Several variations of a petition to remove all areas outside of the townsite from land-use permitting requirements for site development are being circulated with more than 50 signatures.

The originators of the petitions are anonymous.

Last Tuesday, the assembly advanced an ordinance requiring the permit borough-wide to its second hearing after no public pushback.

Under its new definition, site development means “any clearing, grubbing, grading, and filling earthwork activity which exceeds 100 cubic yards or 5,000 board feet, except utility improvements.” On half-acre lots or smaller, site development would be any earthwork activity exceeding 50 cubic yards or 2,500 board feet.

The planning commission approved the code change in March, attached to a $25 permit fee borough planner Holly Smith said was intended to inform property owners how development activities affect their surroundings.

Current code does not require a permit for site development unless the developer declares the activity as accessory to the construction of a structure.

The initial ordinance only applied to the townsite area. Last month, the Government Affairs and Services Committee recommended an amendment to include Mud Bay and Lutak zones.

Assembly members Brenda Josephson and Stephanie Scott opposed changes to general-use zone, and assembly member Tom Morphet was against regulations in Mud Bay and Lutak, as well.

Josephson said that permitting in a general use zone morphs site development in high density areas into a control mechanism against use-by-right. “It is not appropriate to require the property owners in the general-use area to have to pay fees, fill out applications, make appointments with borough administration for site visits, and then wait to see if the administration will accept their proposed use-by-right activity as being consistent with the comprehensive plan,” Josephson said.

At the May 14 assembly meeting, the assembly adopted assembly member Will Prisciandaro’s amendment to expand the regulations boroughwide. Morphet opposed the change, saying he was reluctant to vote for something residents in an area didn’t ask for. Josephson was absent.

“I think it’s good to know areawide what people are doing,” Prisciandaro said.

“I’m in favor of the amendment because then two public hearings will find out if it is something area-wide people want or not,” assembly member Heather Lende said.

At the May 28 assembly meeting, Josephson, who has been travelling for two weeks, said she was surprised to return and see that general use was added to the ordinance. She motioned to remove general use, but the motion died with no second.

“We put that in the there to wait to hear from the public and at this point, I still am,” Lende said on Tuesday. “And at the first hearing we haven’t, maybe at the second hearing we still will.”

Assembly member Sean Maidy said, while they wait for the public to speak up, “I want them to know that the reason I’d like to see this go through for the general-use area and everywhere is because yes, they have the right to do what they want on their property, but if it’s for the sloping and grading it could negatively affect their neighbor’s property.”

Lynette Campbell has helped notify her neighbors of the potential code change.

She wrote the borough clerk on May 29 requesting an extension for public comment period. Campbell said she learned of the ordinance a few days earlier, and spoke to 16 people with homes in the general use zone who were “shocked and angry” to learn of the ordinance.

“Before a drastic and sweeping proposal such as this gets implemented, it would be good to understand the problem being solved. How many people have been harmed by lack of a site development permit, and what was the magnitude and frequency of the harm? How would a site development permit have stopped the bad thing from happening? Without citing cases with details, the public can’t see any reason for or what the benefit they would get to have this. It feels punitive to the public without justification,” she said.

Site development permits are required in Juneau, Anchorage, Ketchikan, Sitka, Petersburg, and Wrangell.

The ordinance’s second public hearing will be June 11 at 6:30 p.m. If approved, the assembly still must set an effective date and a permit fee.

Author