Mat-Su Platting Board approves Tiniki Cove subdivision with drainage variance

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Platting Board approved the Tiniki Cove subdivision Thursday, allowing a developer to defer regrading, soils work, and any required drainage report until before final plat recordation rather than completing that work upfront. The five-lot, 10.44-acre parcel near Big Lake received approval after the board recessed to call the borough attorney over drainage liability questions raised during deliberations.

The board granted a variance from usable-area requirements under Borough Code 43.20.281, allowing the developer to regrade after platting approval rather than before. Planning staff Julie Matthew explained the shift: "it used to be that it was common practice for regrading to be a condition of approval because that is a large investiture of money prior to getting board approval for a project. Recently, our legal department had come back and said the way code is specifically written, we weren't actually able to make it a condition." She called the variance "really just a workaround to get it back to where we can do it as a condition of approval again."

Matthew noted that the developer must still provide an updated soils report and complete regrading within the scope of borough permitting and drainage review. A drainage report stamped by a registered engineer would be required if grading disturbs more than 10,000 square feet, a threshold the developer's representative, Dana of Lavender Survey, indicated would almost certainly be met on every lot. The representative also told the board that tree clearing had begun on the property but that no dirt moving had started, as the developer was waiting for preliminary plat approval before beginning that work.

Two public comments were received after the staff report was written, one with no objections and one with concerns regarding drainage, and both were included in the board's handout packet. A neighboring property owner's written concern about drainage changes prompted board members to question what protections exist if regrading causes downstream flooding. The board chair noted that prior Big Lake developments had resulted in flooding of neighboring properties and roads, with the borough bearing responsibility for resolution.

Borough Attorney Nick Sparopoulos, called in during the recess, cited Title 965 statutory immunity and discretionary function immunity as the borough's legal position against such claims. He also noted that a landowner has the right to regrade property without coming to the borough at all, meaning denial of the variance would not necessarily prevent regrading from occurring. A board member echoed that point, noting that the board routinely approves preliminary plats with drainage plans and relies on engineer certifications, and that the variance did not change that calculus.