Some members of the Haines Borough Planning Commission were offended by assembly member Tom Morphet’s suggestions on how to define resource extraction after a year of work on the topic.

Morphet wrote a letter to the commission this month suggesting the borough require a resident to apply for a resource extraction permit if they remove at least 2,000 board feet of trees or three cubic yards of gravel from a single parcel of land. The applicant would be required to submit a map, reasoning for removing the resources and how impacts would be mitigated.

Under Morphet’s plan, borough planner Holly Smith would be responsible for accepting or denying applications, and the decision could be appealed through the planning commission and the borough assembly.

Morphet said he thought this approach was “more realistic” than the commission’s proposed approval criteria that assigns volumes of materials per zone, by minimum lot size, that would be considered resource extraction.

“I’m sure this will strike some people as either oversimplified or burdensome, and it might give staff the heebeejeebies, but I think resource extraction is very much a site-dependent activity: What’s good in some locations may not be good in others,” Morphet wrote. “This would be a way to address the very natural and understandable differences in resource-extraction activities and their impacts, as they occur in the borough.”

Several planning commissioners had problems with Morphet’s proposal.

“If he convinces three other assembly members that his proposal is better than what we put forward, then all our year’s work has gone out the window and we’ve wasted our time,” commission chair Rob Goldberg said. “If that happens on this resource extraction issue, I think the borough really needs to consider just abolishing the words ‘planning commission’ from the charter and code…if our work is not going to be considered. That’s why this proposal from Tom is kind of disturbing to me.”

Commissioners said Morphet’s concern about site clearing for subdivisions was discussed months ago and exempted from being considered resource extraction in the proposed criteria. Commissioner Donnie Turner also said it would be difficult for the borough to hold individuals accountable for impacts to the environment.

Turner said after being on the planning commission for many years, it’s the first time he’s experienced an assembly member writing a letter on a topic so late in the discussion.

“I really think it’s inappropriate and disheartening,” he said.

Commissioner Lee Heinmiller said the numbers Morphet suggested were “out to lunch,” and commissioner Larry Geise said it was insulting to receive Morphet’s proposal.

“This is just silly,” Geise said. “It’s political input that we don’t need at this point.”

But some audience members were interested in Morphet’s ideas.

Katey Palmer asked if there was a reason to exclude his ideas. “When it comes from the assembly, yeah,” Geise said.

Patty Kermoian said she was disheartened that the commission was so “verbally disgusted by suggestions from the public.”

Palmer, Kermoian, husband Kip Kermoian, Nancy Berland and other Mud Bay residents suggested at the meeting and in writing that the Mud Bay zone be removed from the resource extraction “matrix” of special criteria and dealt with separately.

Goldberg said he would consider a suggestion from a University of Alaska representative Marsha Davis to separate site development from the resource extraction code and bring that back to the planning commission.

Heinmiller said it could be possible to remove both the Mud Bay and Lutak zones from the proposed code.

Smith, as well as commissioners Sylvia Heinz and Jeremy Stephens, suggested the planning commission should soon seek legal counsel on the issue. The borough manager or Mayor would ask for the help on the commission’s behalf.

The planning commission will have a resource extraction workshop on Wednesday, March 21 at 6:30 p.m. in assembly chambers, and a fifth public hearing on the topic at its April 5 meeting.