Haines Borough staff and Mayor Douglas Olerud asked assembly member Tyler Huling to make a motion to reconsider a 4-2 vote made last week that prohibits commercial events in the Mud Bay Rural Residential Zone.

Huling told the CVN that the borough manager, clerk, planner and Mayor contacted her on Friday and told her that after consultation with borough attorney Brooks Chandler, the vote would have unanticipated impacts on Mud Bay businesses.

“I was asked to request a reconsideration of the vote,” Huling said.

Olerud told the CVN the effort to reconsider the vote originated with him after hearing from the borough attorney. He originally considered vetoing the vote, but said asking an assembly member to reconsider the vote would lead to a more efficient process.

Assembly member Paul Rogers, who initially made the motion to prohibit commercial events, told the CVN he thinks the vote should be reconsidered. He said he wasn’t asked directly by staff to do so, but was aware that new information was available from the attorney.

“I think it needs to be reconsidered because I think there are issues that weren’t clear,” Rogers said. “I don’t think the ramifications are going to be good.”

The assembly voted 4-2 on May 24 to prohibit commercial events in response to a petition letter signed by more than a hundred residents and property owners requesting the ban. In the months leading up to the vote, borough staff and officials repeatedly said existing businesses would be grandfathered in, but now there’s confusion about whether that’s accurate.

The primary businesses in question are Viking Cove, a vacation rental business owned by Bill Chetney at the end of Mud Bay Road that allows its guests to hold events such as weddings, and Chilkat Inlet Retreat, a venue north of Letnikof Cove that hosts weddings, yoga retreats and other events.

Chilkat Inlet Retreat’s permit expired in 2019 after the owners failed to consolidate their multiple lots into one property as required by its “commercial enterprise” conditional use permit. Mud Bay zoning code requires property owners to reside on the same lot as their business.

Borough staff weren’t aware until this April that Chilkat Inlet Retreat’s permit had lapsed. Borough manager Annette Kreitzer told the CVN the borough attorney said the business would lose its grandfather rights because its permit is expired.

The assembly voted unanimously last week to allow the business’ continued operation until they consider another proposal, recommended by the Haines Borough Planning Commission, to rezone Chilkat Inlet Retreat in the general use zone that its property borders.

The petition to prohibit commercial events came after years of complaints about Viking Cove. The planning commission has held that Viking Cove can host events during the day as long as no more than 20 guests stay each night. The business’ vacation rental permit doesn’t explicitly allow events, unlike the commercial enterprise permits for two other event venues in the zoning district.

Kreitzer said those planning commission decisions have put the borough in an awkward place.

“What’s essentially happened is that we’ve left an opportunity for the owner of Viking Cove to say, ‘I have these existing rights. You’ve allowed this use and now all the sudden you’re going to tell me I can’t,’” Kreitzer said.

Huling said she’s concerned that borough staff only consulted the attorney after the vote occurred and after assembly members were told consistently that existing businesses would be allowed to continue to operate. She said she thinks the outcome of the vote was unexpected and undesired from an administrative standpoint.

“So I don’t think it was truly investigated as to whether these issues would or could arrive, but it was presented to us as if they had been,” Huling said. “We as an assembly were very much working on the assumption that this work had been done and these questions had been asked and the answers we had been given were accurate.”

Kreitzer told the CVN staff reached out to the attorney because “we wanted to know specifically what the meaning of this vote was.”

She said staff did not consult the attorney before the vote took place.

“I didn’t expect there to be so much confusion on the issue,” Kreitzer said. “Had we thought that there might be, then we would have consulted the attorney. Had any of the assembly members asked, we would have had to. You want to let the assembly members ask their own questions.”

Rogers, who despite disagreement with the petition organizers’ intent, initially voted to support the prohibition because he said the petitioners followed the democratic process. Now he said he’s skeptical they represent a majority, and who that majority consists of.

“Quite a few people didn’t sign because they didn’t believe it was right or didn’t sign because they didn’t want to take sides or did sign the petition because they wanted to get people off their porch and they were getting tired of talking about it,” Rogers said. “Those things give (me) pause.”

Assembly members Rogers, Huling, Cheryl Stickler and Caitie Kirby voted in favor of the prohibition. Members Debra Schnabel and Gabe Thomas were opposed.

The CVN reached out to a petition organizer who declined to comment at this time.