Mat-Su Borough Platting board meeting- October 2, 2025

Good afternoon everyone. I'm opening this meeting of the Planning Board at 1 PM.

Madam Secretary, the roll please.

Present.

Present.

Present.

Present.

Anything, anything. Should I start over? No, um, board member Salmon let me know she would not be able to make it, and board member Craiger let us know she would not be able to make it. Board member Burtz? Present.

And we have a quorum. Thank you very much. Can we stand for the pledge, please?

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

To the board, are there any changes or objections to today's agenda?

Seeing none, can I get a motion to approve today's agenda? Madam Chair, I approve. I move we approve today's agenda as written. Thank you very much. Can I get a second?

Second. Thank you very much. Are there any changes or objections to, um, September 18th's minutes— meetings minutes?

Can I get a motion to accept the minutes? Madam Chair, I move we approve the minutes of the September 18th meeting. Thank you very much. Can I get a second? Second.

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to open public testimony for persons to be heard, present or online, for items not scheduled for public hearing. Is there anybody present that wants to speak about something that's not on the agenda?

Anybody online?

There's nobody online. Okay, I'm going to close public testimony.

Hey, we have no unfinished business, no reconsideration or appeals.

So our first hearing is York— Yorkshire Estates. The request is to create 17 lots from tax parcel C6, to be known as Yorkshire Estates, containing 20 acres plus or minus. The property is located directly west of East Yorkshire Road, directly east of North Covington Street. Within the Southwest Quarter Section 10, Township 18 North, Range 01 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, in the Fishhook Community Council and Assembly District Number 1.

To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Seeing none, have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision outside of the public process provided by the borough?

Seeing none. Are you able to be impartial in this decision? Seeing an affirmative. And we can't do the mailings right now because she's not here.

One moment.

Can I do the staff report and come back to the mailings?

I think she's grabbing her— I believe she's grabbing the list. We heard you running down the hall. Madam Secretary, the mailings, please.

There were 131 public notices mailed on September 11th. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Chris Kurland, Planning Staff. The proposed Yorkshire Estates Master Plan is creating 17 lots ranging in size from 0.92 to 1.76 acres. Access for all lots will be from the proposed internal streets. Access for the subdivision will be from North Covington Street, a borough-owned road.

A geotechnical report was submitted by Bill Kleebesaddle, professional engineer, notes that the soils investigation consisted of 6 test holes dug to a depth of 12 feet. No groundwater was encountered in any of the test holes. Soil specifications for each test hole are noted in the soil inspection log sheets. Based on Title 43-2281 of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Code, all lots contain sufficient overall area, all lots have at least 10,000 square feet of usable building area, all lots have at least 10,000 square feet of contiguous usable septic area. MSB PD&E commented the ADT estimate should be updated to include Morning Light subdivision.

Please define the dashed lines. Lot 6 and 7, Block 2, please provide a site distance evaluation for access onto Covington Street. Ensure road profile and drainage are designed to provide positive drainage away from the road at low points in the ditch. This may entail moving the culvert and low-point stations. Staff notes: the dashed line will be identified on the platting— on the final plat.

A site distance evaluation will be in the handouts. Or discussed in the preconstruction meeting. A new ADT will be in the handouts. Road and profile and drainage concerns will be addressed in the preconstruction meeting. MSB Permit Center noted a driveway permit will be needed.

Utilities— Instar has no comments or recommendations. GCI has no comments or objections. MTA and MEA did not respond. At the time this report was written, there were 2 public comments received. Chris and Rita Quayle have no objection and some questions.

Natalie and Quinn Owens are overwhelmingly opposed. Other comments received, if any, will be in the handouts. Conclusion: the preliminary master plan of Yorkshire Estates Master Plan is consistent with state statute and borough code. There were no objections from any federal or state agencies, borough departments, or utilities. Legal and physical access exists to the proposed lots, and a geotechnical report was submitted pursuant to MSB 432281.

Staff recommends approval with these 5 findings of fact and 8 conditions of approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Curling. Are there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, would the petitioner's representative like to speak? Nope. All right, I'm going to open this case for a public hearing for anybody that would like to speak. You have 3 minutes.

Anybody online?

There's nobody online. I see nobody online. I'm closing public hearing.

Petitioner's representative. Good afternoon, Craig Hanson, Lance Revere, representing the petitioner. Um, nothing to say about this. I guess we accept the conditions of approval, and I'd be glad to answer any questions.

Any questions?

Nope. Thank you.

Can I get a motion from the board or—.

Madam Chair, I move that we approve the preliminary master plan of Yorkshire Estates MSP Section 10, Township 18 North, Range 01 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 8. Thank you. Can I get a second? I'll second. Thank you very much.

Discussion from the board?

No discussion. Are there any objections for approval?

Seeing no objection, the motion passes.

