Petersburg Borough: Planning Commission Meeting 9.8.2026

I'll call the meeting to order. Uh, would you please do the roll call? Chris? Here. Heather?

Here. Jim? Here. Sarah? Here.

Joshua? Here. Can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Micah?

Here. Thomas? Here.

Okay, do we have any amendments to the agenda for today's meeting?

Uh, yeah, hearing none, do we have a motion to approve the agenda? We have a hand. Oh, uh, yeah, I don't know if it's the appropriate time to, uh, mention this, but I do want to have a change at the very end for the moratorium on data centers. It's a non-agenda item though. Should I wait for later on that?

Um, I thought data centers was— the moratorium was, uh, an action item. It's under non-agenda. It's both. So the moratorium recommendation to the assembly is under public hearing items, what I thought, and then the data center draft ordinance is under comments. So do you— is it the draft ordinance or the moratorium, Joshua?

The moratorium. Well, that's under, uh, um, uh, uh, an action item. Okay, so yeah, I figured I should wait for later to comment on that. Okay, well, we'll, we'll, uh, discuss it when we get to that. It's the 3rd item in our public hearings.

Good. I just didn't want to miss my chance. So, all right, hearing no amendments, is there a motion to approve? So moved. Yep, moved to approve.

Second. You, you're seconding? I am. Okay, um, all in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye. Do we have any amendments to the minutes from the previous meeting?

Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve? So moved.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, do you have any public comments that are unrelated to agenda items?

Hearing none, we'll move on to unfinished business consideration of, uh, there is one person. Did you ask for public, any public comments? Yes. Okay, so there is one hand, a couple of hands here. Okay.

And we'll start with Andrew Mazzella. If you'd state your name.

Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Good afternoon. Uh, actually afternoon, uh, Mr.

Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Andrew Mazzella representing Mazzella Alaska LLC as founder and CEO. I'm the owner of the waterfront industrial property located at 101 East Harbor Way. And I'm here today to enter a formal procedural objection regarding the public hearing for the proposed data center moratorium, public hearing item C. In fact, I am shocked that you didn't just remove that from the agenda per our letter Friday. This commission lacks the legal jurisdiction to hold a hearing, vote, or make recommendations on this item today because the borough has committed fatal notice violations under the Petersburg Municipal Code and Alaska law.

Petersburg Municipal Code explicitly protects public transparency and landowner due process. The borough failed these standards in 3 distinct ways on this item. First, the 15-day rule was violated. Mandatory public notices for a zoning alteration of this scale must be fully executed and accessible at least 15 days prior to the hearing. That timeline was missed.

And if you refer to the letter our counsel sent on Friday, uh, that is outlined in further detail, uh, and will certainly be outlined, uh, significantly going forward. Second, the borough completely abandoned standard operating procedure. There is a total failure to electronically post this notice on the official borough website, on its social media channels, or to print it in the local newspaper of record prior to the published agenda being published, which is absurd because the letter we sent was then not able to be put on the record because the notice, uh, for this hearing came out after the, uh, assembly agenda— or excuse me, the Planning Commission agenda was published. Um, this completely breaks the established custom and practice that Petersburg citizens rely on for public awareness. Our companies are headquartered in cities and states outside of Petersburg, so the only way we're able to see these public notices is in the paper which in every other meeting prior to this is published at least once, um, before the packet is published, which did not happen in this case.

Third, the 600-foot rule was ignored. The code strictly mandates that written notice must be mailed via first-class mail to all property owners within 600 feet of an impacted exterior boundary. As the primary property owner, directly and on the record targeted also shockingly by the language of this moratorium at last meeting. Muzzell, Alaska did not receive timely formal mailed notice. In fact, we've received no notice to date.

Excuse me. Outlining the legal and financial risks to the borough. Let me be very clear about the consequences of ignoring these facts. Under longstanding Alaska Supreme Court precedent, including Area Dispatch v. City of Anchorage and Griswold v. City of Homer, strict compliance with notice rules is a jurisdictional prerequisite. If you push this moratorium forward tonight, meaning even discussing it at it as a hearing item over a recorded notice defect, you're passing an ordinance that is invalid from its very inception, meaning we will most certainly void it, uh, and it'll be a complete waste of time.

You are opening the borough up to immediate litigation, temporary restraining orders, and substantial civil rights and regulatory takings claims under the Penn Central framework. Furthermore, under the court's ruling in Alaska Survival v. DNR, the fact that people found out about this meeting through informal word of mouth does not cure a constitutional due process violation. Formal state-sanctioned notice is required. By rushing this item forward without satisfying basic notice laws, the borough is creating an indefensible administrative record that will not stand up in Superior Court. For the legal protection of the borough and the constitutional rights of its property owners, I demand that the Planning Commission immediately remove the data center moratorium from today's agenda and postpone that hearing until the borough can properly cure these notice defects.

This statement and our formal letter submitted Friday, September 4th, from our lead litigation attorney must be fully entered into the official administrative record for this meeting. Thank you. Thank you.

I, I would—. I, I think that I should probably go in now because I actually prepared something to say. Joshua, no, no, no. Okay, we have anybody else besides Joshua?

Liz? Yeah, you You had your finger up. No, there is one more. Oh, okay. Yes, it looks like we do have one more.

And go ahead and state your name. Hi, my name is Tara Favilla. Can you hear me? Yes. Perfect.

Like I said, my name is Tara Favilla. I'm the president of Mozilla Alaska, and I've spent 20 years working in technology systems and operations. I did not grow up in Petersburg like many of you, but I did grow up in a small town with a population of less than 500, and so needless to say, I am drawn to protecting, improving, and respecting the traditions of small towns and maintaining their heritage. This is of utmost importance today, as what makes small towns work is trust. Trust that the rules apply equally, Trust that government follow the law and its own voted-on procedures.

Trust that public officials serve the public and not their personal agendas. This is why I'm here today. This is not simply a debate or a discussion about data centers. Whether you support data centers, oppose them, or undecided on the matter is not the issue before us. The real issue is whether government officials followed the required process.

Let me begin plainly. This is not merely a disagreement about data centers. It is about government officials disregarding the documented facts, violating required public processes, and using their public positions to advance their personal opposition to a lawful development and influence others to stay in line to forward their own personal agendas. Personal, meaning you've taken away the democratic process of the people's right to govern themselves. People are entitled to oppose data centers.

Public officials are not entitled to replace facts with their personal beliefs, misrepresent a pending permit application, or manipulate government procedure to stop a project they don't personally support. That is what occurred here. The record shows that in April of 2026, Mozilla Alaska publicly introduced this project months ago as a potential economic development opportunity for Petersburg. It was discussed openly and transparently. It was not hidden from the public.

On August 10th, Mazzella Alaska submitted a building permit application for renovations to privately owned industrial property at 101 Harbor Way. The borough acknowledged receiving that application and instructed us to obtain state fire marshal approval before processing. Those instructions were followed. The required fire marshal approval was obtained and submitted to the borough. Yet instead of processing the application or acknowledging it, a 1-year data center moratorium suddenly appeared while the application remained unprocessed.

At the same time, statements were made that do not match the documented record regarding what was submitted and when. Just as troubling, our counsel has formally advised the borough that required public notice procedures were not followed before this moratorium was advanced. The public was given very little time. To review it, understand it, or respond to a proposal that could have significant impacts on property rights and future economic development. That should concern every resident of Petersburg, not because of the project, because of the precedent.

If a permit application can be acknowledged, submitted, supplemented with the requested approvals, and then effectively set aside while new restrictions are rushed forward, then no property owner, business owner, or future investor can have confidence that the rules in place today will still apply tomorrow. This is bigger than the company I represent, Mozilla Alaska. This is why I'm here today. It is about transparency and accountability, and it's about whether government officials are willing to follow the same rules they expect everyone else to follow. We are not asking for special treatment, we're asking for equal treatment.

We're asking that the application be reviewed under the laws and procedures that existed when it was submitted, We are asking that public notice requirements be respected, and we are asking that facts, not opinions, guide public decision-making. No matter how anybody feels about data centers, those principles should unite all of us. Process the permit, correct the record, and follow the law. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Any additional comments?

Questions? Liz, I have a question for you about when in— no notification was mailed out or anything of that nature on this. So the issue here is you're not taking up an ordinance. All you're doing is making a recommendation to the assembly to initiate an ordinance. And so once— if they decide to do that, then it has to come back to you for a public hearing.

Yeah. And formal. So this is really—. It's just a recommendation. Yes, you're not really— you're not taking any action except making a recommendation to the assembly to take action, for you to take action later.

And so there's no public notice procedure date-wise for this type of thing, except, you know, put it on the agenda like we normally would. If the assembly decides that they want to pursue this and wants to have an ordinance drafted, you're going to have to have a public hearing, and that's going to have to be noticed. Yeah, um, in our normal way. Okay, I just was trying to figure out where we were on this. That's where you are.

Okay, thank you.

All right. Um, I guess we have nothing on the consent calendar.

And, uh, um, on unfinished business, we have consideration of a remand from the Board of Adjustment on an application from Central Council Tlingit Haida Tribes of Alaska for a minor subdivision at 1200 Haugen Drive.

Um, do we have motion?

I move— is okay, this is the one on Hawkins, right? I move to approve Resolution Number 2026-0101 to subdivide a parcel to create a a 10,036-square-foot lot at 1200 Hogan Drive. Second for purposes of discussion. Okay.

Comments? Um, so I wrote up something, so please bear with me, Mr. Chairman. I want to explain why I support the approval of this minor subdivision. I understand there is public opposition to the proposed communications tower, and I respect the right of residents to raise concerns about aesthetics, safety, privacy, property values, airport proximity, and whether this is the best location. Those concerns deserve to be heard, but our responsibility on the Planning Commission is not simply to decide whether we personally like the project or whether it's popular.

Our responsibility is to apply the borough's adopted standards to this application. The application before us and make findings based on the record. The distinction is especially important here because the matter before us is a minor subdivision. The subdivision is a land division action. It is not by itself a building permit, an FAA approval, a determination that every future structure is code compliant, or a blanket authorization to disregard our borough, state, and federal requirements.

If a communications tower is ultimately constructed, the applicant must still satisfy every separate requirement that lawfully applies to the construction. I also think the history of this property matters. Last year, this property came before this Commission in connection with the proposed sale of the land. We knew the intended use. We considered the intended use, approved the sale, and forward the recommendation to the Assembly for approval.

The Assembly then acted on the sale. Since that time, public opposition has increased, and some members of the Commission may no longer support the sale. That project as a policy matter. But a change in public sentiment or a change in personal preference is not standing alone a legal standard for denying a subdivision application that otherwise meets the criteria in our code. I do not believe we should move the goalposts after the fact.

If the borough had concerns about whether this property should ever be used for a communication facility, the appropriate time to address that fundamental land disposition question was when the borough considered selling the property for that known purpose. That does not mean the applicant is guaranteed every later permit. It does mean that at this stage we should be careful not to use the subdivision process as a second referendum on a policy decision that was already considered with knowledge of the intended use. Our code is very clear that the Planning Board is responsible for subdivision matters and requires a formal action. Section 18-12-050 states that the board shall take formal action by voting on a motion to approve or deny an application.

And then an action must include findings of fact supporting that decision. At the July 14 meeting, the record shows that this application was before us. Members of the public spoke in opposition. A motion was made by myself, and the motion failed for a lack of second. That did not produce the kind of clear approval or denial decision with findings that the code contemplates.

We should correct that process by addressing the application directly and applying the actual standards. This minor subdivision criteria in Section 18-20-010 focus on the mechanics and legally the legality of creating the parcel, the number of lots, legal and physical assets, whether a new street or right-of-way dedication is required, whether a vacation or subdivision variance is required. The departmental review— those, uh, those are objective matters. If the applicant meets those requirements, then any decision Then any decision to deny such identity, uh, identify the specific criteria is not meant— and the evidence supporting the finding. I have heard the argument that this is public land being used for private gain.

I understand the concern, but the argument needs to be viewed in the light of what's already occurred. The borough made a decision to sell this land with knowledge of the intended communications use. Once the disposition decision was made, the question before us today is whether that proposed subdivision complies with the subdivision code. We should not correct— characterize the property as though the borough had never considered whether this use is appropriate here. I have also heard the argument that there's already a cell tower across the street, and therefore the tower is unnecessary.

The existence of another tower may be relevant to a future sighting or communications facility discussion, but is not established that the existing tower can technically, structurally, commercially, or operationally serve this project. Unless we have evidence in the record showing that this other tower has the necessary capacity, height, loading, etc., etc., we should not deny the subdivision based on an assumption that another private structure can be used instead. There are also concerns about the appearance of the tower at the entrance into our town. Aesthetics are a legitimate community concern when the code makes them relevant to a land use decision, but again, We need to distinguish the subdivision from eventual structure. If the borough wants stronger, uh, uh, sitting, screening, setback, camouflage, etc., overlay standards for communication facilities, then we should adopt those standards and apply them consistently.

We should not create an unwritten standard for one applicant because the project has become controversial. The same is true of the height question. I'm not going to go into it. I have heard concerns about the airport. Those concerns should be taken seriously, but there are also regulation— regulated concerns that they have to address with the FAA.

If the tower cannot meet application aviation standards, then it cannot lawfully proceed merely because we approved a plat. The existence of another regulatory process is exactly why we should avoid trying to decide technical aviation questions through a subdivision vote without the necessary evidence. I have also heard concerns about the fire station, the possibility that a tower could fall or create some other hazard. Again, the proper question is whether there is competent evidence of a specialized hazard and whether the applicant— applicable structural building setback or safety requirements address it. We should not base a denial on a hypothetical event without engineering evidence.

If a lawful condition is needed to protect surrounding property, that condition should be tied to the code and the evidence. But generalized fear of a possible accident is not the same thing as demonstrated failure to meet subdivision criteria. Property value concerns deserve the same careful treatment. If someone believes the subdivision will materially harm surrounding property values, that assertion should be supported by evidence and more importantly tied to a criterion we are legally authorized to apply. We should be cautious about treating speculation as a finding of the fact.

This site is not in the middle of a conventional residential division, and there is already communications infrastructure in an immediate area. That context, that matters. Uh, to make it shorter, if you have— if you guys can find criteria that we can legitimately apply to this, I have no problem saying otherwise. But as I, as I've read through everything and studied, we actually have no reason to deny this.

Okay, um, I have a number of comments. Uh, thank you. Um, that I'll try to keep brief, um, because ultimately, you know, I, I'll skip to the end here so you're not kind of on pins and needles. Ultimately, I do agree that we don't have a reason under borough code to deny this plat, um, because at this point we aren't, uh, an appeals board for assembly decisions. The dynamic is actually the reverse.

Um, the— but what before is before us on the agenda right now is quite narrow, which is, is this a legally sufficient minor subdivision under borough code? Um, but I'll, I'll go back to the beginning now and kind of go through my thought process.

The Telecommunications Act is relevant, absolutely relevant, because this is a tower. Um, communications tower. I would— the way I've been thinking about this specific tower is actually because it's an internet tower, a fixed wireless broadband tower, then my belief based on reading the Sitka administrative decision that was distributed to this group I have a number just so I can cite it for the record. OAH number 25-2204-MUN of October 1st, 2025. That held that the Telecommunications Act only covers cell phone towers and not internet towers, and not internet towers that could hypothetically also include cell phone technology.

And that was specifically about Tidal Network. In Southeast, the same grant that's addressing us now. So I find that decision to be very, very relevant and very persuasive to, um, my thought process, which was that I didn't believe that, um, an applicant could successfully sue under the Telecommunications Act for refusing to site this tower because it's an inner tower. Um, so that has always been relevant to the way I've been thinking about it. Um, I know this group Alaskans for Safe Tech had posted, um, I think a very interesting series of videos by a telecommunications attorney.

Um, I looked him up on his website. He is, um, licensed in a number of jurisdictions, including I think all of this circuit court including Ninth Circuit, which we're in, and also the Supreme Court. He's barred to appear before the Supreme Court of the United States, which is rare. Not all attorneys— certainly not. I'm certainly not barred to appear before the United States Supreme Court.

So I do consider his opinions to be very relevant.

That video, series of videos, was from 2021. So it's very recent. My— if I could go back in time, I would ask that the Assembly before— because I know fear of losing a lot of money in a lawsuit came up a bunch of times, you know, it was definitely a factor that the Assembly considered. Um, at this point, I don't— I really have serious concerns that that was not a relevant factor in their decision-making process. Now, that's not to say that they're are no reasons to site a tower.

