Mat-Su group speaks out against zoning plan

PALMER -- If it's not listed, you can't do it. That's the assumption Mat-Su Property Owners Association has been working under, and that's what sparked the group to put flyers in recent editions of the Anchorage Daily News speaking out against the current core-area zoning proposal.

"If it's not listed under B, C, or D, you can't do it," said MSPOA Vice-President Pio Cottini, pointing to the allowed uses (B), accessory uses (C) and conditional uses (D) subsections listed in the regulations for each zoning district.

Subsection E, prohibited uses, Cottini pointed out, states uses that do not meet the requirements of each section or are not allowed as conditional uses are prohibited.

"What we're saying is, if it's not spelled out to protect the public uses, the [Mat-Su] Borough could, in fact, deny you that use," said MSPOA President Eddie Grasser.

Are MSPOA's claims wild and unfounded?

Borough Planning Director Sandra Garley has said previously the intent of borough planning staff, when drawing up the zoning proposal, was not to outlaw or require permits for common activities such as gardening and raising animals. Gardens, greenhouses, potting sheds and 4-H animals, Garley has said previously, are allowed because they naturally accompany residential uses.

MSPOA members said, while that may be so, it's not fair to criticize MSPOA for making those claims to begin with.

"We can only comment on what they give us," Grasser said, "not what they intended to."

The tip of the iceberg

While it could be said MSPOA has used the gardening and greenhouse issue to get people interested in the zoning proposal -- and it's worked -- members admit it's an easily changed problem. But it is not their only beef with the current zoning proposal. There are some more serious concerns, they said.

"We're 'those evil people,'" said MSPOA board member Mary Psenak. "I don't think we are. We're all very concerned [about this plan]."

In the agricultural district, Cottini pointed out, the minimum lot size must be five acres. That could mean some would-be landowners, specifically those who can't afford an outlay of cash sufficient to purchase a lot in the more pricey suburban residential districts, may have to look outside the core area for land.

"The average citizen has a one-acre lot, and that's the biggest investment of their life," Cottini said. "We have to make room for everyone in this Valley, from the poor to the very rich elite."

The five-acre lot requirement, Cottini said, is a small part of a larger problem, one that has to do with changes to the zoning plan. The current zoning proposal requires an approval rate of either 75 or 100 percent of the surrounding property owners, depending on lot size, for any zoning map amendments. That's compared to a required approval rate of 51 percent in the cities of Palmer and Wasilla, under their respective zoning ordinances.

Agricultural lots may eventually be subdivided and turned into suburban residential lots -- that has been the progression of life in the Valley for the past half century or more -- but Cottini said the supermajority required to change the zoning map, as well as the strict rules regulating any changes, may halt that progression.

"A true zoning document needs to change with time," Cottini said. "That [supermajority] locks in what's here now and it'll hardly ever change."

Additionally, Cottini said, there seems to be a lack of attention paid to details of the Valley's future growth. Cottini pointed out that, to his knowledge, no surveys of potential areas rich in gravel extraction were used in drawing up the zoning map and there is little room for commercial growth along the Valley's existing arterial roads.

"Where's the new Home Depot going to locate if we don't provide for it," Cottini said. "If we don't get some commercial development … we're sunk."

But there are other problems that may hit closer to home for some area residents.

Those who live in the suburban residential zone, Psenak pointed out, are not allowed to park their commercial vehicles on their property. People with snowplow businesses, those with roving landscape businesses, even her neighbor who runs a small construction company that entails a truck and a piece of equipment stored on his property, would be in violation, Psenak said.

Although MSPOA has found numerous other discrepancies and problems with the plan, the group's overriding concern seems to be that the members would have liked see more community involvement in the actual preparation of this plan.

While it's true the borough has been holding public hearings and open houses on this plan for more than a month -- and the planning commission has been meeting about the plan for months beyond that -- Grasser said the initial approach was flawed.

"Their approach has been to have hired people draw something up and present it to the public," Grasser said. "It's a top-down approach."

It's not the concept, it's

the plan.

Despite public perception that the group is all-out opposed to zoning, Grasser, Cottini and Psenak maintain that they understand the need for zoning.

"I guess the concept of Mat-Su Property Owners Association is that we don't want any rules," Cottini said. "That's wrong. We want reasonable rules."

What MSPOA most desires, however, is for individual property owners to pick up a copy of the zoning proposal, take a look at it and submit their comments and concerns to the borough.

The official public comment period may be closed, but the borough is still taking comments and the plan will be changed many times before it goes to the assembly for consideration. Several open houses will be held during the next month, and two public hearings are slated -- Feb. 12 and Feb. 15, both at Palmer High School at 6 p.m.

The revised version of the borough planning proposal is scheduled to be released today, and will be addressed in the next edition of the Frontiersman's continuing series addressing zoning.