Mat-Su Borough: Platting Board - June 18, 2026

Madam Chair, we have a quorum. Thank you very much. May you stand for the pledge, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Can I get a motion to approve today's agenda? Madam Chair, I move to approve today's agenda. Can I get a second? Second. Thank you.

Are there any changes to the agenda? Any objections? Seeing none, the agenda has been approved. Can I get a motion to approve June 4th's meetings and minutes? Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes for the June 4th regular planning meeting.

Thank you very much. Can I get a second? Second. Thank you very much. Any changes to the meeting's minutes?

Any objections? Passes. Okay, I'm going to open up public testimony for persons to be heard present or online for items not scheduled for public hearing.

Anybody present that would like to testify for an item that is not on the agenda right now?

Is there anybody online? Seeing no one online or no one present, I am closing public testimony.

All righty, we have unfinished business.

ASLS 2019-69. The request is to vacate the existing public easement and dedicate right-of-way following the existing East Hillside Drive and to create 2 lots from Parcel A3 to be known as ASLS 2019-69 containing 238.39 acres plus or minus. The property is located east of South Talkeetna Spur, north of East Hillside Drive, and directly west of South Mount Hunter Drive within the East Half Section 04, Township 24 North, Range 04 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in Community Council Number 12, Susitna, and in Assembly District Number 7. Thank you. 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 mailing report please. There was 60 public notices mailed April 28th, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Pursuant to Matsuburo Code Title 43-15-035D, the Assembly will have 30 days from the date of Planning Board decision to either approve or veto a vacation request. Due to the Fourth of July weekend, only one Assembly meeting is being held in July. Unfortunately, that puts the approval date outside of the 30-day window if it was approved today. As such, staff is requesting that the proposed ASLS 2019-16 9 be continued to the July 2nd Planning Board meeting. This will allow the appropriate time for the assembly to review and approve or veto as is appropriate.

Thank you, Matthew. Is there any questions for staff?

Seeing none, is the petitioner present and would like to speak? Seeing no, I'm going to open public hearing. Is there anybody that would like to speak to this particular case? Anybody online? I'm leaving public hearing open.

Petitioner's not here. Uh, can I get a motion from the board? Madam Chair, I move, uh, to approve the continuation of ASLS 2019-69, Section 04, Township 24 North, Range 04 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, to the July 2nd, 2026 regular Board meeting. Thank you very much. Can I get a second?

I'll second that. Thank you very much. Any discussion? Any objection? Motion passes.

Moving on. Now we have— I don't know if I'm pronouncing this right— Kang Kang Estates. The request is to create 2 lots from tax parcels B-1 and C-1, nonconforming splits from U.S. patent number 1136931, to be known as Kang Estates, containing 28.81 acres plus or minus. A variance from legal and physical access is being requested due to limited existing legal access to the parcels. The property is located east of North Callison Street, west of North Jonesville Mine Road, and north of North Glen Highway within the northwest quarter section 27, Township 19 North, Range 03 East, and southwest quarter section 22, Township 19 North, Range 03 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, in Community Council Number 2 Sutton, in 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?

Are you able to be impartial in this decision?

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 88 public notices mailed May 26th, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The proposed Kang Estates will create 2 lots from tax parcels B-1 and C-1. The parcels were originally created by a deed out of U.S. Patent Number 1136931, and as such are considered nonconforming splits. Due to the existing access issues, the petitioner is requesting a variance from borough access requirements, both legal and And the variance application with supporting information is seen at exhibit pages 14 through 16. Both proposed lots have access to Esca Creek Street, but that access is not sufficient to meet borough code requirements as it sits, hence the request for this variance. The proposed northern lot currently takes access from North Jonesville Mine Road through the Alaska Railroad right-of-way.

A permit for this crossing was provided and is at exhibit pages 17 through 40. A soils report was submitted pursuant to Borough Code 4320.281(a). 4320.281(A). Charles Leed, a registered professional engineer, notes that the soils investigation was concluded on November 23rd, 2026. He notes proposed lot 1 will be 3.5 acres on the agenda plat.

That is actually proposed lot 2. He had them flipped in his report. Okay. And we'll have the minimum 10,000 square feet of contiguous usable septic area, as well as 10,000 square feet of usable building area. The minimum onsite wastewater disposal will be met per borough code.

Proposed lot 2 will be 24.39 acres, meeting the 400,000 square foot minimum size for exemption from soils reports, as long as a topographic narrative is supplied. A topographic narrative was submitted pursuant to 432281(a)(1)(ii). 432281(A)(1)(ii). Robert Hoffman, a registered professional land surveyor, notes that the subdivision of Kang Estates is approximately 28.7 acres in total area, with proposed Lot 1 exceeding 400,000 square feet. Proposed Lot 1 contains a dwelling, septic system, well, and some smaller sheds in the southern region of the property.