You know, wanting to keep up with technology is a legitimate reason. Wanting to improve emergency infrastructure is a legitimate reason. Wanting to enter into a long-term partnership with a fellow government, a tribal entity, is a legitimate reason. You know, there were reasons to put this tower up, but I don't think that specifically fear of losing money in a lawsuit was a reason to put this tower up. But that gets back to my original point, which is, I think at this point before the Planning Commission, it's, it's too late to consider that.

Um, what we're considering now is this a legal, legally sufficient minor subdivision that we can approve? And I think that answer is yes. And I'm going to go through the factors and spell it all out. Um, the factors that we have to go through are Petersburg Municipal Code 18.20.010. Um, Part 1, the plat subdivides a single lot into not more than 4 lots.

It subdivides it into 2. Um, Point 2, the plat provides legal and physical access to a public highway or street for each lot created by the subdivision. Yes. Haugen Drive. 3, The plat does not contain or require dedication of a street right-of-way or other area, and there was no dedication required.

4, The plat does not require a vacation of a public dedication of land or variance from a subdivision regulation, and there is no variance or vacation required. Point 5, um, the outside corners of each lot are marked in at least 2 outside corners of the whole subdivision tract or reference to publicly recorded survey marks, and that will be required on final plat submission, and that's put in as a condition of, um, of approval. So that is sufficient to put it in when it's done. Um, and Standard 6, the written approval of Public Works, Engineering, Power, Light, and Police Departments, has been noted on the application, and none of those 4 departments had any comments. Um, I also note that the, the department head for the police department, Chief Kerr, uh, spoke in favor of this tower for, um, emergency dispatch infrastructure reasons.

So I think that's something to consider under that point. Um, so that's all 6 of the code criteria are met. Um, And that leads me to the findings. The first finding is that the proposed project meets the criteria for minor subdivision of 18.20.010. I agree with that finding.

I think that was met.

Um, now finding 2 to me is the most relevant, um, to the way I've been thinking about this. The applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable zoning and development standards. Um, this is the case because of the timing. Um, but the zoning criteria that we recently passed, the Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance, requires 110% setback. Um, according to the contract, this— the maximum tower height is 130 feet.

Uh, 110% of that is 143 feet, and looking at the paperwork here, It looks like the distance of the parcel is 133 feet from the road. So if the wireless communication facility ordinance had been passed before this contract was signed, that would not be a sufficient setback under the new code and would have to go through the waiver process to keep the plans as is. But the contract was signed and the application for a minor subdivision was submitted before that code was, was passed. Took effect. So under the existing code at the time of the application, that finding is correct.

And, um, I would have rather that order have been reversed because the community put a lot of effort into passing the wireless communication facility ordinance. And I think part of the waiver process that I find really important is that it adds additional information for the public. Knowing what exactly other sites they looked at, you know, does this fill a gap and is it the least intrusive means for doing that? Could there have been a shorter tower in place, etc.? Um, but because of the order of things, that waiver process is not required for this tower.

Um, so again, finding 2, I— of the staff report, I do agree with, but the timing is really, really close.

Um, so I find that unfortunate in that I think the community would have liked that additional transparency. Um, finding 3 is that the applicant has submitted a plat that generally meets accepted standards of good draftsmanship. I have no reason to doubt that.

And, um, finding 4 is that the subdivision allows for the conveyance of this parcel as according to the contract. And again, I have no reason to doubt that. So I feel that I do not have the discretion to vote no to this for these reasons. I wanted to spell it out really clearly for the group. Um, and those are my comments.

Thank you.

This is a continuing item from a previous meeting. So if you— yeah, it's— we're discussing that. Yeah. So, um, can we still listen? Well, Joshua's got his hand up right now, so I think we need to hear from the commissioners first, then we can make a decision if we're gonna have— are you still wanting to speak, Joshua?

Yeah, certainly, just briefly. Um, this is— I've mentioned this before, but the subject of debasement of land values, I think, is really, really central to the concern. I really appreciate Commissioner Fine-Walsh's comment about the setbacks, which is also very relevant. Can you speak up some, Joshua? It's hard to hear you.

Oh, is it? Um, is that a little bit better? That's a bit better. Thank you. A little bit better.

Sorry. Yeah, old computer. Um, I just— I really appreciate Commissioner Fine-Walsh's comment about the setbacks. We're working on the communications towers overlay, and it really does seem redundant. And I know that that might not be a criterion for denial, but this thing about debasement of land values seems very relevant to me.

People are contesting their land assessments in the vicinity because of that. Now, this, of course, might be the least impact impactful of the sites where towers are going up, but it seems like it's the most redundant. Aren't we— it seems like we should be able to work better with these companies to find a place where the service is underserved. And we've been really working with this, and I don't know, it just seems like, aside from the fact that, yeah, it is a small lot, and it, it, it wouldn't fit the current ordinance. Aside from that, why, why don't they work with us more when we're trying to, we're trying to find a solution that helps our community?

It's not like we're saying we don't want towers, we don't want the infrastructure. We're just saying we want to do it where it helps our community. That's really all I have to say. Thank you, Joshua.

Any other comments? Yeah, I have some comments. Okay, Tom. Yeah, so, um, I do appreciate the, uh, assembly to, um, try to carry out good faith business dealings and in a timely manner. And, uh, I've, uh, I've thought a lot about how I wanted to approach this over the last couple of months.

When this first came up. And so I did some digging, and in our municipal code, Code 18.24.060A3, it states that lands unsuitable for development, lands which have been found to be unsuitable for subdivision, because of potential hazards such as flooding, snow, avalanches, rockfalls, landslides, unstable slopes, high winds, high water table, polluted or non-potable water supply, high voltage lines, air or vehicular traffic hazards, or other features which may be detrimental to the health, safety, or general wealth to the welfare of the existing or future residents shall not be subdivided nor included in any building lot unless the hazards are eliminated or will be overcome by approved design and construction plans. And so, after reading this and to make sure this was, this was applicable, it was, was in the major subdivision, but there's another regular There's another code here that says all other requirements for major subdivisions procedure shall also be required for the standard minor subdivision procedure to extent required by the Planning Board.

And in reading this and trying to understand how to apply this to what we're dealing with, I wrote a letter to the Board of Adjustment explaining some risks that this tower poses. And the risks, they are by themselves a risk, but being in such close proximity to the fire department, the fire hall, that is an added concern of mine. And so I looked at wind, and I appreciate what Floyd said today, and he'd like some examples. And so I prepared some examples for, wind, and the Palmer Tower, very much like the lattice tower they plan on building here next to the fire hall, snapped in half, blew over, and they credited it to 80-mile-per-hour winds. Well, those kinds of winds are prevalent here.

You just have to drive out the road a little ways, and there is a pretty big— looks like a clear cut where the winds came through and knocked all those great big trees down. Past Lion's Loo, and those kind of sites are visible. They're peppered throughout Southeast, and they happen all the time. So there's an example for wind. Earthquakes happen.

They don't happen very often, but they do. You throw a bunch of snow and a bunch of ice on top of a tower, and you have an earthquake at the same time, the potential of that is very very slim, but it's there. It exists. And, uh, and so you have low-flying aircraft around here with the site being in such proximity to the airport. And, um, and maybe one tower's a doable situation, even though adverse weather conditions do occur all the time.

A pilot will leave in these small fixed-wing aircraft or even the rotary aircraft and, um, and they'll come back a half hour, 45 minutes later, and visibility has changed. The ceiling dropped, fog rolled in, and there are limited ways to approach.

Well, you add a second tower, and then you add a third tower, which is what we're going to have if we allow this tower. It'll be a third tower surrounding the airport.

All these risks and accumulation cannot be ignored.

And so I also want to address another concern of mine, and it is the, uh, the chance of a vehicle crashing into the tower, with the tower being so close to the highway. It happens. Another example, Ketchikan, guy got behind the wheel and crashed his truck into, I think, 4 or 5 businesses intentionally. And then, of course, everybody knows somebody who's driven their vehicle into a ditch. We've dealt with that in recent years, and out-of-control vehicles is a thing.

And so that's another risk. It's an added risk. You add all these risks up, and then the question that comes to my mind: is there a better place for this tower than right there, right next to our only fire hall? If something happens to our fire hall, what do we do? Who's going to save us?

Who's going to put the fire out? Wrinkle? No. There's no roads to any nearby towns. We are by ourselves.

We are isolated and we need to protect our emergency infrastructure.

And so being that I haven't found any findings of fact on, um, why other sites that seem to me appropriate for this type of tower. I've seen some sites, I've heard some sites that may not be good enough or aren't as good, but taking consideration the risks that we are gonna be susceptible to, I think we should find out if there are indeed no other available sites. And then also, well, I think I'm gonna end it right there. I'm just gonna, gonna stop in case I need to continue on later. Thank you, Micah.

I just had one comment. I believe that this moved forward as a recommendation of sale to the borough based, based on a lot less was known about the actual project. That was— is going to go on the site. This hasn't— information about the actual project is having to be— has had to be, like, painfully extracted. I don't believe that the public was very well aware, and, and since they've become aware, they have showed up wholeheartedly, not only with their opinions but with solutions.

And, um, I believe that this may have been put forward for recommendation to the sale to the borough because people had less information than what was learned after that.

Thank you. Hello. Hi, Ms. McMurrin left the room, but I read her letter and it circled me right back to where the first tower that I became aware of that was going up. I read the ordinances and I just, thought maybe these towers didn't fall within the description of our— of what was approved activity. I asked about that, and then she does too.

So maybe even from the get-go, we're applying an ordinance that was intended for apples to an orange. If that makes any sense to anybody else besides me. And so that's one stumbling block I've had all along. And then also that these towers go up and then what does go on them changes. So what we might be think we're approving now down the road, we is not what we may be stuck with.

And I haven't seen any, uh, you know, promises or Anything that would— that from, from them to say we're not going to use this tower for other intended purposes than for what we're using it to get permitted right now. And if they're getting in under the gun before the ordinance changes, can we go back later and then say, but now you have to tell us what you're doing via the new ordinance?

Or can they just say we got in under the gun with the old ordinance and so we don't have to comply with You know, letting you know what's new down the road, what we're going to do. So I cobble that together with what you've— with what Commissioner Kowalski has said about safety. And, um, I, I think we've got real problems here.

Okay, thank you.

Any further comments, discussion? Do we want to open it up to any public comments or not? I'd like to add to my discussion, um, also one of the points that Jim made was not, um, using a perceived potential, um, thing like the property values. However, we have had a local real estate agent come and testify that it does affect values. I would like to be proactive in protecting the citizens of Petersburg and their investments in our community when this does— it does and will affect property values.

So, um, not just solely based on the one realtor that came, but also we've heard from tons of citizens.

So that is a big— and there's letters here in the packet. So that is a— I, I believe that it's more than a potential risk. I think it will affect property values.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts? Anybody?

Yeah, I think we should open it up to the public to speak, uh, because this has been, um, it's been vetted before, but now it has a purpose for a fact-finding mission, and I'd like to see if there's anything maybe new the public might have, or, uh, or an opinion that we should hear. I, I would also support hearing from the public just because it sounds like they would have spoken during public comments, um, had there not been a little bit of confusion there. So, um, and we've allowed that sort of thing in the past, so I, I would support it now. Okay, do we need to vote on that? Nope.

Okay, I think there seems to be consensus, so please step up to the microphone, state your name.

Judy Omer. And it's nice to be before you again. We started this a long time ago, and I've got a lot of thanks really for this commission and all that they've put into trying to come to answers and finding a balance between the public testimony, which has been much, and the different laws on the books in different ways. So what I'm, I'm going to do today is something that is in your, in your packet, but want to do it for anybody who's listening out there who may not have it in front of them. And this is, um, so I'm speaking for myself and also on behalf of Alaska for Safe Tech.

Greetings, Chairman Frye and commissioners, on behalf of the 360 borough residents signatories of concern regarding the applications justifying the siting of 4 additional cell towers within our borough. We'd like to resubmit evidentiary materials on the public record of the, the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, and the Borough Assembly. We respectfully ask for a pause in borough deliberations regarding the WFC, which is the Wireless Communications Act, decision-making in consideration of addressing and timely responses to the following evidentiary materials attached. Please find a compact, highly informative 10-minute video link and the PDF transcript presented by Andrew Campanelli, a practicing legal specialist in municipal rep— representation, legal interpretation, and precise codification central to the enabling provisions of the Telecommunication Act of 1996. According to Mr. Campanelli, the importance of correct interpretation and precise municipal codification of the TCA provisions are essential to the preservation of the primary functions of the Planning and Zoning Commission, uh, and their capabilities in retaining local control through thorough vetting of the wireless communication facilities applications in the siting of these cell towers.

The controls are specifically embedded into the provisions of the TCA, the Telecommunications Act, through apparently not fully realized by Petersburg Borough legal directives applied to the recent WFC ordinance of 1996.

This is where back in October when I first spoke in front of the assembly, I talked about the first call I made was with the, the people in New York who have dealt with, with this whole issue and that you need specialists in order to help you form the ordinances that are going to protect your community. And I talked then about you don't go to a general practitioner for heart surgery and we needed to have some specialists in on this when we were trying to protect Petersburg as we know Petersburg Well, we're trying to keep up with the telecommunications and the communications in general that are going so quickly through our whole, whole country, our whole world. The legal expertise contained in the 10-minute presentation explains the common mistaken assumptions and the misinterpretations of the Telecommunications Act, which many municipalities have fallen victim to. Remedial interpretation and application of the borough's authority under the TCA, now 30 years old, seems remedial at best, eminently advisable, and certainly in Petersburg's public best interest. Additionally, we're resubmitting on the public record other highly relevant evidential materials apparently categorically disregarded by the recent Board of Adjustment and their facts of finding directive.

So please find the attachments of these resubmissions, which include screenshots of pre-existing fixed brand broadband and mobile coverage maps that are provided by the FCC itself for the developed regions of the Petersburg borough and vicinities. The attached maps, updated in August, August 4th specifically of this year, call into question the credibility and the factual veracity of the application claims by Tidal Network and possibly GCI versus the full direct impacts imposed on borough residents by the siting of 4 additional cell towers in proximity to residences and public spaces. I'd also urge that you go back through the packet and reread the letter from the director of the child care facility and the damage that will cause in her business. With the siting of the tower that you're talking about now. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, Commissioners and Chairman Frye. Becky Knight here, also representing the 360 signatories of the statement of concern about the cell tower build-out. And this continues on with the testimony that you've already received. This—. The sheer scale of the sudden build-out is not commensurate with Title Network's purpose and need, given the prior unrecognized urgency to address the alleged underserved Native and non-native residents of the Petersburg borough as victims of a so-called digital divide.

The Title Network makes contestable claims employs massive material redactions of public documents, sovereignty auspices, NDAs, and proprietary protections, which according to the Bureau require no TCA-compliant vetting by P&Z, no quantification or qualification, seems to bypass the entire purpose and functions of P&Z as well as, as the TCA-enabling provisions. Crucial to defunding local control over wireless communication facilities. This proof calls into question the truthfulness of the TCA, or Title WCF, application, along with the deficits, and Ordinance 2026-14C underscores the importance of retaining borough authority, authority, and local controls. Careful scrutinization is due any applicant to B&Z authorities, especially regarding WC applicant claims, resulting in the consequential direct financial, aesthetic, health, and safety impacts imposed upon borough residents. This is not standing in the way of business when they are following the rules, but rather the absolute responsibility of a local governing body to protect the welfare of those whom they represent, and especially so when they are funded by hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

100%. Measure twice, cut once. Um, and if the basis for this need hasn't been properly vetted, then how can the Bureau move forward in the absence of that? The importance and timing of these materials cannot be overstated in the context of selective findings of fact, including PNC's so-called failures. Additionally, a full commission review of FCC broadband coverage maps in the context of unqualified title coverage gaps concealed under sovereignty and proprietary information is a reasonable and justifiable conclusion to call into question the applicant claims by the P&Z commissioners.

According to Mr. Campanelli, local municipal attorneys are ill-equipped to deal with the Telecommunications Act for drafting code. And this is in no deference to or no disparagement on anybody. In fact, he says, quote, if your local municipal attorney tells you your hands are tied and that you must comply with the telecom companies, you need to get a new attorney immediately. The telecom companies can say or do most anything. Also, he says, when they appear before local zoning boards, boards are completely ill-equipped to deal with them.