Okay, next we have Centennial Shores. The request is to vacate the 33-foot wide section line easement on the northern boundary of Block 2, Lot 1 and Block 1, Lot 8, Centennial Shores, plat number 89-22. The 33-foot wide easement was dedicated as a part of the Centennial Shores subdivision. The installation of a dock at the canoe portage between Finger and Cottonwood Lakes has been proposed in place of providing alternate access. The property is located west of North Driftwood Circle, south and east of Finger Lake, and north of East Palmer-Wassilla Highway within the northwest quarter section 04, Township 17 North, Range 01 East, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in the South Lakes Community Council and in Assembly District Number 4.

To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Seeing none. Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision outside of the public process provided by the borough?

Seeing none. Are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative. Madam Secretary, the mailings, please. There were 84 public notices mailed on September 11th, 2025. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matthew Goddard, Planning Technician. The proposed action would vacate a 33-foot-wide section line easement in the Centennial Shores subdivision. This easement runs the length of the northern property boundaries of both lots involved. The section line easement did not exist prior to the recordation of Centennial Shores subdivision, but as Centennial Shores had the appropriate verbiage for dedication, whether the easement was shown intentionally or not, it was created by the recordation of this plat.

The petitioner has coordinated with the Borough Department of Land Management and is proposing improvements to the canoe portage between Finger Lake and Cottonwood Woodlake in lieu of providing alternate or better access to the easement being vacated. Legal and physical access to the proposed lots will not be impacted by this vacation, and as-built was supplied pursuant to code. If approved, no setback violations will exist. This is at Exhibit Page 6. A petition for the vacation of the right-of-way was submitted pursuant to code and is at Exhibit Pages 15 through 24.

A posting affidavit certifying that the proposed vacation was noticed at the site of the vacation was submitted. This is in your handout packet at handout number 5. The U.S. Corps of Engineers notes that should any work take place in waters of the U.S. to include wetlands, fill permit would be required. That's not anticipated for what's being done here.

The Borough Department of Public Works Pre-Design and Engineering Division notes that the petitioner should continue working with the Borough Development, uh, Community Development for the improvements to be constructed in exchange for this vacation. This is at recommendation number 5.

Uh, sorry, number 4. PD&E further requests clarification on the right-of-way to be vacated to ensure that the right-of-way of Legacy Lane is not being affected. This is the recommendation at number 5. MSB Development Services has no objections to the proposed vacation and notes that if approved, this would rectify setback issues for 2 structures that are currently in violation of setback requirements on the property.

At the time the staff report was written, there were no comments received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing. After the report was written, there have been 4 comments received. 3 Of these comments were non-objection letters. One was received with concerns about the upgrades being proposed to the canoe portage. This comment was written by the property owner that the portage easement currently crosses.

The comment was passed to our land management department, who informed me they were attempting to reach out to the petitioner to to answer their questions and alleviate the concerns. This was due to previous improvements that had been done on that easement. These comments are all in your handouts. In conclusion, the proposed vacation of the 33-foot-wide section line easement located on Block 2, Lot 1 and Block 1, Lot 8, Centennial Shores subdivision is consistent with state statutes and borough code. There were no objections received from any federal or state agency, borough department, or utilities.

There were no objections, one concern, and three non-objections received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing. They were all received after the staff report was written and are located in the handout packet. Legal and physical access requirements will not be impacted by the proposed vacation, and all lots will still meet the required access requirements of code. Upgrade to the canoe portage between Finger Lake and Cottonwood Lake is being proposed in lieu of an alternate dedication being provided. Approval from the assembly will be required for the vacation within approx.

30 Days of the board's decision, and staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation with 6 findings of fact and 8 recommendations for conditions of approval. Thank you, Mr. Gunnard. Any questions for staff? I just, I just had one quick question on the proposed dock improvements. Were they putting a dock on both ends or just the Finger Lake end, or, or I wasn't clear exactly what they were doing there.

I do not know what the end plans are yet. They were still conversing with land management for the end improvements.

Any other questions? Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm confused. Uh, this vacation here is basically making it so this peninsula is no longer accessible, or is there going to be alternate accessibility? A little bit confused where the, where the vacation is at the entire line, or just the 2 side corners. It is for the portion that are on Lot 8 and Lot 1.

The road itself will not be impacted. Access to the lot to the north would not be removed. This is just removing the portion of the easement that connects Finger Lake to Finger Lake, but there is still easement just north of this, a 50-foot wide section line on the northern boundary. So, so people will still have access to this peninsula going north through that little gravel road? Yes, sir.

Okay, perfect. Um, yeah, it— in, in a follow-up to Chris's, it's a little confusing because the way this particular plat is shown, there's hash marks across the road as well. I think that may need to be clarified in the drawing, is that that access is not being removed from the portion of the road so that you can access the, the peninsula, if you will. Uh, condition of approval number 5 references the correction of that.

Any other questions?

Nope.

Petition, thank you.