The elevation changes can be described as gently rolling when moving from a southern boundary towards the northern boundary, as it slowly climbs in elevation. Proposed Lot 1 has over 10,000 square feet of usable building area. Topographic mapping and as-built information were submitted and are shown on the agenda plat. Based on the submitted as-built information, there are currently no setback violations, nor would any be created by the recordation of Kang Estates. A section line easement determination was submitted verifying the easements shown on the agenda plat.

This is at exhibit pages 12 through 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have any specific comments, but does note that a Department of the Army authorization is required if anyone proposes to place dredged or fill materials into the waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, and performing work within navigable waters of the U.S. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities right-of-way engineering supervisor does not believe that the 33-foot section line easement as depicted on the plat exists on the west 116th corner and the section corners for 21, 22, 27, and 28 in Section 27 along Esker Creek Street. However, this area is outside of the subdivision area. Verification of the section line easement shown is at recommendation number 5, so they will need to verify that easement doesn't exist. DOT area planner has no objection to the lot division with the following comments: due to the railroad easement between these parcels and Jonesville Mine Road, all current and future driveways and approach road access to Jonesville Mine Road will require continued approval and concurrence from both the Alaska Railroad and DOT MPF.

Per the Alaska Railroad approval of one access railroad Through the railroad right-of-way, a plat note restricting Lots 1 and 2 to a single shared access to Jonesville Road will be needed. This is seen at recommendation of condition number 4. Future development will require use of the single approach road access to Jonesville Mine Road with internal circulation and may require interconnectivity with Mason Avenue. The Alaska Railroad Corporation has the following comments. Remove the 33-foot section line easement on the south boundary of Section 22 and the north boundary of Section 27 within the railroad right-of-way as defined by U.S. Survey 9077.

This is seen at recommendation number 5. Access to the lots depends on crossing railroad property, which requires separate permission from Alaska Railroad Corporation. Access to Lot 1 is provided through permit number 20660 between the Alaska Railroad and Shakina Kang. Shakina Kang. Access to Lot 2 will require obtaining a separate permit from the Alaska Railroad.

Revising the railroad label on the South Branch Alaska Railroad right-of-way to Esker Creek Branch Alaska Railroad right-of-way, and this is seen at recommendation number 6. Planning staff does support the variance request as it is put forth. Borough Department Public— ah, Borough Department of Public Works Pre-Design and Engineering Division has no objection to the variance. Matsu Borough Development Services notes that there are 2 buildings on proposed lot 2 that may be within the setback as noted in Borough Code 17.55. This is at recommendation number— I do believe I skipped over part there.

The verification of that has since been corrected as they had submitted updated as-built information after their comments were received. Sorry, outdated notes in my hand. Thank you. Uh, Mattanuska Telephone Association requests a 15-foot-wide easement be granted over the existing overhead utilities. This is seen at recommendation number 8.

And there were 2 comments received from the public after the staff report was written, one with objections and one with concerns. These are both in your handout packet. In conclusion, the proposed Kang Estates, to include the variance request from legal and physical access requirements, is consistent with state statutes and borough code. There were no objections received from any federal or state agencies, borough departments, or utilities. There were 2 public comments received with objections and concerns.

A variance request from access requirements and frontage requirements was submitted with answers to variance requirements A through C provided. A soils report was submitted for the proposed southern lot pursuant to Borough Code 4322-81(A), 4322-81(A), and a topographic narrative was submitted for the proposed northern lot Pursuant to Bureau Code 4320.281(a)(1)(ii), 4320.281(a)(1)(ii), staff recommends approval of the proposed King Estates to include the variance from access requirements with 7 findings of fact and 11 recommendations for conditions of approval. Thank you, Matthew. Any questions for Matthew? Couple.

That was a lot of information, Matthew, so I apologize if you already answered these— this question, but Um, so the, the access to Lot 2 off of North Esca Creek at the, at the northernmost point, I assume it is the creek itself that is preventing that legal access. So while the section line does go through their property by what was submitted, they would have to have extended the road over the creek and build a bridge. Okay, so while even if that access across to Jonesville was ever revoked for any reason, they still technically can get access. Okay, so, and then, and then it looks like the very southern part of Lot 2 actually extends over to North Esca Creek Street, at least on the vicinity map version. Is, is that not the case?

It does, but it's not a wide enough portion to meet the requirements. Okay, fantastic. Thank you. Those are— oh, and then the last question. The comment regarding blocking a historically used trail, was that researched?

Is that an official borough trail? Is—. Are you referring to the public comment that was received? Yeah, exactly. Yeah.

