Monofill sues Mat-Su Borough

PALMER — A controversial monofill thrice rejected by Mat-Su Borough commissions or councils has officially entered the Alaska court system.

Attorneys for the Anchorage-based Central Monofill Services company filed a court case appealing the decision of the borough Board of Adjustments and Appeals. That board upheld an earlier split decision by the planning commission to reject the company’s bid for a conditional use permit to operated a monofill — a waste collection site for construction refuse — near Mile 38, Glenn Highway.

Residents living in surrounding neighborhoods attended multiple nights of planning commission hearings to testify in opposition to the landfill, citing potential long-term health hazards and concerns about management. The aquifer where the monofill applied to operate was punctured during previous years of gravel extraction, and residents said they worried about possible contamination seeping into the drinking water.

The company’s case focuses on three central points, according to documents provided by CMS attorney William Ingaldson:

• Planning commissioner Bill Kendig should not have been recused from the hearing that ended with the monofill’s rejection.

• The board of adjustments and appeals should not have deferred to the planning commission because the vote rejecting CMS’s application was 3-3.

• The commission did not have substantial evidence to reject the permit application.

State of Alaska rules for appellate procedure say that appeals from administrative agencies can be filed in any of the courts in the Third Judicial District, which stretches from Homer to Unalaska and the Canadian border to the Palmer court.

Mat-Su Borough attorney Nick Spiropoulos filed a motion to move the case back to the Palmer courthouse, where the property the company applied to use, as site’s neighbors are located.

“It’s a Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission decision that’s being appealed,” he said. “The subject of the property is right down here outside Palmer, which is in the Mat-Su Borough.”

Were the case to remain in Anchorage, numerous parties to the appeal would be inconvenienced, Spiropoulos said.

“Over 80 people filed something, whether it be comments, or criticisms or just general input at the board of adjustments and appeals,” he said. “We have those same 80 people potentially interested and involved in what’s going to happen in this appeal.”

In turn, Ingaldson questioned whether the borough attorney should even be representing the planning commission, given the tie decision at the planning commission.

“The planning commission’s vote was 3 to 3 on this issue, and the borough staff recommended the monofill. So we’re a little confused why the borough attorney is involved taking one side or the other,” he said.

He also pointed out that the two central parties to the appeal, the borough government and CMS, are each located in a different courthouse. The appeal wouldn’t allow new evidence to be submitted, meaning residents wouldn’t be allowed to testify, as they had at the Planning Commission meeting.

The bottom line was expedience, Ingaldson said.

“They’re very busy at the Palmer courthouse,” Ingaldson said.

Contact Brian O’Connor at 352-2269, brian.oconnor@frontiersman.com, or on Twitter @reporterbriano.