you may remember, Under Canvas, which was unanimously denied by Planning and Zoning. Moose Creek pulled their CUP application.  
  Concerns we had with Under Canvas are echoed at Moose Creek Ranch. Encouraging a large increase in visitors brings with it more bathrooms, fireplaces, trash, traffic, and everything else that the CUP process is intended to address.
  What, if any, development is appropriate in Moose Creek? We don’t know. That’s exactly why a CUP is necessary and required. We’re not advocating to shut down Moose Creek Ranch. It has been a special place for many folks in the Valley for many years. We just seek assurance that any earth moving is permitted and that whatever is permitted complies with Title 8. 
  
  
  
  In the Foothills area where Moose Creek is located, the Teton County Comprehensive Plan recommends:
• Low residential densities with a provision for clustering/conservation development.
• Residential development clustered to respect topography.
• Access points to public lands.
• Conservation and wildlife habitat enhancement.
• Wildland-Urban interface protection.
• And development regulated by overlays and development guidelines to protect natural resources and improve public safety.
  We think that the last one is especially important. They all are. We ask for a CUP so that we have the tools necessary to protect the natural resources and improve public safety. We ask for a CUP because it is required.
  
  During the hearing, VARD recommended Commissioners reconsider the prior Planning & Zoning Administrator’s interpretation that most everything and anything is grandfathered at Moose Creek Ranch. Not only was this bad for Moose Creek Canyon - it’s also bad policy. Development decisions like this shouldn’t begin and end with a past county employee. Instead, recourse should be available to those who know things the prior Planning & Zoning Administrator failed to discover. 
  Photojournalist and neighboring property owner, Natalie Behring, created a slideshow to share with County Commissioners, found HERE, providing visual context and details of recent development.
  Audio for the October 25th hearing can be found HERE.
  Info for the continued November 22nd hearing will be posted HERE.