90% Of telecommunication applicants submit false or materially misleading information. They routinely submit false propagation maps, false FCC compliance reports, materially list— materially list misleading real estate appraisal reports, misleading visual impacts, etc.

The problem is there's no guidance in the local code to show the planning board how to recognize when FCC compliance report is patently false. The lack of procedural requirements is the most glaring mistake that local governments make. That guidance is absent in the code, quote, then you are basically throwing your zoning board to the wolves. They are totally ill-equipped. To deal with that.

Many times I've heard applicants mislead local governments when they must, and when they leave, they laugh about how gullible the local zoning officials were. You must give your local boards procedural guidelines on how to understand how to comply with the 5 procedural requirements that the Telecommunications Act of 1996, subparagraph B, imposes upon them. Most local boards almost always violate those requirements because they don't know what, what's in them, or they don't know that they are. So you must amend your code to put them in. Ensure the applicant's say anything model is rampant.

According to Campanelli, when they leave, they laugh at how gullible the local zoning is. Likewise, the P&C commissioners viewing and discussion around the video presentation, Mr. Campanelli as a legal expert specialist in proper borough interpretation and codification of the TCA and within the borough's own WCF ordinance is valid. It also provides a reasonable and justifiable conclusion to call into question the borough's demonstrated prejudices, normalized disregard for the relevance and significance of these evidentiary materials. And the last thing I'd like to add is when you look at those maps you can actually click on the polygons. They're enabled and you can go right to your own residence and see what, what they say about your coverage.

So I think I advise anybody in the public to also— you can just click on Mr. Campanelli's face and go right to a lot of that information as well as the proprietary maps. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, David Beebe speaking for myself, 360 signatories of very concerned citizens about the sudden arrival of 4 new cell towers in addition to what we already have. I guess what strikes me is the borough is essentially blindsided by this sudden explosion of cell towers that, according to the FCC, we already have high-speed broadband access. And the most important thing that occurs to me around this build-out is what these— going from the transition from 4G, 5G to 5G, 6G That transition is all about a completely different system. As a matter of fact, it's a system literally designed to become a community neighborhood surveillance network.

This should give everyone pause, especially if you've taken oaths of office to support and protect Alaska's Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. This is not a, an unreasonable request or consideration. For instance, the borough assembly of Anchorage is quite concerned about this. Recently, they understood that the privacy implications alone of a surveillance network that works 365, 24/7, needs to be understood for its consequences to the principles of democratic participation. Because if you have an awareness that everything that you say is being recorded, it is going through a network of, quote, the Internet of Things that ultimately gets captured, stored, analyzed, processed by AI data centers.

You know, this is obviously going to have impacts on free speech for the simple reason that self-censorship is going to be applied, and this is right out of George Orwell's 1984. So in conclusion of, of, uh, Mr. Campanelli's, uh, applied legal expertise in the Telecommunications Act provisions, these are revelatory, they're legally significant, and directly relevant to the current borough-wise wireless communications ordinance conundrum. Additionally, they provide potential exculpatory evidence that failure may well be shared by the borough staff and assembly, as well as the claims that, you know, according to basically an outdated borough code that left us high and dry, uh, we need to understand that we have a responsibility to the future. We cannot pretend that we can come up with an ordinance that could predict what has already befallen us in regards to 5G and 6G build-out. These revelations include the unqualified assumptions of taxpayer sentiments in regards to defending and enabling borough sovereignty and local control.

If If we have a situation where we've been literally exploited by a sudden build-out of telecom towers that, by all appearances, the FCC regards as unnecessary, then we have to understand what the real reason for these towers are, and it's the very nature of 5G and 6G. So such controls Uh, by enabling the Planning and Zoning Commission with TCA-specific provisions through precise codification, language has to occur. And if it doesn't, the current ordinance that we have is just as useless as the last one. The broad prejudice of exploiting public fears by insinuating unfounded assumptions of extraordinary legal costs to the borough in defense of borough sovereignty in the event of an adverse judgment. Well, Mr. Campanelli pointed out that there are no legal costs in regards to an adverse judgment.

We simply have to then site the tower where the telecom tower company wants it, and that's a— that should be enough evidence to demonstrate that the borough assembly needs to understand what they're saying in terms of projection of public fears, you know, or inciting actually, needs to have a factual basis to it. Okay, thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Hey, Dan Christensen, third-generation Petersburg resident. I think it's my first time speaking for y'all. I have every intention of keeping it brief. First, I have to start with a question. This—.

The tower in question, is this a carrier for AT&T? No, it is not. Okay, uh, this had just came occurred to me here in the meeting is that I had seen an article last week that AT&T was going to start piggybacking off of, um, Starlink off of their satellites. And the question that that posed to me was, are towers going to be outmoded in 10 to 15 years? Is everything going to go out?

Highly likely. So why Um, anyway, that's all for now. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

Any further comments? Any further discussion from the board?

I'm going to say one thing. I'm not saying that I'm necessarily for or against the tower. I'm just saying that that's not really what this is supposed to be about. It's whether or not it fits the criteria. That's, that's kind of where I am.

I, I do not like this location for the tower. However, as far as we're looking at a minor subdivision and it fits the requirement for a minor subdivision, and it's really hard to, you know, you can't go against the fact of doing the subdivision because you don't like the tower being there. So that's kind of where I am in it. Um, any further discussion?

Let's do the roll call.

Jim? Yes. Micah? No. Joshua?

No.

Sarah? Yes. Chris? Yes.

Thomas? No. Heather?

No. Okay, moving on to public current. Mr. Chairman, you need to have findings for why you've— why this has failed, and they need to be in line with the criteria that's in the code. Okay, I will leave that to the people who made the no votes to come up with the criteria.

That's the reason I voted yes, is I couldn't find a way to—.

I think, Mr.— I think Chairman Kowalski's comments about safety do challenge the criteria.

Yeah, I'm just going to stick with what I said, uh, going with the, uh, municipal code that I refer to and, um, and the reasons why. Liz, does that have to be put into a motion or into, uh, some format to be recorded? Well, I guess I just want to know where this fails the standard. Yeah, you know, there's 6 standards. Where does this fail the standard?

I have another reason.

Um, there are 6 standards. Josh, just tell me where it fails the standards. Okay, I have another reason. Um, flight path safety. It's too close to the airport, and that was mentioned by Scott Newman, uh, at a previous meeting.

Um, this is a pretty tall tower to be that close to an airport.

That's where the FCC requirements—. That would be under FAA. Yeah, FAA. Sorry, that would be under FAA's requirements. And like the design requirements fall under the building department, not under our purview for this.

That's where I don't— I can't agree with that, unfortunately. So.

I ask a question.

Yep. Um, one of the things pointed out by Mrs. McMurrin is the 35-foot height restriction in commercial 1 zone. Is that to be discussed in building permitting, or? Liz is nodding her head on that one. That's something that would have to be addressed by the— in the permitting for whatever they want to build.

Has nothing to do with subdivision, right? So that's under—. That's my question. Yeah, just under building permit. Okay, thank you.

So, uh, what, what, uh, what section is this? Found in—. If so, if you're in the packet, um, and you're looking at pages 16 and 17, that has the subdivision criteria 1 through 6 on page 16, and 17 has the 4 findings, um, for the resolution.

Just want to say again that, you know, I did a Google search and it said, yes, a planning commission can deny a land use application if they determine it. Poses a danger to the public.

I guess we determined that we feel it does pose a danger to the public, uh, for airplane FAA, um, for load-bearing snow and ice that could break off and hit our fire hall, just for all the reasons that Commissioner Kowalski has already outlined. Well, the question is more on the rezoning, not what we feel about the use.

All right, well then, uh, in Section 1820.0103, Subdivision. All other requirements for major subdivision procedure shall also be required for the standard minor subdivision procedure. And then I will refer to the major subdivision section, 18.242.060, lands unsuitable for development.

Okay. Does that fulfill what you need, Liz?

So, in effect, you're saying that it does meet all the standards, and then you're adding this other— you're making a statement that the land is actually unsuitable for subdivision. Yes, based on safety concerns. Based on safety concerns.

The hazards that come with building the tower so close to our fire hall. Well, it has nothing to do with what is being built. It has to do with subdividing the property.

So, you know, the safety concerns are handled under the building permit process. So I'm just trying to understand how it relates to the subdivision part. So the subdivision part is, uh, it is part of the development of the subdivision. No, nothing should ever be built on that property that's right next to the fire hall because it's not suitable for any kind of development.

What you're saying is completely different than what I said. Well, but that's what it leads to, right? If we're saying that a piece of property is not suitable for development, then it's not suitable for subdivision because it's not suitable to have anything being built on it. They got to develop for anything. Yeah, because we're not the, you know, under the subdivision code, you're not deciding what's going to be built on it.

So, in essence, what we would be saying is that nothing should be built in that close proximity to our fire hall, that that piece of property is not suitable for any development, is what you're saying. So close to the fire hall.

Actually, it does say in here, other features which may be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of existing or future residents. So it's not just whether or not the land is developable enough, it is the type of development which may be detrimental. Public nuisance.

But that's not handled under subdivision code, right? That's handled under our zoning code. And the uses and the— whether it's built safely or not is handled under building permit. So what is it about? All I'm asking is, what is it about subdividing it and making it available piece of property is unsuitable?

That's all I want to know.

Uh, for any development. So I think you guys are not going to agree with Liz, and you guys won the vote. What you just need to do is write a sentence that she can put in there. It's going to almost certainly be appealed before the Board of Adjustment, the assembly, um, so they need something in writing to review.

I mean, makes sense to me. Is that kind of what you've already stated? That you're— is the sentence that you're looking for what we've kind of already stated? That, uh, for public safety concerns, is that what you're suggesting we come up with?

What I'm thinking that they Want is for the no vote to fit into these 6 standards. Yeah. And if it doesn't finish the 6 standards, which it might not, there's 4 findings on the— on page 17. Finding 1 is that all 6 standards are met. Finding 2, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable zoning and development standards.

Finding 3, the applicant has submitted a plat that generally meets accepted standards of good draftsmanship. And finding 4, this subdivision allows for conveyance of a 10,036-square-foot parcel approved for sale by the Borough Assembly on June 15, 2026, as Resolution 2026-16 to the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, doing business as Title Networks. So if there's any of those 4 findings that you want to edit, or if you want to add a new finding—. I have a question, then it goes back to my other one about the height. The applicant has— for finding number 2, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable zoning and development standards.

Um, if what they are intending to build may not meet the height requirements of commercial 1, would that—. Well, so I, I get what you're saying. If one way you could accomplish your goal is to amend the existing findings, another way would be to add a new finding. So you can either amend these findings by motion, or you can by motion add a new finding. Those are, those are some paths forward for you guys.

Well, I'm gonna stick with this.

Uh, for finding 1, proposed project meets criteria for minor subdivision. Uh, 18.20.

18.20.010, And within that is 18.20.010, which refers to all the requirements in the major subdivision, which— and the particular one I'm after is 18.24.060.

And the part of that is air or vehicular traffic hazards or other features. And of those, I will include air traffic hazards.

So we're making a finding number 5 that we find air traffic to be?

Well, in my mind it's finding one. It's still— we're still in—. Still within finding one. It's within that chapter. All right, so how do we author our sentence then?

Is that right? Is that— do you see it that way too? Oh yeah.

Yes, it was 18.20-010, and within there you can Insert something about the height requirement.

Uh, code.

Front of me, but, um, for me—. Go ahead. Um, okay, so what you— where you're getting at it is what becomes— what becomes of the 35-foot height restrictions? As discussed in the commercial 1 zone.

So we're trying to get that into our sentence because this tower, this proposed tower is going to be higher, taller than 35 feet. And coupling that with Commissioner Kowalski's statements about that tower being hazardous. For flight. Well, I just was asking that— I asked that question about the zoning for commercial 1, if in fact that was the— there is a 35-foot height restriction, um, and then I was told, well, that's a building permit matter. But the reason I was asking is because in finding 2, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable zoning and development standards.

If right now commercial 1 zoning, which that is Says there's a 35-foot height restriction. Then, so it doesn't— it does not—. It wouldn't meet that. It doesn't pass finding number 2 sniff test either. That if we're—.

If we are having to approve or not approve this based on these findings, that's my question.

I think you've got a good point there.

The applicant did not demonstrate compliance with applicable zoning and development standards when it comes to the height of the structure. Does that work for you, Liz? Is that what you're looking for us to say?

I, yeah, I'm sort of at a loss. I mean, that's honestly one of them, and I'm not discounting what, what you want to say either, Tom. I mean, you can put your objection in the findings 91. I get what you're saying. Yep, absolutely.

But then there's two places where we feel like it just didn't fit.

That would be I'm fine with that if everyone else is. Yeah, that sounds good to me.

Mr. Chairman, could someone make a motion stating what the— what the finding is for the denial, and so you guys can approve that? You want to take care of that?

Yes. Yeah, I make a motion that, uh, bear with me, thinking you just amend the resolution in that way. We'll have a clear, clean denial resolution. Amend it. Amended to include, uh, finding a factor, whatever finding of fact you feel justifies the denial.

Okay, so I would like to amend the finding 1 to read the proposed project does not meet the criteria for a minor subdivision of 18.2010.

And should I continue on with the, the rest of this so that it's clear? I'll just do that. Yeah, you need a reason why it doesn't.

18.20.010B— excuse me, C3, which states that all of the requirements of a major subdivision procedure shall also be required for the standard Minor subdivision procedure to the extent required by the Planning Board.

And in the major subdivision procedure, 18.24.060.

Lands which have been found to be unsuitable for subdivision because of potential hazard, such as air or vehicular traffic hazards.

Other hazards, as close proximity to the fire hall due to potential damage by weather-related incidences, or we can say, uh, wind or ice, snow.

Overload, catch fire sometimes, and also due to the potential by design collapsible tower Standing on top of 200 gallons of fuel, close proximity to the fire hall.

That's kind of, I feel like, to me, the most direct would be that if, if the commercial one is got a 35-foot height restriction, um, that Finding 2 isn't accurate because that sentence—. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah, okay. Yeah, for me, I don't find that— I find that finding it in their application, their intent is to build a tower, you know, that's over the 35-foot height restriction for commercial 1, that does— that finding 2 doesn't— isn't accurate. So they have not demonstrated— it just— yeah, can you just tell me what it should say?

They have not demonstrated compliance with applicable zoning because commercial 1, which that is, I believe has a 35-foot height restriction.

So unless they're going to make their structure 34 feet 11 inches.

Okay, are we— no, we ready for—. There was, um, yeah, you guys, it was, uh, Tom made a motion of sorts and then there was no second. I don't think we need a second. I'll second. And that includes Tom's and Micah's, I assume.

Correct. Yeah, we ready for a roll call, or that'd be great if you would formally approve those findings. Approving these findings, um, would it be only the prevailing votes that vote on these amendments? Um, I assume that they're the only ones that are going to vote for it. Right.

No, that, that tracks. Thank you, Liz. Yeah, stating the obvious there. I know. Thank you.

All right, Heather? Yes.

Micah? Yes. Joshua? Yes. Sarah?

No.

Chris? I don't think I'll vote on it. I'll abstain. No, no. Yeah, no, no.

All right then. Yes, I— or no, I, I'm not— yeah, no. Jim? No. Thomas?

Yes.

All right, moving on to consideration of an application from Skylark Park LLC for a platting variance from the front lot frontage requirement for lot 1 of the proposed subdivision, allowing creation of a flag lot. We're going to do these in 3 separate sections. Am I reading it correctly, Liz? Right, just because you need to get through the variances, yeah, those decisions before you go to the preliminary. Preliminary, um, and then we haven't had a public hearing on this.

So if you want to take— okay, any testimony? Sure. Is there any public testimony?

Liz, can I ask a quick question? Do we need to do another roll call vote as amended? Oh, for the last one? Yeah, I think they voted no, right? And then we amended the resolution.

And then that passed. Oh, because the initial motion was— I see what you're saying. The initial motion was to approve the resolution. Yeah. And that failed.

And then you approved an amended version. The amended version. I think it's okay because it's 2 separate actions. What do you guys think? I think we should do— I think when the resolution failed, there was— we started new with a new motion, a new motion to amend the resolution, and I think it would be cleanest to vote one more time on that.