Gary LaRusso representing the petitioners who— the Dieffenbauers are here today, and Russell Joyce is with me for Mr. Marletto, who is not here. I don't see him. Okay, anyways, we are, um As it states, uh, vacating an easement that should have never been there to begin with. It was a mistake. It was pretty common in the older plats that these kind of mistakes were made.

There wasn't any case law really back then. They had nothing to go by to determine if there was an easement there or not. Since then, there's been case law and we, we mostly know what to do. Mr. Chief, yeah, we're just vacating the section line easement, so it's clear that's what we're doing. But we'll, we'll do something to make sure we're not vacating the fee dedication.

That would have been a different application too, or it would have been included with this one. Um, Mr. Joyce has had quite a few discussions with land management and They all thought it was a great idea to do public improvements to that. There's a dock— there was a question on the dock. There's already a dock on the east side of that portage, so this would go on the west side. Yeah, instead of people trampling up and down the bank and making a mess and muddying up the water, this would kind of clean it up.

So Um, that's the overview, and I guess we'll wait a minute or two and then I'll come back up for questions. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. LaRusso.

No questions for him? Okay, so I'm going to open public hearing. Is there anybody present that would like to speak?

Come forward.

Gary Larisso back again for questions, if any.

I do. I'm just kind of curious about the legitimacy of the easements. You— so I read your research on this, and it seems like a previous property owner at some point in time, I don't recall seeing a date, they signed paperwork over to the borough regarding the easement? Uh, no. Um, in order to be a section line easement, there has to be a section line to attach it to.

Because the property was patented and entered prior to section line easement law, there was no— um, it can't apply because there predates the creation of the actual section of land. So you can't take away someone's rights, and there were no rights there to begin with because there was no law creating section lines until 1923. So anything prior to that date, and when the Section Line Easement Law came into effect, it can't apply. You can't go back and, oh, we're By the way, you bought this property, but we're gonna throw this easement on it. You can't do that.

It's against the Constitution, actually, both state and federal. So that's why that's a mistake. So the reason it became a pseudo-section line easement, 'cause it's not really a federal section line easement, is because the plat itself of Centennial Shores has a dedication certificate on it that says basically, "We hereby dedicate and grant all, all everything we're dedicating to the use shown." And you'll see it if you can— I don't know if you can zoom in on that note or not. It might have been— I think I might have blew it up. It might be in the packet.

Basically what that does is say, "Okay, here you go. We're giving this to you." because they thought it was there because the surveyors put it on there, because there wasn't any case law or not very much. And I remember that time, because I'm that old, that there was a lot of confusion. What do we do? And you'll see people have put, sometimes it's a mistake on the width.

Sometimes a mistake on one side or the other. Anyways, it was never— it should have never been there. It got created by the plat. It wasn't created by any federal law, and, and it's a mistake. And it's— this isn't the first time.

It's as many, actually. Interesting. Yeah. Okay, so I was doing public hearing and the gentleman behind you was going to speak, and then you came up and I didn't close public hearing. Do you want on that?

I'm okay with him coming back. You messed me up a little bit here.

So, all right, so you're done with saying everything you could possibly say? Unless there's a question or I need to respond to a question from whoever wants to speak. Does anybody have a question? Yeah. Are you sure?

And I— Yeah, I just want to just maintain my ability to come back up after if I need to respond to anything. Okay, beautiful. I'm sorry, I was waiting for you to— yeah, thanks. Okay, maybe I'll be back, maybe I won't. Okay, maybe.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Steve Novakovich. I am the property owner at 5972 East Westview Circle, which encompasses the 33-foot easement between Finger Lake and Cottonwood Lake, and I am the one that sent in, uh, the concern about, uh, the work that's proposed going forth there, only because I've been very concerned about what's happened there the last few years. We purchased the property in 2022, and, um, the next summer I noticed that the existing dock on Cottonwood Lake was not within the 33-foot public easement. So I made a few calls. I lost my, my paperwork, so I can't tell you who I talked to at the borough, but I, I did reach out and somebody came out and looked at it quickly and recognized that that was the fact.

And they came out the very next day and they ripped out the dock. Now the dock was in poor condition, and that was one of my concerns because it was in such poor condition and it wasn't within the easement, that I had liability because that dock was on my property. They ripped it out, and then with the equipment they had, they couldn't make it back up the hill on the easement. I gave them permission to use my trail, which is a switchback up, because it's pretty steep, and they kind of thrashed it. They caused some damage.

They promised to be back the next summer to make repairs to it, which they never did. And they also said to be back the next summer to put a new dock in, which they never did. So for the people that use that portage, it is a horrible mess on the Cottonwood Lakeside. It's organic, it's mucky, it's horrible. And users on their own have put in a temporary planking system to try and stay out of the mud.

So when I got this notice, I thought, this is a great opportunity for me to come and talk to you about what's going to happen there. I'd like to have some input when the new dock goes in on its placement within the 33-foot easement. And this is why. When, when that portage is normally used in the summer, when there's not construction at Seward Meridian Highway for a couple of summers, there's probably over 1,000 people in a summer that use that portage. It really, really surprised us how much use there is there.

