1. Can't advise without knowing local codes.

2. Your hardship was self-inflicted. All the facts about access were available and known before you bought your lot. Since you did not adequately research local building codes and restrictions thereto, and chose not to inform yourself of the local building codes before you bought the lot, I would not expect a zoning variance.

And personally, I hope self-inflicted hardship variances are rarely or never granted. This last sentence is due to a local builder who buys lots that do not qualify as a proper building lot and then goes to the zoning variance board and pleads hardship. Invariably they grant the variance. These local builders are gaming the system; you were ignorant by your own actions. But it is still your fault. Did you research this at all?

Wow, I dont know the OP's answer, but I am not sure that it deserved that answer.

To the OP, only a lawyer knowing local codes will be able to help.

Lulu was harsh but civil. This is Houzz; no sugar coatings.

Lulu: Actually, the municipality confirmed that the only issue would have been around the zoning of the house, not about the driveway. We later confirmed that the house entirely respects the zoning by-laws.

It is not self inflicted hardship. The Civil Code here states that the difficulty denounced by the minor variance was not created as a result of an action taken illegally by the owners in the interest of the property. This situation is not the result of an action by the owner, but of the natural and unique condition of the land. Legally, this does not prevent owners from obtaining a minor derogation since "knowingly purchasing" a restriction is a non-disqualifying factor.

You seem to know the answer.

The was a de facto deficiency when you bought the property. You will be seeking relief so that you can construct the house and access you desire.

The hardship was self-inflicted in that additional research prior to the purchase would have revealed the issue with the driveway. I never said you created the problem, but rather that the issue was inherent in the property at the time of purchase. You are seeking a variance (or derogation in your parlance) so that you can proceed and develop the property. You are using the argument that you didn't create the issue so a variance should be issued. This was exactly the argument the developers used in my town when they claimed hardship and wanted a building limitation waived. They should have known of the issue prior to buying the property, but since they didn't create the problem, they wanted their variance. This is a personal to me because the variance was granted to a neighbor whose property is now causing altered water flows down a hill.

If you purchased title insurance when you acquired the property, you should read the provisions of the policy that might address access to your land. If you have such coverage then file a claim.

Is there no other driveway possibility? Is this just where you want to build the driveway vs only option?

There is really not enough information to answer this question by quite a long shot.

Generally, you must have reasonable access to your property and reasonable includes an improved drive. However, that doesn't mean the access must come easy or cheap. If your land was subdivided by a current owner of an adjacent property then typically an easement by necessity would go through their land.

I would begin by contacting a wetland consultant. If there is any way to get a certified plan and permit for constructing the drive then that would probably be the best option, but that is very general advice and may not apply to your specific situation.

Try for a variance, keeping your project and driveway as modest as possible. i think your odds are good even if the problem was self inflicted to an extent. In general most boards are sympathetic to homeowners especially if your project is not ostentatious

you may have better odds if you represent yourself instead of hiring a firm. However you should have your arguments in order and have a thorough understanding of the process.

ive gotten 2 variances. The first thing I did to prep for our first application and hearing was read minutes of zoning board hearings nationwide. that is helpful. Remember you have to argue that your lot characteristics make the rule not apply. It’s not just that you are personally inconvenienced but there is sone characteristic of the property that invalidates the rule.

in my area And in your shoes id maybe hire someone to look over the application. But I’d do the hearing myself. i definitely have noticed boards are kinder to lay people than pros. I never hired anyone just did it myself, but your situation may be trickier.

i live in an area where the zoning boards are notoriously strict. And yet reading the minutes most variances are granted.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but if I am reading the OP correctly, s/he is not asking for a variance. I could very well be mistaken about this, but from my reading of the original post, access was limited by protection of wetlands, which means s/he needs a section 10 or section 404 permit to construct the drive. Those are issued by the Army Corps of Engineers via a specific process that should be done by a wetlands consultant approved by the Army Corps of Engineers.

However, another option is to claim a landlocked (enclosed??) parcel. If s/he could establish that the lot qualifies as landlocked then s/he could get an easement by necessity from the neighbor's property.

I suspect the landlocked argument will only work if the permits are not viable or the lot was subdivided from a current neighbor's property who should have been aware of the wetland restriction.

I admit that I could absolutely be misreading this, but that is my take and what my earlier advice was based on. I should have clarified it in that post.