Mat-Su Borough: Platting Board Meeting - July 2, 2026

Planning Member Shavetta. Present. Planning Member Gilson. Present. Planning Member Carney.

Present. Planning Member Traxler. Present. Planning Member Farnoff. Present.

Planning Member McBride. Planning members that are absent, excused today, or planning members leaving: Kevin and Galloway. Madam Chair, we have a quorum. Thank you very much. We stand for the pledge.

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?

I motion to approve today's agenda. Thank you very much. Can I get a second? Second. Are there any changes or objections to today's agenda?

Seeing none, the motion is approved. Can I get a motion to approve June 18th meeting's minutes?

Madam Chair, I move to approve June 18th minutes. Thank you, Carla. Can I get a second?

Second. Thank you very much. Are there any changes or objections to the meeting's minutes? Seeing none, motion has been approved. Okay, I'm going to open public testimony for items to be heard that are not scheduled for public hearing.

Anybody present or online Okay, I'm closing public testimony. Okay, so for unfinished business, we have ASLS 2019-69. The request is to vacate the existing public use 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 Talkeena 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 a Community Council Number 12, Susitna, and in Assembly District Number 7. This case was continued from the June 18th, 2026 Planning Board hearing.

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 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 Bureau?

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

Seeing an affirmative, Madam Secretary, the mailing report, please. There are 60 public notices mailed April 28th, 2026. Thank you very much. Staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The proposed ASLS 2019-69 was originally scheduled for the May 21st Planning Board meeting. A continuation was requested and granted to allow for the time needed for public posting requirements to be met. In that time, we have since received the, uh, proof of public noticing. Or posting. The case was then brought before the Planning Board during the June 18th meeting.

A second continuation was requested to allow for the appropriate time for the assembly to hear the vacation request if it's approved within the 30-day window. The request is to create 2 tracks, with proposed Track B being a utility lot, vacate 2 existing public use easements, and dedicate right-of-way overlaying the existing alignment of East Hillside Drive. Pursuant to borough code 4322-81-D, the utility lot will require a plat note denoting it as a utility lot. This is seen at recommendation number 4. A vacation petition was submitted for the following easements: that portion of the 60-foot-wide road corridor located in the southeast corner of the southeast corner of section 4, township 24 north, range 4 west, as depicted on the Bangka Lake Alaska subdivision plat number 85-14 in the Talkeetna Recording District, and the 60-foot-wide public use easement described in Book 103, page 997, recorded November 8th, 1984.

The vacation petition is seen at exhibit pages 6 through 11. A topographic narrative was submitted pursuant to Borough Code 4320.281, This is at exhibit pages 12 through 14. A section line easement determination was submitted by Rick Wentworth, professional land surveyor, as seen at exhibit pages 15 through 33. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has no comments on the proposed action. Matsuburo Department of Public Works, pre-design and engineering division, notes that the existing number of lots accessing Hillside Drive at this location is close to exceeding 100, which would require a residential collector standard road.

PD&E requests additional right-of-way if possible on the inside curve to allow for future realignment with the 550-foot radius curves. As seen in the staff report packet, planning staff originally noted that the classification of the existing roadway is not being altered by this proposed action. But would forward the request on to the petitioner. Upon further internal conversation and comments received from the public, staff added proposed condition number 3 to the vacation request recommended conditions of approval, as the currently non-constructed public use easement would allow for a better alignment of future road construction. Per Borough Code 4315.035, the vacation is conditioned upon the final approval of a plat affecting the same land which provides equal or better access to all areas affected by the vacation.

Uh, as this vacation may potentially restrict future road development, providing proof of constructability of collector standard roads within the right-of-way as proposed by this action, or the existing section line easement on the southern boundary, with the requirement to grant additional easements or right-of-way as needed, would address this concern. Development Services had no comments or objections. No comments or objections were received from any utilities. After the staff report was written, there was one public comment received from the Montana Creek Native Association. This is in your handout packet.

They had objections to the vacation unless certification that a collector class road would be possibly constructed. Uh, as this case can be approved with or without approval of the proposed vacation, staff has separated the recommended findings and conditions of approval for both the subdivision to include dedication of right of way and the vacations as their own independent approvals. In your handout packet, you will find a revised recommendation of conditions of approval list, correcting one recommendation and adding another. Recommendation number 4 of the subdivision list added the statement that this would not be required if Track B was dedicated as right-of-way, and recommendation number 3 on the vacation recommendations was added stating, submit a plan and profile drafted by a civil engineer certifying constructability of a Matsuburo Collector Standard Street within the existing and/or proposed rights-of-way connecting East Hillside Drive on the southern and eastern boundaries of the parent parcel. If the proposed and existing rights of way are not sufficient to construct a collector standard street, grant additional public use easement as needed to construct a collector standard road.

