Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies Shalom Acres variance for private easement access; preliminary plat discussion continued to Sept. 18
Summary
The planning board declined a variance request that would have allowed a new lot in the Shalom Acres subdivision to rely on a private driveway easement for legal and physical access. Staff opposed the variance; the petitioners said building a compliant road would cost roughly $108,000. The board later accepted a petition to continue and asked the p
The Matanuska‑Susitna Borough Planning Board on Aug. 21 voted against a petitioned variance for Shalom Acres that would have allowed one lot to rely on a private driveway easement instead of dedicated legal right‑of‑way access. After discussion, the board and petitioner agreed to continue the plat to Sept. 18 so the petitioner can submit a revised preliminary plat.
Planning technician Matthew Goddard presented staff findings and explained that the proposed Shalom Acres subdivision would create two lots on a roughly 4‑acre parent parcel. The petitioner sought a variance to allow the eastern parcel to use a private driveway easement along the southern boundary of an adjacent parcel for access rather than extending a public right‑of‑way.
Staff said the borough Department of Public Works predesign and engineering (PD&E) objected to granting the variance because a private driveway easement could be revoked, leaving the proposed lot landlocked. Planning staff also said the variance failed to meet the variance standards in MSB code because alternatives exist (for example, constructing a road or redesigning lots to provide frontage and physical access) and because the parcel is not atypical in a way that warrants a variance.
“PD and E objects to the variance to legal and physical access,” Matthew Goddard told the board, and staff provided findings for both approval and denial to inform the board’s decision.
Petitioners and their representatives said the practical cost of constructing a compliant road out of swampy ground would be high. Joshua Matthews, who identified himself as one of the property owners, said the cost to build a road and address related work would be roughly $108,000, breaking that estimate down in testimony: about $23,000 for utility relocation, roughly $10,000 for culverts, $15,000 for clearing and about $60,000 to backfill and raise ground where the property is swampy.
Dana Rumpelt of Lavender Survey, the petitioner’s representative, said a private driveway easement already exists, “it’s been built,” and that revocation would be difficult because both landowners would have to agree. The petitioner argued that constructing a new public road just to create a turnaround would be disproportionate to the project.
Board members discussed legal access requirements, the risk a private easement could be revoked, and the possibility of redesigning the lots or dedicating a flagpole portion to meet frontage and access requirements. One member noted the wording of the existing easement leaves open the possibility it could be revoked and that the borough’s preference is typically to have access within a dedicated public right‑of‑way or a recorded common access easement that is less easily revoked.
When the board voted on the variance, the motion to grant the variance failed. The transcript records two members—Planning member Amanda Salmon and Planning member Gilson—voting in favor of the variance; the motion failed with the majority opposing.
After the variance vote, the board and petitioner discussed approval without the variance. The petitioner asked for flexibility on the required flagpole alignment and for additional time to provide an updated plat. The petitioner agreed to submit a revised drawing showing a proposed 40‑foot flagpole portion along the western boundary and to provide updated materials in time for the board’s Sept. 18 meeting. The board voted to continue the item and the petitioner confirmed it would submit the revised plan.
Actions: The board denied the requested variance for legal and physical access for Shalom Acres (motion to grant the variance failed). The board then moved to continue consideration of the preliminary plat and to allow the petitioner to submit a revised plat and supporting documents for the Sept. 18 meeting.
Why it matters: The decision underscores the borough’s policy preference that lots have legal and physical access via dedicated rights‑of‑way or robust access arrangements rather than rely on private easements that can be revoked. For small‑scale developers, costs to construct road infrastructure in constrained or swampy terrain can be a material barrier to meeting those requirements.
Next steps: The petitioner will submit a revised preliminary plat and supporting materials ahead of the Sept. 18 meeting. Staff will review the revised submittal and provide updated recommendations. If the petitioners later demonstrate no practical means exists to provide public access within code standards, the board may revisit variance options with new evidence.