So they were referencing a power line trail that is currently through there, and it's not, as far as I can see, an official trail. It's just a traveled way through a power line easement.

Any other questions? Okay, seeing none, is the petitioner or petitioner's representative present and would like to speak?

Seeing none, okay, I'm going to open for public hearing. Is there anybody present that would like to speak? Yes. Come on. Can you give us your name?

And if you could turn your microphone on to turn the mic on, and there should be a book in front of you where you got to write your name down in. Okay. And we'll, uh, we'll have 3 minutes for you to speak after you finish stating your name. Okay. Good afternoon.

My name is Barrett Wall. I live at 11455 Esca Creek Street. Uh, yeah, when I looked at this plat here, I noticed there were a few issues, one being that It is very close to the creek. It will be impacting the wildlife there, the fish in the creek that we've started to have come back and everything. They would definitely be pushed out by all that construction.

We've got the road issue there. You've also got power lines butting up against the other side of the creek there, going all the way up pretty much parallel with Jonesville Mine Road. So you're going to have to deal with those as well. Um, that's providing power to all the people that are up the road there. Then you've got, uh, the other folks up here.

They all have driveways going right here. Uh, and then the trail is not the power line trail. There is a trail going right next to Jonesville Mine Road, and everybody uses that to go up to the lake. Yep, that is the railroad property. Yep.

Uh, we strongly object to this being put in as residents of Esca Creek Street. Uh, myself and my neighbors here included do not wish to have this put in.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Would anybody else like to testify?

Okay. Anybody else? Is there anybody online? Seeing there's no other testifiers, I am closing public testimony. Would the petitioners or petitioner representative like to speak?

Not present.

Okay, I will entertain a motion from the board.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the variance from MSB 4320-100, 4320-120, 4320-140, 4320-320, and the preliminary plat of Kang Estates. Sections 22 and 27, Township 19 North, Range 03 East, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 11. Thank you, Mr. Liebing. Can I get a second? I second.

Thank you, Carla. Discussion from the board?

No discussion. Are there any objections?

Seeing no objections, the motion passes.

All righty, next we have Lillian's Landing. The request is to create 2 lots from government lots 5 and 17 to be known as Lillian's Landing, containing 3.95 acres plus or minus. Access for the proposed subdivision is from Hourglass Lake The property is located west of South Horseshoe Lake Road, south of West Lake, and directly north of Hourglass Lake within the northeast quarter section 14, Township 17 North, Range 04 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, in the community council number 4, Big Lake, and in assembly district number 5. 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?

Being an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 36 public notices mailed May 26th, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The proposed Lillian's Landing is creating 2 lots from government lots 5 and 7. Access for both proposed Lots is from Hourglass Lake, as the existing West Camp Drive is a private road and does not meet the legal and physical requirements as per seen in Borough Code 432120, legal access, and 432140, physical access. Pursuant to Borough Code 432100(b), 432100(b), upon finding that no practical means providing road access to a proposed subdivision exists, and upon showing that permanent public access via air, water, or railroad is both practical and feasible, The Planning Board shall waive the road requirements. A soils report was submitted pursuant to Borough Code 4320.281(a). 4320.281(A).

Charles Leet, a registered professional engineer, notes that on October 31st, 2025, a subsurface soils investigation was conducted on the parent parcel. One test hole was dug and visually rated as SP-GP. The soil encountered consisted of sandy gravels overlain with silt and organics. No impermeable layers or water was encountered in the test hole. Based on the information present in this report and experience in the subject area, there is 10,000 square feet of contiguous usable septic area and an additional 10,000 square feet of usable building area on the proposed lots for both initial and replacement wastewater disposal systems.

Topographic mapping and as-built information are shown on the agenda plat. Access documentation was supplied showing that Hourglass Lake can support floatplane access. This is at exhibit pages 11 and 12. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had no specific comments. Alaska Department of Fish and Games had no objections.

Borough Department of Public Works Pre-Design and Engineering Division has no comments. Uh, Borough Development Services had concerns about potential setback issues and That was confirmed to not be an issue with the updated information received. In conclusion, the preliminary plat of Lillian's Landing is consistent with state statutes and borough code. There were no objections received from any federal or state agencies, borough departments, or utilities. There were no comments received from the public in response to the notice of public hearing.

Both proposed lots will take access from Hourglass Lake, and a soils report was submitted certifying that both lots meet minimum usable area requirements. Staff recommends approval of Lillian's Landing with 7 findings of fact and 7 recommendations of conditions of approval. Thank you, Matthew. Any questions? I don't see any.

Okay, so is the petitioner or the petitioner's representative present?

Okay, I'm going to open up public testimony. Is anybody present that would like to speak? Okay, I am closing public testimony.

