Planning Commission Meeting - May 18th. 2026

Commissioner McCabe. Here. Commissioner Fonoff. Here. And Commissioner Scoggan is absent.

We have a quorum. Thank you. Approval of the agenda. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda?

Any objection to approving the agenda as written? All right, seeing and hearing none, the agenda is approved.

Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Fonov, would you please lead us in the pledge? Thank you.

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. Thank you very much.

Consent agenda. Regular meeting minutes, May 4th, 2026. Introduction for public hearing quasi-judicial matters, none. Introduction for public hearing legislative matters, none. Are there any objections to approving the consent agenda as written?

Any objections? All right. Hearing and seeing none, the consent agenda is approved.

Committee reports, none. Agency staff reports, none. Land Use Classifications. A, Resolution 26-08, a resolution of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission recommending approval of an ordinance classifying key borough-owned parcels on the shore of the Deschka River as watershed lands to protect salmon populations.

MSB-008272, staff Emerson Krueger, resource manager.

Just a brief staff report. Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Emerson Krueger. I'm the resource manager in the borough's land and resource management division. So, um, included in your packet this evening is a study that was done on the Deschutes River.

They measured the water temperature of the river at the bottom of the river where it joins the Sissetona and way up high at the top where Moose Creek and Crotos Slough come together. And they, they saw something interesting where the, the river was a lot warmer at the, the end of the river than it was up at the headwaters, which, you know, wasn't that unusual, but it wasn't nearly as warm as they thought it would be. Since it's really so flat and all the land feeding water to it was so flat, it was actually colder down at the mouth than it was up at the headwaters. And so they collected a bunch of data to figure out what was going on with the river, because water temperature is really important for fish. They need cold water to breathe.

And so through a combination of efforts, uh, thermal imagery from the air and dropping thermometers in the river, they identified a bunch of locations along the river where cold water is entering the Deschutes River. And the takeaway was that the cold water inputs into the Deschutes River is essential for salmon habitat. And kind of the first step for the Bureau in recognition of the science that's been done is to propose adding a classification to the Bureau land that has these locations inputs, just a few of them, where this cold water is entering the Deschutes River, uh, which is what is before you this evening, a resolution that would add a watershed classification to the subject borough parcels where they've identified these cold water inputs. And it's those locations where the fish have a chance to use the water, like it's a slough or a stream deep enough that they've actually seen little salmon swimming where the water's still cold when it's hot everywhere else. So, uh, approval of the resolution that's before you tonight would be carried to the Assembly.

If the Assembly— if they approve it, they would add a third classification to the borough land. It's kind of a mix right now between public recreation and land bank, and what we're proposing is that we would just include watershed on that list for all the parcels.

Thank you, Commissioners. Do you have any questions for Mr. Krueger? Any questions at all? I know— yes, sir.

Mr. Fonov, I had a question regarding public access after we classify these lands. What I counted was 2,200 acres about. And, uh, some of the public comment was also wondering about that.

Through the chair to Commissioner Fadoff, the proposed classification would have no effect on the public's use of the river, either in summer or winter, or any of the established trails, or any of the social trails on the borough land. So we're aware of a lot of the trails and a lot of the people moving back and forth in all seasons. And adding the classification would have no effect on overland travel or overwater travel.

Commissioner McCabe, I have a question. So, uh, what, what effect would the change have on the property? What's the difference between what it is now and what you're proposing?

Thank you. Through the chair to Commissioner McCabe. So the land classifications are a borough tool. That land managers use when they're adjudicating proposed future uses of borough land. So to boil that down for you succinctly, we get an application to do something on borough land, and step 1 is to check on the status of the borough land.

When we see that it's been classified, we go back and we look as to why it was classified for that. So we're making informed decisions about what we allow to happen on borough land. A watershed classification, while it wouldn't have any effect on public transport over the land or the river, might sway us, the borough's land managers, in allowing different types of land uses to occur in the future. Uh, being the resource manager, I sell timber and gravel. That's what I spend a lot of my time doing.

This is just fun. So if I was looking at a timber sale on one of the parcels that we're adding a watershed classification to, I would look at tailoring the timber harvest activities to try to stay away from the sensitive areas that led to the land classification. For example, we have a lot of rural land that has the watershed classification on it where I sell timber. And generally we just have the loggers stay away from wetlands or fish-bearing streams a certain distance depending on the location. So that, that's just an example of how it would be used if it was put in place.

Follow-up. I'm just curious, as it currently sits, this, these parcels as they currently sit, are you able to offer them in land sales, or will this— I'm trying to understand the difference. What kind of restrictions would there be placed on the land as far as if somebody wanted to develop that area with residential cabins, not residential, but, you know, Recreational cabins— is— does this prohibit that kind of use of the property? Through the chair to Commissioner McCabe, the borough's got some interesting practices in place, and one of them is a requirement that we classify land before we sell it. So that's in borough code.

We have to bring land in front of this body to classify it before we can offer it for sale. We can't do it any other way. And once that land is sold, it's now private land, and the land classification doesn't have any bearing on privately owned land. So it doesn't translate to restrictions once land is in private ownership.

One more question. So, look, in looking at the map, I do see that there are some cabins on property upriver from where the water testing was done. Is that, uh, is that area owned by someone else besides the borough, or why was the area limited to the section that you had water testing done on? Through the chair again, so the water temperature testing pretty much extended the whole river. It's, it's really long.

The area that we're bringing forward for classification is only the area that's owned by the borough that also has the cold water discharging into the river. There are privately owned parcels adjacent to the borough land that is included in tonight's action. I got to meet some of the neighbors a week or two ago. They actually have one of the sloughs on their property that's putting cold water into the river. I mean, they were interested in it, and they had similar concerns about effects on recreation or transportation.

So it was a, it was a great conversation. But yeah, there is— there's a surprising amount of cabins and full-time residential development along the river. And it's informative and people can choose to do what they want with this information, but there's no strings attached.

Commissioner Carpenter. So it's like— If I'm understanding this correctly, it's more like a heads up for future use. Like, we got to classify it, like you said, for any kind of—. For the future. Adding this to it is just kind of for people that are doing it, and it comes before us.

Oh, this is the land that was for the watershed. Like a warning or something here? That's my understanding of it. Yeah, it informs the borough land managers when they're making decisions about future use of the land. Give them a better understanding of what's out there without having to go back out there and traipse through the woods again, kind of thing.

Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Good questions. Any, any other questions by the Commission?

All right. At this time, we will proceed with opening the public hearing. If there's anyone on the phone who would like to speak, please press star 3. Caleb, do we have any? Anybody on the phone?

Okay.

Anyone on the phone?

My name is Jessica Speed. I'm coordinator of the Mat-Su Basin Salmon Habitat Partnership. Thank you for the opportunity to share a bit about the partnership in the event that it might be helpful in your decision-making related to Resolution 2608. The partnership is a voluntary, non-regulatory coalition of 65 diverse organizations that includes local, state, federal, and tribal governments, businesses, fishing interests, and more. Matsu Borough is a founding organization and holds a seat on the steering committee.

Partners share a vision of thriving salmon, healthy habitats, and vibrant communities coexisting in the Matsu. The partnership has funded 128 salmon habitat-related projects in the Matsu totaling $5.1 million. 38 Science projects have included among them stream temperature monitoring to increase our knowledge about water temperature trends in Matsu streams, including the Deschka River. Healthy cold water habitat is foundational to healthy fisheries. It's a defining feature of salmon habitat and survival from spawning adults to rearing juveniles.

Each life stage exists within a relatively narrow range of temperatures. The Deschutes River hosts one of the most productive fisheries in the Mat-Su Basin. It's also among the warmest salmon systems in the basin, with summer water temperatures regularly exceeding thresholds considered detrimental for juvenile and adult salmon. Deep pools and cold groundwater seeps and springs provide essential cold water stepping stones that help salmon traverse areas of warm water. As water temperatures are predicted to get warmer in many of Alaska's streams in the years ahead, cold water refugia, or refuges, like these may be critical to the survival and persistence of salmon.

