Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners deny Mitchell variance after staff says approval would be special privilege
Summary
Albany County commissioners denied a requested variance (VAR‑01‑25) to allow subdivision below the Ranch‑A density standard. Staff concluded granting the variance would create a special privilege inconsistent with the zoning district.
The Albany County Board of County Commissioners voted to deny an application by property owner Jason Mitchell for a variance (VAR‑01‑25) that would allow subdivision at a density below the Ranchette (Ranchette) zoning district standard.
Staff summary: Planning staff told the board the parcel measures roughly 9.16 acres and that the applicant sought a variance from the county zoning resolution to subdivide smaller than the required five‑acre density in the Ranchette district. The staff report concluded the applicant did not meet the legal standards for a variance and that approval would amount to a special privilege not afforded to other property owners in the district.
Why it matters: The staff report cited Albany County Zoning Resolution, chapter 5 section 14, which sets standards for granting variances. The staff analysis said the applicant failed to demonstrate the specific, extraordinary circumstances required under the code and that similar lots in the Aliquot Subdivision would not be eligible for the same relief.
Public and commission discussion: Commissioners and staff discussed the lot's history, assessor changes and the county's decision to stop taxing road area that had historically been assessed as part of lots. County Assessor Chelsea explained that older plats dedicated roads for public use and her office has begun removing road area from assessments; she said the Mitchell parcel's assessed size changed after survey work and assessor review.
Several commissioners expressed sympathy for the applicant's position that earlier staff had told him the lot met acreage requirements before a survey, but ultimately said buyer responsibility and plat disclaimers are relevant. One commissioner argued the department should require surveys earlier in subdivision processes going forward.
Vote: A motion to deny the Mitchell variance (VAR‑01‑25) following the staff recommendation was moved and seconded; the motion carried by majority vote with commissioners adopting the staff findings and conclusions of law as the record.
Ending: Commissioners directed that the record include staff findings; commissioners and staff also discussed steps to require surveys earlier in future subdivision reviews to avoid similar issues.
