Following a request for action from Mud Bay residents, the Haines Borough Assembly will wait for borough manager Annette Kreitzer to clarify a June letter she sent to Viking Cove owner Bill Chetney that verified his prior existing rights to operate.
Residents who advanced a petition that led to the prohibition of commercial events in Mud Bay last May are now questioning borough staff and elected officials as to why the borough is allowing Viking Cove to still market itself and operate as an events venue.
That use is based on a 2021 planning commission response to neighbor complaints that Viking Cove was violating its vacation rental conditional use permit by hosting large-scale events. The planning commission found that Chetney was not in violation, and argued that guests could do whatever they wanted during their stay at a vacation rental property.
Borough clerk Alekka Fullerton said at the time that because the planning commission found no violation, Chetney’s pre-existing use was grandfathered in after the ordinance prohibiting events venues went into effect.
The residents requested at Tuesday’s meeting that the assembly “clarify that all property in the Mud Bay Rural Residential Zone is subject” to an ordinance passed in May that prohibits commercial events in the zone. They also asked that the assembly direct the manager to inform Chetney that Long’s letter regarding “’Grandfathered/Non-conforming Use Rights Verification’ does not exempt him from this ordinance; that the ordinance applies to his property at Viking Cove as it does to all other property in the Mud Bay zone.”
Mayor Douglas Olerud, drawing on borough attorney Brooks Chandler’s opinion, said that because Mud Bay residents failed to appeal the planning commission’s decisions that Viking Cove was complying with its permit in 2021, the use became allowable and had grandfather rights.
Debra Schnabel disagreed with the premise that because the residents failed to appeal, that Viking Cove should be allowed to operate in a way that violates code.
“Do we really have to ask the public to bring forward a complaint to us? It seems to me that this is something we need to do because it does seem rather vacuous to me, all these years the fact that the permit never changed but the behavior did,” Schnabel said. “My response is for us to do our own internal investigation of the planning commission’s decision-making process.”
Katey Palmer charged borough staff and elected officials for failing to enforce code for years by allowing Viking Cove to have more than 20 guests at the property, the limit outlined in his vacation rental permit.
“Our problem is having more than 20 guests on the property. We live in a rural residential area. We have all invested time and money in our quality of life. To have hundreds of people show up, it is not right,” Palmer said. “It’s against code and it’s never been approved by the planning commission.”
Kretizer’s letter to Chetney will clarify the scope of what his business is allowed to do based on the historical use of the property. Residents can appeal that letter, an appeal that will head to the planning commission. The planning commission’s decision can also be appealed to the assembly.