Identifying and finding ways to retain these cold water stepping stones that allow salmon to migrate and survive, even as the overall river temperatures rise, will be key in this time of thermal Based on lessons learned elsewhere, we know that maintaining these functioning habitats is far more cost-effective and successful than trying to restore them once they're degraded. The Massou Borough has done award-winning work to proactively maintain healthy fish habitat, and finding a mechanism to highlight important salmon habitat on the Deschutes River is an extension of this forward thinking. With a general trend of declines in salmon returns, maintaining healthy habitat is more important than ever. Special thank you to Assemblymember Gamble, the Mat-Su Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission, and borough staff for bringing this high-quality science forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else on the phone that would like to speak? Okay, thank you, Caleb. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to this issue?

Please make sure the mic is turned on and spell your last name. Good evening. My name is Esther Huddleston, H-U-D-D-L-E-S-T-O-N. I'm deeply concerned about the Matsue Borough land reclassification off on the Deschutes River. It's premature to reclassify borough land as watershed while you have a borough-wide watershed initiative being developed.

It's like reclassifying land and then a follow-through with restrictions after the land reclassification. Classification, which is pretty rotten. We are talking about reclassifying 2,097 acres of land. The concern is that there's potential of cutting off access to remote cabins over conservation restrictions. According to Matsu Borough Title 23 Land and Resource Management Division Policy and Procedure Manual on Classification of Borough Land, Part 20, Section 3-1, Restricted areas.

Section C, wetland mitigation, bank lands. If use degrades nat— the natural land and general allowed uses, Part 31, Section 4-1, the borough manager shall retain authority to prohibit or restrict any specific use under these generally allowed use provisions when in conflict with 23-5-10. This means the borough manager holds the authority to restrict or not to restrict the land. Emerson Krueger will tell you that the land classification will have no effect, no changes. Then why go through the hassle reclassifying the land?

Emerson Krueger has a parcel reserved for a land bank classification with a watershed classification. I'm hoping that we don't experience another Fish Creek conservation by cutting people off access to their cabins. Will this land reclassification violate state statutes 24-77, state statute 1945-001A, the ANILCA, Section 1110A, and 43 CFR 36, which are state laws protecting motorized access to remote locations? After a watershed ordinance is created. You've restricted Fuller Lake to a 5-horsepower electric motor.

Who's to say that this land reclassification won't negatively impact people who rely on snowmobiles or inboard jet boats to make it to their remote cabins? Please say no to the watershed land reclassification on the Dushka River, especially since you have a borough-wide initiative on watersheds, because you, you've seen other ordinances come forward, like the water setbacks, on how restrictive it came, and the Borough Assembly had to shut it down. I mean, you couldn't even have heating oil, and you had to make 5 years to make changes on how you heat your home. You had to put it underground, and you don't know how this broad, wide watershed initiative is going to turn out. So you classify it as watershed and then you come back afterwards with the ordinance, and that's not right.

It's premature to classify it. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this issue? Has anyone called in, Caleb? No? Okay. Seeing and hearing no other persons to speak, is there any objection to Oh, somebody just called in.

Okay.

On the phone, please identify yourself for the record.

Hi, good evening. My name is Sue Mauger, and I was actually integrally involved in the collection of the information that is helping to drive this desire for the reclassification. And I guess I just wanted to try to allay a little bit of the fear I was hearing in the last speaker, that this is a very unique situation where we have very explicit data for a very explicit part of one river, 32 miles of the Deschutes River, where we flew an airplane to collect this data to really help us see these unique special important critical habitat areas. And our, our goal is really much more like thinking long term, that when I'm gone and the partnership has had turnover and all of you on this planning commission and all of the sitting assembly members have, have moved on or terms are over, that we have made sure that this really local science has been acknowledged someplace that will persist into the future so that future decision makers have everything in front of them, that it's not just sitting in some, you know, file on a shelf. And so, it's really meant to be a heads up, this data exists, this information we understand about this river exists, It's really a very different tool than the effort that was partake— that was taken on earlier this year that was a borough-wide thing.

This is a very specific set of data to help us understand this very specific reach of a very important river. So, just wanted to clarify that a little bit and And the goal is really to be kind to our future selves as they make decisions in the future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Caleb, anyone else on the phone?

Okay. Anyone? Just last call. Anyone else in, in, on the audience, in the audience today in person that would like to speak? All right.

Seeing and hearing no other persons to speak, is there any objection to closing the public hearing? Objection at all? All right, seeing and hearing none, I will now close the public hearing.

At this time, I'll entertain a motion for Resolution 26-08.

Commissioner McCabe, I'll make the motion for discussion purposes. Thank you. Commissioner Carpenter, I'll second. Okay, thank you. Commissioner McCabe moves the resolution and Commissioner Carpenter has seconded it.

Uh, any discussion?

Commissioner McCabe, I do have some concerns about this, um, proposed change. I'm wondering if If there had been an availability to block off more parcels all the way up and down the river, would that have been proposed? Um, I don't— I believe in science, and I don't know that, um, a complete analysis was done. Like, how many years was this done? One year after another?

What kind of, um, changes in the number of fish fry and fish returning to that area have occurred. I want a much broader picture of why the argument to change the, um, change the property designation should occur. I need more information than just one year of checking temperatures in the water and seeing that there's cold water that comes in in various parts with along the river.

Okay, any other discussion?

I kind of agree. Uh, I've lived here my whole life and the Desch has been used my whole life. There's cabins that have been out there for probably since the day I was born. And the designation, like, like what was said, um, I'm sure we all feel like it's just going to be a heads up and a warning as we understand it. But what does it take to change that?

And suddenly what happens? How many people? That's another grandfathering thing that we're going to have to slice and dice and go through. And, and the other part of it is I don't think there's a person that uses the Deshka that doesn't want to see salmon return. I mean, if you live out here in the valley, we all want to see it.

So it's like, is there a better way to use the community that is out there, the community at large, to join in with it than to suddenly make a designation? And I'm sure, like, I don't think anybody's not telling us the truth, but obviously if you lived out there, you could understand like, what's the next designation and what's going to happen and when does the fall. Do we need more information on it, like Commissioner McCabe said? So I'm inclined to agree with her on that.

Any other comments for anybody else? Um, I, you know, I fished at the Deska for the last 25 years, whatever, and I think anyone who has has noticed that the fishing is not nearly as good now as it was 25 years ago. Something's going on.

And to me, that's a big deal. I mean, that has cultural implications. It has— I mean, salmon for us is, you know, is a major part of our culture and our lives.

I read the packet. I look at the work that the borough staff has done, the scientists have done.

I don't claim to be a fish scientist, but these people are, and they know what they're talking about. And I'm, you know, I read, I read that the work, the work they've done, and I have faith in it, and I believe in what— I believe what they said. So, you know, I, I haven't been presented with anything that, that that causes me concerns about lack of access. I feel like they answered those questions pretty well, um, because that would be— that'd be a huge concern of mine too. But it sounds like, uh, that they've addressed that issue pretty well, and sounds like they did a pretty good job of addressing the issue with some of the local people too, which I appreciate.

Um, so anyway, I I guess I'm in a place where it's like something's gotta be done about the salmon issues of the Deschutes. And if this helps, even in a marginal way, I don't see too much downside to it. So I know it would have to be, it'll be debated further by the assembly if we decide to pass it on. But at this stage, I found the science pretty convincing.

Any other, any other discussion? I have, um, just a question. I don't know if anybody that's here from the borough can answer this, but the question that Ms. Huddleston raised about there being a study borough-wide, what is that about? I hadn't heard that.

Yeah, this is Alex Strawn, planning director for the borough. So the Matsu Healthy Watershed initiative is— it's a planning department project. We received a grant. It's called an AQUA grant, Alaska Clean Water Act grant. And it's essentially an education campaign that talks about best management practices for development around rivers, lakes, and streams.

It is not a scientific study. It is really an education campaign.

Could I ask a follow-up, Alex? So, education in terms of taking better care of our water, like responsible development around water bodies. Yep. That's what it's about. Okay.