Petitioner's representative is not here, so I was kind of— I didn't know if they were here or not, so I had one curious question that you may or may not be able to answer. It looks like Camp West Camp Drive separates these 2 lots, and I find it curious that other people are using that road and they're not allowed to use this road. So it's a private access easement. So while they can utilize it, they can't utilize it for subdivision because it doesn't meet our legal access requirements. It would have to be a public, uh, use road for it to be adequate for subdivision.

But they're using it nonetheless. It looks like— it seems like there's a driveway on both sides of that road. To my understanding, yes, that is their actual ingress/egress. The lake access really is just to meet the minimum formality requirements. Yeah.

Okay, very good. Um, can I get a motion from the board?

Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary plat of Lilian's Landing, Section 14, Township 17 North, Range 04 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 7. Thank you, Mr. Liebing. Can I get a second? I'll second. Thank you very much.

Discussion from the board?

Seeing no discussion, are there any objections?

Seeing no objection, motion passes. So now we're on to Taniki Cove. The request is to create 5 lots in Parcel 1, Matsubara Waiver Number 85-5, recorded as 89-10W, to be known as Tiniki Cove, Canadian— containing 10.44 acres plus or minus. A variance is usable— a variance to usable area requirements is being requested to allow for regrading prior to final recordation within the southwest— southwest quarter section 29, Township 17 North, Range 03 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, in Community Council Number 4, Big Lake, and in Assembly District Number 5. 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? No.

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

Being an affirmative. Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There was 67 public notices mailed May 26th, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The proposed Tenakee Cove is creating 5 lots as well as dedicating that portion of South Big Lake Road that traverses the southern boundary as right-of-way. The proposed lots 1 through 4 have frontage onto Big Lake. Meeting minimum frontage requirements. The access for all lots is through— I'm sorry, access for all lots is through a proposed common access easement overlaying the flagpole portions of Lots 1 through 3.

A geotechnical report was submitted pursuant to Borough Code 4315.0166. Eli Ward, a registered professional engineer, notes that regrading will be required to achieve usable area for septic. The petitioner is requesting a variance from Borough Code 4322-81 Area, as the regrading needs to be completed prior to achieving the usable area. Code would have required them to submit and complete the work prior to the public hearing. They're requesting it to do the work after board approval.

The variance application with supporting criteria A through C are seen at exhibit pages 23 through 24. Alaska Department of Fish and Game has no objections to the proposed subdivision. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has the following comments: DOT/MPF recommends formal platting of a road for access to all lots to Big Lake Road. If no road is platted, a shared access easement is required as shown on the current drawings to establish a single access point for all 5 lots to share access to Big Lake Road. This is at recommendation number 7.

DOT and PF agrees with the retention of Platino 6 as it is shown. A single access to Big Lake Road for all lots will be permitted. The petitioner will need to apply for a shared driveway access for that access. These parcels are within the corridor of DOT and PF Big Lake Road Rehabilitation milepost 3.6 to 9.1 project. Matsu Borough Department of Public Works Pre-Design and Engineering Division has no objections to the proposed variance.

PD&E comments that a drainage report will be required if more than 10,000 square feet of land is being disturbed to create the usable area. This is seen at recommendation number 5. Matsu Borough Development Services has no comments or objections. MTA requests a shared access easement— sorry, MTA requests that the shared access easement include utilities as well. Staff notes that should a utility easement be added to the flagpole portion specifically, the flagpoles would need to be a minimum of 75 feet to meet code.

Staff recommends the 15-foot-wide utility easement run parallel with the eastern boundary of Lot 2 flagpole portion, continuing north to Lot 1 to provide utility access for Lots 1 through 3. This is seen at recommendation number 8. After the staff report was written, there were 2 public comments received, one with no objections and one with concerns regarding the drainage of this development. These are both in your handout packet. In conclusion, the proposed Tenakee Cove subdivision is consistent with state statutes and borough code.

A soils report was submitted pursuant to code. Based on the supplied soils report, regrading will be required to meet the minimum usable requirements. A variance request was submitted pursuant to code. If approved, it will allow for the regrading to take place after board approval, as opposed to completing the work prior to public hearing. No objections were received by any federal or state agencies, borough departments, or utilities.

2 Public comments were received, one with concerns, one with no objections, and staff recommends approval of Tenakee Cove to include the variance request with 7 findings of fact and 12 recommendations of conditions of approval. Thank you, Matthew. Any questions?

Mr. Gilson. I keep having trouble with the one person who has concerns about the grading, that after— if we approve this and then they grade and it's a mess for this other one, uh, what happens? So part of what they're going to have to supply is an updated soils report and do the work within the scope of our PD&E approval. So, if they're doing regrading, a drainage report would be a requirement if they're exceeding that minimum threshold of 10,000 square feet of total moved land. So, if there's enough of an impact that would trigger something like that, they would have to show they're, well, not causing that problem.

