A recent letter regarding a Planning Commission hearing implied that the hearing was “scripted in advance”. Whether it was the headline attributed to the LTE or the letter writer’s actual intent – it’s important that facts overcome conspiracy theories or supposition. The letter writer admits his confusion about the process, and I hope this letter helps clarify it. The process in code involving this CUP, requires the borough manager to review eight criteria and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission on those criteria. The recommendation doesn’t come from the applicant, it comes from the manager. In addition to other material, a previous CUP application which was appealed provided a road map for considering this application. The Court, in that case, made it very clear that the PC must consider each of these eight criteria and discuss them individually, indicating why each member supported or opposed the manager’s recommendation. For me, it’s about process – ensuring the PC members have the information required by code in front of them and sometimes the code citation, so that they can take whatever action they choose to take. It’s the same with the assembly. The letter writer accused me of “coaching the PC via zoom or texts”. I did text the planner regarding connectivity issues – there were no texts to the chair. It’s disappointing when individuals make accusations with no proof, only supposition and fear. I prefer facts before fear and supposition.
-Annette Kreitzer, Haines Borough Manager