So, we developed a web page and flyers. We've gone to all the—. Nearly all the community councils, if not all of them, and it's really just educating people. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Carpenter, can I ask Alex? Yes, sir. What, what, what would your response be then to somebody who, who asked that? Like, what, where is this education heading to, and what's the chances of—. And so that initiative is nearly nearing completion, um, where we went out to the community and said, here's how we think is a good way to develop around water bodies.

Um, so there's not going to be new things that come out of that. The money's about spent and the project's about done. So there's no move your home back and it does not have a regulatory component. It is just education.

And just on a follow-up on that, just for clarity, so you don't see these two things as connected? Right. You see them. I think I hear you saying they are probably separate situations unless there's something big that I'm missing. They are not connected.

Okay. All right. Thank you, sir.

All right. Any other discussion? Commissioner McCabe, any other questions from Strawn or discussion? All right. Okay.

Um, at this point, is there any objection to approving Resolution 2608 as written?

All right, so seeing and hearing no objections, Resolution 2608 has been approved.

All right, moving to audience participation, 3 minutes per person for items not scheduled for public hearing. There is anyone on the phone who would like to speak about anything that is not on the agenda for tonight, please press star 3. Anyone on the phone, Caleb?

No, thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? Again, this is for anything that's not on the agenda for today. Right, seeing and hearing that there are no other persons to be heard, is there any objection to closing audience participation? Any objection?

No objection. Audience participation is closed.

9, Public hearing quasi-judicial matters. Resolution 26-05, a conditional use permit in accordance with MSB 17.30, conditional use permit for earth materials extraction activities to extract approximately 360,000 cubic yards of gravel over 10 years. Located at 20254 West Susitna Parkway, tax ID number 16N04W03A009, within Township 16 North, Range 4 West, Section 3, Seward Meridian. Staff is Wade Long. Need to read, uh, Commissioners, I need to read the Ex parte memo.

To ensure fairness of the process, to the commissioners, 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 all nos. Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, appellant, other interested parties, or members of the public concerning the application either before, during, or after this matter was submitted for decision?

I'm seeing nos. And are you able to be impartial in this decision? And I'm seeing yeses. All right. Thank you very much, folks.

Mr. Long, please provide your staff report.

Good evening, Planning Commission, Fickland Gravel Products, and the public. Chairman Allen, Commissioners, my name is Wade Long, Development Services Manager, and I'm providing an overview of the staff report for Resolution 2605. Rick Antonio, on behalf of Fickland Gravel Products LLC, submitted a conditional use permit application for the extraction of earth materials located at 200254 West Susitna Parkway. Uh, the applicant proposes to extract approximately 280,000 to 360,000 cubic yards of material over a period of up to 10 years on a 22.08-acre parcel with approximately 17 acres, um, uh, left undisturbed. The site previously operated under a borough-issued Administrative permit beginning in July 2023 for approximately 60,000 cubic yards over 2 years, which is later extended to January 2026.

Because of proposed volume and duration exceed administrative thresholds, a conditional use permit is required. The subject property is located within the Big Lake Community Council area and is designated, um, uh, Residential surrounding uses include a mix of residential and vacant parcels, with residential parcels directly adjacent to the north and west. Existing development on the site includes a shop structure and previously disturbed areas from, uh, earlier extraction activities under the administrative permit. The proposed operation is seasonal and is expected to operate 7 days a week between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Equipment will include excavators, loaders, and mobile screening plant.

No batch plant or hot mix plant is proposed. Operation of an earth materials crusher shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, and shall be centrally located in Phase 2 within the southern portion of, of Phase 1. Furthermore, an earth materials crusher is prohibited from operating within phases 3 and 4 shown on the site plan of the application material. The applicant estimates peak haul activities at approximately 24 trucks— truck trips per hour, with lower volumes outside peak periods. The operation is anticipated to conclude by the end of 2036 season, followed by reclamation.

Uh, so you're aware there is an existing setback issue associated with a shop structure on the property. An earlier as-built survey identified a portion of the structure encroaching into required setback. The applicant completed interior corrective work, including moving the east interior wall 3 feet, and has indicated that the remaining exterior wall will be moved. A condition of approval requires verification that the remaining portion of the building, the east side exterior wall, has been moved from the setback area prior to operation. Public notice was provided in accordance with code.

Notices were mailed to all property owners within 1/2 mile, published, and posted online. 1 Public— 1 public comment was received, and no comments were received from the Big Lake Community Council. The public comment expressed concerns regarding truck traffic, road conditions, and safety along, uh, South Big Lake Road and West Isidna Parkway. And referenced the presence of other gravel operations in the area. A comment was received from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources noting that a reclamation plan is required and that review is pending landowner permission.

The applicant responded that DNR is waiting for, uh, on borough approval before processing the reclamation plan. A condition of approval requires the applicant provide proof of compliance with DNR reclamation requirements prior to operation. Staff reviewed the application against the approval criteria in Matsuburo 17.30 and finds that the application meets the required standards, subject to conditions addressing operational limits, buffering, reclamation compliance issues identified on site. As staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with conditions, I would also like to recommend an amendment to condition 23 in the resolution for clarity.

And that would be to request that it be changed to the existing setback violation related to the shop structure on the subject parcel shall be abated, and notice of abatement shall be provided to the Matsubara Planning Department prior to operating. Available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Long. Um, Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Long?

Any questions at all? Um, Mr. Long, have you, um, do you have any reports for us, notwithstanding the, um, the encroachment on the setback, but any other sort of infractions or problems at this site that we should be aware of? Uh, yeah, it's in the, um, the in total staff report that they did. Uh, there was a boundary of the administrative permit. And they did go over that boundary.

It's technically still on their property, but they did go past the boundary. And part of— they did apply for like an extension to the permit, the 6-month extension that's allowed in code, as long as they ensured that there was some reclamation, a boundary was put in place with— marked with cones. And another condition of the permit will be that —or the CUP as they go along the western—as they go along through the western part of the property extracting gravel, that they're to have a survey and markers every 50 feet in place. Okay, sounds like they've done the things you've asked of them. Is that fair to say?

That's exactly right. They've made some really good faith efforts. I mean, this, um, this shop—I don't know, I probably shouldn't say this, but I'm going to anyway—but the shop was over an easement by 3 feet, and they— it was a 2-story shop, and they did, um, cut off 3 feet interior. But because of the weather conditions, the exterior was still— needs to be moved. But that would be a condition that we're asking for, and I have full confidence they would comply with that.

And then I didn't see anything in there about problems with the noise restrictions or adherence to the traffic rule or anything like that. I didn't see any problems there. Correct. We've, we've received, um, we've received no noise complaints through the administrative permit time period. Um, we had concerns.

There's— and just full disclosure, there's been locals who know who have permits around there and who don't, and there have been calls or emails about Ficklin transporting gravel. Um, but there was an assumption that they didn't have a permit, but according to Matthew Borough Code, that as long as they're under 2,000 cubic yards in a calendar year, then a permit's not required. Okay. And so, um, another good faith effort that they have done is they have shown their books to our code compliance officers. As you know, we respond to all code complaints whatsoever, and they showed their books and all their records indicate that they are under the 2,000 threshold, so they've even been compliant and without a permit.

Great, thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for Mr. Long? Commissioner McCabe, um, I drive past that area every time I leave my house because it's between me and Big Lake, and I'm just, uh, I don't have any problem with the gravel pit. I think we need more gravel, but, um, I'm curious to know if there's any plans as far as traffic notification out on the road to let people know when they're going to be hauling, because that— the speed limit's 35 miles an hour, but it's a very long stretch and it has lots of hills and dips. And I'm just concerned about the safety of the people because they don't follow the 35-mile-an-hour speed limit, which, you know, that's bad on them.

But, um, trucks coming out of those driveways have a hard time stopping. We know that it's hard once a vehicle is moving that has that much weight behind it. The inertia is pretty substantial. So I'm just concerned that we have traffic notification along the route so people are extra aware. There is another gravel pit pretty close to that one that trucks come in and out of too.

So, that's my only concern.

Through the chair, uh, I would like to see if, uh, Mr. Ficklin here would like to address that. I think that you had some signs out when there is truck movements.

