Resident Ella Bredthauer said this week she would take a wait-and-see approach to a permit for blasting and hauling rock through her residential subdivision atop Young Road.
Bredthauer made a detailed, hour-long case against the permit during an appeal to the Haines Borough Assembly last week, saying it violated code and the borough’s comprehensive plan and that its approval did not follow procedures laid out in borough law.
“I don’t know what my next course of action is. I appreciate they took action and they went back and addressed parts where the permit or the planning commission didn’t adhere to code, but I think it still would have been better if it started from scratch,” Bredthauer said.
After a three-day meeting, the Haines Borough Assembly on March 17 upheld the permit issued by the commission Feb. 9, but added a host of conditions, including requiring plans for reclamation and for vehicle and pedestrian safety.
Southeast Roadbuilders owner Roger Schnabel was given one season to excavate 7,500 cubic yards of rock near the Skyline Subdivision, which will be used on the harbor expansion project.
Bredthauer and resident Lenise Henderson Fontenot each appealed the planning commission’s decision to issue a conditional use permit.
After testimony on Fontenot’s appeal March 13, the assembly voted to uphold the planning commission’s decision, adding back in several conditions recommended by interim borough manager Brad Ryan but removed by the commission. The assembly then added about five conditions of its own.
The assembly reconsidered its previous decision, however, after Bredthauer combed through borough code sections she argued Schnabel had not met or the commission had not conformed to, and sought to overturn the permit.
In her written appeal, Bredthauer cited borough code that states the burden of proof is on the developer to show that a proposed use meets conditional use general approval criteria.
“Due to the lack of detail and depth in his original permit, Mr. Schnabel did not meet the burden of proof in his original application particularly in regards to the general land use permit criteria of traffic, reviewing parties, public maintenance, drainage, peak use, and off-site impacts,” Bredthauer wrote.
Following testimony from Schnabel’s attorney, the assembly sought to consult with its own lawyer, triggering a second extension of the meeting Friday.
Assembly members met in executive session for two hours before consolidating the appeals and voting unanimously for the permit, while adding two additional conditions.
Along with creating reclamation and safety plans, the approved conditions, in part, require Schnabel to limit excavation to 7,500 yards, submit a map of proposed trucking routes, repair roads damaged by dump trucks, submit a drainage plan to address runoff, and to limit blasting Monday through Friday between the hours of 10 a.m and 3 p.m and hauling between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
The safety plan is to be drawn up by the company, the borough and a neighborhood representative.
Bredthauer asked the assembly if the public would be able to comment on the safety and reclamation plans. “The mitigation plan, the reclamation plan and the safety plan have due impact on the citizens and they should have comment time. “These were deficit parts of the permit. We couldn’t comment on them because they weren’t there.”
While assembly members Mike Case and Ron Jackson later said they agreed with Bredthauer, the hearing on the matter is concluded and no public comment period is scheduled.
Assembly member Heather Lende said the appeal process, although flawed, allowed time for the assembly to hear the public’s concerns and acted accordingly.
“I think that we’re pretty clear on what safety measures need to be taken,” Lende said. “In terms of reclamation that’s part, as you know, of the resource extraction permit. We agreed that could potentially answer some of your questions about the subdivision plans. We think we’ve heard where the concerns were.”
Lende also said the borough’s appeal process is “vague at best.”
“State law suggests that by wording, any appeals ordinance includes the appointment of a hearing officer, defines the proper parties, proscribed evidentury rules, standards of review and remedies available. All of those things would have shortened this way up if we had a procedure first.”
Member Margaret Friedenauer said borough officials and staff need to re-evaluate the appeals process.“I think we need handbooks. “I think the (planning commission) needs the support they need to understand the appeals process. I’m not saying they don’t. I’m just saying we all need that help.”
John Winge attended the hearings and told the assembly to become more efficient.“We’re going to have more and more development going on, I hope. We just have to get the process nailed down more. I don’t think this should take more than another hour of a meeting when something’s being appealed.”