Thank you. How many square feet are they planning to move? Is that— might have missed it in there. 3 Grade. I do not know off the top of my head, but the petitioner's representative is here and might be able to answer that, uh, up front.

I'll wait then.

Dana, you're up.

Dana with Lavender Survey. Thank you for your time today. Um, we are going to have to move a considerable amount of gravel. Um, if you— the large remainder parcel to the west We have to make 10,000 flat square feet for the septic. So, at a minimum, we are moving at least 10,000 square feet of gravel in order to create— I think almost every lot we're going to have to create 10,000 square feet of, and we will have to do a drainage report.

We are aware there is a culvert in the south. That's their concern. There is a drain— there is a culvert In the southeast corner of the parcel, we've also had Wetlands look at that to see what it's draining. Is it wetlands? What is it?

And they are considering that as part of their wetlands application, even though it's technically not wetlands. And we just received the wetlands permit from the Corps. I think it was Monday. I don't have that, that permit, but it did get approved. Um, so we are aware of the potential drainage issues.

We will be moving, having to move a lot of gravel in order to make these lots, um, legal, have the legal, uh, sorry, not legal and physical. Septic and buildable space. And that's why we asked to get the subdivision approved before we started moving gravel, because if, if, if it's the variance— if the subdivision doesn't get approved, we're probably going to scrap the whole project. So we are very aware of the drainage issues in that southeast corner, and we'll be mitigating them in our drainage report.

So I'm a little confused here. Go for it. What do you got? So irregardless, they're going to have to do dirt work. I'm— so what I'm really lost on is under what circumstances does the petitioner think that this might be not approved?

Because it's a— because it's a platting hearing that goes in front of the platting board. I mean, and I always tell them I can't guarantee that it will be approved. There's no reason for it not to be approved, but I also don't want to guarantee them that. Right, because they're using that for the premise to not do the dirt work that they need to do that's supposed to be presented to us. No, we are, we are trying to do it in reverse.

This is the way we used to be able to make— the usable area a condition of approval. So it'll have to be proven that we have done it responsibly and how we have done it and where we have created that gravel. Um, we are going to have to prove again. We'll have to come— like, I believe we submit it to just planning. I don't think it goes back before the hearing, right?

Um, so we will have to prove that we're doing it the right way. We just didn't want to spend thousands of dollars moving gravel for you guys to say no to the platting action. Okay, Matthew's dying to speak here. So, as she was saying, 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.

The request for a variance is really just a workaround to get it back to where we can do it as a condition of approval again. This is something that we've done many times in the past. It's just due to legal technicalities, we're having to go through an extra hoop. They will still have to provide a soils report as the conditions are laid out after all regrading is completed, showing that they meet the requirements. Thank you.

Matthew, I have a question. You had mentioned that a drainage report would be— will be done. That has not been done yet? We haven't had civil on doing any drainage report for this, or you have? At this stage, no, we haven't.

It would be something that would be required if they're moving that gravel amount, and they would have to submit that. We would have it reviewed by our Public Works Department to make sure it meets our code prior—. Prior to moving the gravel.

Um, actually, I'm not sure. Prior to recording the plat. Prior to making these recording. Okay, so the reason why I'm asking this question is because I do see the, that one, um, comment from the public about on Lot 1 here, um, that shares the property line with the proposed Lot 4. They're concerned about the drainage being changed with all that gravel being moved.

Now, someone who's personally dealt with a lot of drainage, and Matthew, as you know, I've, I've done this a couple times. I do see that as a, as a concern, and I would like to know how that would be addressed before work was done. I think there should be a, a plan to mitigate excess water being forced onto his lot. So I think— I want to piggyback on that real quick. Yes.

If the drainage report is wrong,, or it doesn't have the proper drainage, does it then become a civil matter that the borough is not involved in? That's a good question. So the plan being submitted, if Public Works reviews it and says it's good after it's recorded, as far as I know, it is post-civil. I would have to talk to our legal to go further for details. As for the drainage, when they submit the report, it has to show that it would meet our code as far as drainage goes, which can't affect above a very minor amount of percentage of flow offsite.

So, they predominantly have to keep the drainage in alignment with it as it currently stands, and their report will have to show they're meeting that when they submit it. Sure. And so that— but that report is— you're telling me that's going to be submitted prior to recording? Wouldn't— wouldn't it be fair to have that submitted prior to excavating so that we know what's— where that water is going? Uh, you would not have gotten that report prior to grading if we didn't get this variance.