Brian Ficklin. Um, we had an agreement in the original permit, and I apologize, I did not bring it with me tonight. Um, but I believe it was if we were going to exceed 12 trucks an hour, we would put out the signs, which was the truck entering right-of-way sign. I think it was like 150-foot each side of our entrance. Um, we have them, they're there on site.

I'm not opposed to having them up. It's just a matter of flipping them up with the operators in the morning and taking them down in the evening. Um, that's very doable. I do know that that's not a really bad spot where your driveway is. The ingress and egress is pretty visible from both directions.

So, Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant or for Mr. Long? Um, all right. Um, Mr. Strawn, it sounds like we need to do some wordsmithing.

If the intent is to do the modification to that condition, I do have it pre-prepared. I thought you might, for your convenience. Wonderful. Thank you. And commissioners, I, I didn't hear any objection to Mr. Long's suggestion there.

So, okay. Yes, yes. Okay. So, um, we also— but I think we need to—. There should be a—.

All right. Yeah. Um, before we get to the actual resolution, Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this issue, to this application? All right. Caleb, anyone else on the phone?

Okay. Thank you, sir. Seeing and hearing no other persons to speak, any objection to closing public hearing in this matter? All right. Seeing and hearing none, I now close the public hearing.

All right. At this time, I'll enter a motion for, um, the So, Mr. Chair, I think we're— we just did the staff report. Um, so we need to then have the applicant provide testimony. And then did you open the public hearing?

I did. So you did? I did. And the applicant provided testimony. Nobody had any questions for him.

Okay. So, and, and so maybe I'm just missing it. So the public had an opportunity to be heard. Yes. Yeah.

Did, sir, did you, by all means, did you have anything else you wanted to say? Just if anybody had any questions, I'll answer them away. Okay, thank you, sir.

So, um, I guess let's see the language you have, Alex. I think we need a motion to move the resolution. We need to see what we're moving first. We need to read the language. We can move the resolution with the suggested changes proposed by staff, right?

We just need to see what they are first. So, but you do want to move the primary motion to approve the resolution before you start amending it? Okay. Yeah, I'll make a motion to move the resolution. I don't know how— what the number is.

I don't have it in front of me. That's 26-05. I'll move 26-05. Commissioner Carpenter, I'll second. Thank you, sir.

All right, Commissioner McKay moved the resolution, Commissioner Carpenter seconded it. Any discussion about— any further discussion about the resolution?

All right, now let's look at the amendment here, proposed amendment.

Okay. All right, seems pretty straightforward.

Any objection to the proposed amendment? Seeing and hearing none.

I move the amendment as proposed, number 23. Do you want me to read it, or— it says the existing setback violation related to the shop structure on the subject parcel shall be abated, and notice of the abatement shall be provided to the MSB Planning Department prior to operating.

Commissioner Carpenter, I'll second. Okay, any other discussion about that, with the amendment? All right, is there any objection to approving Resolution 2605 as amended? Any objections? All right, seeing and hearing no objections, amended Resolution 2605 has been approved.

All right, moving on to Resolution 26-07, a variance in accordance with MSB 17.65, a variance to construct a residential structure approximately 32 feet from Middle Caswell Lake, located at 49562 South Lure Circle, tax ID 607000L1051, within Township 22 North, Range 4 West, Section 14, Seward Meridian. Staff is Natasha Grover. Uh, I also need to read the ex parte memo in this matter.

So, to the commissioners, 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 the decision? Seeing no's. Have you received or otherwise engaged in ex parte contact with the applicant, appellant, other interested parties, or members of the public Concerning the application, either before, during, or after this matter was submitted for decision?

Seeing noes. All right. And are you able to be impartial in this decision? Okay. Everyone is nodding in the affirmative.

Thank you. Ms. Grover, please provide your staff report. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Natasha Grover, current planner with Development Services Division, and I'll be giving an overview of this proposed variance request.

This evening. Uh, the staff report for Planning Commission Resolution 26-07 can be found in your packet beginning on page 188, and a map of the subject location can be found on page 198. Paul and Elizabeth Connect have submitted a variance application pursuant to Matsuburo Title 17, Chapter 65 regarding variances, and they've requested a variance from Matsuburo Title 17, Chapter 55 regarding water body setback requirements in order to allow construction of a structure approximately 1,132 square feet, a 2-story residential structure approximately 32 feet from Middle Caswell Lake on subject parcel with tax ID 607000, Lot 01051. Um, the existing land use is, um, of the middle Caswell Lake area is best characterized as rural low-density residential land within the platted Lakeside subdivision, and the surrounding Caswell Lakes is composed primarily of single-family homes, seasonal cabins, and undeveloped wooded lots. Um, the borough code requires a minimum 75-foot setback from all water bodies.

Planning staff reviewed the request under the criteria established in Mount Soo Borough Title Code Title 17, Chapter 65, and conducted an analysis of surrounding lakefront parcels and development patterns. Staff determined that while the parcel is relatively small at approximately 0.39 acres, the survey submitted indicates that there is feasible buildable area on the property that can accommodate development while meeting all applicable setback requirements. Staff found that the requested variance is based primarily on owner preference to preserve existing birch trees. Trees and maintain the proposed site layout rather than a unique physical hardship associated with the property. Planning staff conducted an analysis including 67 surrounding lakefront parcels to evaluate the commonly enjoyed property rights and development patterns in the area.

The review found that many nearby lots are either undeveloped or developed in compliance with borough regulations, including legal nonconforming structures and previously approved variances. Staff concluded that a strict application of the setback regulations would not deprive the applicant significant of reasonable use of the property because compliant buildable area does exist on the site. Additionally, uh, Mount City Borough Title 17, Chapter 65, Section 30 outlines specific circumstances under which a variance may not legally be granted. Under subsection A, paragraph 1, a variance cannot be approved when the special conditions requiring the variance are caused by the person seeking the variance. In this case, the application materials and proposed site plan, which can be found on page 210 of your packet, um, demonstrate that a compliant buildable area does exist on the property.

However, the applicant has elected not to utilize that area in order to preserve existing birch trees and maintain in good faith of the neighboring properties. Under Title 17, Chapter 65, Section 30, Subsection A, Paragraph 3, um, it states that a variance may not be granted when the request is sought solely to relieve pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. Staff finds that the requested encroachment into the 75-foot water body setback is based on personal preference and convenience rather than a demonstrated physical hardship unique to the property. Therefore, the request conflicts with the provisions of Paragraph 1 and 3 that are required, um, in order to not— it's under the illegal variance part. So, in order to not grant an illegal variance, but not necessarily under the granting of a legal variance.

Um, Title 17, Chapter 65, Section 20 also outlines requirements for granting the variance and includes the requirement to, um, only approve variances to the least degree necessary. And so since the buildable area is not being utilized, that would also not be in compliance with, uh, with Chapter 65. A site visit was conducted by planning staff on May 1st, 2026. And during the site visit, staff observed that the applicant had already begun construction activity associated with the proposed residential structure prior to receiving approval for the requested variance. This observation was considered during staff's review of the application and recommendation.

Um, since the time that the staff report was written, 1 public comment was received in opposition to the proposed variance, and the opposing comment included concerns for adherence to Matsubara regulations and the equal application application of these regulations based on the findings of fact as listed in the staff report and in Planning Commission Resolution 26-07. Planning staff therefore recommends denial of this variance request because the hardship is considered self-imposed. The parcel does contain buildable area that can reasonably accommodate development in compliance with borough setbacks, and the request does not satisfy the required findings for approval under Matsubara Title 17, Chapter 16. I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Ms. Grover.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for Ms. Grover? Any questions? Yes, sir.

Commissioner Fonda, if I had a question for you regarding the ongoing construction on that site, what work has been done? Um, and, you know, have they paused? For now awaiting approval or denial? Yeah, great question. Um, we only conducted one site visit, so I don't have pre- and post-site visit, uh, information to compare it to, uh, but the site visit photos can be found starting on page 264 of your packet.

Um, so it looks like pilings were put in, in preparation to begin the foundation for the structure, um, but we're not sure I'm not sure when that occurred. It could have been before the application, could have been— that's something that maybe the applicant could clarify for you. Thank you.