Alternatively, dedicate proposed Track B as right of way. In conclusion, there were no objections from any federal or state agencies, borough departments, or utilities. Access for both proposed lots exists, frontage exists. A topographic narrative was submitted pursuant to code. Proposed Tract B is to be a utility lot.

Posting notice was maintained at the site of the proposed vacation for a minimum of 30 days prior to public meeting. There was one comment received from the public with objections unless the ability to construct a collector standard road is verified for future development. And staff notes that while recommendations of conditions of approval for both proposed subdivision and vacation are provided, it is up to the board to determine whether the requirements of 4315 1035 have been satisfied. Thank you, Matthew. Any questions for staff?

Uh, seeing none, would the petitioner or petitioner's representative like to speak?

My name is Rick Wentworth, land surveyor. For the petitioner, um, I just want to make a couple of points of clarification regarding the road right-of-way as it's designed. Um, in '21, 2021, we had conversations, lengthy conversations with the planning, the current planning officer at the time, to have a design that was going to be agreeable Uh, for the current road location, the, the width, the radius, the entire design as it is now was approved by the borough back then. That's why it is being submitted as it is now. Um, the, uh, right now we're having some issues with the state as far as what they can do and what they can't do with a preference right purchase agreement.

We're looking into whether we can keep the vacation for the 1965 right-of-way. They're also looking at if they can actually dedicate Track B as right-of-way. I personally think that's the cleanest effort. If Hillside were ever to be developed, just make it straight right through that whole section. Forget the curves.

Forget what, what DNR had a plan in 1965 for Hillside. We have no idea, but the, uh, that the state is not holding their next case file hearing on this particular circumstance until later this month. So we have no idea what the outcome of that's going to be, but we are hoping to make it as feasible as possible for the petitioner, which is a— do I dare say elderly lady who is going through the passing of her husband recently who started this project. She is kind of carrying on what he had started and it's pretty overwhelmed with all of the requirements. But anyways, You know, she's a retiree, uh, you know, limited funds, of course.

So we're trying to make this as easy as possible for her, her pocketbook. She has lots of time, limited funds. So what we are going, uh, for, for the future is possibly a new public hearing with DNR regarding the vacation— or I mean the dedication of Track B. That would be the least amount of financial burden to, to the petitioner, or the, the current lessee of the agricultural land. Um, but of course we don't know the results of that until DNR holds our hearing later this month.

Um, at the time, uh, At the time that we had spoke with the borough about the road design, there was no mention of, uh, potential future classification changes to this road and how it might affect, you know, the traffic count. The design of the subdivision is not a typical subdivision. It's not adding any additional traffic counts. Of course, the potential is always there to add traffic counts, although this large piece of land is limited to that because it's agricultural land. It can only be subdivided into 3 or 4 parts of 40-acre pieces, very limited additional traffic counts.

So, I mean, the future always holds the potential for, for added traffic. We all know that, but. It's just not a typical 240-acre of pretty nice raw land that could be developed into, you know, its own little community per se. Anyways, I think the biggest point of clarification I wanted to mention is the current design for this, this road right here. This section was based on the guidance of the borough and their approval.

Of the final, the final, uh, the curve radius, the tangents, all that good stuff. Um, we're looking into, uh, first of all, we're looking into just a cost estimate for the, for the, for the petitioner, uh, of getting a civil engineer to give plan and profile that goes down, uh, strictly this 100-foot-wide section lane easement. But my first analysis of it, it's not going to work because we have some 25-foot cuts, 25-foot fills. There's going to be a couple of sections where it's going to exceed the 100-foot, uh, you know, limit, 50 feet on each side. It's possible, yeah, you could bump it over to one side, uh, and, and resolve those issues without trying to purchase, you know, private lands for public easements and all that for road fill.

But at the time, uh, at the time, really, we're restricted to what we can do and what the state can do regarding this private or this preference purchase type of land sale or land disposal. So of course, we have no idea what's going to happen to that, and hopefully just update the goodness of Mr. Matthew over here and the rest of you when that information does come in.

