Calling for new permitting requirements to stem “after-the-fact” variance requests, Haines Borough Assembly members Tuesday hammered out a possible resolution to a dispute between Haines Assisted Living and neighboring landowner Mike Denker.
On a motion by member Joanne Waterman, the assembly confirmed a contested variance granted to HAL on the condition that Denker get “reasonable and usable access to the side of his house and his sewer line.”
Details are to be worked out between Denker, HAL and a borough representative. “We’d be willing to discuss that as a board, sure,” HAL representative Vince Hansen told the assembly.
The assembly didn’t rehash the details of the dispute that started in December when the borough planning commission approved a second variance for HAL’s encroachment of a required 15-foot building separation.
HAL sought the variance after a building addition went up closer to Denker’s building than a first variance allowed.
Hansen characterized the need for a second variance as an honest mistake by a project volunteerswho submitted the first incomplete information. “It was truly unfortunate that the information was not complete, but there was nothing to be gained by omitting it… It was not an attempt to get away with something.”
Planning commission member Rob Goldberg said an aerial-view plan of the building submitted to the commission didn’t provide enough detail for the group to catch the problem when the first variance was sought. “In hindsight, it would have been good for one of us to say, ‘Is this the finished perimeter?’” Goldberg said.
Goldberg said the variance decision was “uncomfortable” for planners. “You’ve got the code on one hand, and people on the other. Haines Assisted Living is a group of people we know, trying to do good things for the community.”
Denker mentioned drainage issues and said the HAL addition diminished his property value, but emphasized access to his sewer line as his biggest concern. “I have serious financial concerns about how I can fix something if I have a problem. It’s considerable… If for some reason I need access, I don’t have it. I used to have it.”
Assemblywoman Waterman said that in the future, the planning commission should require the same sets of plans that must be submitted to the state fire marshal. “HAL for some reason or another didn’t have a lot of checks and balances. When they went for the variance, they didn’t even know what variance they needed. The planning commission, due to just because of the way the process goes now, especially with land use applications and maybe with commerical buildings… There was a certain amount of due diligence that wasn’t met, I think. The planning commission needs to look at new requirements on commercial applications.”
Denker said the after-the-fact variance “flip-flopped” the public process. “The code is designed so prior to any construction happening, notice goes out so the community can comment on it… This is what happens when the process starts failing.”
He said architectural drawings of the HAL building showed as early as June 10 that HAL couldn’t meet the stipulations of the first variance.
Hansen, a HAL administrator who once worked as the City of Haines’ administrator, said the borough’s due process requirements had been met and that the planning commission acted in accordance with borough code and all laws. He and borough staff referred to the second variance issued Dec. 9 as an “amended variance.”