Any other questions from Ms. Grover?

Okay, at this point, um, the applicant like to speak? Applicant present? Yes, sir. Okay. Um, you don't have to be a— usually it's lawyers who do that.

You don't have to. There's no, no requirement. Okay. Um, sure. Come on up, sir, and please, uh, state your name and spell your last name, and, uh, we'll have 15 minutes to discuss the application.

My name is David Tucker. I am The brother-in-law to Paul Connect and my sister Elizabeth is the other owner. Um, I came here today. We helped. Uh, I also have property in Caswell.

Uh, we've been members of that community since I was little, little, uh, barely old enough to walk. Uh, the one thing I wanted to bring up here on the variance, we've asked multiple times before with Rebecca, who's previous to Natasha. Is to show us where on this property they're considering buildable. The lot is 90 feet wide at its widest point. The borough setback for the cul-de-sac is 25 feet, which leaves us nowhere— somewhere we're going to need a variance if we plan on building, building anything on this property, whether that's moving left, right, or north, south.

Uh, the choice of putting it where it currently is at was to save the existing forestry, try not to take down any more trees. We like the vegetative barriers, very friendly with the neighbors, one of which is here now. Um, also joint use of the lot. So we spelled that out in our application, uh, and also in the response to the, uh, the narrative that you guys should have before you was to maintain harmony in a very small community that is the lower circle. But as far as I can tell, and from the survey stated, there's nowhere we can build a building of any size that's very much common in that subdivision that does not need a variance, whether it's— if we set it right up against the right-of-way, we need— we still need a variance.

If we set it north, we need a variance. If we— or we need a variance to be within 10 feet of the neighbors. There's nowhere on the lot, being 90 feet wide at its widest, that we could set the— or locate the structure that would meet both requirements, the right-of-way setback and the setback. My brother-in-law inherited this property from his grand— or his father, who bought it pre-1982, which was before I was born. Um, uh, all of the families in that neighborhood have been there for a very long time.

Uh, as far as I know, there's no concern. The reason we found out we needed a variance, which is probably on us, like helping driving the piles, we stopped immediately and started the application process for a variance, kind of with the assumption that we're not contractors, right? It's that everybody else has a house within the basically the same radius, right, including the neighbor to the north, uh, and trying to fit something here that their kids and now grandkids and my grandkids and kids can enjoy for the rest of our, you know, we like, we grew up out there. And placing a small, reasonable size, 1,200-square-foot cabin, 2 stories to shrink the overall footprint. Um, we went 2 stories on the design to make sure that we took up the least amount of space possible.

We have not disturbed any vegetative barrier within 20 feet, which is a CECL requirement, right? Uh, the lake at that portion of the lake is extremely shallow. It's like, it's maybe a foot deep. Uh, it's a side channel of the lake. And in other years, it potentially could be land, uh, when it's— this lake's low.

So all, all attempts have been made to minimize the impact to the lake, minimize the impact to the neighbors. And once again, there's nowhere on the lot that we found that you can place, as far as from what we surveyed— had surveyed, paid to have surveyed— where we could place the structure of any size that meets the very— the requirements of the setback. Either side, whether the lakeside or the right-of-way side. There's also easement that MEA owns in the corner, the north— I guess it'd be the east corner, 20 by 20 for the power drop that they own there as well. So it's like, we can't build on that.

So, I mean, I would— I'm open to suggestion. I'm sure they are as well as to what the next steps would be for going through the variance process and then seeing a staff denial. Open for questions or anything. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

Um, I was— you started to answer it, actually, but, um, tell me about the work that was done before you guys realized, hey, wait, we're not in compliance. Yeah, tell me what's been done out there. We drove steel piling. With a rock hammer, uh, approximately 20 steel piles that extend. I think right now they're 6 feet tall above grade.

Okay. Um, and I'm sorry, I know this was in the packet, but I just don't remember. Is this— is the intent that this would be a, like, a weekend recreation cabin, or would somebody live there year-round? This would be a recreational cabin. Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant? I have. Commissioner McCabe, um, is there any plan to put in a well or septic? There, there's an existing well. No on the septic because of proximity to the lake.

The well has existed for I don't know how long. So you're— yeah, so, so since 1980-something. Sorry, through the chair. So it's an outhouse situation. Outhouse.

Yeah, currently we don't have an outhouse installed. We usually pay for a blue room for the summer or use Glenn's, who's next door. So there's no intent to put in a septic system due to proximity. Everyone would be required to have tanks anyway, right? Yeah, it would have to be a tank at best.

And the cabin sits up high enough, 6 feet off the ground, that if a future tank was installed, it would be below grade, so, or above grade, if that. But that was not part of the planning. Good question. And one more question, um, through the chair. Which lot is the one that you own?

I don't own a lot. They own— Oh, I thought—. Pardon me. Okay.

OK, um, Ms. Grover, can I ask you, um, do you know if anyone from the borough has made a suggestion to these folks or said, hey, this might be a more ideal spot? And then if that's the case, it sounds like that would necessarily involve cutting down a bunch of the trees there. Is that right? Yeah, uh, thank you for asking. Um, there's several things that I be happy to clarify in response to what the applicant has said.

Um, the main one being the site plan that was given to the borough as part of the application can be found on page 210 of your, of your packet, and it's the site plan conducted— it's dated December 20th, 2024, from the surveyor that, that the applicant hired to prepare it. The detail scale up in the upper left-hand corner of that page shows the, um, kind of the zoomed-in version of the proposed site of the building, and it includes a buildable area setback as designated from the surveyor on the site plan, um, the BLSB, the building line setback. So it shows the 25-foot setback from the right-of-way and the 10-foot setback from each side lot line, as well as the 75-foot building line setback from the water body. Um, the The water body setback is something else that the applicant brought up about this being on a side channel of the lake that sometimes in, you know, lower water years could be more land than water, different things. The portion of the code that the applicant has requested variance to is Title 17, Chapter 55, Section 20, Subsection A, and that's saying The 75 feet water body setback, which is measured from the ordinary high water mark of, of the water.

So it is a moving target, um, based on whenever construction is commenced. So wherever the survey— wherever the surveyor delineated that ordinary high water mark, that's where the surveyor has put their 75-foot water body setback. So there's a portion just east and south of where the proposed site for the building is that is designated by their own surveyor as buildable area. Um, in discussions between my coworker, uh, and the applicant, um, there's an email dated September 29th, uh, 2025, which is on page 259 of your packet. Um, I believe it starts on 258.

Um, and that's when planning staff reached back out to the applicant saying, hey, Here's our, our follow-up to what's happening. This is why, you know, we, we wouldn't be able to recommend approval of the variance at this point. But if you want to utilize that building area more, maybe we could work with you and potentially recommend approval of a variance if it concurred with that requirement for granting the least amount of variance possible that I cited before in my presentation. Um, does that— Answer the question that you asked without me giving too much more information. Oh, I think you did.

Sorry, I was trying to read while you were speaking as well. Yeah, the notes that I had written just to kind of clarify, um, so that, you know, you guys can, can have the informed discussion that you, you would like to have. Um, the detail scale of the survey there, um, the ordinary high water mark is a moving target based on the date of construction, um, the preservation of vegetation, um, in the site plan or site visit photos. You can see, um, there's a small grove of birch trees, um, and that looked to be what the applicant has stated about the vegetation that they're trying to propose that might be in that buildable, uh, designated area from the site plan. Um, so that's on the first image on page 265.

It looks to be like, 6 or 7 birch trees, maybe. Um, and if that's incorrect, we'd love clarification from the applicant, but that seems to be the vegetation that is in question of wanting to preserve. Um, the variance required can be to the water body setback. It can be to the right-of-way, or it could be a mix of both. It's whatever the Planning Commission decides is reasonable and fair to provide to the applicant based on the analysis that the Planning staff has done in order to provide our recommendation to you.

