Teton Springs, L.L.C. (Teton Springs) proposed to turn undeveloped farmland and wetland in the County of Teton (defendant) into a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would consist of a golf course and a residential resort. When Teton Springs filed an application for the approval of the PUD, Teton Springs also requested rezoning. The Teton County Board of County Commissioners (the Board) granted Teton Springs’s application. Richard Evans and Matthew Finnegan (plaintiffs), who were residents of Teton County, brought suit challenging the Board’s decision as a violation of the Teton County Zoning Ordinance (the zoning ordinance), the Teton County Subdivision Ordinance (the subdivision ordinance), and the Teton County Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the Board’s decision violated: (1) the subdivision ordinance’s restriction that only 2 percent of the land may be developed for uses incompatible with underlying zoning and (2) the zoning ordinance’s prohibition on residential, commercial, or industrial (RCI) PUDs in that zone. The plaintiffs also claimed that the Board’s decision violated the Plan, because the PUD’s density was impermissibly high. The district court affirmed the Board’s decision. The plaintiffs appealed.