Any other— any questions that I can maybe answer, maybe not answer? I do have a question. So right now, your hope is— in this hope is to satisfy the state— is to dedicate Track B to— to whom? Just public right-of-way. Just dedicate it as public right-of-way.

I don't know if it would be still, you know, state right away. I presume it would be borough right away, but I, I don't know those details. And that's just there so that if a road needs to be built in the future, you guys will have the borough or the state will have the land, the space to do that. Is that what the purposes of that is? Honestly, the purpose The purpose right now to track— to dedicate Track A— Track B, I'm sorry, is to make all of these holdups to the petitioner go away, to be honest with you.

With that being said, it would be satisfactory to the petitioner, satisfactory to the state as of now. Okay. We don't know what the higher-ups with DNR is going to is going to comment. It will also satisfy any borough— future borough requirements of road design and development and construction in that area. So, uh, that's right now dedicating that as right-of-way is the least, um, least amount of negative effect to the petitioner, and that's kind of what I'm hoping for in this case.

It also satisfies the borough, but it satisfies the borough, right? That's okay. So that's the— there could be two purposes depending on who you ask. If you ask me, it makes all of this platting requirements go away. If you ask the borough, you have a different purpose.

It satisfies the road construction. Okay, thank you. I'd like to make a point of clarification. Tyler Young, Planning Officer. When this, this property as a whole right now is owned by the State of Alaska.

So when we are talking about the state, that is what we were talking about. Right-of-way would be handled by the borough for any dedication and that kind of stuff. So just a point of clarification that when we're talking about the state, we are talking about the petitioner as the owner of this land.

One more thing, since you brought that up with it being the the owner being the state, in my eyes, the petitioner being my client. It's, you know, there's maybe some terminology to be clarified, but the state has mentioned that, you know, more than once that this is a preference right purchase type of land disposal, and it's without state financial backing. So an individual is, you know, paying for all of this as as a, a developer would normally do it, but there's no, there's no state financial finances backing this, so everything is funneling back to the lessee.

Thank you, Mr. Wentworth.

Okay, so I'm going to open for public hearing.

Gary.

Gary LaRusso. I'm here on behalf of the Montana Creek Native Association. And frankly, I think I would have been here myself anyways, even if I wasn't here for them. Um, I've been over the years on a lot of committees and worried about future access.

This is bigger than the one piece of ground Mr. Wentworth talked about, this parcel, and if it developed. There's thousands of acres past this point. Montana Creek Native Association owns 3,600 acres that I could count. There's also multiple private landowners that have property back there. The proposed dedication has a 225-foot radius.

That's the absolute dead minimum radius for a residential standard road that only allows up to 400 ADT. Um, I heard a comment that— and it's incorrect, didn't come from Rick— um, that the current traffic count is close to collector. The current traffic count exceeds collector. I know this because We have our proposed subdivision coming in on this road at some point, which I can't discuss, obviously. Um, it's bigger than this piece, and I think what Mr. Wentworth is talking about, if they dedicate the entire tract, that takes care of the issue.

Otherwise, the issue remains. We can't be cutting off collector roads. We need to have them. It would— if I include all of Montana Creek's property and all the other property back in there that could develop, we would probably need 20 collector roads into this area. We can't get rid of any.

We need to add more. We can't get rid of these. So you could see in the Montana Creek's comments They had a suggestion, and it kind of echoes what Platten came up with. I would say, um, that you could maybe add something to the proposed condition number 3 that, as an alternate, that they dedicate the entire track. It would give the petitioner time to talk to the state and see if they'll do that, and that would clean it up.

That would take care of it, just like Rick said. That's probably the best option. Otherwise, we need this design. We need to know what kind of right-of-way we need. We can't just give it up.

The state is not above anything. The state of Alaska is just like any other petitioner that comes in this room. They, they need to worry about the future. And frankly, I'm really disappointed with, uh, One department, not planning, here that didn't speak up too much on this. Like, what do you guys do over there?

You need to worry about the future. There is, I'm pretty sure, something that's going to occur. There'll be another committee at some point to figure out how to get, make sure that we get access to these areas. We can't have Thousands of acres landlocked. Thousands of acres landlocked.

There's other ways in and out of there, but it's not sufficient. Uh, we need to not get rid of the ones we have, and I, I, it's just a planning thing. Um, there was some discussion about the purchase agreement. That has nothing to do with vacating right away. That's a purchase agreement between the petitioner and the state.

