The Haines Borough Planning Commission found no violation of a vacation rental conditional use permit issued to Kim and William Chetney despite a citation from borough staff.
The Chetneys have owned and operated Viking Cove Guest Homes, a vacation rental consisting of three cabins in the Mud Bay Rural Residential Zone, since 2014.
In August 2014, the borough issued the Chetneys a permit with conditions attached, including a ban on building more accommodations or booking more than 20 guests.
This spring, multiple Mud Bay residents submitted six complaints to the borough regarding permit violations including increased traffic and speeding and increased noise among others.
Seven residents and neighbors sent the borough and planning commission letters of support for the Chetneys and their business, disputing complaints regarding traffic and noise increases.
Mud Bay resident Katey Palmer complained that the buildings had additional units beyond the three that were permitted.
The Viking Cove website advertised six accommodations for up to 28 guests, three more rooms than when Viking Cove obtained its conditional use permit. That was the only violation borough staff identified as valid.
Borough planner Holly Smith told the commission during a public hearing that while staff found the Chetneys to be in violation of their permit, those infractions should be remedied without punitive action.
“The building footprint has not changed since their building permit has been issued it’s just that they have made renovations to their existing buildings that they were already permitted for so that they’re partitioned, separate rooms in the same buildings,” Smith said. “They provided evidence that they have not booked over 20 people during the issuance of this permit.”
William Chetney said they only rent their property during summer months. While they have booked a high number of guests on occasion, it’s rare and their property has a low impact on the neighborhood, Chetney said.
“Our utilization, with precision, has been 10 percent of the allowable 20 people per night,” Chetney said. “That’s in high season.”
Donnie Turner said the original permit was issued with the premise that no additional structures would be built. He made a motion for the planning commission to find that the Chetneys were not in violation.
Commission chair Rob Goldberg agreed and said the issue came down to how “accommodation” is defined.
“Is an accommodation an additional bedroom or an additional building,” Goldberg said. “I remember the discussion Donnie’s talking about and we didn’t want them to build other buildings. They haven’t. They’ve put bedrooms where there was empty space.”
The commission voted 6-1 to not find the Chetneys in violation, with commission member Rob Miller the dissenting vote.
Miller agreed with the borough staff’s finding and said the Chetneys should agree in writing to rent only three of the six rooms at any given time.
The borough has received informal inquiries related to appealing the planning commission’s decision, Smith said.
The planning commission must approve its decision in resolution form at its Sept. 7 meeting before an official appeal can be filed.
The planning commission also requested borough manager Debra Schnabel write the state and ask them to remove the Chilkoot Corridor Park Gate if there is no good reason for its presence.
The commission also scheduled a resource extraction workshop and set a public hearing for commercial marijuana zoning during its September meeting.