Um, that's another one that, um, the, the applicant had mentioned that everyone else has similar setbacks. The nutshell and, um, kind of overview of the analysis recap can be found on pages 251 and 252 of your packet. And based on the analysis that we conducted of 67 structures, um, 67 parcels, I believe. I think there were buildings for, for less than that. Um, but of, of the total 67 parcels that you can see the data in, in the packet about that as well.

Um, what it ended up being was that the, um, the average size of the house in the area was 977 square feet. The average distance from the water is 77 feet. 6 Feet, and the average lot size is 0.3 acres, which is concurrent with the applicant's parcel as well. And so, um, if the applicant utilized the buildable area designated to a greater— to a greater extent, then staff would be able to recommend potential approval of a lesser variance to where it would meet code. Um, and I think that's all the clarifications that I kind of had in response.

To what the applicant had shared. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Grover? I actually had one other question for the applicant, if that's all right with everybody. Um, what's the plan?

Uh, are you— if you were to get the variance, is the plan to leave it to the natural vegetative state, or are you planning on putting in a grass lawn? No, natural vegetative state. So that's the deal. You want to leave the trees as they are? Yeah, you're not— You're not going to be putting in grass.

The lot has been graveled for, okay, 20 or for since 1980. Okay. So the only vegetation we have remaining is on the north side and then those, that small grove of trees. The rest is gravel basically. Okay.

Then there's still a 20-foot barrier between the gravel, current gravel, and the lake itself that has not been encroached on the spot where we wanted to put the cabin.

And speaking to her, uh, there's still the buildable lot area. We talked about the surveyor and the neighbors and worked on that. The buildable lot area is not big enough to put— either way, we need a variance, right? Like, there's no swing. If we don't get a variance for where we currently propose the site, we'll need a variance to cut down all the trees and place it there, or we'll need a variance to built, you know, built into the lake, which is less likely.

Sure. Yeah, I think you probably understand why I'm asking that question, because when we look at these kind of variances, we get nervous about chemicals, you know, from fertilizer, that kind of thing leaking into lakes and streams and that kind of stuff. So I was just, just curious what the plan was there. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant or for Ms. Grover?

Sir, go ahead. Commissioner Fonda for Ms. Grover. Uh, I had a question regarding page 252 of the packet, and, um, and it has a total number of 67 lots that were surveyed in the neighborhood, and I see 21%, uh, or 14 lots were currently illegal under current borough standards. Is that what it is?

Yeah, so the numbers there on page 252, it's going back to the data that you can see on page 250. Um, there's a bunch of beautiful colors because it helps us split out our data. Um, and so we look at all the parcels, in this case on Middle Caswell Lake, and we don't have perfect data for every parcel, but what we're looking at is doing our best judgment based on whether we think that, you know, the neighbor to the east is legal, or maybe it's illegal. And so, because some properties have preexisting legal nonconforming rights, meaning true grandfather rights, but they're not required to have that on file in writing with us. So even if it's a true grandfather cabin that's that's been there since 1810, um, we might not have something in writing on it, but we can tell based on the assessment records that the borough has of when the structure was built and how far away it is and what code was established at the time that that structure was built.

So, when I see a structure that was built, you know, in 1978, and it's 75 feet from the water body, not only was it within the timeline that there was code by 1978, because I believe it's 1973, um, but there's some forgiveness, legal nonconforming timelines that can happen, but it's also 75 feet from the water body. That's just one random green legal line, um, from what I saw, because the analysis that we then take our comparable recommendation for, um, is only looking at the legal parcels, and that would be a parcel that had a variance granted for it, a parcel that had preexisting legal nonconforming rights. Or the true grandfather rights, or it's compliant with all the rules and it doesn't need anything in writing from the borough to be considered having a legal status. And so of the 67 parcels in total, um, there was no building on 26 of them. So 26 of those 67 parcels are undeveloped, and so there's no structure data to compare it to.

No assessment records for 5 of those, and so there's no structure. Uh, 14 of those looked to be illegal, and 21 of them looked to be, to be legal. And so of those, it's on page 248 of the— and, and 249, the Excel that kind of wraps around both pages, um, that you can see the data for what was used for the analysis of the legal parcels. And that's where these averages are coming from, the average lot size of 0.298 acres. The average square footage size of 977, and the average distance was 76.4 feet, and all of those having legal status.

Looking at them, it looks like of the legal status of those 21 parcels, um, only one had a shoreline setback, um, uh, nonconforming rights. One was a grandfather, and one had a variance. All the rest were truly conforming, um, what it appeared to, to the borough code. Thank you. Any other questions for staff or for the applicant?

Okay. This time we'll proceed with opening the public hearing. If there's anyone on the phone who would like to speak, please, please press star 3. Caleb, anyone on the phone? No.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this issue? Yes, sir. Please come on up and spell your last name for us. Yeah, here you can sit down.

Make sure the mic's on, please. Thanks. There you go. So I have a couple things. I own lot 48, 49, 50, and I used to own 47.

Could you please state and spell your last name for the record, please? Swan. S-W-A-N. Okay.

Sure.

Well, this story bolted down. There, is that better?

So anyways, I own 48, 49, and 50. I used to own 47, but we sold it, and then they never— the lady died, and so it's just a vacant lot there. But, uh, we basically own all the land around Paul. We have him landlocked, so to speak. But one thing that I noticed on this, uh, handout is that these, uh, platted were platted in 1968.

I mean, a lot has changed since then. So what was a compliant lot back then might not be one now, and vice versa. So I feel that the Matsu Borough has the ability to look at paperwork like this and say, hey, we need to fix that, we need to go back, and we need to say, yeah, some of these lots that we said were, uh, recently non-compliant, maybe they were when they were bought. Just my kind of thought about on that. Uh, what else was there?

Uh, Oh, taxes are, uh, climbing exponentially in there. I mean, you know, you put up, put up an outhouse and your taxes go up $20,000. It's so— it's, it's getting to the point where, where I don't believe people are going to buy in there anymore. And I think that, um, the reason why we have variances is for lots like this. You know, the, the Matsuburo can go in there and say, yeah, okay, there's nothing else you can do, so we need to give you a variance.

And I've seen lots all over the Matsuburo that are like that, that need variances to even build a cabin on.

Anything else? I cover it all? I get you in trouble? But yeah, just saying that I landlock him, and if anybody is going to be mad, it would be me, and I'm not. I'm, you know, patting him on the back the whole time.

Yeah, you can do that. So it's— variances are what makes the borough go around. Otherwise, look at all the land you wouldn't be able to build on. And then what would you do? You wouldn't be able to collect taxes no more.

So, that's about all I have to go say. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the public who would like to speak? Yeah, I would actually. I'd like to say something in full transparency when it comes to— you guys required me to get a variance for the property.

Oh, Paul Knecht, the owner of the lot, with my wife Beth. So you required me to get a survey. So I got the survey done, and just to be transparent, I got two different plots on how the survey laid it out. He laid it out one with strictly just my pilings. He laid out the other one with where the usable space was.

For full transparency, I turned in the one that shows where the usable space is to show you that. But under your provisions on how this is supposed to work, it says to make sure you take into consideration your neighbors, your vegetation, the land, the best place to put that cabin, because I want to keep all the trees on my lot. There's only a few left. It's a small lot, was where I placed it.

Also, if I move it to where the surveyor showed it being placed, it cuts off my access to the lake and it restricts his access to the lake.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

Any other public comments?

Yeah, just go ahead. Go ahead.

One of the things that the staff mentioned was that the lot is 0.39 acres, which is consistent with the area. What is not consistent with the area is the pie-shaped lot making up 0.39 acres on a cul-de-sac. As far as I know, it's the only cul-de-sac on Castle Lake number 3, if not all the lakes in the area. So part of the issue with moving it closer to Lake versus farther from Lake, meaning these restrictions, is if the building itself would block access to the lake if we move it back, even if you granted us a right-of-way variance that gave us the 25 feet of the right-of-way, then you can't get to the lake with, uh, with trailers, boats, and things like that. Is commonly enjoyed by every— by the other members of Castle Lakes community, including the neighbors.