That's fine. The state either needs to recognize that they have a responsibility to the public, or don't vacate it. Either way, time's almost up. Okay. And we don't want to put this burden on— which will be the borough that'll end up doing this later— they'll be purchasing right-of-way for a collector road that they already need.

And, uh, anyways, okay, I'll wait for questions if there's any. I do have a question, Mr. Russo. Reggie Carney. Um, with this Tract B here, do you, do you feel, based off your experience in, in this, that there's enough space here for a, a future right-of-way access to the land that goes beyond this subject? Yes, like Mr. Wentworth stated, um, there are a couple spots in there.

There's a hill and a hole, and it will require more than 100 feet. So the road would actually have to shift a little bit with a flatter radius than 225, which is ridiculous. But anyways, And it, yeah, that would take care of it. Yeah, so that's why I'm saying either way, either do the design. Um, and show us what you need, plus 5 feet, I might add, because the borough requires 5 feet outside of the slope wherever the slope would hit.

They require 5 feet beyond that, so that needs to be added in as a condition. Somewhere in number 3. Slopes plus 5 feet, and it would fit. And if it doesn't, then at that point, it's nothing on the petitioner or the state. They can't do anything about it.

That's all they can do. They can't go on other people's properties, right? I could see that as the cleanest thing. Maybe they just want to postpone till they get an answer, but that's up to them.

Are we good to ask him questions as the 3-minute? Go ahead. Yeah. So, as the road is now, if the road needed to be built to standards, there's no issues in your opinion? You mean as—.

But if we did nothing today? No, they're trying to vacate a right-of-way that does meet the standard, meet the standards, and they're trying to replace it with something that does not meet the standard at all. Not even close. Can I ask your personal opinion? I think I was giving it.

No, another one. Another one. On what? I'm sorry. Is this kind of an end around to maybe stop development on the other side of this?

I don't think anyone does that. I shouldn't say anyone. Yeah, people think that way, but that's not what's going on. That's not—. I don't— I wouldn't believe that at all.

So just to clarity once again, because sometimes I get jumbled. Right now everything's copacetic. If we do this, we're going to have to have that additional right-of-way added, correct? On the track B, or dedicate all of Track B, or dedicate—. All right, thank you.

Which is the cleanest, cleanest.

Thank you, Gary. Okay.

Madam Chair, yes, can we have the petitioner come back up? Yes. Yeah, I was just going to say that.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, is there any— don't mess me up, I don't need any help. Is there anybody online? Okay, there's nobody online and there's nobody else present, so I'm closing public hearing. Petitioner's representative may speak.

Rick Wentworth, Lancer Rare. Questions? Can you remind me what the DNR meeting is over again at the end of the month that you were talking about? It's regarding what they can and cannot do and the ramifications of what they do decide regarding the preference right purchase statutes, I guess, that the state has to abide by through their land disposal requirements. So at a minimum, you know, if we, as a collective here, at a minimum, if we dedicate Track B, that would spur another public hearing through DNR process.

If we were to not Uh, if we're to not vacate the 65 right-of-way, that would also spur another public hearing through DNR process. Um, if, if we were to not dedicate the 65 right-of-way, uh, that only— not only that does that add time, which is not a problem, it, it includes, uh, the land surveyor returning to set all the right-of-way monuments for that, for that route. In addition, it also creates these little remnant tracks, um, on the very left bottom corner, uh, just above the section line and to the west of the current designed right-of-way proposed. Yeah, there's that little goofy little section where it says 60-foot-wide PUE something something or another. I can't read that from here, but—.

Oh, here it is. Here, um, also on the very east side between the, between the two right-of-ways there, that little section right there where it has, uh, South 76, 213, there's that tiny little sliver that's going to create tracks, and that's somewhat problematic for DNR. I don't know if that means like it's a public hearing, it's more paperwork on there, and I don't know exactly what that truly means, but they would rather not create two just random little remnant tracts.

Um, so the, uh, it just seems common sense to just dedicate all of Tract A. The— I'm sorry, B— a Track B. I'm sorry. Yes, quite a difference there. Um, the, the, the lessee, okay, has no problem with that. She has no issue with any kind of a future purchase, you know, agreement with somebody, or, you know, she just wants it to go away because it's a lot of headache, to be honest, for her right now. Um, so we think that's the easiest, most cleanest way for, for the borough of the future Another point of clarification, the 65 right-of-way, although it looks beautiful, it looks beautiful, nice radius.

