Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variance to split 38‑acre Dawson County parcel into five lots
Summary
The Dawson County Planning Commission denied a variance request to create five lots from a 38‑acre parcel, citing neighbor concerns about a narrow private drive and the need for road improvements; the denial was unanimous and can be appealed to the county commissioners.
The Dawson County Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny variance VA‑20‑36, which would have allowed the creation of five lots from a 38‑acre property served by a private drive.
Neighbors said the existing private drive — described during testimony as as narrow as 8–10 feet in places and surfaced with gravel — cannot safely handle the additional traffic that would come with five more lots. "I can't handle that kind of traffic," said Jake Reichel, a resident who lives at the end of the drive, citing emergency‑access and maintenance concerns.
Applicant Jeff Runner told the commission he wants to split the tract into five parcels to make the land easier to market; he said the parcels would remain subject to a private‑drive maintenance agreement and that he prefers not to upgrade the road beyond the current arrangement. Commissioners and staff noted that increasing the number of lots can trigger county road‑improvement requirements and that the existing road does not meet county standards.
Commissioner discussion focused on whether the proposed subdivision should require bringing the private drive up to county standards. A neighbor, James Collinson, told the commission he had reviewed county requirements and believed the road should be improved to a residential standard; he also said the road department had recommended against approving the request.
After discussion, a motion to deny the variance carried by a 3‑0 hand vote. The chair told the applicant he may appeal the commission's decision to the Board of County Commissioners at the next month's meeting.
The denial leaves the property's future unchanged unless the applicant pursues an appeal or submits a revised plan that addresses road‑improvement and subdivision standards.
