Town and county planning board members have recommended the new comprehensive plan not include a transferable development rights program.

Town planning commissioners voted against a TDR program in the Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan, while county planning commissioners were evenly split. During Thursday’s meeting, town commissioners voted 4-1 to recommend against the program. The county’s 2-2 vote sealed the recommendation against TDRs.

A TDR plan would allow landowners to transfer their development rights from one location to another. The proposed program has been discussed as a potential tool to direct development away from land that holds scenic and wildlife values and toward other areas considered more suitable for building.

A TDR program is seen to have its greatest application where most of Teton County’s open space remains, as opposed to Jackson.

Jackson Planning Commissioners Paul Nash, Lisa daCosta, Barbara Allen and Ben Read opposed a TDR program. Town planning commission Chairman Michael Pruett cast the lone vote in support of TDRs.

Town Planning Commissioners Geneva Chong and Jessica Rutzick had left the meeting by the time of the vote.

On the county side, Commissioners Larry Hamilton and Tony Wall voted against the TDR program. Paul Duncker and Forrest McCarthy were in favor. Commissioner Joe Palmer was absent.

Several planning commissioners questioned how planning staff would direct development without any suitable planning tools such as transferable development rights.

“We’ve removed all discretionary planning tools,” McCarthy said during the meeting.

On Friday, McCarthy said that without those tools, the idea of identifying locations as “nodes” where development could be concentrated is academic.

“You can call them nodes, but you can’t really do anything with them” in terms of boosting density, he said.

Duncker also raised concerns that the two commissions were stripping away all of the tools necessary to direct development.

“It doesn’t make sense at all” without designating areas where development could be concentrated, Duncker said, referring to the “node” concept. “Noncontiguous [planned residential developments] are the only tool we have unless we’re talking about down-zoning property.”

Those who voted against the transferable development rights program raised concerns about how the program could or would be implemented.

“Staff suggested that [transferable development rights] can be very complex and take a very long time and have lots of problems associated with them,” Read said. “And there’s no way on Earth that we’re going to be able to designate a receiving area.”

Before the vote, Duncker said the two commissions basically have three options to protect open space and promote development in targeted areas: massive rezoning, noncontiguous [planned residential units] or transferable development rights.

“With the first option, you’re going to take large rural landowners, who have played one of the biggest roles in protecting the land here, and take away their development rights,” Duncker said about using an extensive rezoning campaign to direct development.

“With that, you’re going to take millions of dollars out of their pockets,” he said. “The noncontiguous PRD is a voluntary tool that has to come from two private landowners, and I don’t feel comfortable leaving this to chance.

“The third option would be the TDR program, where you can mandate large, rural tracts of land that are important for our community values and say that they can only develop a base amount on their property,” he said. “Then you take those development rights and transfer them to areas where you want development and the rural landowners can still realize financial gain by selling those rights.”

The two commissions took a vote that would have served as a referendum on nodes, but four planning commissioners abstained.

“I think we’re skipping too fast into voting on recommendations without having enough discussion,” Allen said after the vote.

Hamilton, Wall, McCarthy, Pruett and daCosta all voted in support of a recommendation that would have limited development in Wilson to what is currently allowed, essentially removing the idea that Wilson be a “node.”

Duncker, Allen, Read and Nash all abstained from the vote, which came slightly after 9 p.m. just before the end of the meeting.

The two boards are expected to pick up their conversation next week by discussing whether they even approve of the general concept of nodes and, if so, how they will implement the idea. That meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Thursday at the county commissioners chambers.