Yeah, okay, that's fine. Yeah, on the amended resolution, somebody needs to make a motion to vote on the amended, uh, resolution. So move the same resolution as amended. Yeah, so good. Thank you.

Okay, and Chris? No. Heather? Yes.

Micah? Yes. Jim? No. Joshua?

Yes. Thomas?

Sarah?

Thanks, Anna, for asking. All right, so now moving on to Skylark Park. I think this is where I'm supposed to bring up an issue if I think I have one. As I left the meeting—. Is this going to be under public testimony, or you're—.

Well, I'm—. How, how should we handle that, Liz? This is the conflict of interest, conflict of interest type. So So, should she— should she comment as a public under public testimony, or—. No, I think she should state her potential conflict of interest, and the Planning Commission is going to vote on whether she can stay and vote or whether she may recuse herself.

Okay. When we—. When our meeting was over last month and I went outside, I joined in on a conversation. And the conversation turned to somebody talking about an assembly member and whether or not there was a conflict of interest. And so that made me— I like you, Jim, but it did make me think of Jim's situation.

And so I Googled, I'm on the planning commission. If a business has an application before us and I work for a stockholder and director of another business, that the applicant owns. Should I recuse myself? Yes, you should almost certainly recuse yourself. So I know we're doing lots— we're, you know, this on the assembly level too, about conflict of interest and nepotism and stuff.

So I wouldn't have ever thought of it, I guess, except for we had that conversation about an assembly member.

Oh, I think what you're saying is because I work for Hammer Week on City Ambler is on the board. It's a stockholder and director, and you have a financial—. Wait a minute, hold on a second. This is not— is this your financial interest, Heather? No.

Okay, so you don't bring it up. You don't bring up somebody else's. This was when I was supposed to. Yeah, no, if someone has a personal financial interest they themselves bring forward the personal financial interest. You don't bring it up on behalf of somebody else.

So what if somebody doesn't? Then they do not, and then that becomes a question after the fact.

Well, I'm just going to say, since it was brought up, um, Sig is on the board of directors. He is one of 8 people, and so there is no financial interest in this situation. Remember, me. So, but it's up to you guys if you think that there's a disqualification. I'm fine with that.

I personally don't feel that there is a disqualification here. If for me, the way I think about it, because it has to be a pretty substantial financial interest in order to there to be a conflict. If under this example, Commissioner Floyd, if you were a board member of Skylark Park LLC, that would be to me a clear conflict of interest, but having it be a separate business, really separate, you know, dealings. One is development of land and the other is a grocery store. Those don't have overlap to me.

So for me, I don't feel that there is a conflict of interest in having you vote on this personally. I agree with Sarah. I think it's too far removed.

All right.

Any, uh, public testimony concerning this?

Liz, I have a quick question on this. Um, we have— in my experience in the Commission, I can't remember ever having requests for a flag lot before. Uh, it seems like it's a very rare thing, and it doesn't seem like it occurs much in Petersburg. Can you give us any history on that or any—. We need to do a motion first.

I'm happy. I've just got a question for Liz before you. Okay, I'm happy to make a motion. Let's make a motion. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. We can get carried away, so I'm happy to clear the record. So I'm going to move to approve Resolution 2026-601 denying the platting variance for Lot 5A, Block 221 for lot frontage. Flag lots.

Second. Okay, discussion. You asked that because the property behind Dean Roundtree has that. Yeah, it's very rare. There's a few of them in the borough.

There are a few that have been around for a really long time. Some of them were done, I think, by meets and bounds, you know, prior to the zoning code existing. But I think you're right. I'm—. I, I don't recall ever doing a flag lot, you know.

Yeah. Um, generally I try really hard to encourage people to stick to the standard minimums for our zoning districts when they can, so.

I know it makes access for fire difficult, and, and it also can lead to easement for utilities as problems and, um, and such. So, um, I'm generally in favor of making the Skylark Park project or Skylark neighborhood project successful, but, um, I'm comfortable denying this request because it won't, it won't prevent the entire project from going forward. And I also feel that because it takes the total number of lots down by only one, yeah, that the economic burden impact on the entire project will be negligible. I do acknowledge that when you're under the for public benefit purpose ordinance like they are here, that economic concerns are extra relevant. I—.

But I don't, I don't feel it doesn't make it a physical characteristic of the lot. And I, and I also feel that the economic impact will, will not be so substantial as to prevent the project from being successful. So that's why I'm comfortable denying this specific request. Me—. Other comments?

Yeah, I agree that I don't think it causes undue hardship and Personally, I don't like them. I took— this is off the subject, sorry, but kind of— I took my son back to where he was born, and we had a really nice big lot. This is in California, and they did that. They, you know, they started putting houses behind the houses, and it's just, it's not a good aesthetic and stuff.

Yeah, I just think it opens the door to create a lot of problems for future, so I'm, I'm not really in favor of them. Well, one of the wording that I saw in the application, I'm trying to go back and find it, but there's just so much here, um, is that those lots are single-family residential, and some of the wording was to create more lots for, um, uh, mobile— not mobile, but, uh, manufactured homes, which would require rezoning. And when this whole project was first presented a couple of years ago now, The Burrells assured the Planning Commission and the concerned public that these— that, that being one of the specific lots that are currently zoned single-family residential, that they would stay single-family residential so that they didn't impact, uh, impact the value of the current single-family residential homeowners that were already established and invested in that area. Correct. That's a little bit of back history on this, and that was their own Words, 105 of their application, where they said those lots would remain the same size.

The single-family residential lots would not be changed in size.

All right, well, based on, on that, um, do we have any further discussion?

I think the vertical argument for it, in favor of Sig Burrell. If I could make a lone comment, you know, on the— sure, it does, it does kind of help out with a densification. Um, I'm kind of ambivalent about the whole Flag Lot argument, considering that it's really adjacent to a kind of a trailer park anyway. I don't know, it doesn't really affect things much one way or another. Um, but I, I don't know, I guess I would give my two cents in to Maybe, maybe, maybe zag where you guys zig and go ahead and be the contradictory vote on this one, just because it adds 1 more unit.

I'm confused because the flag lot isn't going to be adjacent to the, um, to the trailer park. It's adjacent to a single-family residential lot on one side and single-family residential lot on the other side. Close to across the street with— if Odin were to be continued across the street, are all those other single-family residential lots that were— that we were told they would not change the size of, that they would remain the size they were and fit into the existing neighborhood that way. Isn't this kind of an extension of the Skylark Park thing anyway, though? But if you read, if they keep their word and leave those lots the same size they originally were, we're only talking about the single-family residential lots, then no, this is not near the ones that are going to be not as close, not as adjacent at all to the multi-family mobile home.

Sorry, I mean close, not adjacent. Yeah, you're right.

Um, Joshua, on page 47, the plan, the, um, the plan designation says low density resident residential, and its current zoning is single family residential.

Yeah, I see that.

All right, is there any further discussion?

Please do the roll call. Thomas?

No.

Sarah, could we, could we, uh, can I hear the motion again, please? Yeah, I was just wondering when myself, like Yeah, so this is a motion denying the application for the flag lot. So if you want to deny, you vote yes. If you don't want to deny, if you want to approve, you vote no. Yeah, okay, thanks for the clarification.

Okay, we start over. Yes, please. Thomas? Yes. Sarah?

Yes. Joshua? No.

Chris? Yes. Jim? Yes. Micah?

Yes. Heather? Yes.

Next, we have a plat— planning variance from the requirement for a 40-foot designated right-of-way along with, uh, uh, right-of-way along for a 30 to 33 foot dedicated right of way with 5 to 7 foot slope easements.

Do we have a motion? Yes, I move to approve Resolution 2026-603 approving the preliminary plat for the Burrell subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth in the resolution. And there are 14 conditions. We have a second. Second.

Discussion. Um, so I listened to the assembly meeting where, um, the representative of Skylark LLC— I'm trying to— there are a lot of pages in this, trying to find my notes here. Um, it was the, uh, the land surveyor. He spoke.

Oh, gee.

Well, anyway, I think his name is Aaron Brown, and what he, he, he asked that the assembly amend the contract to reduce the requirement from 40 feet to 30 feet, and it was for specific topographic, um, drainage conditions of the land. So, um, and that that they were going to do the least possible modification in order to allow a good right-of-way with good drainage. And then they asked the Assembly to modify the contract and then send it before us for a variance. So I am, although in the— oh, here is where my notes on page 59 of the memorandums from our Director Cabrera, which I really appreciate, by the way. This is a really complicated set of issues.

I really appreciate that this is all written up this way.

Um, uh, I acknowledge that the— this condition is thinly supported by the record because it was, um, not brought up by the applicant in this specific application. It is part of the And they didn't make that connection in the, in the record. Mr. Brown's the professional land surveyor for Skylark. He, he did make that part of the assembly's record, and it is acknowledged in this report that the lidar mapping in the record shows ground elevations across the tract from approximately 20 to 80 feet, with this VEA circle corridor traversing side slope, the tract is further constrained by a slough on the western boundary, a tidally influenced drainage, and muskeg and wet ground east of the proposed lots, which are physical conditions that we may consider. So for those reasons, um, and considering that this is a very impactful part of the subdivision plan as a whole, I am comfortable approving the preliminary— the preliminary plat as requested, but also because of, um, the record being what it is and also the kind of impact as a whole.

I am comfortable with the conditions set forth in the resolution, which are not allowing the reduction to 30 feet everywhere, but only in specific spots where the drainage makes it necessary.

My problem with the plat is that It shows those lots that we discussed being broken up already. I don't know how we're going to say yes to changing the road that's platted without accepting this new routed road. Um, the appraiser who did the appraisal that led to the sale for public benefit sale Um, showed this road and said above map showing what is physically legally possible with the hypothetical zoning. So this road looks not anything like this road, which is the plat that the Skylark Park has submitted, and I don't want to say Yes to a portion of it, and then have the whole shebang being approved, because this depicts those lots being broken up, made smaller, and combined with other land, which is GL 14. What page was that?

Because I've had the same question. I know, confusing. Um, gosh, while you search for that, I have to amend my comment. The 14 conditions are for the Part 3 of this. That's the final findings for the plat, and there are fewer conditions made for the variance.

Um, but everything I—. What we're discussing right now is the width of the road. Just the variance. Just—. No, we're going to discuss The just the width of the road, and we're not marrying ourselves to the plat.

That's the next section that we're going to go to after. Okay, so, okay, thank you for clarifying that for me. My question about narrowing the road is this still the only access in and out of the proposed, the planned subdivision?

As I believe so, isn't that correct, Liz? Yeah, the way the plat's presented, it looks like it's— Odin is the only way in and out. OK, alright, I didn't know if other things had changed because that's—. I know there was an earlier version that maybe connected to Skylark. Yeah, there's been a few versions and then this one isn't so—.

I guess I like the colorful ones. I guess I can understand better. Sorry. No, no, no, it's, it's not easily in. Easy to figure out.

I think, you know, just to add that where there are existing right-of-ways, most of those are 50 feet, and those are the ones up in that single-family area. And then as you head south, um, where they're creating right-of-ways, they're making them that smaller size. And then also they're using a right-of-way that exists on borough property, which is 33 feet, and that's the other one that's less than the standard size.

Um, and then to clarify, the— at the assembly meeting, uh, the assembly amended the contract to allow the Planning Commission to consider plating variance, but they did not weigh in on whether the variance should be granted or not, right? It's just let you consider it because the way the contract was written originally, it had a hard 40-foot right-of-way written into it. And so all they did was remove that requirement so that you could consider it, but they didn't say, you know, any opinion on whether it should be approved or not. Since Odin is the only way in and out, and say way up in the subdivision, way up there, you get a big fire and you've got people wanting to leave the neighborhood and, and fire trucks and EMTs going in, and you've got this narrower road when the original contract was for a wider road, and maybe the original contract was for a wider road Because you cannot exit down Skylark. And you're— you have only the Odin.

So the ingress and egress, the actual width of the built road is 28 feet, and that doesn't change. So what we're talking about is the width of the right-of-way. So like downtown, like in the neighborhoods downtown, those are— it's a 50-foot wide right-of-way, but the road itself is inside of that right-of-way. But then on the outside, you know, within the right-of-way, we put hydrants and poles, right, and things like that. And those— it doesn't change the width of the built road.

I understand, but like, I'm driving down the road, and when I see a fire truck coming, regardless, I pull over to the side. If I see a funeral procession going by, I've pull over to the side. You don't pull over into the ditch, right? No, but that's going to happen. But you're— but if you're shortening that right-of-way, you won't really have a right-of-way to pull over.

The width of an average car. What's the width of an average car? I don't know. My question being is, if it— just because it's right-of-way doesn't mean that it's developed to where you can park. It's only going to be 28 feet wide road within a 40-foot right of way.

So, um, the— in the assembly packet, um, from August 3rd, it states that the Borough Public Works and Petersburg Municipal Power and Light have reviewed this proposal, um, to, to allow, as Liz said, allow there to be a reduction depending on our decision in the right-of-way, and neither Public Works nor Power and Light had any objection to the reduced right-of-way widths as proposed. And I think Public Works would have considered that. That's my opinion. Okay. Okay.

To answer a question, the average car is 70 inches wide, just under 6 feet. Yep. Okay. And so we're talking 28 feet, so you could have a car pulled over on either side. On the road and still have a fire truck get through the middle.

All right, good. Yeah, I'm not as concerned with the, with the size that we're looking at here because they're pretty standard actually. And a lot of these roads that go for a while and have a dead end like the one I live on, uh, there are cars actually parked on the side of the road and two cars can't pass, but it's pretty common here, and I don't see a big problem with it, especially in this case where there is going to be potential for roads to be connected at some point on each end, you know, probably in a long, long, long time from now, but I think it'll be fine. Well, thank you for the discussion. Okay, is everybody satisfied with discussion?

Would you please do the roll call?

Heather? Yes. Micah? Yes. I—.

Thomas? That's what I want to say. Yes. Joshua? Yes.

Chris? Yes. Sarah? Yes. Jim?

Yeah.

Okay. Now we move on to a preliminary plat for a major subdivision at Lot 15B, Fort McGill Subdivision, recorded as Plat 2004-14, Government Lot 14, Government Lot 20, Government Lot 21. -1 With Section 30 within Section 33, Township 58 South, Range 79 East, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Block A, and Lots 5A, Block 221 within Skylark 2 Addition subdivision according to Plat 90-14. Oh, I'm, I'm so sorry to interrupt. I'm no longer confident that I said the right, the right motion on the variance.

I think I may have read the—. You say 603? I think I may have read the plat when I meant to read the variance, um, resolution number. Yes, I think I, I said the wrong motion. Um, I don't totally remember, frankly.

Um, but I think it's 2026602 is what we were supposed to. Yes, we were on 602, and I, I think it's possible I read 603 because I remember talking about the 14 conditions, which is my notes from 603, even though we were on 602. Um, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Okay, how do we address this?

I'm not totally sure that I did, but I, I, I I think it was clear we were talking about the variance, and I think if we do a clear-up vote with the correct resolution number, just in case I did say it wrong, I'm hoping that corrects the record. Um, if that's what you—. Liz, is that what you think we need to do? Yeah, that's fine if you want to do that. I just make sure it's 2026-602.

Yes, strike from the record the last one. Just Yeah, I'm sorry, make a new motion. Make a new motion. Let's just—. Let's clean it up just in case.

I move to approve Resolution 2026-602 granting a platting variance from the minimum interior subdivision right-of-way width for Borel subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth in the resolution. And to make clear in the record, again, I apologize. This was—. In reference to the variance discussion that we just hadn't voted on. Okay, do we have a second?

Second. I—. Did you second it last time? Maybe it was Jim. Okay, okay.

All right, let's just do the roll call and then we can move on. Mr. Chairman, you know, it's great if you would restate the motion and then we all know if we did it right or wrong.

I mean, I gotta go find it in here. It's on page 16. Page 16. It's whatever Sarah just said. Yeah, in this case.

Okay, I— there we go, up there. I move— or I move to approve Resolution 2026-602, granting platting variance from the minimum interior subdivision right-of-way with for Burrell subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth in this— in the resolution. Is what we're voting on. Is what we're voting. Okay.

Roll call, please. Joshua. Yes. Sarah. Yes.

Chris. Yes. Heather. Yes. Jim.