Like, we would have just gone and done the work, submitted our drainage plan, and then submitted the preliminary plat. So that's one of the reasons why it's better for you to have these concerns and address them, in my opinion, than to let us go out there all willy-nilly and do what we want and then ask for it later. Sure, I understand that. I think— I believe, I believe Dan is on teleconference. Dan Talbert, is there somebody on the phone?

Because Dan can verify whether or not— I believe that the lot that we're concerned about does not actually need as much gravel as the other lots. I know the lots to the north are wetter. But also the drainage report is going to dictate the scope of the dirt work, correct? Correct. Did they already start the dirt work?

They have not started the dirt work because again we are waiting for preliminary plat approval in order to start the dirt work, and then, um, because it was a one way or the other. Yeah, there's another project right next to it then. There's like this wide swath that's like cleared, no trees, and flattened. I take that back. They have cleared up The, um, they have cleared, but they have not started moving the dirt.

They've cleared up to the wetlands. We have a permit to clear up to the wetlands. We aren't cleared to, um, do anything in the wetlands yet, and that's their first goal is to, uh, they have to put a big pipe in to get through the wetlands and then, um, head further north. Okay, so that wide swath that I saw, I mean, I, I've lived in Big Lake for 25 years. For 25 years I've been passing this particular lot.

That's Sure. So there, there's a wide swath, no trees, and it's flattened. So that area that has already been worked on, does it encompass this lot that has the drainage going underneath it to the lake? Can you check and see if Dan's online? Dan's online.

He is. Mr. Teller, can you answer that question?

This isn't Dan. Oh, who might this be? Oh, sorry. This is Dan Talbot. Can you hear me?

Thank you.

Yes, we can hear you. Oh, yeah. So, yeah, we have started clearing trees on top of that hill., and getting kind of the overburden, but we have not touched anywhere, uh, where there's the wetlands or drainage concerns. It's mostly just clearing the trees to hopefully hit the ground running, uh, if this is approved.

Okay, thank you. And then as far as, as far as the drainage concerns, I don't think there's been a full drainage report from Eli, but he did, uh, submit his engineering, and you can see that it is graded with culverts— and everything that drain back to that southern lot, which is essentially a small creek that runs to the lake.

And Dan, can you correct me if I'm wrong? The drainage in that southeast corner, it's actually— the drainage issue is actually due to the DOT culvert, isn't that correct? Correct. Yeah, there's a small swamp across the street, and the culvert runs underneath the road, onto this property and where it builds up right there kind of at the road and then creates a small stream to the lake. So in Eli's report where we're doing the wetland work, he does have culverts and the road is kind of, the drainage ditch on the road is graded back to that same location to meet that stream.

This is exhibit page 1841. Okay, so I think Dan actually answered my question. So it sounds like you're not gonna change where that the water drains from where it already drains right now, which is— would be, if you're looking at, um, the plat here, or the proposed plat, it'd be the northwest corner of Lot 1, which shares the property line with the proposed Lot 4. Tim, I read that the same way. Yes.

You read it the same way? So the drainage is going to happen in the northwest corner and not the southeast corner. Okay, where it's already going now? Correct. Correct.

Okay, that would— that answers my question. And, and I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Dan, that drains into the lake, right? Yeah, so I'm trying to think what page this is so we can be looking at the same one. If you're looking at Eli's report, um, it's the elevation banding. It is, uh, Sheet 3 of 5 on Eli's report, if you go to the southeast corner of Lot 4, you can see the wetland area that is outlined.

And then just to the south of that, there's a dotted line that shows the culvert going under the road. So that culvert under the road kind of creates a wet area that is outlined. Mm-hmm. So right now Eli has it graded to where it'll all drain south to that existing wet area and then follow the stream to the lake. This is exhibit page 19 of 41.

And what he's saying is, um, it's colorful. Can you put it on the screen? No. Okay. It's colorful and slightly south of that colorful, there's, um, slightly shaded outline.

That is where we, um, the wetlands were mapped by the wetland company.

3-Tier, and then across, if you go into the street, the dotted line is that culvert. Yep, I'm following. That makes plenty of sense. That answers my question, and I think that also acknowledges and satisfies— well, sure, satisfy the concern of Mr. Peter Maxey, which owns that Lot 1, Block 1, that shared the property line with the proposed Lot 4. So that all makes sense to me.

What you guys plan on doing. Thank you for your questions. I'm just throwing this out here for everyone to think about. Shoot. I'll try to word it correctly.

You guys know me. Uh, let's say you guys do everything right, 100% right. The borough does 100% everything, 100% right. And I'm just going to use this as an example and not say that Mr. Maxey is going to do this, but just as an example, that a year or two down the road, all of a sudden his lot gets flooded. Maybe just something changed that no one knew about and it was going to happen anyway, but we as a borough approved this, the engineers designed whatever they designed, but maybe those things had no effect and it was going to happen anyways.

