Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning council denies Ericson request to reduce 30‑ft roadway setback
Summary
The Bannock County Planning and Development Council voted 3–1 to deny a request to reduce a roadway setback from 30 feet to 10 feet for a proposed 40x60 agricultural shop, finding the claimed hardship appeared self‑imposed and that feasible alternatives exist on the parcel.
The Bannock County Planning and Development Council denied a variance request on a 3–1 roll call Tuesday after concluding the applicant had not met the burden of proof for undue hardship.
The application by Colleen Ericson asked to reduce the roadway setback on East Sublet Road from 30 feet to 10 feet to build a 40‑by‑60 foot shop and hay storage. David L. Ericson told the council he had purchased I‑beams and pipe for the structure and said moving the building closer to the property line would allow equipment to be stored and maneuvers to be made on the site: “I'm here to request a variance to move a building closer to the property line,” he said.
Elise Foster, subdivision planner, summarized the staff report and urged caution. The report noted slopes in the area ranging from about 1% to 6%, nearby drainage and utilities, and that a 10‑foot setback could constrain the county’s ability to widen the road in the future. Foster said staff viewed the claimed hardship as “self‑imposed or design‑preference driven” rather than a strict physical limitation.
Council discussion focused on alternatives and safety. Public Works staff advised the right‑of‑way at the site is 50 feet with a 24‑foot gravel surface and that visibility and a 10‑foot elevation difference between road and property were relevant to safety. Several councilors said the record showed potential alternative building locations on adjoining pasture with gentler slope, and that the applicant bears the burden to demonstrate undue hardship.
After the council read findings on reasonable alternatives, public interest and effect on adjacent property, a motion to deny the variance passed by a 3–1 vote. The council's written decision concluded the applicant had not shown the physical characteristics of the site created an undue hardship.
What happens next: The council’s decision may be appealed to the county commissioners within 10 days; the planning office provided instructions for filing an appeal.