Yes. Micah. Yes. Thomas.

Yes. Thanks, you guys. All right.

Now, let me get back to my page.

Uh, okay.

A preliminary plat for a major subdivision. At Lot 15B, Fort McGill subdivision, recorded as plat 2004-14, government lot 14, government lot 20, and government lot 21 within Section 33, Township 58 South, Range, uh, 79 East, and lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Block A, and lot 5A, Block 221 within Skylark 2 Addition subdivision, according to plat 90-14.

14. Okay, I move to approve Resolution 2026-603, approving the preliminary plat for Borel subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth in the resolution. Second.

Discussion? Should there be an addendum since we didn't approve that first one? It's written that way. Oh, okay. Yeah, okay, thank you, Liz.

Um, I think it looks pretty straightforward. I feel like there's been a lot of legwork, um, done to make sure that the resolution is workable in the long term, and, um, a lot of it is beyond my expertise. And I feel, I feel that there is enough documentation in the staff report and in the resolution that I think this is an appropriate thing to approve.

I'm opposed to breaking up the single-family residential lots. This plat does that.

And their original application specifically stipulated that they would not.

Um, at the time of this original application, when they— when it was stipulated that they would not break up the single-family residential neighborhood, the appraiser did confirm that if these lots were changed to manufactured home, not single-family residential, that it would directly impact the value of the single-family residential homeowners.

And that's, um, kind of where I'm at, is these people have already been invested in the neighborhood. I wouldn't want to take away from their value of their homes.

I feel like they're— that when they went down this road and said, we'll leave those lots alone, they were looking at dividing up GL-14 and GL-21, and that they could achieve this subdivision making those lots smaller and the mobile— the multifamily mobile home without sacrificing, um, the single-family residential neighborhood and the single-family residential lots that they were purchasing through that, uh, for public benefit clause. So, I don't know what's changed, why they aren't— why the need to break up these single-family residential lots.

Um, I'll just speak as a neighbor. I'm not sure I'm within 600 feet, but I do live on Odin Street, and, um, I am really excited about the possibility of this neighborhood going in just on a personal level. I really enjoy living on Odin Street. There's a lot of families and with young children, which I have a 2-year-old and he just loves being around other families. It just— we lived before on with, with family on Midcoff Highway, which was a big— it's just been a big lifestyle change for him to be able to walk around and be with other kids and be in a walkable, slow neighborhood.

So the idea of having even more neighbors and young families and people able to start families because they're able to have an affordable, attainable place to live, I, I find that really exciting. And so I'm— I've been excited about this project for a long time because of the impact that it can have on so many families in Petersburg. So that's my perspective, is kind of less about the technical details, which I think are Totally legitimate to think about. It's the main function of Planning Commission, but I also think in a small town, um, when you sign up for the Planning Commission, one of the duties you have is to, you know, think about the technical details, but the other duty you have is to think about the practical impacts and what, what practical impacts they have on people's day-to-day lives. And I'm really, really excited about that part.

So that's why I'm supporting— supportive of this. I definitely see that these lots are going to be going in for affordable homes, and I'm not opposed to that. I am opposed to breaking up the single-family residential lots. I don't think the project hinges— should hinge on breaking those ones up since they will be creating these affordable lots on GL-14, GL-21, and on the 2 lots that they are currently negotiating to buy from the borough. I mean, that— those are— that's a lot of lots.

I mean, a lot, and quite numerous, I should say, instead of using the word lot too many times. And out of, you know, I just don't think we need to sacrifice the single-family lots to achieve a lot of affordable lots under this project. Oh, you— in reference to what you asked about what's changed, and this is at least 3 years, right? It's been going on. The cost of everything has significantly increased.

You know, as a major supplier right now, our, um, Our fuel surcharge is at 18%. In the beginning year, it was 11%. And you start adding that fuel to everything, the cost of goods to be delivered here, the rock work, the fuel, everything. And even during this time, the snow load requirements have changed tremendously for all of Alaska. It's affected us.

So I can't even build the warehouse that I had planned because it's cost prohibitive now. So, um, And I, you know, it's funny because last time we talked, some people said something about, well, we don't need housing, we don't need that many housing. And I would just go back, I was talking to someone, I have a lot of people who live in these trailers over there, and that's not really a good standard of living. They're not insulated, their pipes freeze every winter. I have employees constantly calling, it's like, my pipes are frozen.

I have my guys go help them and stuff. And so that's not a good standard of living. So when we say we don't need those houses, that's not true. Those people there need houses, you know. And if you can get— it's much easier to get a loan for these because of the pricing and stuff.

And, and so it's like, that's what I think about. I mean, I, I'm very blessed where I live and the standard of living I have, but I feel bad because my employees, the employees that work at the Harbor Store and a grocery store would benefit tremendously from that. And that's where I look. But breaking up the single-family residential home lots is not going to stall the project in its entirety or create that many more lots, but it will impact the neighborhood that already enjoys, you know, similar lots and similar situations. And currently You know, leaving it as it is, I like better.

Liz, how many lots are on— what page will I find how many lots they're actually going to have? No, I mean, not the ones that are single family, but how many lots will be created on GL-14 and GL-21 that are going to be the 100 by 75 foot and that are going to be Correct, for mobile home.

It must be in here somewhere. Well, it's lot 13 through— what is that? 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32, 37, Right? I probably double counted a couple there. So you're saying about 37 lots Well, 1, 2, 3.

Well, just within those ones that are single-family right now, it looks to me like they're taking 5 single-family lots, but they're putting road through there and going to end up with 10 lots in that area. Okay, that's not—. Not once— not including the ones that we eliminated with the flag lot, because that's— that would be another. Yeah, I think that was my question. My question was, if we leave alone The single-family residential lots, how many 100 by 75-foot lots are we going to end up with on GL-14 and GL-21 combined?

Right, so I think it's like 22 or something. And is that developing? But it's not— I mean, this is only a partial plat, right? So, yeah, I can't give you the number. Total because I don't— we don't have that plotted out.

So it's going to be upwards of 22. I would say upwards of 22. I'm just trying to make sure I'm not double counting here.

I get 21.

Okay, upwards of 21, and then they're negotiating the other 2 lots, which will also, I assume, be 100 by 75-foot lots if they can continue their subdivision up to there. So there's quite a few more homes.

I'm just saying in the plat they have here, they have 21 plotted lots. Okay. On this page and this page if you count up those lots. Which page? That would be— I gotta look in the packet because it's— they're not page numbered.

Can't find them either, sorry. They're not page—. They had them, but they're at—. They're at the very, uh, let's see here, it's after 8. Oh, it's not number 79, 80, 81, 82.

Yeah, it starts with Yeah, okay, start with like 81. Yeah, so upwards of 21, and you've got the PIA development, and how many lots are going to be added there for affordable homes? They're not necessarily affordable, and I think 14. I think it's 22, and 9 lots will be owned by the borough, and the balance will be owned by Cliketida.

Well, so the more homes that are going in, though, will theoretically ease the demand and lower prices, though, because there's also subdivisions going on in Sandy Beach and stuff too, and on Haugen Drive. I think that's— it's definitely true, but I just know, um, I asked the assembly to consider, um, not selling selling the lots in the Tlingit Haida Airport subdivision to the highest bidder, and the emails I received back were kind of indicating the other way. They haven't voted on that to my knowledge, but, um, I don't know that those, those lots in the airport subdivision are going to be necessarily affordable lots like they are here in Skylark. I don't, I don't think the calculus is the same. Yeah.

Well, the beginning of this project, it was made clear that leaving these as single-family residential was not going to break the project, and the reason for that was to protect the value of the already established homeowners. And I, I do acknowledge that some prices have gone up and stuff, but I also don't know that it's the Burrells' or Skylark Park's vision to build all the homes and place all the homes, but maybe mostly sell lots to people who would do that. So most of the cost of construction would be their, you know, Rock and Road, Bairnoff LLC, uh, actual working construction, putting in road, putting in infrastructure. And my thought is That is what they do for a living, is they bid on these projects and they take into account some contingencies and some buffers for, you know, maybe something's going to break down and you have to have maintenance and repair and you've got to still make your project pay. So I— the economic shortfall or argument just doesn't wash with me.

Me enough to sacrifice those lots, because that is what they do. They bid on big projects and there's always contingencies.

Our shaft broke. We're in Wrangle. Not horrible. Anyway, so I think for me it really goes back to the purpose of the subdivision being unique. The For the Benefit— For a Public Benefit Purpose ordinance is a really unique way of developing lots, and it's different than all the Rock and Road projects.

And the prices, it's undeniable that they have really skyrocketed, not just for building houses but for developing land. That's That's undeniable, um, and I would be— if the lots are not affordable for kind of your average family here in Petersburg in this subdivision, I would consider this— that would be a real, real devastating outcome for this project. For me, it's supposed to be affordable for the average family.

So, and, you know, the whole ordinance change, there was a huge kind of upheaval to our— the way we approach selling land with this— the success of this project in mind. There was a huge change to our status quo in the hopes that this project would change people's lives here in Petersburg, a lot of people's lives. So there's a lot of lots here that are going to do just that. I mean, I don't think we agree, but that's just my perspective. Well, Heather, I really do sympathize with your concerns there, but I have reached out and spoken to quite a number of individuals, and I don't necessarily— I wasn't around when this idea came around, so I don't have the history of it, but Now, uh, what I am understanding is people need some relief, uh, a pressure valve, um, in, in the situation of, uh, affordable housing and, uh, of course cost of living, but, um, that goes hand in hand.

And, uh, and this is a project here that I think will alleviate some of those concerns. I'm not— I'm not asking to scrap the project. I'm saying that there are a lot of lots that are going to be 100 by 75 feet that were initially, you know, part of the project that are going straight ahead, whether or not we break up those other lots. But if we break up those other lots, we break them up. And that can't go back.

The neighborhood changes so that I'm clear. Your issue is that all of these lots will become smaller.

All of them, I'm— the ones that they said that they would not break up will become smaller. Now, if we approve it as is, there's 6 single-family residential lots. They will become 12 lots, and they are directly adjacent to the single-family residential neighborhood. We've taken 2 of those off because that's going to stay as that one big lot. Lot because we didn't approve the pipe exam.

We took one off. We took one lot off. So that's— it's just the other ones we're looking at now, correct? Okay. Oh, and then I think in the, in the resolution, it— and the conditions, that one lot that is lot, um, 12, and it's kind of at the bottom of that single-family group.

Yeah, it's kind of a weird shape, an irregular shape. Yeah. And in the resolution, one of the conditions is reconfiguring that because it's really not— when you start putting in the setbacks and everything, it's really not a buildable lot. You know, they either need to demonstrate how that's buildable or reconfigure it so that it—. Oh, oh, yep.

And I thought they were using that for the road quite a bit. Well, the original road plat, you can see, goes through this grayed-out area, right? So what they've done is— and, and this lot came to a triangle here, so there were two lots here and a triangle there. They've removed, and they're— that's not going to be developable. So they're— because they're running the road down this side, and they're taking some out into that area.

So So yeah, it's—. So anyway, that might also disappear and get absorbed into the—. Yeah, seems like quite a bit of the contract is being changed, and it seems like it's not really following the, um, with what the appraiser whose work was used to, uh, facilitate this sale, what he said was physically and legally possible is not what's before us. So if I may, um, it sounds to me, um, that you— I'm looking at page 73 here— that you are in Camp Number 3, approval of the preliminary plat with modified or additional conditions. Is that accurate?

Where, where are you? 73. Okay, we've got the alternatives here. Is it— am I correct in thinking that you are wanting to approve the preliminary plat with modified or additional conditions? Or are you somewhere else?

Well, it's just I don't know how you can modify this to the point—. Let me—. So let me elaborate those lots because the road has—. So I, I—. The way I see it is taking into account the those changes will be made, right?

So the way I see it is if you want there to be amendments to this resolution, then we can go through the amendment process and decide up or down if we agree. Otherwise, if you—. How can we redraw the map of the road? OK, so then that leads me to— it seems like you're just— you want to deny the plat. Is that correct?

Yes, because I don't like the way the road is contingent on dividing up So you're, you're at number 5, deny the preliminary plat application. I am. And do you want to—. Are—. Well, are you number 6?

If you want to deny it and continue this item to a date to allow submission of a revised plat, continue this item to date certain.

So a revised preliminary plat, yes. Okay, so you're in Camp 6, the plat that I would— thank you. So, um, I am personally in Camp 2, approval of the preliminary plat with staff recommending conditions. Knowing now that you don't want to go down the amendment route, may I suggest, Mr. Chair, that we proceed to a vote?

Yeah, certainly. I have to say, I'm with you, Sarah. Commissioner Fine-Walsh, please do the roll call. Heather? No.

Micah? No.

Jim? Yes. Joshua? Yes. Thomas?

Yes. Sarah? Yes. Chris? Yes.

Okay.

Now we're moving on to consideration of an application from David Tynes, agent for a minor subdivision at Consolidation 106 at 106-108 Sing Lee Alley. Do you have any public testimony?

Please state your name.

Kirsten Dupree. And for myself, as a property owner in the area, I have talked to the adjacent owner, and, um, what he said was—. I asked him, what, what are they building? Because the rumor was they're building a condo. And, you know, so to me, how many spaces and all this—.

What the neighbor said, he heard there was a single family going in and plenty of parking. It's not going to be on the street like it has been currently recently. So this is just about the consolidation. It's not about their planning permit to do whatever they're going to do. Okay, so this is taking the 2 lots and making 1 out of them.

All right, so then if there's an issue with what they're building, that comes when they come to you guys for the plan. If it comes to us as a conditional use permit, if what they're building requires a conditional use permit. Okay, um, because it's not saying this is just put them together. Liz, you have anything to add? Yeah, it's, it's just the action of consolidating the lots.

However, if they're building something that is a by-right use in that area, you know, they're not going to— we're not going to notify the neighbors. We're just going to issue a building permit. It's only— okay, it's only if they are going to build something that is outside of— but it's not zoned residential, right? It's zoned commercial. It has, but it's not zoned residential.

It's zoned commercial too. Yeah, yeah. So, okay, thank you.

We have a motion. I move to approve Resolution 2026-902 recommending approval of the minor subdivision consolidation creating Lot 1 Lindstrom Subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth in the resolution.

Second discussion. Um, I just drove past it today and they're already—. Yeah, it looks straightforward to me—. Demolishing one of the houses and they are awful close together. Um, so I think it makes sense to consolidate the lots just for your space reasons.

I'm interested to see what we put in there, but I don't know if this is— since we're just talking about lot consolidation, I do support it. Agreed.

Please do the roll call.

Heather? Yes. Joshua? Yes. Thomas?

Yes. Sarah? Yes. Chris? Yes.

Jim? Yes. Micah? Yes. Okay.

Next, we have a recommendation of an ordinance to the borough assembly, a recommendation of an ordinance to the borough assembly establishing a 1-year moratorium on data centers. Um, okay, this is the one that I wanted to comment on earlier. Do we need a motion? Just a moment, Joshua. Sure.

Um, I move to recommend that the Assembly adopt an ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of land use applications and building permits for data centers within Service Area 1, so that review standards specific to this use can be developed. The moratorium would run for 1 year from its effective date, apply only within Service Area 1, and expire automatically unless the Assembly repeals or extends it.

Second. Okay, if I may. You guys just skipped public hearing. It's a public hearing and you just skipped public hearing.

I have my hand raised to speak at the public hearing. It's under public hearing items.

Okay, just a moment, Liz.

Yeah, it's a public hearing. I don't—. Liz, when I spoke earlier—. In the second— Joshua.

Okay. Hey, Mr. Chairman, it just— it helps too if people could wait until you actually call on them. Yes. And then that makes it a little bit, uh, better decorum, I think. Okay.

The commission.

Okay. Andrew, please, please proceed. Thank you. Andrew Mazzella, founder and CEO of Mazzella Alaska, which as everyone knows and is on public record, the, uh, company and the property that this is targeting specifically. And I just wanted to make sure I didn't wake up in an alternate dimension or something this morning.

Um, this is public hearing item C, is that correct? Yes, it is. So when Miss Cabrera said at the beginning of the meeting this is not a public hearing, that is a categorically false statement. Is that correct?

Uh, you are incorrect. It's not a public hearing on an ordinance. It says public hearing item C. That requires a 15-day notice by the borough and by state law.