What protects the borough from any litigation Mr. Mackey— Maxey might do, or anyone else in this situation?

So that would be a great question for legal. That's not a question that we'll be able to answer up here without legal being present. I would say just exactly that. In that hypothetical, I don't have an answer for you right now without the borough attorney being present to be able to weigh in.

All right, if you're listening, Mr. Attorney, come on down.

Honestly, that's my main concern is because there's been other developments in Big Lake where the developer did what they did and they ended up flooding other people's property and the roads, and it took years for that to get resolved, and the borough was on the hook for, for taking care of that. There's more than one—. I'm going through the situation, my own personal one. Thankfully, my neighbor and I get along and we kind of figured it out, but if we didn't, who knows where it could have, could have gone. So that's why kind of thinking 6 steps ahead on this.

And I'm not an engineer. I just want to make sure everything's proper, you know, and there's not going to be any problems in the future regarding the drainage particularly. So I don't know exactly how to go about accomplishing that.

Yeah. So I can request clarification from the Borough Attorney's Office. While I'm doing that, if the borough want—. If you—. The board wants to—.

We can recess for 15 minutes. Let me see if the attorneys are available. Okay, I'm going to call a recess. We'll be back at 2:05.

Okay, I'm calling this meeting of the Planning Board back to order.

Mr. Nick, we have a question for you. Okay. Um, I forgot how to word it though. Shoot. Since we're— since we're looking for a variance on this, and I'll try to word it, apologize.

If Mr. Maxey's concern is that any work done on this lot could cause flooding. And let's say that 2 years down the road flooding does occur, even though the drainage report was approved, engineer says everything was done right, is Mr. Maxey— are they going to be able to come after the borough because of these changes with this variance and us going outside the code? Oh, I see. I'm sorry, I misunderstood who was voicing the objection. It's not necessarily objection, just— I guess it's a concern, curiosity.

Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay, so not necessarily related to the fact that there's a variance proposed, it's related to the fact that the regrading is being proposed to create usable land, right? And so, so a couple things I want to— I apologize again. Nick Sparopoulos, for the record, Borough Attorney, Matsuburo. The big brain that handles this is Erin.

She's out, so you get the lesser brain today. That's me. So one of the ways I want you to encourage the board to potentially think about this is this applicant owns the land. They have the ability to regrade it right now without coming to the borough. Not against borough code to get out your bulldozer and reshape your land in the manner you see fit.

They could do it ahead of time and then just show up and say, hey, I've got usable— I've got usable space, therefore give me my, you know, give me my subdivision, right? That would be appropriate and able for them to do. So by approving the variance and saying, well, we'll allow you to do that later to meet the code, that may not necessarily be a factor. And so if the concern is, is the borough liable? I can tell you our legal position would be that we're not.

Having said that, as a very practical matter, you know that if you're— if you flood, you're going to try and go after everybody, which means the landowner themselves, potentially the borough. There is a statutory immunity in Title IX for the borough that says when the borough neither owns nor leases the land, that you can't sue us for damages based upon granting or denying land use regulations. That's in Title 965. There is discretionary function immunity. There is also the ability for this person, if they don't like what's going to happen, to pursue an administrative remedy by appeal to the BOAA and then potentially into court to stop the action from happening, right?

So this person would also have administrative remedies to potentially pursue if they believe they're being harmed by this action. So all of that together, that would be our position. Does that mean they're not going to try? Yes. Does that mean they might win?

I can't speculate on that. I can tell you what our position would look like in the future, but I can't say for sure, oh yeah, no, there's no way, or the opposite, oh yeah, no, we're, you know, huge trouble if this comes forward. But functionally speaking, if the neighbor's concern is, look, I don't want my neighbor regrading their lot, whether you grant or deny this subdivision isn't necessarily conclusive as to whether or not this landowner will choose to regrade their lot.

You answered it perfectly. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, anything else?

Glad to help. Thank you.

Okay, do we have any more questions for Dana? I guess I would just make the statement to, to the board that we approve, uh, preliminary plats with drainage plans frequently. Uh, we have no absolute guarantee that those drainage plans do what they're supposed to, but we rely on an engineer's statement. I see And again, the fact that there's a variance involved here doesn't change any of that position for me. And just to clarify, we are still doing all of those reports and that engineering.

We're just asking to do it after platting approval. Um, if you didn't approve this plat, we would have to maybe build a road, make a, uh, community septic, you know, like we would have to take very large engineering Adventures in order to counteract a denial on this adventure. So that's one of the reasons we're asking, you know, like, do we need to go with Option 2, or do we need to sell the lot?

