The Haines Borough Assembly agreed last week to hear an appeal of a Feb. 13 planning commission decision denying a conditional use permit for a heliport at .6 Mile Chilkat Lake Road.
The assembly will hear the appeal by Scott Sundberg Tuesday, co-owner of Southeast Alaska Backcountry Adventures.
SEABA has sought a heliport at the site since 2008. The idea was most recently rejected in March 2012, on a 5-1 assembly vote, following rejection by the planning commission.
In denying SEABA’s permit application last month, the commission recommended interim manager Julie Cozzi approve it with additional conditions including a one-year trial period, borough monitoring of noise levels and a “very limited,” pre-approved number of landings.
Sundberg told the assembly it would be “irresponsible” for the assembly not the hear the appeal, and that the heliport is necessary for his other company, Big Salmon Ventures, to move forward with plans for a $5.5 million eco-lodge on the property.
The assembly voted 5-1 to hear the appeal, with assembly member Joanne Waterman opposed.
Waterman said she didn’t like how the planning commission was attempting to hand off the decision to the interim manager, when they are the ones responsible for issuing or denying conditional use permits. “I don’t find that acceptable,” Waterman said.
Assembly members Diana Lapham and George Campbell both pointed to the area’s designation as “general use,” and said just because homes have been built in the area doesn’t mean it should be considered a residential zone.
“I think (the area) has been treated improperly,” Campbell said.
Lapham also defended Sundberg and the work he has put into getting the heliport approved, stating Sundberg had “crossed the T’s and dotted the I’s in all the right fashions.”
The Tourism Advisory Board also voted Feb. 24 to recommend the assembly hear the appeal. According to the letter submitted by the board, construction of an eco-lodge “will have a positive economic impact” and “fill a niche in our economy.”
“The TAB is concerned that the denial of this conditional use permit by the planning commission is counterproductive for any economic benefits,” said board chair Barbara Mulford.
Under borough code, eight criteria must be met before a conditional use permit is granted, including that “the use is so located on the site as to avoid undue noise,” “that the value of the adjoining property will not be significantly impaired” and that “the use is consistent and in harmony with the comprehensive plan and surrounding land uses.”
Another criterion requires comments from property owners impacted by the proposed development are given “their due weight.”
Interim borough manager Julie Cozzi recommended to the commission that a “short-duration permit of one year be considered to provide a trial period.”
Cozzi’s recommendation said the code requirement concerning avoiding undue noise “is subjective and may have been met. It is true, heliport operations can produce undue noise that would affect adjacent residential properties, but a recent decibel testing seemed to show potentially tolerable levels.”
Concerning the requirement that conditional uses be “in harmony” with surrounding land uses, Cozzi said “the proposed use does not seem to be consistent with surrounding land uses because the proposed development is next door to residential properties. That said, the applicant does claim that situating a heliport in this location would reduce flight times and overall aircraft noise by reducing the time spent flying over the borough and state lands.”
Five of seven property owners who wrote to the commission opposed the heliport.
“What is ‘due weight’ for me is probably different from what is ‘due weight’ for the commission,” Cozzi wrote. “I have placed relatively little weight on the comments as opposed to my own assessment of the collective community interest in heliport operations in the borough.”
Cozzi’s recommendation is opposite one written by former manager Mark Earnest in January 2012. “Heliport operations at this particular site are a use which produces undue noise as that phrase is used in the CUP criteria no matter where the proposed use is located on the property,” Earnest wrote.
Earnest said a heliport was not in harmony with surrounding uses and would be harmful to the general health and welfare of the community by disturbing the peace and quiet valued by nearby property owners.
Cozzi said her determinations were influenced by recent decibel tests at the site. Even though those tests weren’t scientific, “they were enough to make the decision more subjective to me,” she said.
Measuring noise impacts is a subjective exercise, Cozzi said. “There’s no objective data. I think some studying needs to happen. We have to know once and for all. We have some people who say it’s a problem and others who say it isn’t. We have to know,” Cozzi said.