Uh, so data isn't always everything, right? Uh, saying that it's 0.39 acres and that's consistent with the rest of Castle Lake, it's true by acreage, not true by lot size. I think in our narrative we spelled it out that due to the pie-shaped nature of the lot, which was subdivided in 1968, um, when there weren't these requirements, The lot just due to the north had to get a variance to build their cabin. The neighbor across the cul-de-sac, the only one that isn't Glen, will be required to get a variance if he wants to build on his lot as well, because his lot's only 50 feet wide. So, uh, taking a wheel out there and looking from high water mark to the cul-de-sac in the surveyor's notes, the lot's 90, roughly 90 feet wide.

Then with what is that, like almost 5 feet of what could be considered potentially buildable space. No matter which way we go, the variance— we need a variance to build out there and enjoy our property, or enjoy the property like everybody else in the Castle Hill community and the Madison Borough. I would like to add one thing before I go, and I know this is not about saying anything. It's kind of cool to be here at the Planning Commission. My grandfather served on the Planning Commission, so did my dad.

So thank you all. I know your job can be tough time. That's what we want to speak. Um, one more time, any other public, anyone else on the phone? Has anyone called in, Caleb?

No. Okay. All right. So, seeing, seeing and hearing no other persons to speak, is there any objection to closing the public hearing? Any objection at all?

Right. Seeing and hearing none, I now close the public hearing. It's not, um. Point of order, is that what I should say? Or I don't know, it's not part of public hearing, but if you want any staff response to what was discussed during public hearing, um, there's a few clarifications that I could make if you guys are interested.

Okay, I'll ask commissioners, do you have any other questions? Do you want to hear anything else from staff? From us? Commissioner Kidd, anything?

Yeah, I think we're probably good. Um, all right, at this time I'll entertain a motion for Resolution 26-07.

Anyone like to move?

I'll move Resolution 26-07. Thank you, Commissioner McCabe. I'll second it. Thank you, Commissioner Carpenter. So the resolution was moved by Commissioner McCabe and seconded by Commissioner Carpenter.

Is there any discussion?

Yes, sir. Commissioner Fonda, just, uh, I guess, quick reference for everybody, uh, page 211 has, uh, the— oh, was it the highlighted— the access issue, uh, that the applicant just described. So I just wanted to show that. Oh, thank you, Commissioner Bonneau.

So Yeah, so this is a little negative. It is. So the title of it is for approval, but the, the therefore be resolved is for denial. Generally what you do is you'd have a resolution for approval, and then if you denied that, you'd adopt a resolution supporting denial of that, that resolution.

So this may require some massaging. Yeah.

So procedurally, are we on the record? Are we having a comment? This would be good. This would be good to have on the record. Sure.

Yeah, sure. Don't mind anybody hearing anything I'm saying here, but I'm just asking because we've got the document here has positive in one place and negative in the other. So we need to fix the document. I'm trying to gauge what's the— what's the cleanest and easiest way to do that.

You know, get a sense from— I need to get a sense from the commission on which, which way they want to go, and we will modify the document accordingly. Um, point of information or question. Sure. So the wording of it depends on what we decide to do. If we're going to deny it, then we have to change the wording at the beginning of the document.

If we're going to change it so that we are not denying it, then we have to change the bottom part of it. That's exactly right. So we have to discuss what we're going to do, and then we decide how we're going to remedy it. That's exactly right. That's exactly right.

I'm just trying to find the least clunky way to do that. I think Mr. Fonov had one. Yes, sir. Because, uh, Commissioner Fonov, I'd like to, um, motion an amendment to that bottom section. Of the, uh, of the application.

So you would like to change it from denial to approval of the variance? Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, I'd second that. Okay.

Do we want to have any discussion first before voting? Sure. Do you want to add? Yeah, before we modify—. It's your motion, so go ahead, sir.

Um, I see, um, the applicant has provided a good faith effort. You know, they stopped their construction because they got notice of, uh, of their, uh, of the issues regarding their odd lot size, the pie shape, and their lake access. Um, so I see no issues with modifying that application to recommend, uh, approval of their variance. Thank you, sir. Mr. McCabe, did you have comments on that?

Commissioner Carpenter, I, I'm inclined to agree just based on, um, based on the landowner's, um, testimony here and the full disclosure of going through the steps that he had to go through taking each step, putting it out there. Um, I, I don't— and when you look at the map where the— where they want to put it, I mean, even if they wanted to cut down some trees, there's not much other place to put it. Well, I mean, realistically speaking, I, I tend to—. I tend to agree with, with you folks on this one. Um, I think that, um, you know, by the, the letter of the rules, um, you know, you could say, okay, you got to cut down the trees and you got to modify, but, um, is that really the best thing to do?

Is that really what, what we want? And we do want, um, folks to be able to utilize their, their, uh, property as long as they can do it in a safe way. Um, I can tell you in my many years, and I know we don't, we don't compare one to the other necessarily, but in my many years on this Planning Commission, we have approved variances that caused me a lot more heartburn than this one. Um, so I, I tend to agree with you guys. Um, any, any other discussion?

Just, uh, um, after our heavy-duty kerfuffle over the water body setback proposal, I'm a little shell-shocked over that whole thing. And so I'm just considering that there will be people who won't like this decision, but we also are, um, you know, responsible for trying to help people the best way that we can. And it sounds like a situation where there may be neighbors who will be upset because one particular guy who submitted a comment said that he had purchased a second lot just so he could do the, uh, septic and the water according to code. So he followed code, and I understand he might be a little chagrined that, you know, maybe somebody else is not going to be held to the same standard. So, um, but I do appreciate property rights, and if somebody has a lot, they inherited it, it's a sticky situation, and they need a remedy for moving forward I agree with you that we should consider approving this variance.

Yeah, thank you. I said, I, you know, right or wrong, the fact that their neighbor is here, and like, to me, that was pretty compelling that the person that would be impacted most supports this request. So I think that matters. Yes, sir. Well, that the letter, I, They bought a piece of land, they're not going to put a septic on it.

Some other guy decided to buy two pieces of land, that's his prerogative.

I bought a piece of land to use the way I wanted to use it, and for some reason I found out that there was going to be an issue, and I did the steps that they asked me to do. So you got the money or the wherewithal or just decided to buy two? I, I don't see how that letter— I was like, yeah, I— so you're rich and you got two pieces, good on you. I bought one piece, I got it from my dad, and I want to use it. And I think it's plain to see on the map they gave us that they're— they've been forthwith and trying to do the best they can.

And I want to say 3 trees as well.

All right. Any, any other? Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Chair, thank you.

Alex Tron, Planning Director. I do want to say, regardless of the outcome of this particular amendment, if the hope of the commission is to approve this, I recommend we go through the entire resolution as there are some whereases that support denial, and it may be wise to add whereas or two regarding access, things like that, to support your rationale in case this does get appealed. They're going to use this resolution as a basis for your decision, so I recommend you go through the whole thing. Okay. Okay.

So So, right now we're on the primary amendment, which is to add change deny to approve. So that's where you're at right now. So you'll want to take care of that motion. Can you? Okay.

Well, don't we— wouldn't it make most sense to just get the wording correct now and go through it now? I think that's Commissioner Bonoff's intent was to Okay, so we want to do an amendment or a secondary amendment to do additional changes. Yeah, I think, I think that may as well. I mean, let's get it right now, right? Yeah, Commissioner Fonov, uh, I guess, uh, to expand on what I said, instead of just focusing on that specific section of the, um, of the application, We can— I'd like to expand on that.

So where we focus on all the, on all the details, uh, to change them, uh, to be more in line with what, uh, what we decided together.

Yes, sir. So there's a motion on the floor to amend this as on the screen to change from deny to approves. We would need a secondary motion to add additional amendments to the entire document, and we can do that and take a recess while I work on that, if that's how we want to proceed. Okay, I'll move that. Okay, does anybody want to second that?

Commissioner McCabe, I'll second it. Okay, so Commissioner Carpenter has moved that we make the further changes necessary to reflect the Commission's will, which is to grant the variance, um, and then we will— and that's been seconded by Commissioner McCabe. Uh, at this point, um, we want to take that 5-minute recess so we can— 10-minute recess. Okay. Yeah, so at this point, we'll take 10-minute recess and go back on record at 7:42.