There's as much or more use in the winter with people going, traversing that easement from lake to lake with snowmobiles and four-wheelers. And so if the, if the new dock were to be placed where the de facto dock is now, it would be right along the snowmobile trail and could cause harm to the dock, could cause harm to somebody that's operating a snowmobile or a four-wheeler if there's a piling or something they could hit. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. Also, at the same time, there is a, a very nice sign that has a map of the canoe trail system with a little rack below it where people can hang life jackets for kids that is not within the 33-foot public easement area as well. So that needs to be relocated.

So I wanted to bring that to your attention because I'm concerned about it. We like being friendly neighbors. We like saying hi to the people that come through. The vast majority of people that do are very nice and very conscientious. But because that dock has been ripped out on the Cottonwood Lakeside, there are those that assume that my dock is their dock to use.

And that has caused some problems at times where people tell me not to park my boat on the borough dock. So, you know, I'd like to see a nice new dock put in there. I will tell you, the dock on the Finger Lakes side, I feel, is also in poor condition. When the borough looked at it in 2023, they thought it was okay, but I think someone should take a look at that because there is liability on the borough's part if somebody is harmed while using that dock. That's what I'd like to stay—.

Say with you today. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. You're welcome.

Anybody else?

Anybody online?

There's nobody online. Okay, I am closing public testimony. Mr. LaRusso.

I, I also heard that, um, the gentleman's a very nice landowner. From other people, but— oh yeah, I have actually heard that. But anyways, um, the damage that was done by the borough when they did that is really— has nothing to do with this case. But, uh, maybe we could do something like, um, include the landowner in discussions with land management and what's going to be built so that you're involved with what they're doing there. Yeah, so, yeah, okay.

I have spoken with, uh, someone from the borough was very responsive and reached out to me. Joe Mansker did reach out to me last week and we had pretty much the same discussion, and he promised that he would get in use with the— in touch with the land management people and that I could hear from them. But since this hearing was scheduled, I thought It would probably be useful to be here today and express my concerns as well. Yeah, yeah, you should say hi to Russell because, okay, he's the one working with land management. Great.

Anyways, sounds like a pretty good solution. So I guess you could craft maybe a condition of approval. I don't know how you would do that. Maybe Fred's thought of something.

Petitioner to work with landowner and land management.

As far as moving, moving the sign that the borough put in the wrong place, that's kind of— the borough needs to take care of that, right? And, and I've already, um, in my discussions with Mr. Joyce, um, you know, I've already told him, I said, we can't just go put a dock anywhere out there. We have to know where that section line easement is. So we're going to be surveying out there to mark it so that everyone stays in the right place. But I'm not sure how to— I mean, maybe because it's on public testimony that they're going to— I can't think of a way to craft a condition of approval for that.

So the condition of approval would basically include, um, his involvement? Yes, his involvement. Um, is it necessary to actually put in a condition of approval? Is it public hearing? That dialogue to happen?

Maybe a finding.

Uh, through the chair, Fred Wagner, Planning Officer. Um, when we look at condition of approval number 4 I wonder if maybe adding a finding about the public testimony as to the location of the dock might help, um, when, when FORR is enforced, what we're actually looking at doing. Because I don't know if actually making it a condition of approval is correct, right? But if it's made a finding, then it can be used as the basis for that condition of approval. And when we, um, we might also add to that obtain approval from land management resources or provide planning staff with approval from land management.

I actually have crafted that already. Okay.

When I first walked, when I first walked in the room today, I said, you know, there should be one more condition of approval. And so I would suggest maybe a number 9.

To be something like receive land— is it land management or is it called community development? Whatever it is, uh, receive land management concurrence on proposed dock improvements. Um, I personally had a little concern about not having a condition in there about that because it doesn't say anything and there's no settlement on exactly what they're going to do. And because they don't spend the time or monies to staff time to decide what's going to be built until they get the approval here. Yeah, you might also include in that that all public or borough signage fall within the easement or be corrected to do so because it sounds like it's on—.

Yeah, you'd be binding the borough to that though. And I don't know that the borough— the borough should just take care of its stuff. And I don't know if they repaired the damage they did to your property. They haven't. Yeah, okay.

Well, that's a whole nother issue outside of this case. And so I don't know what to do about what the borough has done to the gentleman's property, but—.

So we need to craft A finding of fact and conditional of approval, or just the conditional approval?

The additional conditional approval might be sufficient. I think it covers it. Yeah, I mean, as a member of the public myself, I had a little concern about no specificity aspect. I didn't get much sleep last night. Yeah, so just, just to make sure that land management signs off on it, it's basically what I wanted to see, right?