And so I'm just putting that on the record. Um, we're not going to address this because this is going to be removed from the record, um, this entire item. Um, and then I also want to just mention that this is the second meeting in a row that you've made a false statement to the Planning Commission. Last meeting, you stated that when directly asked what was the status of this project, that you had no idea. Even though earlier in the day you had received a complete building permit application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Sarah. Okay, Mr. Mazella, um, now it's my turn to speak. Um, I'm glad you got your time to— in public comments. It is— you're right, it is a public hearing, but it's not a public hearing on an ordinance.

It's on a public hearing on a recommendation to the assembly for an ordinance. That distinction is important. The recommendation of an ordinance—. This is my time. You're on my time now.

Actually, I'm not. This is not a public hearing according to you, Mr. Chairman. You need to close the public hearing if that's what the commission would like to do, and you need to establish some decorum here. It's not okay for someone to speak out during meeting like this.

OK, thank you, Liz. Um, we'll close the public hearing.

Sarah, thank you. Um, if you want to discuss this issue, then someone needs to make a motion and second before you start discussing it as the Commission. Um, I can make another one. Go ahead.

The plan— I move that the Planning Commission recommends That the Assembly adopt an ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance and processing of land use applications and building permits for data centers within Service Area 1, so that review standards specific to this use can be developed. The moratorium would run for 1 year from its effective date, apply only within Service Area 1, and expire automatically unless the Assembly repeals or extends it. Second.

Okay, so the purpose of this moratorium— not a ban, a moratorium for one year— is that the borough can put in some common sense guardrails for what is a really really impactful industry that is new. It's impactful in terms of power usage. It's impactful in terms of water— potential water pollution and water use. And it's impactful in terms of noise pollution. So if a company wants to be successful in this novel industry in a small town without generating very, very, very serious PR issues, I think it would behoove a corporation to be a part of a conversation about what sensible regulations would be rather than, um, kind of entering a combative stance this early on.

I understand, Mr. Mazzella, that you think that we have done some procedural errors. I disagree. Um, you are early, early on in the process. So first, we recommend the resolution, the ordinance to the assembly. We as a body cannot enact ordinances.

We are very, very aware of that. If we could enact ordinances, believe me, we would, but we can't. Um, so this is a recommendation, which is our right as a planning commission to recommend zoning ordinances. That is our absolute right to do this. And if I may, as a fellow resident of Petersburg, and I know you're here from time to time, gently recommend a less combative stance from you and your corporation, because this is not— it is not on the table to ban data ordinances or data centers in Petersburg.

It's— that's not on the table. The reason that's not on the table is because of our prior Power and Light Director Carl Hagerman, who a lot of people in town had a lot of respect for, and he put forth the memorandum saying that this would have, you know, not necessarily positive economic impact, but prevent prices from getting higher than they would otherwise if we have a big buyer of power from SEPA in Petersburg. And I have a lot of respect for Mr. Hagman personally. And so, um, I, I think— and so I, I, I don't feel, um, that I want to have my personal feelings about AI, which I, I mean, it's no secret, I really, really find it distasteful and really damaging to people's cognitive abilities, damaging to our perception of reality. So I personally am not a fan of AI data centers at all, but I'm willing to compromise that closely held belief because we're in an economic crisis as a country.

And so I'm I'm willing to consider different approaches, but I know Power and Light is working on an ordinance about max, you know, maximum power that we sell to prevent residents of Petersburg from bearing the brunt of too much power usage. I know that this body has considered for a long time now and has been working on. It has not finished. Possible regulations for pollution concerns and water usage concerns. And in order to make sure that we put a regulation forward to recommend that to the assembly, um, that is not neither overly restrictive nor underly restrictive, um, this is just a 1-year period where we can make sure that we do our homework and propose something that makes a lot of sense for the community.

Um, so this is— I do not believe this is an existential crisis for your industry in Petersburg. I really, really don't. It's a 1-year period, and, um, I think if you're patient and you work with the borough instead of threatening lawsuits, respectfully, um, I think we can work, move forward together for something that works for all of us. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other commissioners' comments? I do. Joshua. Yeah, I'd like to comment that, you know, I understand this. So this is, this is not about an ordinance.

This is just a discussion. Um, so I originally spoke because I wanted to strike it from the agenda, but I think that that might not be appropriate. I want to correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, we're already in this, so I'm not going to go into the Open Meetings Act or anything like that. You guys know more than I do about how this procedure works.

Otherwise, I would say, you know, we've had 2— a total of whopping 2 business days for public discussion, but I don't think that applies in that case. Am I correct in saying the amount of public time for public discussion, does that not apply in this particular case? Because if it does, um, according to borough ordinance, it's 15 days notice for public hearing items. Um, anyway, I, I'm just assuming that, that it's too late to strike this from the agenda altogether. Is that true?

I believe it is.

Liz, you're, you're in the middle of it. Yeah, we're in the middle of it. So yeah, we're in this thing, the, the cat's out of the bag. Yeah, I just, I just want to I want to say I respect Commissioner Fine-Walsh's opinions and her considerable research on this subject and others, but I want to remind you guys that we're in the middle of a knock-down drag-out fight with corporations that are coming into our community and plopping communications towers willy-nilly in our backyard, and it appears that they're just doing it the first place that people are selling them land and then pretending like that's the only place that they can do it. I mean, that's my observation.

It's not my opinion. It's just what I'm seeing happening in Petersburg. Property is tight, housing is tight, and these cell phone towers are debasing our land values by putting something in the place of what could be housing and residential zones. What Andrew Mazzella is doing is absolutely different from that. He's, he's dotted his i's, he's crossed his t's, and a lot of the concerns that we have as a community simply are not valid in this particular case.

You guys have to keep these two arguments indelibly separate in your minds and try to keep an open mind about these things. If we put a moratorium, a blanket moratorium on data centers, here's, here's the difference between what that would do versus what's happening with, with the, with the communications towers. A blanket moratorium is basically saying our community cannot benefit from the data centers for another year. And that is a zero-sum game. Communications towers are not a zero-sum game.

They can put as many towers as we'll let them because they're getting grant fundings to do this. This is— that's not what this is. Andrew Mazela is a dude. He's a guy. He's one of us.

He, he went to school in Petersburg. He left Petersburg Now he's the CEO of his own company. He has partners. He wants to give something back to the community. I could be wrong about that, but that's the way I perceive this.

Now, a zero-sum game means that there's a pie and we're trying to take a small sliver of that pie, right? And if we don't, if we don't take advantage of this opportunity now, whether it's a great opportunity or a small opportunity, someone else will take it from us because the pie is only so big. Now, I'm not saying that we should jump feet first into cell phone— I'm sorry, into data centers, but what Andrew Mazella is proposing is going to revitalize Ocean Beauty, and the data center is only a small part of his plan. We should expend our energies in working with him, getting him to do more, not less. This is a guy who thinks big, and the way to work with that, with, with Andrew Mazzella and his partners, is to come up with a plan collaboratively instead of just shutting it down for a year.

Um, I just think that that's, that's really self-defeating. I could go on, and I will, for, you know, for a number of reasons, but I just wanted to put that out there and, and hear what you guys have to say about it. Okay. Thank you, Joshua. I'll say something.

Number one, I'm sorry I missed last meeting, but when this thing came up, we don't have anything to do with permits, just FYI, building permits. That's not our job or responsibility. We're not— we don't even discuss it. But when this— I read this in the packet, I just kind of assumed that since his project was already in the works, it was sort of like the cell tower, it's done. And we are trying to make sure that going forward that we are having some sort of say so, what's going on?

That was my personal interpretation of this, and if I'm wrong, please let me know, because, um, like I said, that this has come up and I thought it's done, you know. I did not know you're still waiting on the permit process, but that's just my two cents.

My thinking is more that, uh, rather than saying a moratorium on data centers that we ask anybody while we're in the process of drafting this new regulation who is interested in doing data centers that they do input to us of what they think is reasonable and what they're willing to do to address our concerns. That would probably be the easier way to solve the problem, and rather than doing a moratorium, because then they're coming to us and saying, this is what we're willing to do to address the community's concerns. Concerns to make it that we're going to try to comply with what you guys are working on. And maybe they have some good ideas that we haven't even thought about. So that's something I think we should listen to all the different sides of the— of what's going on and try to work together and collaborate, because that would make it better for the whole community and the community's concerns are addressed and the people who are wanting to do the data centers are on board and they're giving us ideas and how they can address our concerns and we can help them in that regard to come up with something that's going to work for everybody, for the community.

Laika. Thank you, Chairman. I completely agree with you. I think that, that, that what you're saying is what the moratorium would exactly allow. And I think we could recommend a moratorium of up to a year, which would allow us to collaborate with these corporations, companies, businesses that may want to come in and do this.

So I think that everybody should, instead of making assumptions and getting super hot on both sides of the coin, come together. And a moratorium is not a ban, but I think it gives us time to collaborate collaborate. So I'd encourage everybody to, um, be open. Like you said, I completely agree with you. Yeah, I think that is what the moratorium gives us time to do— everything you wanted to achieve, getting all parties together, collaborating, and coming up with what we want to do going forward.

So I think the moratorium is where we start and get the discussions going on both sides?

Well, I, I mean, I know very little about what they're proposing as far as the data center, and I know data centers cover a wide range. I have friends who work in data centers. I mean, they go from innocuous as just storing recordings of phone calls all the way up to full AI, so, you know, it could be anywhere in between. I don't know much about what this data center proposing, because I haven't really had much time to pay attention to it outside of our meetings and what's been in our packets. So I welcome more information.

Mr. Chairman. Yes, there is— I believe it's Tara. She's the president of Misella Alaska. She spoke earlier, but she said she has her hand raised now. She is here to address some concerns.

If you would allow it, Mr. Chairman, I think—. Go ahead. So right now, this, uh, what we're trying to do is, uh, discuss whether or not to submit a recommendation. That's all we're doing. This is not about any particular data center.

I know there's, uh, plans for one, uh, there's been talk, uh, in assembly, some of the assembly meetings, and, um, but what we're trying to do now is get ahead of some of these changes, fast changes that are involved with the use of the data centers, the types, the kind of power they use. And I think what we need is some sort of control in place now so that we don't get surprised that something doesn't just appear out of nowhere following our rules because our rules are behind. We don't have, uh, we don't have code to deal with data centers right now. We don't know what's coming tomorrow, and what we know, something could— it's very likely something's going to happen that we're going to have to address. And I really don't feel like getting caught with our pants down again.

I really don't. So I'm, I'm in support for just moving forward with, um, the recommendation to the assembly to ban dancers.

Not moratorium, a temporary moratorium. I do like the idea of there being a clause in there where we may be able to retract the moratorium, uh, if we do get ahead of our ordinance language and we're happy with it, and then Can't we just do that anyway? Once the moratorium goes in place, we can just say, hey, we're happy with our ordinance, let's, uh, let's kill the moratorium. So I think that would be, um, part of a moratorium language. Um, so, oh dear, uh, I think I remember my train of thought.

So, um, the purpose of pausing applications while regulations can be put in place is, um, rather than, rather than just keeping it open, is that, um, really we only have, from what Mr. Hagerman said, we only have room on the grid for one data center. So if data center is approved before any regulations are in place, that's game over. Um, and I think rather than kind of trusting that a corporation will do the— act in the public benefit, I think that's not realistic. Corporations are responsible to their shareholders rather than to the public, and that's just how corporations work. And I think if we want certain guardrails as a community, especially I know that the power ordinance is in progress and I don't believe it's been submitted yet.

So I know that Power and Light wants there to be an ability to say no to too much power purchasing. So I think, you know, any moratorium language, if we, if we beat the clock and we put together a regulation that is, that we are comfortable with and is approved by the Assembly before that year is up, then the moratorium would be up. It's just for the limited purpose of putting together some, some regulations by the community, and I really, I really support this. I don't think that— I think we can still have data centers in Petersburg while doing it safely in a way that the community can feel more comfortable with than they would otherwise.

Thank you. Hey, Mr. Chairman. Yes, um, I was just curious that perhaps there was another person that wanted to speak during the public hearing. We kind of messed it up and perhaps curtailed it, and whether we shouldn't give that person an opportunity. I was going to ask the Commission if they want to hear from anybody else, which I'm perfectly happy.

I don't know if that was clear that it was going to be closed unless you spoke up. When it got closed. Okay, that's all.

All right, um, Joshua's got his hand up. I think I was thinking of the other place. I'll see Joshua and then we'll, we'll go on. Joshua, what'd you have to say? Absolutely.

Um, first I want to start with a question. Um, would it affect everyone's opinion about the moratorium if the Andrew Mazzella permit were already grandfathered in, and this is a question for you, Liz. I'm told, and I understand, that legally, because Andrew Mazzella and his associates have legally carried out the requirements for a building permit, they would not be subject to the moratorium. They would be grandfathered in. Is that correct?

If the borough has issued a building permit for construction of something, generally that means that the project has been vested, meaning that they're far along enough, um, that, uh, a change in ordinance would not apply, but the project would be— have to be fully permitted fire marshal review and all of that for construction, um, you know, for the actual use that they are proposing. Just want to—. Sorry, um, yeah, and I just want to be clear that, you know, it has to be a complete— the building application has to be complete, meaning all submittals have to be turned in. All of those submittals have to be reviewed by the Fire Marshal, and an actual permit for construction has to be issued. Mm-hmm, understood.

So basically what that means is if all of those criteria are fulfilled before the moratorium goes into effect, then this doesn't affect the only person who is actually applying for the data center, which is the whole subject of this conversation. Is that correct? And Joshua, I'm— I would really rather not go into detail about it because it really depends on when we get the application and when it is complete. And so I'm just speculating on things and talking in hypotheticals, and I'm not very comfortable doing that. So yes, I understand.

If I had a completed application Once we get a completed application, we don't sit around on it. We actually take action on it. Um, so, uh, once we have a complete application, we would review it, but that's all I can say. Here's the other thing I wanted to comment on, which is completely aside from that. It's an environmental concern, and I'm an— I'm an environmentalist.

We live out in nature. In fact, I think just about everyone to one degree or another in Petersburg Petersburg is an environmentalist. We live, we hunt, we fish, we live in nature. There was a village in South America that fought to retain its water rights, and this is— they won, and there was a large data center. What Andrew Mazela is proposing is a very small, a micro data center.

It's sized appropriate for the community of Petersburg, and there's been a lot of brainpower that that's gone into the design of this data center, as far as I know, to my limited knowledge. But in South America, there was a village that almost lost its water rights. Why is it that data centers, especially the mega data centers that function for AI, why did they go to places like Texas and South America? Why do they go to these other places where human rights are vulnerable with third world country governments governments that are corruptible, subject to bribery and other things. And when we look at our— we look at the proposition made in Petersburg by Mazella and Associates, we look at what could potentially be the most sustainable data center in America.

I do not exaggerate. In Petersburg, we have an excess of two things: water and electricity. Both of those things are needed by data centers. His particular data centre, by the way, does not propose, as far as I know, to use a great deal of water. It's more about electricity.

And in doing so, we sell our electrons at a premium, which can lower our electric rates. That could affect everyone in Petersburg in a positive way, passively speaking, without lifting a finger. I don't see the negative in that for the size of data centre that is being proposed by Ms. Gazzella and Associates. In fact, I think that his data center, based on what I've seen, could be even a little bit larger. Now, the other, the other subject is water.

That's, that's an issue. But we have lots of water in Petersburg, as far as I know. That's much more of an issue in a desert like in Texas than it is in Petersburg. What I'm getting at— and then of course there's the sanitation issue. So these are the sorts of things that we should be regulating.

We should be talking about in collaboration with the people who want to produce data centers. But please bear it in mind, and I exhort you all to think about this, because we are a global village. The data center that we put in Petersburg, I told you that it's a zero-sum game. Remember that comment about the pie, that we'd be taking a small sliver of it? Well, if someone else takes that sliver from us, because there will only be so many data centers data centers built on this planet.

The data center that gets taken from us will go into some third world country that has water rights issues. It'll go to Texas, it'll go to California, it'll suck up the groundwater table and it will have dramatic effects on the ecology of the planet as a whole. Ours will not. I just urge you to think about that for a moment. And that's the only comment that I have to make.

I'll let the rest of you, um, percolate Thank you.

Go ahead for—.