It looks, looks great. One problem to contend with is on the very east side, it terminates into public to private land. Now, there is a sliver of section line easement running north and south, granted, but If they were to relocate the existing location of Hillside through that little, you know, twisty turvy section into the right-of-way, okay, that might look great on paper. They're going to have to purchase some private lands, you know, so it has its own little issue. Everything seems to have its own little issue radius, adding more right-of-way to the south end of the of the current right-of-way there into Track B.

That, you know, there's a few things that you could change. Every little one seems to have its own little circumstance, potentially a roadblock. It's not just a matter of, oh, if we, if we keep the 60-foot right-of-way from 1965, everything is solved. There's, there's a curve radius that you're going to have to contend with that comes off of the east-west direction of Moose Meadows as it enters this north direction of the old 65 right-of-way. Right now it just comes in at a direct angle.

You know? You know. So there's some issues to deal with there. I'm not—. Honestly, I can tell you I did not look at what that radius could be, you know, but it's something to deal with, I'm guessing.

Just from my experience. I don't know, 400-foot would account, you know, that's a whole separate issue. But all I'm saying, if we, we were to not vacate the 65 right-of-way, it has some issues to deal with. It's just not— this is going to solve everybody's problems. So I think personally I like less paperwork.

Ironically, I'm in a business where there's a lot of paperwork. That's the kind of the strange part. If we vacate all of these old right-of-ways and public use easements and create a nice clean one— I wish, I wish we had guidance, uh, 5 years ago from the borough to say make this 100 feet wide, make this 400-foot, 500, 600-foot, whatever future collector road guidance. I wish we would have had that, you know. Um, I don't think it's my job.

I don't think it's the petitioner's job. I don't think it's the state's job to decide what the borough thinks the current traffic count, the future traffic count is for all of this, all these potential thousands of open acres that's Granted, there's a lot of open available land in the state. This area is not the only one.

I don't know.

Dedicate Track B, that's the easiest, easiest way, I think. This is like really messy. It's messy. This is messy and it's frustrating listening to all of this. And it—.

I just had a thought. You kind of said a lot there and there's a couple things I wanted to— say before, you know, but I want to interrupt you. One thing I wanted to say, and, and I say this all due respect, I understand that, you know, it's not the petitioner's job and the state's job to try to forecast what the future looks like, but it is the borough's job to do their best to do that, right, and not jeopardize future development of someone. But, but going back to what you think would be the cleanest would be dedicating Track B. I would personally be very comfortable making sure that the appropriate road could be developed in the space being dedicated before any type of vacation. That's just how I feel on it, because I wouldn't want this to come back on the borough later to have to purchase private land or anything like that.

So, um, again, I would— I, I really want to confirm and stress that if the easiest fix for this to protect the borough, help the petitioner, protect the future development that could come is dedicated in Track B. We got to make sure that a collector road could be built there with whatever nuances that that may come with. If I could interrupt, Tyler Young, Planning Officer. If you look at the recommendation for approval for the vacation of public use easement that is on page 2 of your handout, Number 3 says, submit a plan and profile drafted by a civil engineer certifying the constructability of an MSB collector standard street within the existing and/or proposed right-of-ways connecting East Hillside Drive on the southern and eastern boundaries of the parent parcel. That is along the 100-foot section line easement that is existing there.

So, if this vacation goes through and recommendation, recommendation of approval condition number 3 is accepted, We would need to have an engineer prove that it could be done. And if the proposed existing rights of way are not sufficient to construct a collector standard street, grant additional public use easement as needed to construct a collector standard road. Alternatively, if they don't want to do that, dedicate proposed Track B as dedicated right of way. So these conditions have been met in the recommended— for recommended conditions of approval. Perfect.

Thank you. I appreciate that. That clears everything up. My concerns, at least. Uh, one other point, it's, uh, a little bit maybe off topic, slightly.

About 30 days ago, a section line easement was vacated, or portion of it was vacated, about a quarter mile east of this location, maybe a half a mile. Maybe, maybe half a mile is where the Native Association land starts. And that vacation went through without issue. Zero comments as far as I'm aware of. Zero comments from the Native Corporation.

Zero comments from the community. Um, now granted, there is still— they could, they could only vacate their portion of the section line easement crossing this ag parcel. It was 50 and 50 on both sides, but it was leading directly to state land. It was leading to additional native lands. It was leading to additional private lands.