My only concern with that is, is somebody could stymie moving forward by just not doing anything. All right, and, and that, you know, usually these conditions of approval are all on a petitioner. If we're having an outside force, they basically get a stop. A veto authority. What's that?

Veto authority. Yeah, they get a veto by just not doing anything. I don't think land management's gonna, I mean, they could, but—. It's unlikely. It's really their decision anyways.

Right? That's my thought on it.

Maybe finding— I don't know, it's, it's really up to the board. I know we're discussing, and it's good because we all know what we're doing here. So a little different situation than normal.

I've done one of these before up on Beaver Lake. There was no way to do anything but do improvements, and it worked out really well. There's actually a little story there which I won't bore you with. It's a good story though. I won't bore you with it.

So as far as this goes, um, I mean, Land Management has to agree. That's kind of— they've already— I mean, isn't there a letter in there or something that says that they Thank the petitioners for proposing improvements. Give me a second here. Do you have any input on what they've talked about? What your discussions with— it's Russell.

Not really.

Yeah, okay.

Oh, exhibit page 7, is that what it is? Yeah, there's something in the file already that land management's on board. Yeah, I saw it. Yeah, can't find it right now, but I did see it. It's Exhibit 7, Matthew says.

That doesn't help me. I go by numbers on the Chromebook. Yeah, at any rate, uh, 58 on the PDF. Okay.

I mean, maybe I'm just reading the letter from Community Development and the way the sentence is worded. Further, the borough is in receipt of a proposal from current landowners listed above to install a dock at the canoe portage. So who's installing the dock? That petitioner. The petitioner is Okay, that doesn't make sense.

Who's the petitioner? Dieffendorfer and Marletto. He lives on Finger Lake. Oh, I know the dog's on Cottonwood Lake. Yeah, they're going to pay for it, basically what it is.

They're not going to— well, I don't know if Dieffendorfer is, but it's up to the chair. I'm happy with if you want to—. Yeah, it's fine.

Yeah, in a way it makes no sense. However, this— what we've asked to vacate shouldn't be there.

We would like to have it vacated, and we're willing to do something to compensate. And so that's where the idea of what could we do— can't do anything on this property because there's nothing, there's no access there. So it made sense for the end of the lake where the portages are, because in the summer we see the kayakers come by and they go up and over the lake. I don't see the Cottonwood Lakeside very often. I don't do the portage myself.

Not at 7D1, but the dock is in bad shape. It's there. So improving it makes sense to us. And for sure, we don't want to put the dock where it's not supposed to go or where the borough, you know, where we don't want it. We don't know.

That's where you came in. Someone's got to figure out where it goes. This gentleman has an idea where it should go. I don't care where it goes. We just want to go in the right place because we don't want to do it twice.

You want to do it, but we are willing to do that. I don't know about the type of doc that's been talked about too. Whatever, I don't care. I'm just trying to make something helpful that helps the public and compensates, um, because otherwise we're just asking for something and it makes more sense to ask for something. And I'm an old scout leader and I believe in public access, and I believe in trying to do something that makes sense.

So, but he's sort of right. It doesn't make any sense somebody would do this, but then again, why not? Why not help the community? So, thank you.

Yeah, and Russell Joyce here in, in, uh, representation for the other landowner, Mark Marletto, or Matt Marletto, and he had, um, kind of proposed something that I kind of took forward to land management and talked with staff about making that trade. If this easement, platted easement, was to go away, you know, and we couldn't provide better access, can we enhance a current access? And that was the discussion that took place, and it has been precedents, and I think Mr. LaRusso had just mentioned one up on Big Beaver Lake. There's another one on June Lake that the borough platting has approved, and that was vacating section line— not a plat easement, a section line— with providing a, um, bench and access onto June Lake. So it was up on the northern side off of Chirok.

So there's been precedent. So as far as how we can accommodate the landowner, I'm certainly glad he's here because when we talked to staff, Mr. Leslie had explained that that would be the best thing for everybody because of the conflicts that are currently there with people using that portage. And they've heard plenty of complaints. Complaints from people, from the landowner on occasion, probably previous owner prior to the gentleman who spoke about people not staying in the easement, using the current dock because the other one's so bad. So I think it's a win-win to put something in.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I know Matt will as well, that how to coordinate this with Not having something destroyed by snow machines and stuff in the winter is going to be there for somebody in the next summer. And I think the adjacent property owner is going to be the best help with that. So I think working together, it's totally doable.

Thank you. Any questions?

Nope.

I guess the question is finding or COA. Fred Wagner, Planning Officer. I don't know that we're not already covered by number 4. Okay. I think that that pretty much states, you know, coordinate with land resource management and make sure that it gets put where it needs to be put.

I think that that's generally what number 4 means when you read it. Jumping in, jumping in on number 4, the way it's worded doesn't really convey to me that the dock needs to be constructed for the approval, just that the promise of the construction is going to take place.

Unless I'm reading too much into it. So maybe part of the condition of approval should be the finalized dock is in place. It does say that, Mr. The very last part, petitioner to construct agreed-upon improvements. Agreed-upon improvements.

