Gate comes down at Byers Creek

BY TODD L. DISHER
Frontiersman
Published on Monday, September 28, 2009 7:49 PM AKDT

DENALI STATE PARK — The Matanuska-Susitna Borough ended the controversy surrounding a gate blocking a public access road to Denali State Park after the local homeowner’s association refused to clear the encroachment from the public right-of-way.

The gate stood over Byers Creek Landing, a road accessing a 34-lot subdivision of the same name at Mile 144 of the Parks Highway.

To connect the road to the Parks Highway, the developer had to secure permission to run the road across a small portion of park land. An agreement reached in 1990 between the engineer and the state Department of Natural Resources granted this permission, provided that the road became a public access point into the park.

Before Byers Creek Landing ends in a cul-de-sac, Chulitna Trail branches off west to the boundary of the subdivision and the park. At that point, a semi-maintained state trail runs down to Byers Creek allowing anglers to access the small stream.

In a past interview, Paul Nangle, the developer of the subdivision, said the gate was installed to prevent people from trashing the private property.

“We have decided to lock the gate to keep non-owners out of the south side of the subdivision,” Nangle said in a letter sent out to the members of the homeowners’ association.

However, the road was dedicated to the borough on the plat map, said Roy Robertson, a civil engineer with the borough’s Public Works Department. Blocking the road qualifies as an encroachment into the public right-of-way, and encroachments are only allowed by permits, he said in a previous interview.

Because the homeowners’ association had no permit, the borough sent a letter requiring it to take the barrier down. The letter was sent on Aug. 12 and gave a deadline of two weeks before the borough would take it down itself.

The two weeks came and went, and the gate still stood, said Bill Klebesadel, a division manager with public works. He said after the letter was sent, it appeared the gate was actually reinforced.

“That indicated a pretty clear case of non-compliance to us. Per the letter, the borough exercised its authority to remove obstruction,” Klebesadel said.

The gate was removed on Sept. 21.

Nangle refused comment.

Klebesadel said the borough understands the homeowners were trying to protect their property, but blocking a public access cannot be condoned.

“To allow the obstruction (gate) to remain would establish a precedence and possibly encourage more illegal encroachments to occur,” Klebesadel said.

Contact Todd L. Disher at todd.disher@frontiersman.com or 352-2252.

Comments

11 comment(s)

    Yes its me wrote on Oct 1, 2009 8:40 PM:

    " Julie Bell...You are living in la-la land, With this borough, you can document, take pictures, call when needed,let them know the very minute something is going on illegal. THEY DON'T CARE.. It's not what you know, as always, it's WHO you know.they admit, they have no power, no funds for legal services.they just ignore the problem and hopes it goes away if anyone threatens to sue them. Big Lakes problem has been 9 years running..This is a SCARED BOROUGH.
    Fortunately, the STATE has jourisdiction in most cases and will help.
    This Borough is SO sad "

    Julie Bell wrote on Oct 1, 2009 9:08 AM:

    " If you have ROA issues, rather than just complain- take the legal route and document your complaint through the Code Compliance office. Document your findings with times, pictures and documentation. You will find that your ROA issue will be addressed. Sometimes it takes a bit of time but they will look at it. It will be your responsibility to follow up on the status and actions taken. Good Luck to those who need help. Thank you MSB!! "

    JohnnyB wrote on Sep 30, 2009 10:24 AM:

    " Thanks Roy and the Borough...

    It's about time, and I appreciate the action that was taken.

    Could there be a criminal investigation of Nagle? What he did was criminal. He should serve time, and think about why he defrauded so many Alaskans.

    Can we file a criminal complaint? "

    Excelent wrote on Sep 29, 2009 6:06 PM:

    " Now send the HOA the bill for removing the gate. "

    YIPPEEE wrote on Sep 29, 2009 10:13 AM:

    " Thank goodness MSB prevailed! Now we can all enjoy the STATE PARK and public fishing it provides.. "

    Homeowners Associations wrote on Sep 29, 2009 9:44 AM:

    " Typical homeowner's association, some HOA director with a little power will end up getting everyone into a long drawn out lawsuit. HOA's are a blight on society. No oversight by anyone. HOA's are a great way to destroy any neighborhood. Our HOA crashed and burned after a 4 year lawsuit. Good riddance. My advice, stick to neighborhood potlucks. Get rid of your HOA before it is too late. "

    BB wrote on Sep 29, 2009 12:23 AM:

    " It appears the gate was not reinforced enough...heh heh. Nothing a good track-hoe can't solve. Public access is public access. Game, set, and match. "

    Yes its me wrote on Sep 28, 2009 10:07 PM:

    " Put the gate back up, .and IGNORE the Borough,and it's supposed rights. Use the WEST END ACCESS to Big Lake as your example of their power...
    Here,,, a land owner has blocked,, for years,, the access, worked without a permit, in the R.O.W.
    TORE UP THE R.O.W.
    and the Borough, Public Works and Code Compliance.. have ignored it, and acknowleged that they have... NO POLICING POWER. NO MONEY FOR ENFORCEMENT.
    PUT THE GATE BACK UP, AND THREATEN TO SUE THEM IF THEY TOUCH IT..,THEY WILL RUN AND HIDE, AS THEY HAVE DONE HERE.. "

    Annoyed wrote on Sep 28, 2009 8:58 PM:

    " Although I understand why they tried to keep idiots out of that area, the gate posed serious problems for us a couple years ago when we had to try and hike down from the road and ended up picking our way through in the dark. I am glad that the gate came down, and in return I and other responsible fishermen who have used this area for many years will police it for vandals and poachers. "

    J. Smith wrote on Sep 28, 2009 8:56 PM:

    " The Borough acted wisely by not allowing the gate to remain. I have been party to similar situations where the encroaching party hopes that if action is not taken in a timely manner, adverse possession or "common law " can actually allow the encroacher to obtain legal right to their actions. This a common ploy utilized in property line and mining claim disputes. The next question to be answered is that of what type of deed of ownership exists that would make the owner(s) believe they own the creek or land under the creek. "

    Bye Bye Nangle... wrote on Sep 28, 2009 8:35 PM:

    " " ...it appeared the gate was actually reinforced."

    Wow--sometimes you just can't ignore IDIOTS. Good job MSB Public Works!! "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comments must be approved by an editor before appearing on the Web site. Editors review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   

Classifieds




Make Us Your Homepage