Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Variance Setbacks topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County staff backs setback variance for Gudgel lot in Medrona Point

San Juan County Hearing Examiner · April 22, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

San Juan County contract planner recommended approval of a variance to reduce front and rear setbacks for a small Medrona Point lot so the Gudgels can establish a buildable envelope; the applicants accepted the staff analysis and clarified the request applies only to the northerly parcel (ending in '31'). No public comments were received.

SAN JUAN COUNTY — County staff recommended approval April 22 of a dimensional variance for a Medrona Point lot that would reduce a 40‑foot front setback to 19.5 feet and a 20‑foot rear setback to 5 feet so an applicant can create a viable building envelope on a historic small plat.

For the record, contract planner Colin Cooper said the January 2026 amended application seeks relief from the village residential dimensional standards after a prior application in 2024 examined roadway standards. "We have recommended approval," Cooper said, noting staff evaluated critical‑area overlays, airport overlay concerns, and neighborhood context before reaching that recommendation.

Applicant representative Lee McHenry and applicant Wally Gudgel took the oath and told the examiner they had reviewed the staff report and conditions and had no substantive objection. McHenry clarified the request applies only to the northerly small parcel (Lot 31, parcel number ending in '31') rather than to the adjacent southerly lot. "I reviewed it and looked at the conditions, and I didn't see anything out of the ordinary there," McHenry said.

No members of the public appeared in the room or online to comment. Cooper and the applicant clarified exhibit numbering and the amended application (Exhibit 7). The hearing examiner closed public comment for the item and recorded the parties' clarifications; no final administrative decision was made at the hearing.