But when? Well, it's a condition of approval, so it has to happen before it's finalized because it's a condition. I'm just suggesting a little, maybe a little tightening of the wording there.

I've been dealing with a lot of lawyers lately.

Maybe add, let's see, petitioner to construct agreed-upon improvements prior to vacation or recording of vacation because they can't record. There you go. Yeah.

Okay. Can we add that? Oh. We should probably, uh, move on to have a motion on the table before we start talking about amendments to the condition.

All righty, any other questions for Mr. LaRusso? Thank you. Seeing none, can I close public hearing before— now I got lost on that because I got messed up. Okay, you did. Okay.

All righty, so can I get a motion from the board? I motion to change the wording in number 4. No, no, no, no, we got to— we got to do the, the main one first. I apologize.

Mr. Leving, uh, Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary Plata Centennial Shores Block 2, Lot 1, and Block 1, Lot 8, vacation, Section 04, Township 17 North, Range 01 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 8. Thank you, Mr. Leibing. Can I get a second?

Second. Thank you, Mr. Gilson. Okay, discussion.

Okay, now we, now we can work on the amendment. I apologize. I actually tried calling in sick today. I'm a little under the weather. You're good.

Madam Chair, a motion to amend number 4 to add additional wording to have the final platting take place once construction, or final platting recorded once construction is completed on said stock, portage.

How can we simplify that and add it in? I didn't get that all written down. I think that Matthew did, though. Did you?

I would just add—.

Was this adding to number 4? Was what your proposal was? Yes. Okay. Yeah, Mr.

Lewis, after petitioner to construct agreed-upon improvements prior to recordation of vacation.

Perfect, that's my motion. Beautiful. Second. Beautiful. Any objection to the amendment?

No objections. Okay, so the amendment passes.

Okay, and now back to the main motion. Um, any discussion, further discussion on the main motion? Is there any objection to the main motion?

No? No objection. Okay. Who seconded the amendment?

Thank you. Thank you. We didn't have that on our notes.

Okay, um, seeing no objection, the motion— main motion passes as well.

Okay, how do you pronounce this? Mccullough. Mccullough. Mccullough.

There was another word that was going to get me from the Klan. Mccullough. How do you pronounce that word? Yelgarb. At least that's how we're pronouncing it today.

Sounds good to me. Oh, Gary!

Either Gary—. Is Gary coming back? Gary Larusso!

Oh, we're like, he left his jacket.

Okay, so next we have McCullough Estates Phase 1 through 3. The request is to create 14 lots by 3-phase master plan from Tracts B and C, McCullough Estates, to be known as McCullough Estates Phase 1 through 3, containing 56 4.40 acres plus or minus. The property is located directly east of South Salmon Alley Street and directly north and south of East Yeldarb Avenue within the northwest quarter section 16, Township 24 North, Range 04 West, Seward Meridian, Seward Meridian, Alaska, and the Susitna Community Council and in Assembly District Number 7. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Seeing none. Have you received or otherwise engaged in an ex parte contact with the applicant? Other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time that the matter is submitted for decision outside of the public process provided by the borough?

Seeing none, are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailings, please. There were 28 public notices mailed on September 11th, 2025. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris Kerlin, Planning Staff. The proposed McCullough Estates Master Plan is creating 14 lots by a 3-phase master plan. Lot sizes will range from 1.96 to 5.27 acres. Access for all lots will be from South Salmon Alley Street and East Yeldarb Avenue.

A geotechnical report was submitted by Pierre Straeger, professional engineer. Notes: the soils investigation was performed May 30th, 2021. 10 Test pits were done— were dug with a Cat 120C excavator. Test pits were spread throughout the subject parcel and dug to a depth of 12 feet. All test pits, dry, no water nor impervious layers, were logged.

All test pits were observed and logged by Pierre Streicher, professional engineer. The results of the soil investigation show that the underlying soils are sufficient to construct on-site wastewater times and can support either a bed or trench system. Topography is such to allow 10,000 square foot of usable septic area for each of the proposed lots per MSB 4320-281. For comments, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a cursory review of publicly available information included the MATSU Wetlands Viewer indicates there are no wetlands or other waters proposed. Uh, hence no authorization from the Corps of Engineers would be needed.

Matsuburo Pre-Design and Engineering has no comments. MSB Permit Center provided general information. Utilities, NSTAR has no comments or recommendations. GCI has no comments or objections. MTA and MEA did not respond at the time of this Staff report write-up: there were no responses to the request for comments from Community Council Number 12, Susitna Road Service Area Number 29, Greater Talkeetna, MSB Community Development or Assessments, MEA, MTA, or the public.

