Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Access Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies access variance for Shalom Acres, then agrees to continuance for revised plat
Summary
Commission denied a petitioner’s variance request for legal and physical access to create two lots at Shalom Acres, citing staff objections and revocability of a private easement; petitioners later agreed to continue the preliminary plat to Sept. 18 to submit a revised design.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission on Aug. 21 declined a variance request that would have allowed the Shalom Acres preliminary plat to rely on a private driveway easement for legal and physical access to one of two proposed lots. After the variance failed, the petitioner and staff agreed to a continuance so the applicant can submit a revised plat for the Sept. 18 meeting.
Matthew Goddard, planning technician, told the board that planning staff and the borough Department of Public Works predesign and engineering (PD&E) objected to the variance. Staff concluded the private driveway easement could be revoked in the future and would leave a lot landlocked; staff said the parcel is not atypical and options exist to subdivide consistent with code, although those options may require road construction.
The variance cited borough code sections (MSB 43.21.00 series and MSB 43.15.075) governing legal and physical access and variance standards. Planning staff said the petitioner’s proposal did not meet the three variance criteria in MSB 43.15.075.
Petitioner representatives, including Dana Rumpelt of Lavender Survey, said the driveway easement “goes with the land” and that revocation would be difficult because it would require agreement by both parties. Petitioner Joshua Matthews said building a road to provide the conventional frontage or to construct a flagpole access from the south would cost more than $100,000, and he provided an approximate cost breakdown to the board.
During the variance vote, Planning Commission members Amanda Salmon and [Planning member] Gilson voted in favor of granting the variance; the motion failed. The transcript records Salmon and Gilson as voting yes; other members were recorded on the board’s roll as declining the variance and the motion failed.
After the variance failed, the petitioner asked to continue the case to present a revised preliminary plat. The petitioner and staff discussed drafting a 40‑foot flagpole portion option and removing conditions that prescribed a specific southern boundary alignment; the board agreed to continue the preliminary plat to Sept. 18 so the petitioner can submit an updated drawing for staff review and for public hearing.
The board’s denial of the variance means any future approval will need either a different access configuration that meets the borough’s legal and physical access standards or construction of a public or dedicated right‑of‑way that complies with the subdivision construction manual.
