A different point of view on zoning …

A Spectrum, by Mary Psenak

In Michelle Church's Spectrum article on zoning in the Valley, she writes about a 1984 survey that showed residents wanted zoning. There are some things about this survey Ms. Church doesn't tell you. It wasn't a simple question of "Do you want zoning, yes or no?" It was biased, written to get the results the Mat-Su Borough wanted. When one man who was called said he didn't want zoning he was asked if he would change his mind if a high-rise went up next to him. He said no. "What if one went up on both sides of you?" Well, he would think about it. "What about all three sides?" He'd consider it. "What if they build high-rises on all four sides of you?" "Well, then I'd ask for zoning." "I'll put that down as a yes," the caller told him.

In contrast to this loaded survey, within the last six months an organization (not the Mat-Su Property Owners Assoc.) collected and turned over to the Mat-Su Borough Assembly between 3,000 and 4,000 signatures of people against zoning. Which event really represents what the people want?

When the people saw that 1984 zoning plan, they were aghast, they couldn't live with these regulations. Mat-Su Property Owners Assoc. (MSPOA) did not exist at that time, but a group quickly formed with hundreds of members and Ms. Church is right, we "stopped it in its tracks."

This "reasonable" zoning wasn't reasonable to those being zoned. You be the judge, here are some of the things this zoning plan required:

1. You couldn't develop a subdivision unless the borough Planning Department agreed that a new subdivision was needed in that particular area. If they approved the subdivision, you had to donate 25 percent of the land to parks and open spaces. If the planning department felt they did not need more open space in that area, you could buy back the land at market value.

2. The plan designated four areas in the entire borough where gravel could be extracted. They were Buffalo Mine Road, east of the Knik River, on Point MacKenzie Road and beyond the Big Su River. Gravel could not be removed from any other land. Transporting the gravel for construction of driveways, foundations and septic systems would have added an estimated $6,000 to the price of a new home.

3. The land surrounding Palmer could not be divided into less than 2-1/2-acre parcels. Palmer officials said they would not be able to expand because they could not offer services to these large parcels.

4. A committee would be set up to control business. If you wanted to start a new business, you had to get permission from this committee. If they felt the business wasn't wanted or necessary, you could not locate in this borough.

Next came the Core Area Comprehensive Plan, which took more than seven years to complete. The borough set up a Citizen's Advisory Committee and started with a large group, anyone from the core area was welcome. Many dropped out when they couldn't afford the time, but a hard-working group remained.

A borough planner was assigned to the project; his idea was to tell us what he wanted and for us to rubber-stamp it. Our idea was that we would write the plan with technical help from him. We were at a standstill until he was relieved of his duties and the borough hired HDR Engineering Inc., with Elizabeth Benson as the principal planner. With her help we successfully finished the plan in 1993 and it was adopted in 1994.

The flex zoning plan was the borough's next attempt to force zoning on the people, and for a while it looked as if they had learned that the residents had to be involved to have an acceptable plan. They appointed a committee of 16 members to write the plan. This seemed perfect; the people were being involved. We soon found this was a stacked committee; many people who applied were turned down. It became clear that the panel was dominated by "no growthers," with only a token number of conservatives. Serious objections to this plan included, but were not limited to:

1. The plan did not follow the Core Area Comp Plan which had listed 16 areas for commercial development. This plan listed only three commercial areas, ignoring the hundreds of businesses that were already there.

2. Any construction, relocation, expansion or changes in the use of a structure, building use or activity on a lot needed a site plan at a cost of $250 to $500. Even adding a porch required a site plan.

3. Estimates were that the required permits would add $5,000 or $6,000 to the price of a house.

During public hearings, people turned out in droves to testify against the plan and the assembly laid it aside.

We thought the flexible zoning was as bad as it could get until we saw the Euclidean Zoning Plan. This divided the borough into 12 zoning districts, each with allowed uses, accessory uses and conditional uses. Anything not included in these uses was prohibited, and all conditional uses needed a permit. Again there were few commercial zones, and again businesses that had been operating for years were denied the commercial zoning they needed. There were 107 uses in the plan that needed Conditional Use Permits. The planning commission would not have time to hold a hearing and issue all these permits.

The planning commission was also working on Conditional Use Permits (CUPs). When the Euclidean zoning and the CUP plans came to the assembly, they concentrated on the CUPs and put the zoning aside. They are now holding hearings on the CUPs.

MSPOA has long supported standards-based Conditional Use Permits where everyone is treated equally. The CUPs the planning department came up with are performance based and cover light, noise, odor, traffic and hazardous materials, with all permits given at the discretion of the planning department and planning commission.

The difference between standards based and performance based CUPs is this: In a standards based CUP, if two companies are each putting in a mobile home park, there are written regulations that they must follow, they know from the beginning what they have to do to put in this park and they are treated equally. With performance based CUPs, the permit is given by the planning department or the planning commission and they may change the rules at their discretion. One company could easily have an advantage over the other.

The borough has never made an honest, meaningful effort to include the residents in planning, they start with a pre-conceived idea of what they want in a zoning plan and then try to force the people to accept it.

What would the borough have to do to get any type of zoning approved in the Valley? First, they would have to upgrade the Core Area Comp Plan, with a citizen's advisory committee, as was done before. By law, any type of zoning or Conditional Use Permits they implement has to follow this comp plan. We prefer CUPs because they take care of problem areas without regulating every facet of our lives.

The planners have to sit down with residents (anyone willing to work is welcome) and come up with a minimal number of reasonable, well-thought-out out regulations that everyone can live with. We don't need a continuous zoning fight, we need a plan that residents feel is reasonable, not some planner's dream shoved down our throats.

Mary Psenak is a Palmer resident.