The Teton County Planning & Zoning Commission on a recorded vote denied a variance request from My Private Idaho LLC to allow a driveway and parts of a proposed residence to encroach into the required 50-foot wetland setback at 7284 North Lee Creek Road in Tetonia.

Staff told the commission the 15-acre parcel contains steep slopes greater than 30% and wetlands delineated and confirmed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2020; earlier site improvements and building pads date to 2002''003. Daniel Lehman, senior planner, said new 2022 land-development-code standards for emergency vehicle access created requirements that prompted the applicant to seek a variance because, without it, “development would likely be impossible due to site constraints.” Lehman summarized staff'
9s recommendation: approve the variance recognizing site constraints and pre-2002 improvements but noted multiple outstanding approvals tied to building permits and floodplain requirements.

The nut graf: The request drew extended public comment and technical questions from commissioners about whether the proposal represented the minimum disturbance needed and whether alternatives (moving the house higher on the parcel or upgrading an existing driveway) would avoid wetland and canal crossings. Commissioners concluded the applicant had not demonstrated the variance met multiple variance criteria in the county code and voted to deny.

How the site was described
Ted (spelled "Ted Van Holland" in the staff file and appearing as "Ed Van Hollen" later in the record) spoke as the applicant'
9s design/engineering representative and described engineering steps taken to limit disturbance: reuse of a preexisting building pad, a proposed precast bridge across the North Lee Canal designed with three feet of clearance above normal water level, and a septic design permitted by Eastern Idaho Public Health that keeps the septic tank and leach field 50 feet from the canal. He said additional permits would be required, including a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit and a Bureau of Land Management pre-application step for the canal crossing.

County and permitting details
- Staff recorded a building permit application (no. 5337) submitted 08/20/2024 and a grading and erosion-control application received 08/23/2024; construction-plan review items were completed on 10/09/2024. Eastern Idaho Public Health issued septic permit number 4122092 dated 08/05/2024, per the building-department letter read into the record.
- The county'
9s fire marshal had conditionally approved the proposal on 10/09/2024 with requirements (posted bridge loads at the turnaround location and a fire apparatus turnaround shown on the site plan) and flagged that existing driveways on the parcel do not meet current emergency-access standards.

Public comment and local concerns
More than a dozen speakers raised concerns at the hearing. Comments came from neighbors, water-users and irrigation association representatives who said canal users'
9 rights and the practical ability to maintain and access the canal could be affected by construction and crossings. Speakers expressed worries about:
- potential obstruction of irrigation flows during construction;
- long-term risks from siting a septic leach field near wetlands and irrigation infrastructure;
- whether a bridge clearance and small bridge design would withstand spring runoff and unusual high-water events;
- loss of wetland functions and impacts on downstream users who lack resources to litigate or force timely remedies.

Technical and commissioner questions
Commissioners asked the applicant to explain alternatives. Several commissioners pressed whether the existing higher building pad and existing private-road switchbacks could be improved to meet fire access standards (widening, regrading, or adding pullouts) rather than creating a new road and two canal crossings. Commissioners repeatedly returned to the county'
9s variance criteria: whether there were special circumstances, whether the requested disturbance was the minimum necessary, and whether granting the variance would conflict with the public interest.

Decision and rationale
Commissioners found that (1) the application relied on a lower building pad established in earlier approvals rather than exhausting alternatives that might shift the house higher and avoid wetland and canal crossings; (2) the proposed new driveway and bridge represented more than a minimal encroachment into protected buffers; and (3) public comment indicated the proposal conflicted with public interest. On those grounds, a motion to deny the variance was made and seconded and the commission voted in favor of denial (recorded votes are in the meeting record). The commission'
9s stated denial reasons referenced LDC criteria (including TCC 5-4-2c as recorded in the motion) that the application did not meet.

What remains next
Multiple permits and approvals are still outstanding for this project if the applicant pursues revised plans: final resolution with the irrigation (canal) company for any crossing; a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for the canal/wetland crossing; approval of a floodplain development permit; and any fire-marshal requirements at the building-permit stage. Staff told the commission that canal-rights issues and state statutes related to irrigation companies remain separate civil and permitting processes that the applicant and the irrigation company must resolve.

Ending: local context
Neighbors and water users told the commission that they lack the time or money for extended civil litigation and urged the county to err on the side of protecting shared irrigation infrastructure and wetlands. Commissioners said those public concerns factored into finding that the variance, as submitted, did not meet the county'
9s variance standards.