Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access Across Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves variance to provide access to upland building area at Darby Meadows Ranch; conditions added for water‑crossing
Summary
After confirming the two parcels at Darby Meadows Ranch are legally separate, the commission approved a variance to allow an access route across wetlands to reach an upland building area, and directed that water‑crossing design comply with the LDC requirement that road crossings bridge primary riparian areas where no alternative exists.
Teton County’s Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variance to allow an access route to an upland building site at Darby Meadows Ranch, concluding the two parcels at the center of the application are legally distinct and that the chosen access reduced overall wetland impact compared with alternatives.
Why it matters: Commissioners concluded owners of the upland parcel have development rights and that limited, conditioned access across the adjoining parcel is the least impactful way to reach the building site. The commission required that any road crossing address flood conveyance and LDC standards for riparian crossings.
Parcel separability and legal review Staff told the commission that legal research and assessor records back to 2006 indicate the two subject parcels are separate legal parcels and not combined in prior conveyances. County counsel advised that an owner cannot grant themselves a new easement across their own adjacent parcel to change legal rights; easements are typically reserved for conveyance situations. Commissioners were satisfied staff’s review supported treating the lots as distinct.
Site constraints and floodplain Staff noted that the proposed building site sits outside the mapped floodplain while much of the northern parcel contains mapped floodplain and wetlands. That site constraint, staff said, drives the location choice: building outside the floodplain but accessing it requires a crossing. Staff emphasized that floodplain permitting and flood‑conveyance design standards will apply and that the county’s riparian rules encourage bridging primary riparian areas when no alternative is feasible.
Motion and conditions A motion to approve the variance, finding that the variance review criteria could be satisfied, passed. The commission included three conditions of approval as listed in the staff report; commissioners also incorporated LDC language calling for bridging in riparian crossings when driveways and road crossings are proposed and no reasonable alternative exists.
Ending The commission approved the variance for the access route and asked staff to ensure that floodplain permit review and road/bridge design meet county standards and flood‑conveyance criteria prior to issuance of any road or building permits.