The preliminary master plan of McCullough Estates MSP is consistent with state statutes and borough code. There were no objections from any federal or state agencies, borough departments, utilities, or the public. Legal and physical access exists to the proposed lots frontage where the subdivision exists, and a geotechnical report was submitted. Staff recommends approval with these 6 findings of fact and 6 conditions of approval. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Curling. Questions?

No questions for staff. Would the petitioner or petitioner's representative like to speak?

Nope. I'm going to open public hearing. Anybody present that would like to speak?

Nope. Anybody online?

There's nobody online. Closing public testimony. Is the petitioner or petitioner's representative present?

No, they are not. Wow.

Okay, um, can I get a motion from the board? Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary master plan of McCullough Estates. MSP Section 16, Township 24 North, Range 0 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 6. Thank you, Mr. Leibing. Gonna get a second?

Seconded. Thank you, Mr. Gilson. Discussion from the board?

No discussion. Is there any objections to passing this motion?

Any objections? No. Motion passes.

Um, Kelsey.

May I ask for a brief 5-minute rest, uh, break? Okay, 5-minute recess. Be back at 1:30 or 2 o'clock.

All right, we're back at 2 o'clock, back in business. We got Kimberly's Lakeside Estates. The request is to vacate the 50-foot public access easement located on the southwest boundary of Lot 2, Kimberly's Lakeside Estates, plat number 2002-38, eliminate the portion of the 20-foot telephone and electric easement currently bordering the public access easement and grant a new utility easement following the southwest boundary of the property. Both the 50-foot public access easement and the T&E easement were created by Kimberly's Lakeside Estates Plat number 2002-38. The property is located west of Florence Lake, northeast of Boot Lake, and directly east of North Crystal Lake Road within the northeast quarter section 23, Township 19 North, Range 05 West, Seward, Bruning, Alaska, in the Willow Community Council and in Assembly District number 7.

To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Seeing none. Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, other parties interested in the application, or members of the public Concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision outside of the public process provided by the borough?

Seeing none, are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailings please. There were 32 public notices mailed on September 11th, 2025. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Matthew Goddard, Planning Technician. The proposed planning action would vacate the 50-foot public use easement located on the southwest boundary of Lot 2 of Kimberly's Lakeside Estate and relocate the utility easement that currently follows the public use easement boundary to follow the boundary of the property. All lots fronting on the public use easement currently have equal or better access to a borough standard road. Letters of nonobjection for the modification of the utility easement were received from GCI, MEA, and MTA. NSTAR does not provide service in this area, and as such, a letter of nonobjection was not required from them for case submittal.

A right-of-way vacation posting affidavit was received certifying that the notice of vacation was posted and maintained at the site of the proposed vacation as required by code. This is in your handout packet as handout number 2. No concerns or objections were received from any federal agency, borough department, or public utility. 2 Comments were received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing. One was a non-objection, and one was a, uh, one was a comment with concerns.

The concerns were regarding potential impact to trail access alongside Crystal Lake Road. Staff notes that the vacation of this easement would not impact any existing trails. In your handout packet, you will find a revised list of recommendations for conditions of approval. This is to add the new condition number 2, obtain assembly approval of the vacation within 30 days of planning board approval. This was an oversight.

I left it off the original list. In conclusion, the proposed vacation and utility easement modification is consistent with state statutes and borough code. There were no objections received from any federal or state agencies, borough departments, or utilities. There was one non-objection and one concern received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing. Legal and physical access requirements will not be impacted for any lot fronting on the easement to be vacated, and staff recommends approval with 5 findings of fact and 7 recommendations for conditions of approval.

So, I have one question. So, what was the purpose of that easement in the first place? I'm looking at it right now, and it goes like halfway down Lot 2. What was it there for to begin with? I believe, and this is just going off of what I've dug into, that before Lot 6 to the south existed, it was, it was another access point for that.

But after that subdivision recorded, it was just a, well, superfluous easement. It was something that might have been useful at one time. An alternate development took place and it no longer was needed. Okay. Are there any other questions?

I just want to make sure I, I understand. So the, the telephone and electric easement that is currently routed around that 50-foot easement will just be now aligned with the current— with the extension of that? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Nope.

And the petitioner's And petition— nope. Okay, so I'm going to open for public hearing.

Anybody present that would like to speak to this case?

Anybody online?

There's nobody online. Okay, I'm closing public hearing. Petitioner or the petitioner's representative?

You gotta push the button. It's down the bottom. There you go. I'm Tricia Wyrick, and, um, yeah, I'm just seeking approval for this. I think it was an outdated easement, and we just want better use of our property.

Thank you.

Can I get a motion from the board?

Madam Chair, I move to approve the vacation of the 50-foot public access easement and modification of the 20-foot telephone and electric easement, Section 23, Township 19 North, Range 05 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon the staff recommendations 1 through 7 as amended our packet. Beautiful. Can I get a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Gilson.

Discussion from the board?

No discussion.

Are there any objections for approval?

Seeing no objections, the motion has been approved.