Okay, let's go back on record. It is now 7:42. Mr. Strawn, have you had a chance to do some writing for us?

I have indeed, uh, done some, some changes, and I will just go through what changes I made in the document. Thank you, sir. One by one. Thank you, sir. So on number 8 of— nope, okay, let's go to the very beginning here.

Sorry, I made a couple of little grammatical things.

Let's see. So whereas starting on page 4 reworded the 3rd to the last whereas to read the variance request is not consistent. Oh, is— I got rid of the word not. So the variance request is consistent with the policies and goals of the Matanuska Borough Comprehensive Plan 2005 update. I got rid of the words as the residential structure can be constructed on the lot without a setback variance.

The structure is not placed as far back on the property as possible. Possible. So eliminated that.

On the now therefore be resolved, I got— I changed denies to approved.

And then on the first conclusion of law, modified it to read the 0.3-acre parcel has limited legal buildable area, which is 'an unusual condition.' Number 2, I eliminated the word 'not' when it talks about depriving the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others.

Um, stated the property is 0.3 acres of land and therefore is limited— has limited legal buildable area on the property. Eliminated the sentence 'therefore constructing in 1,000 132-square-foot cabin on the location indicated by the applicant material is not a reasonable use of land.

Number 4, eliminated the word not. Number 5, modified it to say granting a variance will be no more than is necessary to permit a reasonable use of the property. Number 6, modify it to read the person seeking the variance did not cause the need for the variance.

Number 8, the variance is not solely being sought to relieve pecuniary hardship or inconvenience. Added a number 9, which states denial of the variance request would interfere with the current drive and only access to the lake launch.

And then we get to the final, now therefore resolved, which talks about replacing the word deny with approves, and then I added the chair's name, which was absent. Thank you, Mr. Strawn. Commissioner Fonoff, does this, uh, the changes that Mr. Strawn has made, does that accurately reflect your intent in terms of this resolution? Commissioner Fonoff? Yes, that is correct.

Thank you very much. Any other discussion or, uh, changes that anybody wants to offer anything like that. All right, so we've already had, uh, the resolution's been moved, it's been— the amended resolution has been moved and it's been seconded. Um, is there any objection to approving amended Resolution 26-07 as now written? Any objection?

All right, seeing and hearing no objections, the amended Resolution 26-07 Has been approved.

All right, uh, public hearing legislative matters, none. Correspondence and information, none. Unfinished business, none. New business, none. Commission business.

Commissioners, um, do you have any questions regarding the future agenda items provided in your folders? Any questions about anything going forward? All right. Um, this point, we'll open it up to director and commissioner comments. I know staff has some comments.

I'll let staff go first, and then I'll open it up to commissioner.

Yeah, this is Alex Rahn, planning director, one more time. So, we are in the current plan as far as current planners go, and that's the planners that process conditional use permits. We are down a couple of planners when we have one that is on extended leave, and the other, uh, we also have a vacant position, and so we are currently hiring for that. So right now Natasha is the show. Natasha and Wade is stepping up and sort of helping process these as well, and we're actually pulling on Mark Wiesenhunt, who is a former current planner, that— and asking him to help out during the situation.

So please bear with us while we're short-staffed. We're going to be as responsive to the public and applicants as possible and do what we can with what we have. And then also, you'll notice that the agenda has a different look and feel to it. Good night, sir. Yeah, this is due to a federal requirement that documents that we produce and are put online are made accessible.

It's, it's part of the American with Disabilities Act, and, and so we have modified this agenda so that if you were to try to use a software program to read it aloud to you, it would be coherent and would make sense. So Lacey spent a lot of time on that. We're still— we fortunately got a 1-year extension because it was supposed to come into effect this last month here. We've got a 1-year extension, fortunately, because we're still working on solutions for making the packet handicap accessible. It's a monumental effort, and we're going to need the entire year to figure this out, but we're working towards that.

That is one of several challenges that we are facing, but we are, we're doing it all. Thank you.

I just wanted to announce that I found out last week I'm having a baby girl. Very nice, very nice. Congratulations. All right, Commissioner Fonov.

Uh, Commissioner Fonov, uh, just a couple comments. Uh, I do find this, uh, more expanded, uh commission process interesting, uh, compared to the last, uh, last meeting that we had. A whole of 5 minutes last time and then up to 2 hours this time. So yeah, it's very interesting. I appreciate all the time and effort that, uh, every one of the staff puts in making everything easily accessible, readable, laid out, uh, enough to quickly find and reference, especially like in this specific meeting today.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. I have a thing that I was unsure about bringing it up here. There's two movements currently going on in Southcentral Alaska.

One of them is called Exit Eagle River.

That's not going to happen because they're going to have to change some serious, like, constitutional stuff or do some massaging, as it were, like just the way that the state is said to be able to move and leave because they don't want a bunch of small little cities or small little boroughs They'd rather have— that's why the boroughs are the size they are, to fill in the huge landmass that we have. The other one is, uh, called Annex Eagle River Now, and they're going to be asking the Matsu Borough to annex Eagle River in. Some people might be looking at the money and how that would work, and there's going to be a lot of questions, but I know that there's 90 $90 million in bonds that they're setting up to pay for themselves, so they're not asking us to do it. Um, they're going to save roughly a little over $10 million, roughly $10 million in, in payroll, because 3 APD officers in Eagle River is like, like $18 million or $17 million-ish, and the $3 million or the 3 officers in Palmer are like 7.5 million tops, it's below 8. So they're saving that.

And I look at it as more like us bringing in like-minded people, allowing them autonomy. So if they wanted to become a city, they could. Currently they can't because they're already within the confines and borders of a city, because the borders of Anchorage go from Knik River Bridge to just pass Girdwood.

So the guy who's kind of leading this up, his name is Ken McCarty, and I, I thought it would be maybe appropriate if he came and did a presentation for us and we send it to the assembly because they're going to have to go. And if I just thought I would put that out there for food for thought of what's coming down the pike for the Matsuburo, what they're looking at and what would be coming our way, and I thought it would be something that as a Planning Commission we might be aware of, or at least, you know what I mean? I don't want to— I'm not trying to say it that it's good or bad. I'm just saying like it— I think it would be— I don't know, I think it'd be nice to see a presentation if it's planning and how that would look and what's going on with it instead of just having to go to the assembly. If that makes sense.

Sure. No, it totally makes sense. And folks are always welcome to come in and talk about whatever. Now, whether that's something that would get put on our formal agenda or not, I don't know. That's something, you know, Alex and his folks.

But people are always welcome to come in and talk about anything that has to do with the borough, you know. So I just haven't seen much other than pot shops and gravel. Yeah, you're right. I'm just saying, like, so I wasn't sure, like, I'm— I don't have 5 years. I've got it months.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. If, if the— nobody wants to object, or if the Planning Commission wants, we can reach out to Mr. McCarthy and try to get him on the agenda with the opportunity to do a presentation. Sure, feels like we're probably pretty early on in the, uh, in that process, but I, I I'd be willing to listen to the man here, hear what they have to say, hear what their pitch is. Sure.

I'm actually a little bit familiar with that because he talked about it on Saturday at a meeting I was at. I think they had to get a certain number of signatures, and where they're at right now is that they have submitted the signatures and they're waiting to find out if those signatures will qualify them for— Oh, oh, that's right, that's right. Yeah, they're waiting to get the signature booklets, so it's a ballot initiative. Gotcha. All right, Commissioner McCabe, any comments?

Just, I'm really glad that it's greening up outside now. The temperature just needs to come up a few degrees and we'll be a little happier. Good to see everybody. Thanks for your work staff. We appreciate you.

Thank you. Um, you know, I'll just really echo what Commissioner Funov said. Um, I'm always impressed by the work of the borough staff. Um, and, you know, um, in all of the things that we, we studied today, the, the packet had tons of information, was very well prepared, and I think allowed us to do our job in terms of making, you know, independent decisions with the information that we need.

So always impressed and always appreciate the work that you folks do. So with that, I don't have anything else to say. And so at this point, I think I will call this meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.