Okay, go ahead. Hi, this is Tara Favilla, president again of Nizhilla Alaska. It sounded like there was a lot of questions perhaps that needed to be addressed. Um, I understand this is, you know, very much a, a topic of concern in communities where you can hear a whole lot of issues online about what is really happening with data centers in terms of their water usage, noise pollution that you mentioned, Sarah. Um, for those of you who don't know, I've spent more than 10 years at Microsoft, and like I said, 20 years working in tech.

This is not— to reiterate what Josh had mentioned— this isn't a very, very large data center, but it is meant to be the very first sustainable data center ever created. It would put Petersburg on the map in terms of look at what we've been able to create, and the reason that it would be sustainable is there are plans in place. If you'd like to hear more about them, where any sort of that energy that we would be creating goes right back into creating sustainable products. And, um, these are private things given we are not a corporation, we are not a publicly held entity. This is a private business.

On a private piece of land, on a private piece of property that was incredibly invaluable to the town when it was in use. And we've been looking for some sort of a way to bring it back to life, to have it be a bit of a beacon. As you notice, it's being cleaned, it's being restored. And a data center is a way to be able to do that and to also create sustainable energies, sustainable items as well as pass along savings on energy onto its community. But I pause there because it sounded like you had some questions, and I'd love to be able to field some of those if helpful.

Thank you for your comments. I do have questions, but ultimately, um, I, I, I am a in a different role than the building inspector. If I were the building inspector, I think I would have answers to those questions, and I think it makes sense to keep the bifurcation the way it is. I, you know, you hear rumors. You don't actually have questions?

No, I, and I just want to explain why I do. I mean, I do have questions. I have, I had heard that maybe the deal with Greenspark fell through. I am curious about that, but I'm not the building inspector. Um, I think what I've heard from, um, our community development director, that the application still is in progress.

There's still, um, you know, documents that the applicant needs to submit. I think that everyone here is on the call, but unfortunately that is not true. Those were all submitted August 10th. With the fire marshal permit being given 2 weeks after that. So that's very interesting that that be brought up today, and I'm thankful that you asked, but I was not going to out that.

But if we're fact-checking, I got to provide it. I—. And so I, I mean, I am, I am kind of curious, is just as a resident of Petersburg, but I, I think for me the issues are separate, um, and the reason they're separate is because if the application is already processed by the time the moratorium, if hypothetically the application is processed and then the moratorium is advanced and enacted by the assembly, then it wouldn't apply to you guys.

So I think those processes are separate. We have separate duties as the Building Inspector and as the Planning Commission.

I don't know about much about your application because it's not my job to know, and I feel that it's my duty as a commissioner to advance this idea so we can put safeguards in place. I mean, I think if I like the idea of a sustainable data center, you know, Me too. And if that's— we should get that on the books, that we only allow sustainable data centers in Petersburg if that's the case. So, um, I, I think there's no reason to not have common sense regulations, um, and I don't think you guys should take this as a negative thing personally. That's my opinion.

Well, the reason that this is so important is because, as you've noticed, online in terms of the things that you've talked about that you've researched. There are many corporations that are looking to create data centers in any location possible. Like I said, we are not a corporation, we're a privately held company, and so that gives us the ability to have these sorts of open dialogues with you about your concerns and the things that we might want to see and what we think is best for the community. Community in collaboration with you.

But given how quickly things are moving, the opportunity will be gone in the year that you're talking about, which is why this is so important. And you may have somebody else move in that does what you are afraid of. And so I would hate to see that happen. That's not me trying to scare anyone. It is—.

This is the reality of the time that we are living in. Other countries are coming into our country and are trying to establish these data centers. It is, as a parent, as a mom, as, you know, an entrepreneur and someone in the technology business, it concerns me. And if I have an opportunity to do something good and right, I'm going to take it. So I am here.

Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? Anybody else? Just say, step the microphone, state your name.

Yes, uh, hello, Dan Christianson again. Uh, see, uh, Mazzella Company, uh, thanks for being here. Uh, Congratulations, Andrew, on all your success, and I'm very appreciative of you wanting to invest in Petersburg. I admire that enthusiasm. Now, the point we keep coming back to at this meeting is that we don't approve anything here.

This is just to tell the assembly, hey, we have a plan, or we want to propose something now. I feel that you're getting a lot of pushback. Maybe you have a window of opportunity that you're really desperate to try to meet. And as you know, I might get the atmosphere to turn on me here a little bit, but is 365 a hard number for a moratorium? Can we compromise on a deadline?

You guys, uh, Mozilla Company, talk like if we don't take this in the next 6 months, we're going to miss the window and it's going to go somewhere else. I, I don't believe that. I believe you want this real bad, and I believe we could make it happen. But, and, and, you know, I'm enthusiastic about seeing Petersburg grow too. Putting a street through some, some residences is not the same thing as putting in a data center or a tower next to our fire department or whatnot.

And, you know, I really do think we should have a more informed dialogue. I personally would love to see I'd love to see more specs. I've got 10 years of engineering on the Alaska Marine Highway. I'd love to look it over and talk with people about it. Anyway, that, that, that's what it came up here to say was like, can we negotiate on the timeline?

Is that the primary issue here? Is that you— something needs to happen before a year is up? Anyway, I'll adjourn myself from the podium. Thank you.

Rebecca Knight here. I just wanted to add that I hear a lot of concerns about environmental issues. I too am concerned about environmental issues, and there's a lot of claims that Greenspark has made that I'm not certain that they've been verified. But beyond that, my biggest concern is privacy. And for me, that is the absolute top.

So, um, and what these data centers do is they mine and they sell your data, and the more capability they have, the greater potential for that. Anyway, thank you. Thank you.

Um, any other comments here? Andrew.

I think that went to me, and I think you meant to go to Mr. Mazzella. I think, I think I'm on there now. Um, yes, I'd be happy to address the timing because I, I appreciate the, you know, that being stated as a, as a big issue. Um, so basically what happens is we are a full-fledged data center, uh, developer. We have multiple sites around the country there's only a certain amount of chips we can purchase.

We use the highest cutting-edge chips in the world from NVIDIA, and we have gotten the allocation we're going to get anytime in the next few years. And we need to know— and I do not exaggerate— yesterday, which is when we submitted the building permit, um, a month ago, that's when we need to know where those chips are going. And so that's— otherwise they're not going to Petersburg, and then none of the benefits that we presented in April at 2 meetings, um, full transparency, explained every single thing we're doing, open to questions. Um, we addressed all those questions. By the way, that was a collaborative presentation with the utility, and, you know, I would encourage anyone to go back to the, to the April, and, and again, either me or Tara are happy to address things now, but The timing is logistics of literally hundreds of millions of dollars in development on where we're deciding we're going to land on them.

And so that's why Tara couldn't have said it better. A year from now, this is off the table. It'll, it'll never happen. I already own the power supply at that property, and so we're not, we're not using more power than we already have. Um, we're just wanting to utilize that, and that'll, uh, the immediate impact of that is reducing everyone else's power rates.

Um, the person that spoke at the assembly meeting a month ago incorrectly stated like $64 over 10 years. It's actually $64 a month that we would save each person for 10 years. And so we're talking significant amounts of money we're saving. Everyone in town. The property taxes— I'm already one of the largest property taxpayers in Petersburg.

And by the way, I'm also already one of the largest utility payers. I paid $100,000 last year in property taxes and utility bills to the Petersburg Borough. We are going to be paying millions of dollars in property taxes and utility to the borough And so this opportunity is right here, right now. We've submitted the project. It's been submitted completely in accordance, um, with, with very typical for high-tech development like this, where as we go, we're developed, technologies are changing.

We're, we're getting the, the best, literally we have the best engineers in the world working on this. We're partnered with some of the largest, you know, pioneers in in technology in the world. And so we are wanting to utilize on this particular project as a landmark, like Tara said, in the world, one of one. Well, hopefully many more after this, but for now, the first one to use 100% of our heat to heat the rest of the building and another business which is 100% marine-based and 100% environmentally friendly base that unfortunately we don't feel comfortable announcing yet because of what's happened in this scenario. We announced exactly what we're doing for transparency in April with this, all the benefits.

There literally are no cons, but we discussed any potential cons, uh, that concerns people might have. Um, and then in the next 6 months, while we have 10 people engineering this specific project, You know, it comes out of nowhere that, that you guys can say this is about other properties, but obviously this is only about this property. And so the ban that's targeted at this, that's why we have to— we have no choice to take a hostile position on it because, um, you're going to cost— first of all, you're going to cost the town more money than you can even imagine in the lost revenue Um, and then, you know, my business is going to have the same thing. Well, we're not going to invest in the town then. We'll go, we'll go to one of our other multiple projects.

I have a meeting tomorrow, uh, at another one. We could put these chips there if we want. So anyways, I, if there's any other questions, I'd be very happy. Um, but, but the urgency on this, that's, that's the reason. It's a supply and demand issue.

And I guess one last very important point, which I couldn't agree more Ms. Cabrera, in, you know, talking about the Scow Bay at the last assembly meeting, I believe Heather, Planning Commissioner Heather, and then whoever else in this meeting have talked about the timing of things. You know, we're talking about days adding, making these projects unfeasible, not weeks, not months, not years. The cost of these chips the cost of our infrastructure. We're going to be the largest logistics company. We're going to be bigger than AML in what we're shipping into and out of Petersburg.

You know, these costs are increasing by the day, and so that is the reason for the urgency. And in summation, like I said, we've presented this twice at the, at the commission in April, and so we would love to— I, I talk about this all day, every day. In my office, we spend— I work personally 16, 18 hours a day. Most of that is talking about what we're doing in the data center world. So, you know, happy to talk about this, and I don't really know what else to say about it, but I hope that has answered some questions, and certainly be happy to answer more now or in the future, but it's going to be too late in the future is the long and the short of it.

Thank you.

I thought I'd add also, just on the, on the heels of Andrew Mazella, he's, he's not wrong about the timing. There's also another factor which involves investment in AI. I don't know how many of you are following AI or have a portfolio. I recently sold all my AIQ because it's just become so valuable. Mazella and his associates are taking a large risk here on what is being pronounced largely on the stock market as an AI bubble.

We don't stand anything to lose if he loses in this, but he does. And that's where it becomes really time sensitive. Palantir has a price-to-earnings ratio of like 145+. There are other AI companies that are over 700. Those are really, really pricey stock values, and they could drop overnight.

So yeah, timing, you know, that's, that's the, that's the reason why I just see this moratorium is just in this particular instance. I'm not, you know, it's indelibly, it's indelibly circled around the data center issue.

Um, okay, thank you, Joshua. Any Other further discussion, comments?

Roll call. Wait, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Yeah, I just wanted to perhaps suggest an amendment on the recommendation. Instead of just, you know, as I reread this, recommending the Assembly adopt an ordinance makes it sound like, arguably, like it's just an ordinance, you know, if you don't know the process.

Perhaps change it to initiate an ordinance so that it's clear that the assembly is going to initiate an ordinance to be made that's going to have to come back here and be considered, as opposed to just straight up adopting one. And I can understand why that could cause some concern if, if it's not clear what our usual manner of operation is.

I, I, I think that's a good Amendment. I will move to amend the memorandum to change the word adopt to initiate. Initiate. OK, we have a second. All in favor of that amendment?

Aye. Sounds— is the public hearing closed? Are we done with that part? Yeah, I think so. Okay, so just the one last point before, um, just to explain my vote.

I think at this point, um, the Assembly's duty is to worry about the borough budget, and our duty is to worry about the borough zoning. And so, um, I feel comfortable, uh, that we need zoning regulations enough to send it to the Assembly, and if they want to make a decision to, um, do not, uh, you know, not follow through with our recommendation on economic reasons, that's their prerogative.

Any other comments? Okay, and we— do we need another motion to— another motion as amended?

Liz. Oh, do you want to vote? We amended it. Now we need a motion as amended. Did we roll call?

We haven't done the roll call. I thought everybody just said—. We did the roll call on the amendment, right? We did the roll call on the initial motion. We need a motion to—.

We had a motion to amend, and that approved. We didn't do it as a roll call. Okay, okay, I'm sorry. I might—. Okay, so I thought it was unanimous consent.

That's what you did. So now—. Okay, as amended. As amended. As amended.

Just to clarify, just for me, so you made— you had the initial motion, then you made a motion to amend to add that initiate language, right? And then that was approved by unanimous consent? Yeah. Okay, and now you're going to approve on the Approve the mo— uh, the memorandum as amended? Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Joshua? No. Sarah? Yes. Chris?

No. Micah? Yes. Heather? Yes.

Thomas? Yes. Jim? No.

Okay, moving on to non-agenda items.

Um, Commissioner comments. Um, we have the data center draft ordinance.

I have two issues with that. One, 1,500 feet is like almost a third of a mile. And the other thing is that we don't have a prerogative on the financial numeration in there. That's not under our purview, so I don't know why it would be in there.

Find that page.

Page 111 is where it starts. Thank you.

The comments, discussion. What do you think we should do in those areas? I do. Yeah. Yes.

Oh, just, just about that. There's a lot I like and a lot I don't like in this proposal. I really like the sentence that probably came from my comment. The solar panels do not apply. I thought like that, but, you know, I think.

You know, I think it's a draft. Um, I just want to make a comment that visual screening and reduction of noise levels, equipment, etc. Okay, that's something that's fairly circumstantial in some cases, like in the case with Ocean Beauty. That's a data center that's, that's not within 600 feet of a residence. I don't think that that particular part would— the ordinance would apply.

So I don't know if how that would really fit in. It's just something that just needs a little bit more thought. I think it said 1,500 feet.

The, uh, well, yeah, I could— yes, 1,500 feet. I think that's okay. So what you're dealing with here is 600 feet is the necessary, you know, borough— like, you have to send a letter to the neighbors. But right, 1,500 feet is, is absolutely— I mean, that's a really long way. Okay, we're talking about, we're talking about a warehouse full of refrigerators.

How is the noise from that going to impact someone 1,500 feet away? I'll let you speculate on that.

Well, especially if you can address the noise issue rather than the separation issue, um, you know, the, the biggest issue would be what the noise generated is. Is, not the, not the, the distance per se. I think the biggest problem is it really depends on what type of fans are used on the cooling systems and everything else is going to determine the noise level and what type of power generation for backup power, etc., is planning on being used. So that's more of the factors that need to be considered rather than, you know, a set distance of separation. I agree with the noise thing because I'll give you an example.

At the grocery store, the refrigeration is extremely loud, but you don't hear it because of the way it's built, right? It's— this noise is contained in that unit. Yeah, and there's so many different styles of fan blades that can be used now on the cooling systems that can greatly reduce the noise. So it really depends on how the system is designed. Makes a real difference in, in how much noise it generates.

So there's design criteria can reduce those standards, so it'd be more of saying setting a noise level at a distance. And I guess one of the other concerns that people have is because of the fans, a lot of the noise that is generated by cooling is low frequency noise. So you don't, don't want just a standard noise level, you want to measure measure both standard noise level and low-frequency noise level. So that way you get a, a better idea of how much of a problem, uh, is created by the cooling system. So, um, the bigger, the bigger thing is if they're relying on backup generators and then how often those generators going to be running.

Yeah, hopefully it wouldn't be that often, if at all, or if they're just going to rely rely on the borough's backup power for most of their power for their situation. So those are the type of things that we need to need answers to. So yeah, I'll admit that a lot of this language I pulled straight from the Anchorage ordinance that they created, but then there are some things in here that I had to modify to bit more our scope, uh, small town. Yeah, uh, a smaller amount of power that's available. And yeah, uh, so, well, I think the power, we just, we leave that to Power and Light.

They're, they're the ones who know how much power is available. The only thing that I would be concerned about, and hopefully the borough assembly would address because it really doesn't fall into our purview, is the, uh cost of any infrastructure upgrades that are necessary to power the data center. It sounds like in the case that's currently being presented, there isn't going to be any because the power is already there. So, um, no, it's just the power use, right? It's just a power use, and it's, and it's, and it's, uh, controlled through the, uh, the amount of servers that can be connected at one time.

Yeah, in one facility. But again, that's— so it's going to be under power and light, not under our, our thing. So, so that's what I'm saying is that number there needs, uh, special attention. I kind of pulled it out of thin air, basically.

