Albany County homeowners say new survey requirement for small projects causes delays and costs

Albany County commissioners heard multiple public comments expressing concern that a new rule requiring a certified survey and site plan for properties under 2 acres imposes an unexpected financial burden on small-property owners.

The commenters described attempts this summer to obtain routine permits that were delayed or returned for more information. One public commenter who identified herself as Jessica said she sought a permit on June 25, 2025, to add a small addition to an existing shop and discovered the May change. "This new requirement came with an unexpected and significant financial burden," she said, adding that the first surveyor she contacted quoted between $1,200 and $2,000 and that the county returned her application after a contracted county engineer requested further clarifications.

The issue matters because, commenters said, the survey requirement can equal or exceed the cost of modest improvements and must be repeated for each improvement even when boundaries have not changed. "This approach is not only redundant but also places an ongoing and unnecessary financial burden on small property owners," Jessica said in a prepared letter she read to the commission.

A county staff member explained the rule applies to any structure that requires a permit. "Any buildings that require permit would require a resurveys by a surveyor," that staff member said during the public exchange. The same staff member and commissioners acknowledged the rule was intended "to help people know where their boundaries are to avoid problems in the future," but also said the county could consider alternatives.

Commissioners and staff discussed possible next steps short of immediate rule change. One commissioner said the issue could be brought to planning and zoning for further review. The public commenter asked the commission to consider allowing previously approved permits and existing county records to satisfy site-verification requirements for lower-impact projects and to exempt small, low-square-foot additions or repeat work where boundaries have not changed.

No formal change to the requirement was taken at the meeting. Commissioners did not vote on a policy amendment; instead, the matter was left as a topic for potential future discussion with planning and zoning and county staff.

Commissioners and staff noted situations in the county where structures had been built on another person’s land and said the rule was intended to reduce boundary disputes going forward. Commenters asked the commission for clearer public information about the rule’s scope, and one resident said she could not find the updated language in the publicly available Albany County zoning resolution and asked for improved notice and guidance.

The commission did not set a deadline for follow-up. Residents who raised the issue asked that the county consider a lower‑cost verification path for small or previously surveyed properties, and asked that the county clarify whether repeat surveys would be required for each subsequent minor improvement.