Albany County panel recommends denial of variance for 12‑lot subdivision in Casper Aquifer overlay

The Albany County Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 12 recommended denying a variance request from Treba and John Ehrenholtz that would have allowed a 12‑lot subdivision on roughly 73 acres within the Casper Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone (APOZ).

Staff told the commission the application, filed as VAR‑02‑25, asked relief from the APOZ 35‑acre minimum lot size. Staff recommended denial, saying the applicants had not shown the “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances” the Albany County Zoning Resolution, chapter 5 §14, requires and that granting relief would amount to a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the overlay.

“Staff believes that granting the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties,” staff said during the presentation.

Applicant Treba Ehrenholtz described plans for 12 lots ranging from about 4½ to 9 acres near Berner Mill/Burnham Bell Road and said consultants had verified suitable locations for septic systems and wells. “This is where we drink our own water. We don’t want to poison our own well in any way,” she said, and introduced geologist Ben Jordan to describe a site investigation and water‑quality testing.

Jordan said on‑site wells showed total dissolved solids and nitrate concentrations typical for the Casper Formation, and that a conservative DEQ nitrate‑model run assuming five‑bedroom homes on all 12 lots produced an estimated nitrate concentration of about 3.38 mg/L at the lower end of the property. He also flagged a mapped small fault near the subdivision and described setbacks and locations intended to keep wastewater systems away from vulnerable features.

Multiple neighbors and residents urged denial during a public hearing, citing traffic and safety concerns on narrow unpaved roads, limited egress in wildfire scenarios, potential impacts to the Casper Aquifer, and deed or easement language they said restrict subdivision. George Munson, who lives about 150 yards from the proposed site, told commissioners the request “does not meet the criteria for a variance” and warned of precedent that could undermine the overlay’s protections.

Commissioners debated whether the variance review must focus narrowly on the legal variance standards and whether the geologic materials were relevant to that legal threshold. After discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend denial under chapter 5 §14 (f)(1),(2) and (4). The motion passed by roll call; the commission will forward that recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

What happens next: The commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners, which will consider whether to grant or deny the variance. If denied at the board level the applicants may pursue other options such as a petition to amend regulations or a separate rezoning process, as staff and public speakers noted during the meeting.