The Haines Borough Planning Commission can’t come to a consensus on how resource extraction should be defined in code, pushing discussions to at least February after months of debate.

“It’s in the borough’s interest to have these definitions and the code to be as airtight as possible,” said commission chair Rob Goldberg.

At a Dec. 14 meeting, Goldberg presented a list of hypothetical situations dealing with tree cutting and earthwork that could become reality in the borough. He wanted commissioners to review each scenario and answer yes or no to the question: Is it resource extraction? One example reads: “A property owner clears a spot for a garage and sells three large logs to local woodworkers.”

Goldberg said he thought the survey would help the group get closer to nailing down a definition and answer the questions, “Does it matter if it’s commercial or non-commercial? Does the amount of material matter? Does the size of the lot matter? Does the type of material removed matter?”

The group only got through a few items on the list before commissioner Jeremy Stephens suggested the discussion be moved to a Jan. 3 workshop.

But a quick poll of commissioners, solicited by newly appointed member Kristin Hathhorn, revealed the group’s differing opinions.

The commission mainly discussed three definitions. The first is already in code, which states the removal of material from a property is only considered resource extraction if the material is removed for commercial purposes.

The second working definition was suggested by Stephens and focuses on intent, or “primary and secondary land use.” Removal of material is only considered resource extraction if it is the primary use of a property.

“If the removal of a naturally occurring material is the result of a primary land use, such as property development, the removal of the naturally occurring material is a secondary land use and is not considered resource extraction.”

Goldberg’s definition includes exact board feet or cubic yardage. Any material exceeding the amount listed, like 500 cubic yards per lot per year or 40,000 board feet (16 logging truck loads) per lot per year, would be considered resource extraction.

Commissioner Larry Geise said he preferred Stephens’ definition. He said enforcement of Goldberg’s definition would become “a complicated mess.”

Newly appointed commissioner Sylvia Heinz said if the definition addresses uses for the materials – for commercial purposes or noncommercial – it doesn’t cover the impact resource extraction will have.

Stephens said his experience trying to enforce specifications led him to write his definition.

“If we put a hard number in there, there’s no way it’s going to fit every situation,” Stephens said. “It’s easier to adapt to every situation if you have the flexibility to adapt.”

Donnie Turner said he didn’t like the vagueness of Stephen’s definition.

“Whether it’s someone’s intent or primary or secondary use… it’s so hard to define and it’s such a personal judgment,” Turner said. “I like the hard numbers.”

Hathhorn said she also wanted to stay away from the philosophical by keeping the definition simple with as few loopholes as possible. She said she wanted to protect the rights of people living in residential zones and thought the numbers in Goldberg’s definition were too high.

Commissioner Lee Heinmiller said staff could help determine the need for issuing conditional use permits.

“I agree that to try to come up with something succinct that we can deal with would be the most logical approach in the long run,” said commissioner Lee Heinmiller.

Goldberg said he is not attached to his or Stephens’ definitions, but would like to come up with something that is “hard to circumvent and easy to enforce.”

The planning commission will meet again for a workshop Jan. 3 to discuss the list, and will hold a third public hearing at a meeting on Feb. 8.