Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teton County planning commission reopens hearing on Darby Meadows wetland variance after land‑division questions
Summary
The Teton County Planning and Zoning Commission continued a request by landowner John Martin for a variance to build a driveway and home inside a 50‑foot wetland setback, citing incomplete parcel‑history information and access easement concerns.
The Teton County Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday agreed to continue the public hearing on John Martin’s request for a wetland‑setback variance to June 10 after commissioners asked staff to confirm when and how the property was split into two legal parcels.
The request would allow a driveway and a residence on the southern 40‑acre parcel of an 80‑acre holding near Darby Creek, south of Driggs; county staff told the commission a 50‑foot setback from wetlands applies and that a variance is required to place structures on the southern parcel.
Staff member Joshua, presenting the item, said the southern parcel is largely shown as wetlands in current mapping and that “a variance is the requirement in order to develop on this side at all.” He told commissioners the applicants had proposed two alternatives and that the preferred plan would use an existing two‑track road to minimize new disturbance.
Katie Salisbury, environmental consultant with Intermountain Aquatics representing the applicant, told the commission the development would also need Army Corps of Engineers approval and that the applicant planned to confine disturbance to about a half‑acre — the Corps’ common residential threshold — which is why the preferred building circle was drawn where it is.
Two nearby residents who testified during public comment opposed the variance. Polly Hart said the property was purchased as an 80‑acre parcel and noted Idaho Code 67‑6516’s standards for variances, arguing the owner “purchased this 80 acre property knowing there was a square of land at the northeast corner that was buildable” and that there was no undue hardship. Eric Hovde said the county commissioners had recently denied a similar request and said the northeast corner of the property contains land that could be developed without a variance.
Commissioners asked multiple technical and legal questions about ownership history, when parcels were created, whether the owner purchased the two parcels together, and how future access or easements would work if one parcel were sold. Staff said existing GIS records show two legal parcels of record but that a parcel‑history review and possibly legal counsel were needed to clarify whether the ownership or the timing of the division bears on the variance request.
After reopening public comment to allow additional remarks, the commission voted to continue the hearing to its June 10 meeting so staff could gather parcel‑history documentation and obtain legal feedback on whether the parcels must be treated independently for variance review. The motion to continue was seconded and carried; commissioners recorded all votes as “aye.”
What happens next: staff will investigate the date and manner the 80‑acre holding was divided and supply that information (and any legal guidance) to the commission prior to the June 10 continuation. The applicant may be asked to provide conveyance or survey documents or to prepare an access easement if that is required to show whether alternative developable land exists without a variance.