You know, the whole point of this little comment is vacating this little section is not going to be the end-all to this. Other access was vacated without question or without comment like 30 days ago. Now granted, if you add up all these little vacations, little here, a little there, a little there, pretty soon you have no access, which is— let's— we have to be serious about this. There's not going to be a time when there's no access. It's just going to be in a different location.

Um, so I understand the Native Association's concerns because this could have, you know, it could be, uh, the, uh, the hillside spur road paved, two-lane divided, you know. I mean, it could provide a lot of access to these undeveloped lands. That's, that's no question. But if we can just convince the state, I think that all we got to do is dedicate Track B and all of this goes away. It reminds me, 7 years ago I talked to the DNR surveyor.

Of course, he's not with the state anymore, but my first question was, why is this Track B even there? Why don't we just dedicate all of this? And he's like, well, We have to have a new public hearing and, you know, it's like, okay, I'm just, I'm trusting that the public process, the public notice process that went through in 2020 would have addressed all these. And the state is just as confused now. Why are all these concerns happening now?

We did a public comment period in 2020. Nobody cared anything. Nobody cared less about how this road looked, what it was going to serve in the future. The, like, the 4 or 5 comments that they received was, we have more of an issue with this preference right purchase type of land disposal process more than a, uh, why isn't this land going out to public, um, you know, public bidding type of a land disposal process, you know. So they were more, I think, curious about how the lessee potentially is able to purchase this land for XY reasons.

So, you know, I'll admit there was— I have no real clear picture of how the DNR does their public process, you know, notice processing. And so I don't know how many people were notified. I don't know if any mailings were put out, to be honest with you. You know, I just read what they put in their final decision. But they're like, this is the purpose, a part of the purpose of why we do our public process years ago is to come up with all these comments, objections, you know, whatever, come up with this decisional process, and then we come up with a final finding and decision, and then we go to, you know, make this thing work for the lessee.

But I think right now, erase all of that history, it don't matter. We're just crossing our fingers that DNR will dedicate Track B.

And, uh, you know, 3 months from now, it'll be all history. Nobody will ever remember, you know, the headaches and whatever.

So, okay, crossing my fingers. Thank you very much.

Can I get a motion from the board for approval of the plat? So we got two things to vote on, or the plat and the vacation. So we're going to start with the plat first.

Madam Chair, should we do the vacation of the easement first? No, no, plat, plat.

Madam Chair, I move to approve the preliminary plat of AASLS 2019-69, Section 4, Township 24 North, Range 04 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent on staff recommendations 1 through 8. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Civetta. Can I get a second? Second.

Thank you, Mr. Gilson. Okay, discussion from the board.

No discussion. Carla, you're thinking.

I feel like it's too messy. It is too messy.

Well, I, I think it's too messy if we didn't have number 3 on the vacation. That, that, that settled my mind on it once you reread that and, and kind of cleared the cobwebs up here. Uh, I, I— otherwise it was a big mess. But if they don't do one of those two things, uh, then I wouldn't have approved it. But since that's in there, not going to say what I'm going to vote on the next thing yet, but maybe I would approve it.

Okay, so we're just focused on the plat right now, not the vacation.

Are there any objections to approving the plat?

No objections, so the plat is approved. So now I need a motion from the board to approve the vacation.

I have a question. Is it possible for us to alter number 3 to say just Proposed Track B is dedicated right away as opposed to all of Part 3. Well, we need a motion first and then we can talk about that.

Staff does not recommend changing that because the vacation, if approved by the board, will have 30 days to go in front of the assembly for either approval or veto. That does not give the petitioner enough time, the petitioner being the State of Alaska. Enough time to make the decision over what they want to do, whether approving the— approving the full dedication of Tract B or choosing one of the other options that we have presented to them. There could be a situation where the assembly approves a vacation and then the state on their own decides not to approve Tract B. Then there is no way for this to move forward.

And the vacation has already taken place. So that's why we do not recommend that course of action.

Okay, I need a motion from the board for the vacation.

I know nobody wants to do it, but we have to do it just to get it on the floor to talk about it. And you can vote no if you don't want to. Can I ask staff another question?

But are approving it as is, is the same situation that you just— same scenario you just gave us? Approving it as is will approve the vacation condition of assembly approval as well. Assembly in, uh, when is the assembly scheduled to meet?