I was trying to wrap my mind around why this first. I, I can answer that. The reason why we changed it to the 3 flag lots, um, is because the road would take away usable area from the lots on the north side, and because of their location to the lake, they have very minimal usable area, and we would have to add a septic lot, which would make it 6 lots and a considerable amount of money. Thank you. So, that's why we're flags.

Does anybody have any other questions? I don't have a question, but I would like to, if I could make a statement, my own experience with the whole question of the drainage is just like what Mike said, we, we, we approve. —Plats all the time with a condition of that there's going to be a drainage report. And then after the fact, the Bureau does come out to confirm. They inspect that that drainage was done per the engineer's specs, the report that the Bureau sees, and then they don't even approve the subdivision until those, those are done correctly.

So, in my experience, um, the route they're going, it does make sense. I just had the question about, was this being acknowledged Mr. Maxey's concern, and it clearly was before the attorney came down. So, I mean, I, I don't see any issue. And I appreciate your concern. Thank you.

All right, you're off the hook. Thanks. Thank you, Dana. All right, can I get a motion from the board? Madam Chair, still need public comment period.

Oh, I didn't do that.

I'm opening public hearing. Nobody's present. Oh, I got one person online. Oh, person online. Hello, this is Fred Wagner.

That's W-A-G-N-E-R. Professional landscaper calling in as a concerned citizen. And I was listening in on the current discussion, and I believe my testimony probably isn't necessary at this time. I think you've gotten to the conclusion that, um, this is— that the approval of this variance actually protects the public more than denying the variance. If you deny the variance, they can just go out there, start moving dirt, and the neighbor doesn't have— you know, he gets what he gets. So I, uh, I commend Ms. Runfeld on their variance.

I think it was very well written and just wanted to let you guys know I felt that it was a good thing to grant this variance. Thank you for your time. Have a good day. Thank you, Fred. Good to hear from you.

Okay, is there anybody else online? No, nobody's present. All right, I'm closing public testimony. Now can I get a motion from the board? Madam Chair, I move to approve the variance from Matsu Borough Regulation 43.20.281 area and the preliminary plat of Tennakee Cove, Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 03 West, Seward Meridian, Alaska, contingent upon staff recommendations 1 through 12.

Thank you, Mr. Leving. Can I get a second? I will second that. Thank you, Chris. Discussion from the board?

Yep. Any objections?

Seeing no objections, the motion passes.

We finally got there.

Okay, staff comments.

Nothing from staff. We do. Oh, that's staff comments. Planning officer. Um, last planning board meeting, we discussed having legal training.

Um, we have some new dates proposed from legal so that we can meet all the new notification requirements now that we're going through Alaska. Our Anchorage Daily News. Uh, the due dates that we are proposing is Tuesday, July 20— is that the 21st? 30Th. No, not the 21st, it's the 27th through the 30th.

Um, Tuesday, July 28th at 5 PM, and Thursday, July 30th, also at 5 PM. It seemed like the consensus last time was to try to do this later in the evening. To try to make everybody be able to be here as much as possible. Um, this will be a special meeting. Uh, there is not a planning board meeting on that particular week.

Um, I would love to have further discussion on this. Uh, that is the range that we got from legal. There are a couple other dates open. These are the dates that are best for us. So if there's any other dates that are needed, we can do it.

Thank you. It will be a public— it will be a public forum, yes, as advertised, just like every other, uh, every other meeting. So we're planning to move from the end of— turn your mic on. So we plan on moving it from the end of this month, was kind of originally, to the end of next month? Correct.

Okay. Uh, entirely because of the closing, the sudden closure of the Frontiersman, uh, which was our paper of choice for notification of the public. They are no longer doing print, so we have to now go through Anchorage Daily News, and their timeframes are much longer, and their prices are also much more expensive. Wow. So that is the avenue that we have been given for now until that section of code changes.

I would appreciate response now, response sent in, uh, whatever comments you guys want to have. I can send out an email like I did previously as well. That way we have that. I'm open. It doesn't matter to me.

So we're going to send out an email. We'll take a poll. I would like to have as many planning board members present as possible. It will also be recorded to be able to watch later if need be. And you could submit comments in writing early that we could address with the attorney's office if you're not going to be present.

But I would like to have just about everybody here as much as possible. So watch out for that email, communicate with us, we'll let you know when a decision is being made and start getting the ball rolling on public notification.

That's it for me. Sounds good. Kayla? Uh, let's see, July 2nd, we have 5 cases to be heard now. And then I also wanted to welcome our new planning member, uh, Roman Panoff.

Okay, board comments. Mr. Leving, Reggie, Roman, Carla, Chris, Michael. Nobody's saying anything. I think I said welcome to you. If I didn't, my apologies.

We've already met though. Earlier before the meeting. I don't have anything else except to— at 2:15, we are adjourning this meeting.

The conference has ended. You will now be disconnected. Goodbye.