In a 4-2 vote, the Haines Borough Assembly adopted an ordinance on Tuesday that defines yurts and container homes and restricts their use in some zones of the townsite.
The final ordinance included an amendment to allow yurts and container homes in more places than would have been allowed by the original draft ordinance, which would have prohibited the structures as permanent dwellings in the townsite except in the rural mixed-use and rural residential zones.
With the amendment, introduced on Tuesday by assembly member Gabe Thomas, the ordinance allows yurts and container homes as primary residences on half-acre or larger lots in the townsite’s single residential zone and with conditional-use permits on smaller single residential lots and in the waterfront zone.
The structures will be banned in the multi-residential, commercial, recreational and industrial zones in the townsite. Some of those zones already don’t allow yurts or any form of housing. The new regulation doesn’t pertain to the Mud Bay, Lutak or General Use zoning districts, where yurts and container homes are allowed as long-term housing.
Assembly member Thomas said his amendment was intended to be a compromise, explaining that single-family neighborhoods where yurts might be more desirable have larger lots, such as along Mud Bay Road. “It seemed like most of the areas that (yurts) are going to be desirable in are not in the center of town (where lots are smaller),” Thomas said.
The other part of Thomas’ amendment—requiring a conditional-use permit for yurts and container homes on smaller single-family lots and in the waterfront zone—means that someone who wants to build a yurt or container home as a primary residence in those areas will need to go through a public permitting process during which neighbors will have the opportunity to weigh in, borough planner Dave Long said.
The amendment passed 5-1, with assembly member Huling opposed.
The conversation at Tuesday’s meeting exposed two different perspectives about both the rationale for and possible consequences (good or bad) of the ordinance. Some assembly members viewed the idea to restrict the use of yurts as a subjective and cultural judgment—a singling out of residents to whom non-traditional housing forms appeal, whether for financial need or as a lifestyle choice. Other assembly members viewed the ordinance as a long-needed clarification of vague and inconsistent zoning code.
Assembly member Cheryl Stickler supported Thomas’ amendment and the ordinance as a whole. “Planning and zoning is something that’s really important for our community, and we know we’re going to see a population bump when different industries get fully operational. And now is the time to start setting zoning and planning,” Stickler said, referring to the influx of highway workers and potentially mining industry employees.
Assembly member Tyler Huling voiced concern about adopting an ordinance “around proposed future industries rather than the wishes of a lot of people who currently have not yet had the ability to become landowners or homeowners here in Haines.”
“I do want to express my desire to prioritize the folks who are already here and are doggedly in the process of trying to create homes that they can afford and have access to at this time when we do have a really critical housing shortage,” Huling said. “The reason I feel so troubled about it is that it ultimately feels to me that we are sort of selecting one lifestyle choice for regulation when ultimately it’s a value judgment about what is appropriate.”
Kirby moved to split the draft ordinance into two—one dealing with the definitions of yurts and container homes, and the other dealing with zoning. Her motion would have tabled the zoning issue until the borough’s recently formed housing working group could provide input, but the motion failed 4-2, with Kirby and Huling in favor.
Stickler encouraged the assembly to move ahead with the ordinance “so that the people who need direction and guidance today or tomorrow have a little bit more direction and guidance than we currently have… It’s not just about future planning and zoning.”
The assembly ultimately voted 4-2 to pass the ordinance, with Huling and Kirby opposed.
The idea to prohibit yurts as permanent residences first emerged in 2013, when an ordinance was proposed by the planning commission but was not introduced by the assembly.