Teton County commissioners continue appeal over proposed home in mapped wetlands

Teton County commissioners on April 16 continued an appeal of a Planning & Zoning denial by applicant Brian (Bridal) Frias asking to build a single-family house and guest house within a delineated wetland area near Fox Creek.

The request asks the county to grant a variance from the county wetland setback rules so the owner can build inside an area where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has already issued permits for compensatory mitigation tied to the proposed development.

The appeal grew heated at the meeting. Frias and his representatives argued they had planned the house to minimize impacts, had a septic plan with a primary and reserve site, and had secured a Corps nationwide permit that allows on-site compensatory mitigation (creating higher-functioning wetland in another part of the property) rather than net loss. Frias said he and his team engaged consultants, completed perk testing and site engineering, and that native-stream restoration work on the property would be an environmental benefit.

Opponents, including Fox Creek LLC (owners of adjacent conservation easements), planning commissioners and several resident speakers, argued the proposed siting ignored an available upland (called “Upland 1”) adjacent to the county road that could accommodate at least the same footprint with far less wetlands impact. They said the Planning & Zoning Commission had asked the applicant to redesign to use upland area and that the applicant failed to provide that revised plan. Opponents told the board the application, as presented, would create a precedent for developing mapped wetlands close to streams and could harm groundwater and surface-water values.

Planning & Zoning denied the variance on grounds that the applicant had not shown the proposal was the “minimum variance” necessary and that granting the variance would confer a privilege denied other properties. Joshua Grimes in staff summary told the board the Corps permit and a FEMA letter removing the parcel from the floodplain are in the record, but that the county’s decision is limited to the variance standards in the Teton County Land Development Code. The county attorney advised the board to confine its decision to the record before Planning & Zoning and to the county standards for variances.

After public comment and rebuttal by the applicant, the board debated whether the record supported a finding that the request meets the LDC variance criteria — chiefly whether the proposal is the minimum variance to enable the proposed use and whether it would confer a special privilege. Commissioners said they needed more legal analysis on how to apply the “minimum variance” standard where compensatory mitigation is part of the federal permitting picture and asked staff and county counsel to provide written legal advice.

The board voted to continue the hearing for legal review and additional materials. The hearing was continued to the April 28 meeting so commissioners can review counsel’s memo and any clarifying materials the applicant may submit.

Why this matters: the case highlights tension between federal wetland permitting (Corps mitigation) and local land-use standards, and whether county variance findings should allow development when mitigation is proposed. The decision will affect how strictly the county enforces wetland setbacks in other riparian areas where conservation easements and small upland pockets exist.