Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alpine County planning commission reverts Mahali Lodge parcels to prior zoning
Summary
The commission unanimously approved staff’s recommendation to revert three Mahali Lodge parcels that never developed back to their prior zoning — converting a 0.33-acre frontage parcel to commercial and returning larger parcels (8.8 and 35.83 acres) to residential neighborhood — and adopted a CEQA "common sense" exemption for the action.
The Alpine County Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a staff-recommended zoning amendment for three parcels associated with the undeveloped Mahali Lodge project, reverting planned-development designations to their prior zoning.
Sarah Treiman, the county planner, told commissioners the Mahali Lodge subdivision never completed a final map or substantial development, and staff concluded the county code requires reversion when no development proceeds within 24 months. "Our recommendation is to approve a zoning amendment application for the 3 parcels to change zoning from planned development to commercial... and from planned development to residential neighborhood," Treiman said, describing the requested changes for a 0.33-acre parcel, an 8.8-acre parcel and a 35.83-acre parcel.
Applicant representative Ryan McLaughlin, who said he is "Kevin’s son" and represents the small frontage parcel, confirmed the request: "We are... applying to get back to commercial," and said he would consult the assessor about tax implications. Commissioners asked whether the rezoning would change tax assessments; staff said the assessment could vary but that no county assessor determination had been made.
Community Development Director Sam Booth explained staff’s process: the county mailed notice to owners and staff is initiating the code-driven reversion for parcels with no recent development. "What we did with the application... is just simply to revert the zoning to the zoning that was in place prior to the plan development proposal," Booth said, noting that prior approvals set environmental findings and density limits. Staff pointed out the prior residential-neighborhood designation carries an expected density of about 2.5 units per acre, roughly consistent with earlier approvals for the project.
A commissioner asked whether all owners had been reached; staff said notices were sent and that Markley Village (referred to in the record as the original developer, "Markleyville USA") had not responded but had been notified. Staff also recommended adopting a CEQA exemption under the county’s "common sense" rule for this procedural reversion.
Commissioner (motion) moved to adopt the staff recommendation; a second followed. The commission voted unanimously to approve the zoning amendment and the recommended CEQA finding. No formal conditions beyond staff’s recommended language were recorded in the hearing.
The commission’s action implements the code process described in staff materials; any changes to tax assessment, development proposals or additional entitlements would be handled through separate, subsequent processes with the county assessor and permitting staff.