And then basically the only other things that would be is, uh, um, concerns about any wastewater discharge. And I think that more falls under basically us saying that they've got to meet EPA and DEC and our local wastewater, whatever requirements they are going to put forward. And I think as far as guaranteeing that, um, uh, it should be the ones who are going to be monitoring it are going to be our local wastewater in that situation, if there's any at all. Um, but that's going to be monitored, uh, it should be through what wastewater deems is necessary, not something that we should be stating. So I think it's basically, uh, those would be The concerns that I think need to be addressed, and then, of course, you know, everything else is covered under DEC, you know, like anything to do with coolants that are used or refrigerants or anything else.

That's all covered under DEC and EPA regulations. So we just need to— I think we would just reiterate that they are going to follow those regulations, and that's what I would be concerned about. You can also, um, 2 things you could— I've worked in regulating regulatory and permitting. You can have your own regulation and then say, but also must comply with DC, or you can just say, well, whatever DEC says and go with that. Yeah, but I think that's in here.

Yeah, but I'm just, I'm just saying that's one of the things, the big concerns that I have that should be addressed is basically stating that And just restating that they will follow these regulations. Now, if wastewater says they want additional regulations, different things, that's up to wastewater or the borough assembly to put that in there, because that's not really our— that doesn't fall under zoning type stuff. But I'm just saying, just in the general regulation of writing a code like this, we should state that that is going to be done. But that's again for the borough assembly or wastewater. Water, power, and light to insert their part into that.

Not— that's not us. We're just dealing with the zoning issues, which are going to be noise, visual, and, you know, if they're, you know, in the situation of like, um, odors coming from a business or something like that, that's stuff that we write into our part of the code. So that's kind of the way I see it. So do you think we should remove that section and put in there, should be handled by, uh, well, I would just, just say that they're gonna be covered, be covered by, uh, you know, that it shall meet these regulations, but then we leave it in the Borough Assembly to fill in the details on that is the way I feel it. So, you know, so, and then the Borough Assembly, because they're gonna Whatever we've put forward, the borough assembly is going to be the ones who are going to massage it and make it exactly the way they feel it needs to be.

But we can really make sure we have the part as far as noise regulation and that stuff down for what we need to feel is addressing the neighbors and everything else, because those are what are big concerns. And lights. And a lot of people worry about lights. Yeah. And I can see why.

Yeah, well, it's, you know, the reason for lighting on things is primarily for security reasons, and with, you know, cameras and stuff they have now that can operate in rather low light, you don't really need as much lighting.

So—. Another thing to consider is there are cooling methods that do not produce noise or very little noise. Yes, you don't have to cool with fans. One of which is really interesting to me in particular is district heating. That's what they're doing in Sweden.

Yeah, well, I think what they're proposing in this is to do— use the waste heat in heating that building a good portion of the year, which would be a good use for the heat. So, you know, I mean, I think a lot of it can easily be addressed. Rest. So, um, uh, and it's just those are the big concerns, or, you know, what can you do to reduce, reduce the noise to an acceptable level and be a good neighbor? So that's, I think, really the big concerns I have as a commissioner and trying to, trying to make it more functional for the neighborhood and for the community.

Yes.

So other comments, questions?

What's our next move on this?

Do you have a number for the, uh, setback? For the setback distance? I mean, We can address that now. If 1,500 feet, if we all feel that's too much, I think that's way too much. We can put something else in there.

I would say it depends on what you're setting back from too. Well, this is for a neighborhood for residential and noise sensitive. So, you know, hospitals, whatever.

Well, I like the 1,500 feet. For sensitive areas. I went back to that. I can see 1,500 feet from hospitals and things like that. We don't have to, like, make a decision.

I could see it less than that for residential, uh, and then even lower for, like, commercial zoning. Mr. Chairman, yeah, and we, like, just This is a discussion, and can we continue this next meeting or something? Sure. I mean, that's, that's up to you guys. Yeah.

So I recommend that we table this. Okay. Yep. I think we can continue on the, as a discussion process for this. I think it's not quite ready to vote on.

So yeah, I don't think it is either. Yeah, I think so. Okay. Next is discussion and ordinance amending PMC 3.64.20, membership, requested by Fine Walsh. Okay, so I'm gonna not take very long on these.

Um, long story short, um, I did a deep dive into Robert's Rules and the borough code after reading Title Network's appeal to the Board of Adjustment, kind of outlining why, um, the, the, the portion of borough code that we failed to have a hearing, um, uh, for as a planning board, that that was required. And, um, kind of trying to figure out, uh, how to tighten up the way we operate going forward, because I think I think there's gonna be more.

I think the likelihood of this situation happening again is high enough that we should kind of consider doing things slightly differently. I also, for the membership one, we, we are a very impactful board that has very few requirements for membership. Just have to be a resident of the borough, basically. Um, and, uh, there's a lot of code that we read. Um, and I felt after doing a deep dive in the code that a training, a code-specific borough code training, would be really, hopefully, really empowering for this board.

That, um, it's one thing, you know, the— my approach so far as a board member for the past— or commissioner for the past year— is to go on a case-by-case basis. I read the packet, I, you know, kind of understand the code that's applied to each specific situation, and that works until it doesn't, right? Um, because the issue that we encountered was that, you know, I didn't know until reading the appeal that we were required as the Planning Board to hold a hearing. That I felt would have been really— I felt kind of regret not knowing that beforehand, and that's something that this— so I put together a sample training just so I could kind of clarify to myself, you know, what I think are just the basics of borough code that kind of outlined only the most general situations that we encounter. It's a pretty lengthy training after just going through the basics, and so I feel like it could be helpful for, especially for a board that does have turnover, you know, you have some people like Commissioner O'Neill and Commissioner, Chair Frye that have been on here for a while, and Mr. Floyd as well, Commissioner Floyd, but the rest of us are new and there'll be new people coming in this election and.

So I, I thought it could be helpful. So I put together a PowerPoint presentation. The sample ordinance that I have is on page 119 through 121. Oh, I'm sorry. No, this is, this is the other one.

Membership. So that's 122 to 123.

And what I considered the basics are the, the section on meetings, the section on our planning functions, our section on additional functions. I also ended up putting a section in on the comprehensive plan because the Planning Commission does have duties under there. So Um, this first page is on meetings. I added in what the other proposal I made, which is to, um, amend our use of Robert's Rules as suggested in the handbook. Um, they do suggest altering, um, the way you approach rules of proceedings.

Uh, one is to not require a second, which I found really eye-opening that that's actually suggested by on the state level that you don't have seconds in planning commissions. I thought that was worth talking about for us because that's kind of how we— our problem manifested. Um, so that's why I put in, um, the meetings here. If we don't change that rule, I don't think we need to talk about meetings, but that's why this first slide is here. So we can skip to the fourth slide.

So these are the basic planning functions. We, we do planning and we make recommendations to the council and we recommend ordinances and, and also talk about the availability of public lands. You know, these are things that I considered, you know, I considered our main functions to be kind of responding to applications and those are actually under additional functions. So I thought this was interesting to read. Then the next ordinance is additional functions.

And this is really the, the meat and potatoes of the suggested training, is to go through all the different pieces of borough code that are impacted in our additional functions. So, um, it's just walking through all the different things that we do, including being a planning board. So if we can skip to the next slide. And this is, you know, we do conditional use permits, special use permits. Act on the, on recommendations of the building inspector.

And, you know, I think, and then right here they talk about, they have all these different cites to different parts of borough code. And so this is really, and then the next slide is comprehensive plan and purposes. You know, we do have a role in the Planning Commission as the comprehensive plan, so I thought it'd be useful to talk about that from the beginning. And then these next slides to the end are all breaking down Um, the additional functions, what's called additional functions of the Planning Commission, and, um, uh, this is just kind of lists them just to reiterate that this slide and the next slide.

Um, and then this just breaks down and gives you kind of a primer, like a, a table of contents, for example, of all the different codes that are impacted in our functions. And it's, it's significant and significant enough that I think kind of warning new planning commissioners of all these duties and all these things that we make decisions on could be really helpful. You know, a bird's eye view before you end up jumping into agendas and applying the code. If we just kind of see what the code, how the code is supposed to operate and how it's supposed to interplay, could be really helpful. So if we just kind of click through, this is This is, you know, a section on the just the platting board.

On the next slide as well, and then this here, this is on variances, and there are all these codes that regulate variances. And then the next slide is breaking down some kind of example things that I think are, are interesting, you know, what the requirements are for platting variances. And here is the next slide. This is the procedure. And the next slide.

On the purpose of these provisions, now we're in zoning because there's platting variances and there's zoning variances, and those are different. And I was drafting this and thinking, man, if I didn't think before we needed a training, I really think it could be helpful now writing this all out. Um, you know, conditions of approval and why zoning variances are different than platting variances. And, you know, this is the next slide. What we can consider.

And, you know, if we make a mistake, what do we do about it? Um, and then this is conditional use permits, kind of the same structure here. Moving forward.

Um, and then special use permits, the same. And I just feel like this is a training that I would have liked to have received, and maybe If the Commission agrees, this is something that we can amend, um, or rather recommend to the Assembly to amend the ordinance, our ordinances, to kind of put this tool in place so that people aren't coming in, um, you know, without any—. You're asking for— I thought it was just You wanted us to have a learning session. No, you're actually changing something. Sorry, I will say I like the idea of the training, by the way.

I don't think we need an ordinance. My personal opinion was that I think we do, and I didn't think we did at first, and then I kind of had a conversation with Director Cabrera and the borough attorney, and because We, under the ordinances, we can change our procedure by vote of the, uh, to add this. But, um, I, my impression was that we, we have to, in order to change the, you know, require, um, the membership requirements to require training, I, I thought that we had to do it by ordinance. If we don't, I would much, frankly, I would much rather we not go through the ordinance process to require a training, but I think I think it would be helpful. I thought I should bring it to the board.

Um, yeah, if we can do without ordinance, that would be great. I think without an ordinance, that's better. When I joined, we would all be willing. 13 Years ago, uh, the state put out a very good book, a booklet on the roles and issues of Planning Commission, and it was very well done, and it was fairly easy to read through the way it was written. And I get worried if we get too deep into the weeds of the nuts and bolts and details of it, you're gonna dissuade people from wanting to be on the Planning Commission.

And we have had problems before where we've only had 4 people in these seats, and then it has to be unanimous for anything to pass. So we got to be kind of careful about making sure that we— while we're offering people the information they need. We don't want to make it too much work because otherwise we're not going to be able to fill the seats. So we do have— I think that's totally legitimate because there, there, there is oftentimes when there's just 4 people here. We do have in our binders, which I do like and appreciate that we have, the Alaska Planning Commission Handbook.

Yeah, but that talks about state law, and I think this is meant—. And I'm saying there it's very well done in that it's very easy to understand. I think we need to be careful that we don't get too deep into the nuts and bolts. I totally, I totally acknowledge that I— that's how I operate, and I, I'm a code person, um, probably by virtue of my profession, um, but I— and so this is, this is a draft, this is an example, but I— it's illustrative in the fact that I feel like A primer on borough code and how it operates would be really, really helpful because this talks about state law. It doesn't touch municipal code, and I didn't want to put that burden onto our development director just, just to be able to explain it to you guys.

So I don't think we should— I agree that we should not have this be the training because it is very technical, very, um, I mean, it's just a list of ordinances that I think we should talk about, but I think it would be helpful to have a borough code-specific meeting when you're elected saying, you know, this is how variances operate, this is how conditional use permits operate, this is how special use permits operate in Petersburg. And I think that would be helpful. I think I would have appreciated it because I— it's a deep— that's a deep pool to swim in, I think, in my opinion. In. I think we get into too much of the— we're dealing with the finer details of things.

That's one reason that, you know, Liz can answer questions for us when it gets into, okay, we've got a situation that we don't quite understand, right? You know, that's why we can always ask and say for clarification. So the reason I was thinking of a prep training first is that you don't get answers to questions that you don't think to ask. Right. So, and that's why I think it's nice to have a conversation generally about how everything operates before you get handed a packet.

And so this is, this was my goal here. But it's since we are an all-volunteer board, you know, it's, and everybody here is doing other things besides what they're, you know, their work is here. It's— we need to make sure that it's— we're not throwing too much on people, uh, is my concern. Because, you know, it's like, I, I usually spend a few days before the meetings going through the packet and looking things up and going through the code book and trying to figure out generally what we're, we're dealing with. And then, of course, I always ask for clarifications on things that if I'm not 100% sure that an answer came back on something, I have no problem asking to say if, like, did Public Works weigh in on this project or something like that?

And usually Liz is very quick about giving us an answer about what's— what the rest of is going on with the rest of the world. So, you know, yes, Micah. With all due respect, Chairman and Commissioner, I totally agree. I'm running into a little bit of a time crunch. I understand.

So, um, should we just vote no? Because if— look, if we can do a training without an ordinance, we should just vote no on this. Well, is this— this isn't even on as an action item, so we can't even vote on it. It's a discussion. You're right.

I'm sorry, I'm also fried. So I would just just say, let's, let's see if we can do this without— okay, put something together that is— and we can always, we can always change it if we decide it's, it's too much or too little, or, you know, so the final one needed—. The final discussion I have here, which I, I will take 2 minutes to talk about, was after review of this handbook. Um, I read it cover to cover, uh, when putting this together because I didn't want to be duplicative. And if you guys have your handbooks here, I can tell you what page I'm on.

Towards the end, there are sample bylaws.

So page 95.

This just really— I was ready to kind of give up the idea that we shouldn't have a second. Because I felt like maybe the knowing the code was more important than Robert's Rules at this point, until I read the rules of proceedings that they suggest. And they suggest modifying Robert's Rules of Order to not require a second and to not require a member— that any member may move for reconsideration instead of just the prevailing. So I felt because this is suggested by the state, um, for lots of different situations, for lots juris— different jurisdictions, um, and that would have— in the situation that we encountered, I feel that the requirement for a second, which is intended to explain, you know, we have to— that we want— everyone on the board wants, you know, to discuss this— when you're required by borough code to discuss something, it doesn't matter what we want. So I felt like those rules were conflicting.

I found in the bylaws that this is a common change And so that's why I brought it to the board, and I was, you know, told that that had to be done with ordinance, that we couldn't just change it. I totally appreciate a second. I really do. It slows the meeting down just enough to you get to make sure you've heard the proposal, and I like the second.

It just gives—. That's— I think we're— I think we're forcing us into Something without a second is where I'm at. I remember on April 21st when we put in a proposal to the assembly and they did not take it up. So it happens that, that somebody doesn't second it, or the motion isn't entertained, and on the assembly level. And also one of our first directives that I learned was that we were trying— we were supposed to conduct our meetings here.

In the same way that the assembly does, and the assembly does use seconds. So that's my two cents. It just— I think it would make it easier on everybody if we just kept it like it was, because trying to get new people in here, it's confusing. Yeah, Joshua. Thank you.

Uh, I really appreciate the work that, that Commissioner Fine-Walsh has put into this, and I personally could, could do with some additional training. Any member may move for reconsideration. What were the— what are the limitations to that? Can you say move for reconsideration after a vote, or once it's voted, it's final and you have to do that in a future meeting? So I looked it up in Robert's Rules, what the standard rule is, and usually what the regular rule is, and I don't have it in front of me, but from what I just read this weekend is that usually if a vote fails, the member— or you take a vote and then there's prevailing side and then the not prevailing side.

After that vote is finished, typically under Robert's Rules, only those who voted on the prevailing side may move for reconsideration. I think that's meant to kind of limit, you know, people who failed the vote to repeatedly bring something up again. Up and up and up, and the sample bylaws suggest doing it differently for planning commissions, which I, for completeness sake, brought up both. It's not something that we've encountered here in my year spent, but I thought it was interesting that the state recommended that we do that. So I figured if we were changing it for the first recommendation, that we should just change both.

Well, plus we did— there was one time that there wasn't a second and we still discussed it, which we weren't supposed to do. Right. And so that, you know, this kind of second issue has come up enough times that it was kind of in the back of my mind. I was willing to let it go, but then I saw it in the sample bylaws and I thought, oh, that's interesting. Planning commissions in Alaska don't necessarily use seconds.

So I brought it up.

Maybe too well. Oh, yeah. Yeah. All right. I don't think so.

I'm good. Okay, I feel discussed. All right, thank you. Liz, any staff comments? No.

All right, um, moved to adjourn. Uh, not yet. Our next meeting is October 13th, uh, at noon. Um, anybody have any idea if you're going to be here? Yep, I'll be here.

All right. Yep. I'll be there. Motion to adjourn. So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye.