×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Park County DSR Update - March Planning Area Workshop

Provide comments on your planning area use table!

Park County held eight (8) open houses in January, February and early March to gather public input on zoning district types and use allowances. We also gathered input through an online questionnaire/survey. The information that follows reflects preliminary input from members of the public who participated in the open houses and online questionnaire. We would like to know how closely the preliminary maps and use tables reflect general public opinions. After this exercise, we will factor this input into our deep-dive.

How to give input? As indicated on the green bar at the top the document, you can click anywhere on the document to comment. You do not need to register/sign in to provide comments. However, you will be asked to provide your name and email the first time you comment (if you come back at another time, you'll have to add your name and address again). Select "guided tour" button on the bottom of the PDF window to see what is included for each planning area and select "summary" to select your planning area when you are ready to comment! The "table of contents" drop down also allows you to quickly jump to your planning area. 

The level of review by use are determined by the following symbols:

-  = Do not allow this use
PH = Maximum Regulation/Restriction (e.g. Public Hearings before the P&Z and BOCC)
ST = Medium Regulation/Restriction (e.g. P&Z Department Review with Special Standards)
A* = Minimal Regulation/Restriction (e.g. P&Z Department Review for use)
A = Allow without use permit and/or staff review (permit for structure may be required)
Blank Cell = Not enough input. We need you to help us fill in the blank!

 
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Drag
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Summary Guided Tour Full Document

Summary

All Hide

Introduction

Expand

Clark

Provide feedback on the Clark Planning Area!

Read More Jump to Page

Cody Local

Provide feedback on Cody Local!

Read More Jump to Page

Cody-Powell Rural

Provide feedback on Cody-Powell Rural!

Read More Jump to Page

Lower South Fork

Provide feedback on Lower South Fork!

Read More Jump to Page

Meeteetse

Provide feedback on Meeteetse!

Read More Jump to Page

Middle South Fork

Provide feedback on Middle South Fork!

Read More Jump to Page

North Fork

Provide feedback on North Fork!

Read More Jump to Page

Powell Local

Provide feedback on Powell Local!

Read More Jump to Page

Sage Creek

Provide feedback on the Sage Creek Planning Area!

Read More Jump to Page

Sunlight

Provide feedback on Sunlight!

Read More Jump to Page

Upper Clark's Fork

Provide feedback on Upper Clark's Fork!

Read More Jump to Page

Upper South Fork

Provide feedback on Upper South Fork!

Read More Jump to Page

Guided Tour

Hide
Take a quick tour to see how you can leave comments on your planning area's draft use table!
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Jeremy Rose May 31 2025 at 6:45PM on page 19

Suggested Revision
I am strongly against large-scale commercial lodging (hotels and resorts) on the lower south fork for any zoning category. This proposal has it as “Medium Regulations/Restrictions” on Residential-5 and Agriculture and "not allowed" on Estate Residential and General Rural zoned properties. Large-scale commercial lodging should be "not allowed" on Residential-5 and Agriculture. I am not in favor of seeing the lower south fork turned into businesses to where the west strip continues to the "southwest strip." Additionally, many of the properties in the proposed Residential-5 don't have city sewer and several don't have NWRW. Not having these utilities and services in place makes it illogical to allow large-scale commercial lodging on these properties. The aesthetics of hotels and resorts on the lower south fork would ruin the reason why many choose to live here. DO NOT California Park County!

Tamara Young May 30 2025 at 1:53PM on page 35

Suggested Revision
If you can make money from minerals or oil and gas, you as an agricultural landowner are more likely to keep your land intact. Why all the restrictions? Who benefits?

Tamara Young May 30 2025 at 1:50PM on page 35

Suggested Revision
Light and minor industrial uses should be allowed on agricultural land. The land is more likely to stay intact if the landowner has a way to pay for it, thereby keeping more open space.

Tamara Young May 30 2025 at 1:46PM on page 35

Suggested Revision
Storage shipping containers are a good way for farmers to store agriculture products to protect them from weather and animals. I don't have one, but why the restriction? Is it because someone doesn't want to look at them? Then provide an alternative. If you provide incentives instead of restrictions, everyone can be happy.

Shauna May 30 2025 at 1:44PM on page 45

Suggested Revision
Heliport in general rural. Airport is already nearby. Too much noise. PH designation required.

Shauna May 30 2025 at 1:41PM on page 43

Suggested Revision
In general rural? Opposed. PH designation please.

Tamara Young May 30 2025 at 1:40PM on page 35

Suggested Revision
Most ranches have a quarry or gravel pit of some kind because we need to move dirt around on a regular basis. This is government overreach!

Shauna May 30 2025 at 1:39PM on page 43

Suggested Revision
PH designation please.

Tamara Young May 30 2025 at 1:27PM on page 31

Comment
Leave the lot size as it is now. It is restrictive enough. If you restrict a large landowner's ability to subdivide, you are removing value from their land and gifting that value to small landowners in the area. Everyone likes looking at open space, but the large landowners pay the price. The small landowners pay nothing in upkeep, insurance and taxes on the open spaces they enjoy. If you want open spaces, then pay large landowners for the development rights so that they are incentivized to keep the land and not subdivide.

Linda Raynolds May 29 2025 at 11:09PM on page 25

Suggested Revision
Need to make a clear distinction between industrial scale wind or solar facilities and private scale used on rooftops, livestock water pumps, etc. Residential and ag should be allowed without review, industrial/commercial should be subject to review and neighborhood agreement.

Linda Raynolds May 29 2025 at 11:00PM on page 23

Suggested Revision
Any definition of "wind energy facilities" and "solar energy facilities" needs to make a clear distinction between commercial/industrial and small scale electricity generating or battery storage systems for home or agricultural use, such as rooftop solar or solar-driven stock tank pumps.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:31PM on page 42

Suggested Revision
Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:42AM
Suggested Revision
Office space for government personnel is appropriate. Firearms training facilities for law enforcement or recreational use should not be permitted. PH should be required.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:28PM on page 45

Comment
In favor of PH designation as light pollution should be considered by all the surrounding neighbors.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:26PM on page 43

Comment
PH designation please.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:25PM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Commercial lodging should not be allowed in this area. PH designation should be required.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:23PM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Note change to below comment:
Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:54AM
Suggested Revision
Opposed to regional retail. PH designation should be required.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:22PM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Note change to comment below:
Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:53AM
Suggested Revision
Opposed to gas stations in this area. PH designation needs to be required.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:20PM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Note change to below comment:
Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:52AM
Suggested Revision
Opposed to restaurants. PH designation should be requuired.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:18PM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Note: Addition to below comment.
Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:42AM
Suggested Revision
Office space for government personnel is appropriate. Firearms training facilities for law enforcement or recreational use should not be permitted. PH designation should be required.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:15PM on page 9

Suggested Revision
Note change to below comment:
Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:47AM
Suggested Revision
Government Offices Industrial: Office space for government personnel is appropriate. Firearms training for law enforcement or recreational should not be permitted. PH designation should be required.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 12:04PM on page 17

Suggested Revision
Note earlier below comment with addition.
Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:47AM
Suggested Revision
Government Offices Industrial: Office space for government personnel is appropriate. Firearms training for law enforcement or recreational should not be permitted. Minimum PH designation required.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:56AM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Opposed to large scale commercial lodging. PH appropriate designation.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:54AM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Opposed to regional retail. ST more appropriate designation.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:53AM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Opposed to gas stations in this area. Opposed to designation A on gas stations.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:52AM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Opposed to designation A on restaurants. In favor of ST designation.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:49AM on page 44

Suggested Revision
Opposed to feedlots.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:47AM on page 9

Suggested Revision
Government Offices Industrial: Office space for government personnel is appropriate. Firearms training for law enforcement or recreational should not be permitted.

Shauna Roberts May 29 2025 at 11:42AM on page 41

Suggested Revision
Office space for government personnel is appropriate. Firearms training facilities for law enforcement or recreational use should not be permitted.

Ben Hubbard May 29 2025 at 11:16AM on page 39

Comment
I support including home businesses as part of the R-5 zone, not as a special use.

Ben Hubbard May 29 2025 at 11:14AM on page 39

Suggested Revision
Home businesses should be under residential uses, not commercial uses. Accessory uses are accessory to the residential use.

Steve Devenyns May 29 2025 at 8:26AM on page 29

Comment
The middle Southfork designation from the previous land use plan was for A MINIMUM 20 ACRE PARCEL SIZE TO MAINTAIN RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURE DESIGNATION.. NO TRAILER PARKS, NO JUNK YARD

Tammy Thiel May 27 2025 at 7:42PM on page 4

Question
What is the definition of non livestock?

Tammy Thiel May 27 2025 at 7:39PM on page 4

Comment
Machinery repair is allowed in the other zones, but not estate residential. This makes no sense based on acerage size. This zoning looks like a way to limit uses allowed for large areas of Park County.

Tammy Thiel May 27 2025 at 7:20PM on page 4

Comment
Not allowing employee housing in estate residential does not make sense especially when it is allowed in other zones. The large areas of this proposed zoning on the maps is concerning, espcially with the limited uses allowed.

Tammy Thiel May 27 2025 at 7:19PM on page 4

Comment
Manufactured and tiny homes not allowed in estate residential makes no sense espcially since they are allowed in other zones.

Tammy Thiel May 27 2025 at 7:17PM on page 4

Comment
It does not make sense to not allow agritourism in estate residential zoning. The lot sizes are bigger is estate residential than other zones which allow this type of use. This is a very restricted zone.

Tammy Thiel May 27 2025 at 7:16PM on page 4

Comment
It does not make sense to not allow agritourism in estate residential zoning. The lot sizes are bigger is estate residential than other zones which allow this type of use. This is a very restricted zone.

Tammy Thiel May 27 2025 at 7:09PM on page 1

Comment
Rural residential zoning category with limited uses is very concerning. Predominately residential living is best suited in town not out in the county.

Tammy Thiel May 27 2025 at 7:07PM on page 1

Comment
I do not agree with the estate residential zoning category. The limited uses allowed in this category and large areas proposed for this category is very concerning. Predominately residential uses is best suited for in town not country living.

Camby May 22 2025 at 7:55PM on page 15

Suggested Revision
If industrial changes are going to be made to an agriculture or residential area it should be mandatory to notify neighbors and allow for a comment period.

Charla Gerbig May 22 2025 at 5:29PM on page 5

Comment
A gravel pit in Clark is owned by a County Commissioner. It has existed for years and the neighbors are fully aware of it. I don’t know anyone who wants to get rid of it. People need the freedom to choose how to use their land in rural areas like Clark.

Charla Gerbig May 22 2025 at 5:20PM on page 4

Suggested Revision
Sounds carries easily in Clark. A Kennel of barking dogs would disturb wildlife, and neighbors a half to a mile away. A single dog that barks most of the night to ward off wildlife is annoying. I enjoy opening my windows at night and appreciate the quiet, not the noise. Kennels should not be allowed.

Carrie Peters May 22 2025 at 11:13AM on page 56

Suggested Revision
All of this is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever seen. The regulations needed a spruce up--things clarified and processes streamlined. Not an insane overhaul dictated by Park County NGOs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the county government! This should be landowner driven, period! REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT LANDOWNERS! Park County is allowing the unaffected public to tell landowners what they want to see and are therefore flat out stealing from property owners. In legal terms, this is called a "taking." Do the right thing Park County Commissioners, it's not too late to walk this back and realize the mess you've created. I agree with every comment Curt Bales has stated. You are severely restricting private rights. You say the county is not driving the direction but that is not true. You guys are steering it to the wreck they have in Teton County. Engage landowners, not the fickle "public" who has nothing to lose.

Carrie Peters May 22 2025 at 11:13AM on page 51

Suggested Revision
All of this is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever seen. The regulations needed a spruce up--things clarified and processes streamlined. Not an insane overhaul dictated by Park County NGOs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the county government! This should be landowner driven, period! REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT LANDOWNERS! Park County is allowing the unaffected public to tell landowners what they want to see and are therefore flat out stealing from property owners. In legal terms, this is called a "taking." Do the right thing Park County Commissioners, it's not too late to walk this back and realize the mess you've created. I agree with every comment Curt Bales has stated. You are severely restricting private rights. You say the county is not driving the direction but that is not true. You guys are steering it to the wreck they have in Teton County. Engage landowners, not the fickle "public" who has nothing to lose.

Carrie Peters May 22 2025 at 11:12AM on page 46

Suggested Revision
All of this is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever seen. The regulations needed a spruce up--things clarified and processes streamlined. Not an insane overhaul dictated by Park County NGOs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the county government! This should be landowner driven, period! REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT LANDOWNERS! Park County is allowing the unaffected public to tell landowners what they want to see and are therefore flat out stealing from property owners. In legal terms, this is called a "taking." Do the right thing Park County Commissioners, it's not too late to walk this back and realize the mess you've created. I agree with every comment Curt Bales has stated. You are severely restricting private rights. You say the county is not driving the direction but that is not true. You guys are steering it to the wreck they have in Teton County. Engage landowners, not the fickle "public" who has nothing to lose.

Carrie Peters May 22 2025 at 11:12AM on page 41

Suggested Revision
All of this is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever seen. The regulations needed a spruce up--things clarified and processes streamlined. Not an insane overhaul dictated by Park County NGOs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the county government! This should be landowner driven, period! REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT LANDOWNERS! Park County is allowing the unaffected public to tell landowners what they want to see and are therefore flat out stealing from property owners. In legal terms, this is called a "taking." Do the right thing Park County Commissioners, it's not too late to walk this back and realize the mess you've created. I agree with every comment Curt Bales has stated. You are severely restricting private rights. You say the county is not driving the direction but that is not true. You guys are steering it to the wreck they have in Teton County. Engage landowners, not the fickle "public" who has nothing to lose.

Carrie Peters May 22 2025 at 11:12AM on page 36

Suggested Revision
All of this is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever seen. The regulations needed a spruce up--things clarified and processes streamlined. Not an insane overhaul dictated by Park County NGOs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the county government! This should be landowner driven, period! REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT LANDOWNERS! Park County is allowing the unaffected public to tell landowners what they want to see and are therefore flat out stealing from property owners. In legal terms, this is called a "taking." Do the right thing Park County Commissioners, it's not too late to walk this back and realize the mess you've created. I agree with every comment Curt Bales has stated. You are severely restricting private rights. You say the county is not driving the direction but that is not true. You guys are steering it to the wreck they have in Teton County. Engage landowners, not the fickle "public" who has nothing to lose.

Carrie Peters May 22 2025 at 11:11AM on page 31

Suggested Revision
All of this is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever seen. The regulations needed a spruce up--things clarified and processes streamlined. Not an insane overhaul dictated by Park County NGOs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the county government! This should be landowner driven, period! REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT LANDOWNERS! Park County is allowing the unaffected public to tell landowners what they want to see and are therefore flat out stealing from property owners. In legal terms, this is called a "taking." Do the right thing Park County Commissioners, it's not too late to walk this back and realize the mess you've created. I agree with every comment Curt Bales has stated. You are severely restricting private rights. You say the county is not driving the direction but that is not true. You guys are steering it to the wreck they have in Teton County. Engage landowners, not the fickle "public" who has nothing to lose.

Carrie Peters May 22 2025 at 11:10AM on page 26

Suggested Revision
All of this is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever seen. The regulations needed a spruce up--things clarified and processes streamlined. Not an insane overhaul dictated by Park County NGOs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the county government! This should be landowner driven, period! REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT LANDOWNERS! Park County is allowing the unaffected public to tell landowners what they want to see and are therefore flat out stealing from property owners. In legal terms, this is called a "taking." Do the right thing Park County Commissioners, it's not too late to walk this back and realize the mess you've created. I agree with every comment Curt Bales has stated. You are severely restricting private rights. You say the county is not driving the direction but that is not true. You guys are steering it to the wreck they have in Teton County. Engage landowners, not the fickle "public" who has nothing to lose.

Carrie Peters May 22 2025 at 11:10AM on page 21

Suggested Revision
All of this is the biggest bunch of garbage I have ever seen. The regulations needed a spruce up--things clarified and processes streamlined. Not an insane overhaul dictated by Park County NGOs, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the county government! This should be landowner driven, period! REGULATIONS ONLY AFFECT LANDOWNERS! Park County is allowing the unaffected public to tell landowners what they want to see and are therefore flat out stealing from property owners. In legal terms, this is called a "taking." Do the right thing Park County Commissioners, it's not too late to walk this back and realize the mess you've created. I agree with every comment Curt Bales has stated. You are severely restricting private rights. You say the county is not driving the direction but that is not true. You guys are steering it to the wreck they have in Teton County. Engage landowners, not the fickle "public" who has nothing to lose.
View all