Assembly continues work on land-use ordinance

September 22, 2006

By Michael Rovito

Frontiersman

PALMER - Another lengthy amendment process to the Title 16 rewrite pitted Mat-Su Borough Assembly members Jim Colver and Betty Vehrs against their colleagues at Tuesday evening's assembly meeting.

A packet of 18 amendments from Colver - and one amendment from assembly member Talis Colberg - took the assembly into the late hours Tuesday before the meeting broke off into executive session.

Vehrs and Colver, who have consistently expressed their desire to do as much as they can for the remote areas of the Mat-Su, were met with opposition on many amendments attempting to make changes to the rewrite that eased restrictions on residents of more rural areas of the borough.

One of those amendments, which would have allowed for subdivisions to circumvent the required construction of a road to the land, garnered the most debate.

Subdividers would have the option of creating a flag-shaped lot with a public-use easement in the pole portion, which would be joined to a borough right of way because, as Colver said, it is sometimes impossible to construct a borough standard road on certain properties. This would be used most in areas with steep hills or other obstructions that would prevent the construction of a road.

Colver's use of the word &#8220rural” in one portion of the amendment was removed after the assembly reminded him that a definition of rural does not exist in the borough. The amendment eventually passed, but not until some of the original language was put back in.

While most assembly members stayed quiet on many amendments, District 5 rep Cindy Bettine was the most vocal against some of Colver's amendments, often saying she didn't see any reason to be adding or taking out certain portions. Bettine also questioned the borough's planning and land-use staff, on hand for the entire process, for their position on proposed regulations.

Bettine did not return phone messages left at her home.

The sentiment from the borough's planning office is that of looking toward the future, said Sev Jones, the borough's chief of planning.

&#8220We're ready to move forward,” Jones said, adding that he and the rest of the staff are mostly satisfied with the rewrite.

&#8220I think the approach we're looking at is we want to improve what we have now,” Jones said.

He also said new regulations from the rewrite aren't as strict as pre-1988 provisions that existed before a rewrite occurred that year.

Title 16 regulations were changed in the late 1980s, during a housing decline in the Valley, according to Murph O'Brien, the borough's director of planning, with many provisions taken out to stimulate growth in the area.

Controversy erupted after residents of outlying areas of the borough - such as Willow, Trapper Creek and Talkeetna - expressed their outrage over what some have called a one-size-fits-all plan. Some assembly members suggested designating parts of the borough as rural, shielding the areas from certain regulations. That measure was shot down many times after officials pointed out that the unpredictability of future growth makes it hard to tell how long an area would remain rural.

The other 15 boroughs in Alaska were contacted to see if the rural term was used in those areas, Jones said. No other borough in the state uses the designation.

Even as the Title 16 saga appears to be nearing an end, Colver said he still has reservations about the affect on the borough's remote areas.

&#8220I'm disappointed that the assembly hasn't provided for recreation and remote properties,” Colver said, adding that the rewrite is directed at the Palmer and Wasilla areas.

During recent assembly meetings, public comment has remained consistently opposed to the changes, with some residents blaming the assembly for ruining the Alaska dream.

Colver warned that if the Title 16 rewrite is passed as is, many remote subdivisions off a road system will fall through the cracks.

&#8220The hoops and regulations that would have to be met to construct a road are overly onerous,” Colver said, adding that he thinks the rewrite will inhibit overall development in remote areas.

For the Title 16 rewrite to become law, the existing Title 16 must be repealed, and Title 27 - containing the new land-use regulations - be adopted. The assembly will hold a meeting Sept. 26, at 6 p.m., in Palmer, where more amendments may be proposed before a final vote.

Contact Michael Rovito at 352-2252 or michael.

rovito@frontiersman.com