Planning commission recommends denial of Ehrenholtz variance for Sherman Hills subdivision

The Albany County Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 12 voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny a variance request from owners Treba and John Ehrenholtz that would allow subdividing ~73 acres in the Casper Aquifer Protection Overlay into a 12-lot development.

Staff presentation to the commission said the application failed to meet the variance standards in the Albany County Zoning Resolution, Chapter 5, section 14 — notably the requirements that a variance not grant a special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the district and that extraordinary circumstances justify relief. The commission’s motion to recommend denial carried after public testimony and a roll-call vote.

The applicant argued the parcel could safely support septic systems and wells and that site plans respect setback rules. "We are seeking a 12 lot subdivision on the 73 acres," applicant Treba Ehrenholtz told the commission, adding the proposed lots would range from about 4½ to 9 acres and that geologic work supported locating septic and building sites away from vulnerable features.

A geologist retained by the applicants, Ben Jordan of Forester and Associates, summarized groundwater and well-test data, reporting a sample total dissolved solids value around 233 mg/L and nitrate readings in tested wells near 1.27 mg/L. Jordan said he ran the state DEQ nitrate model using conservative inputs and an assumed untreated-wastewater nitrate concentration of 40 mg/L; that model produced a projected nitrate concentration of about 3.38 mg/L at the lower end of the property if effluent were to reach the aquifer.

Neighbors and other public commenters urged denial. "I suggest that the Planning Commission not make a recommendation to the commissioners to approve this variance," said neighbor George Munson, citing fears the application represents a self-imposed hardship, would set a precedent that would erode the overlay zone, and would increase traffic and road wear on unpaved local roads. Other residents added concerns about wildfire evacuation (single ingress/egress), deed restrictions on lots in the neighborhood, and observed variability in local nitrate levels.

Commission discussion focused on the narrow legal threshold for a variance: whether the applicant established exceptional circumstances or hardships that do not generally apply to other properties in the APOZ. Several commissioners emphasized that the variance decision is an ad hoc remedy and not a substitute for a regulatory change or rezoning process.

A motion to recommend denial (VAR-02-25) was moved and seconded; the motion carried on roll-call vote. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, which will make the final decision.

What happens next: the Planning Commission record and recommendation go to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration at a future meeting.