I do not remember off the top of my head. It is, it is within this month. It is within the 30-day window. I believe it's the 21st.

The assembly will have the ability to either approve or deny the vacation.

So, it is— staff feels that it's better to give more options than less at this point.

If this, if this easement is to be vacated.

Can I request a 5-minute recess? Sure, 5-minute recess. Be back at 1:53.

Okay, okay, I'm bringing this meeting back to order. Mr. Young, you had something to say? I have a point of clarification to make. I was incorrect in my previous statement. If this vacation is approved by this board here and it is moved to the assembly and is also approved by the assembly, the vacation does not go into effect until the final plat is recorded.

So there will be overlap. So I want to make that very clear that my previous statement was not correct, and that when this vacation— if this vacation is approved at this board and at the assembly, the final vacation that— that, right?

The public use easement does not go away until final record— recordization, and final recordization does not happen unless all of the conditions of approval are met. So, if there's any other questions about that statement, I'd be happy to answer them. So there's a check and balance there to make sure that the vacation doesn't happen in it as presented. Which would be harmful to other people. It is a similar process as to what happens on this board approval here.

Approval is made, but nothing goes into effect until everything is finalized and recorded. So, even if it takes years down the road, as long as all those conditions of approval are met, that is when the vacation of that easement after assembly approval will officially go into effect.

Okay, do we have any other questions?

All right, so I need a motion now, please. I got you. Okay, I move to approve the vacation of public use easement described as that portion of the 60-foot-wide road corridor located in— am I reading the wrong one? You got—. Yeah, I got the old one here, but still, uh, the 60-foot-wide road corridor located at the SE 1/4, southeast 1/4 of Section 4, T2, T-24 North, R4W, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, as shown on the Benka Lake, Alaska subdivision recorded as plat 85-14 in the Talkeetna Recording District.

The 60-foot-wide public use easement as described in book 103, page 997, recorded on November 8th, 1984, located in the Southeast 1/4, Southeast 1/4, Section 4, T-24 North, R-4 West, Seward, Meridian, Alaska, contingent on staff recommendations 1 through 3. Thank you very much. Can I get a second? Madam Chair, I second. Thank you very much.

Discussion from the board?

My two cents, and the reason I wanted to work it out with that 5-minute recess— it meets borough code, the Planning Office officers went through it, are recommending approval.

I'm going to vote yes, uh, because to me it's then up to, the assembly if they want to conduct business this way. And I think they're the final decision in that matter. So that's why I'm going to vote yes. Reggie. Madam Chair, thank you.

Um, I have a question to staff, Tyler, Matt here. Um, recommendation 3, it's written I think very well. I, I, I, and we're not— we can't add anything onto that, right, at this point? We're just— we're now voting on how these recommendations are written right now. The board could always add, edit, or modify any conditions of approval.

These are just recommended conditions of approval by staff. Okay, I think what would make me feel comfortable giving a really good solid yes would be adding that if Track B was dedicated that we can— there is assurance from a civil engineer that the proper access could be developed in the future on what's— on what— on what's being dedicated, that Track B is being dedicated.

I understand what you're saying. Staff does not recommend that Track B at that width is well over 300 feet wide, plus the existing dedication of East Hillside Drive, which is another 60 feet. Being able to build a residential collector standard road without being a civil engineer and without being able to certify it, causing that may be an undue burden towards the petitioner.

Um, I, I personally feel that there would be no problem of building a residential standard road within that swath of right-of-way, regardless of topographic settings. Okay.

Any other comments?

Okay, are there any objections to approving this vacation?

Seeing none, the vacation has been approved.

Alrighty. So now we are down to staff comments.

Oh, uh, Tyler Young, Planning Officer. We have made an official, uh, decision on the special meeting for the Planning Board training with the legal team. It is going to be held July 30th, 2026 at 5:00 PM at this location, Assembly Chambers. It will also be— it is a public meeting and it will be broadcasted the same as any of our other meetings.

I'm going to apologize in advance due to the public noticing error that we— that I experienced. So our next meeting, we are going to have 8 cases. July 16th. I'll make sure to bring extra snacks.

Be here. I imagine everybody's going to be like, I got a reason to not be here that day.

Yeah. Yeah.

Any other comments from staff? No comments from the board. Reggie.

No comments. Carla? No comment. Roman? No comment.

Chris? No. Michael? No comment. None for me.

I am adjourning this meeting at 1:59 PM.