Alrighty, last we have Peaceful View Estates, MSP. Their request is to create 21 lots, parcels 1 and 4, Matsubara Waiver Number 82-46. Northwest P.W.M., recorded as 82-59-W, to be known as Peaceful View Estates, MSP, containing 25.58 acres plus or minus. The petitioner is proposing the dedication and construction of internal streets to provide access for the proposed lots. The property is located west of North Nichols Drive.

North and east of West Parks Highway and south of West King Arthur Drive within the southeast quarter section 27, Township 18 North, Range 03 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in the City of Houston and in Assembly District Number 7. To the board, do you or any member of your immediate family have a substantial financial interest in any property affected by this decision, or will you recognize a foreseeable profit as a result of this decision?

Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, other parties interested in the application, or members of the public concerning the application or issues presented in this application, either before the application or during any period of time the matter is submitted for decision outside of the public process provided by the borough?

Seeing none, are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailings please. There were 77 public notices mailed on September 11th, 2025. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Matthew Goddard, Planning Technician. The proposed Peaceful View Estates Master Plan is located within the City of Houston city limits. If approved, this request would create 21 lots by a 2-phase master plan. Access for all proposed lots is from the internal streets that are being proposed as a part of this master plan. Access for the proposed subdivision is from North Gallagher Circle, a City of Houston maintained road.

A geotechnical report was submitted pursuant to Borough Code 4320-281-Area. This is at exhibit pages 6 through 21. Paul Pinard, registered professional engineer, notes that 9 test holes were excavated on November 1st, 2025. No water nor impermeable soil strata was encountered in those test holes. Each lot being created does contain 10,000 square feet of contiguous usable septic area and an additional 10,000 square feet of building area.

A drainage and road plan was submitted and is seen at exhibit pages 22 to 23. Section line easement determination was provided per code and is exhibit pages 24 through 33. An average daily traffic calculation was supplied and is it Exhibit page 34. Based on the ADT, all proposed internal streets and cul-de-sacs will need to be constructed to residential street standards. Borough Public Works Pre-Design and Engineering Division originally had concerns over the curve alignment of the proposed road.

After review of updated materials, as seen at Exhibit page 37, PD&E had no further concerns. Verbal comments were received from the City of Houston. Stating that they had no objections to the proposed design. No comments were received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing. In conclusion, Peaceful View Estates Master Plan is consistent with state statutes and borough code.

No objections were received from any state federal agencies, borough departments, or utilities. No comments were received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing. A soils report was submitted certifying that all Lots will have sufficient usable area. Legal and physical access will exist for all lots once the internal street construction has been completed. Frontage will exist for all lots.

Staff recommends approval with 8 findings of fact and 7 recommendations for conditions of approval. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Any questions?

Nope. Is the petitioner— petitioner's representatives? Here?

Nope. Going to open public hearing.

No one here is going to talk. Is there anybody online? There's nobody online to speak to this. Closing public hearing.

Um, motion for the board. Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary master plan of the Peaceful View Estates Section 27, Township 18 North, Range 03 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 7. Thank you, Mr. Leaveng. Gotta get a second. Second.

Thank you, Mr. Gilson. Discussion?

No discussion. Is there any objection? To passing this, no objection. The motion passes.

Okay, we have no other items of business. Planning staff comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. Fred Wagner, Planning Officer. We have one case for the October 16th meeting.

Anybody else with staff have anything? No, that's it for us. Thank you. All right. It's my birthday.

Oh yes, and I remember that earlier. Happy birthday. Thank you. Thank you all for coming to celebrate my birthday the way I love to, at the plating board. Funny.

Well, hopefully you have a great day.

The borough, every day is a great day. It wasn't a long meeting, it went pretty well. Okay, board comments. Mr. Leibing. Uh, Fred, before, before this meeting I had asked you about where the voting process is defined.

What was that again, please? Was that Title 5, did you say?

Let me see if I can pull the code up here and just find that for you. Just wanted to clarify based on what we did last meeting. It's 4, actually. 4. Okay.

Title 4. I can, I can find it from there if you—. Yeah, I think it's—. Thank you.

Yeah, that would be under Title 4.0— 4.05.080, quorum. And basically, it's kind of— it says a majority of the number of authorized board seats shall be a quorum for the transaction of business. So the quorum of our authorized board seats is 7. So our authorized seats are 7, so the quorum is 4. So all actions take 4 votes to pass.

If there aren't 4 votes, then it's— I mean, if we don't have 4 members, we can't pass anything. Yep, it's not, it's not a 10. It's based on the overall of the board, so you always have to have 4 votes to get it to, to do anything, whether deny or approve, whichever way you're going, I think. Yeah, thank you for that.

Mr. Burtz, happy 39th, Fred. Thank you. Mr. Gilson?

No. Mr. Giovetta? Nothing, thank you. Happy birthday. Yeah, and happy birthday for me.

And if there's nothing else, this meeting is adjourned at 2:16 PM.