Planning commission denies variance for Frase property in conservation easement after public objections

The Teton County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny a variance request from landowners Brian and Whitney Frase that sought permission to build a house, guest house and driveway within county 50-foot wetland setbacks on a property encumbered by a conservation easement.

The Frases’ application included an aquatic resource inventory, a compensatory mitigation plan and a nationwide permit (NWP 29) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The parcel is covered by an 80‑acre conservation easement held by the Teton Regional Land Trust; the easement includes a 2.5-acre building envelope in the parcel’s northeast corner that the landowners said they intended to use. The Frases also reported obtaining a FEMA letter of map amendment to show the buildable area outside the floodplain and said they had completed a septic “perk” and design work for an engineered system.

Applicant Brian Frase described work on an aquatic mitigation and restoration plan for Fox Creek, including planting and stream restoration, and said the team hired Intermountain Aquatics and Nelson Engineering for delineation and engineering. Braden Olsen of Nelson Engineering said the upland area constrained by county setbacks yields only a small area of buildable land (he quantified the upland inside county setbacks as about 8,052 square feet and said the actual buildable area was about 202 square feet after applying the required 50-foot setback), which he and the applicant said justified a variance.

Public commenters, including representatives of nearby landowners and conservation groups, urged denial. Lydia Hanson, staff attorney for the Teton Regional Land Trust, said the land trust’s approval is contingent on complying with all federal, state and local laws and permits and noted the easement’s purpose is to protect wetlands and riparian habitat; attorney Anna Trentadue and neighbor Richard Huntsman urged denial and argued upland areas exist that would allow a build within existing rules.

Commissioners debated whether the application met the LDC variance criteria, particularly whether the variance requested was the minimum necessary to allow residential use of the property. Several commissioners said the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient use of upland areas and that the proposed footprint and driveway extended farther into wetlands than necessary. A motion to deny the variance on grounds that the application did not meet the minimum-variance criterion and that granting would amount to a special privilege carried.

The commission’s denial leaves the applicant able to revise the design and reapply; staff noted that any new application would be processed under the land development code in place at the time of reapplication and that code amendments are a separate process. The land trust and several neighbors told the commission they remain open to restoration work by the landowners but opposed the requested variance as proposed.