Mat-Su assembly kicks the can down the road on new water-body setback rules

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly kicked the can down the road on a plan to resolve long-standing problems with the borough’s regulations on setback rule for homes built near water bodies.

The proposal, OR 25-073, was voted down by the assembly after an extended discussion at the assembly’s meeting last Tuesday, Sept. 16. The appointment of a new task force to develop another solution was proposed by the borough planning commission but not adopted.

The assembly also discussed it members getting together with stakeholders and drafting a new plan without going through the mechanics of creating another task force, and with consultation with lakefront property owners.

But in the end nothing was done other than simply voting down proposals of the first water quality setback task force, which is now disbanded.

“At this point I think the assembly needs to find some agreement on steps forward. We could look at community discussion forum or an assembly meeting specifically focused on this issue,” assembly person Stephanie Nowers said in an email after the Tuesday meeting.

The problem to be solved is that there are 750 lakefront property owners in violation of the borough’s requirement for a 75-foot setback from the water’s edge. A number of structures have been built between 45 feet and 75 feet of the lakeshore and the proposed ordinance, now dead, would have allowed these the property owner to obtain a permit that comply with borough land-use rules. The problem for property owners is that if there is a violation of municipal code it might impede commercial financing for a buyer if the property were sold.

A citizen task force had been appointed by the borough in mid-2025 to find a solution, mainly to create a path for violations to be dealt with and to prevent new violations. But after long hours spent on the problem the proposal put forth by the task force hit headwinds.

The panel went beyond its original charge by the borough, critics said, to include environmental protection and water quality issues. The proposal would have made the borough’s code more bureaucratic but without providing more resources and staff for the administration, for examples of applications for variances.

One critic noted that new regulations in the plan would be difficult for shoreline homeowners relying on heating oil to comply with because of their need to have oil storage tanks. There were stringent requirements in the proposed ordinance covering tanks.

Property owners with animals, like horses, could be confronted with rules regarding water runoff containing residue from manure. An overall criticism raised at the meeting is that the borough doesn’t do a good job of enforcing its current requirements, making enforcement of new ones problematic.

The borough planning commission recommended that the task force proposal be dropped and a new task force created, essentially taking the issue back to ground zero. Two community councils agreed with that after reviewing the proposal.

Others, however, felt there were some good things in the plan and rather than junking it the assembly should just roll up its sleeves and work on taking problematic things out and preserving parts of it. Assembly member Tim Hale agreed a fresh start is justified but that a new plan could bd drafted by the assembly and that it could be done sooner than the 18 months taken by the water body setback task force to develop its plan, which has now been dropped.

The proposal to form a new task force by several people came with a recommendation that it be done in six months. but that is impractical, borough planning director Alex Strawn said. It will take time to recruit new task force members and hold several meetings so members can understand the complexities of the issue, he said. To get a workable plan would be difficult with a six-month deadline. That led the discussion back to the assembly doing the job itself. But in the end nothing was done with that, either.

There was broad consensus at the meeting that the 75-foot setback should be maintained and some assembly members wanted to gather new water quality data in 10 lakes with the highest number of shoreside residences. The borough did have a program of water sampling in the lakes that was done by a volunteer group but Nowers noted that the program ended it when the assembly dropped it.

Planning director Strawn said the data that has been gathered was retained but that it would take time to gather it, and it would be old information in any event. Obtaining new information will likely require hiring a consultant, he said.

Meanwhile, there were some glaring deficiencies in the first water body task force effort and its recommendations, Nowers said. One is that setback rules for industrial sites was not included. Requirement would only apply to residences.

Another criticism is that there was nothing in the proposed rules that would have prevented a property owner from paving the land surface down to the water’s edge. Other public comments at the meeting touched on how gravel mining would be affected.