Subdivision regs would benefit a few

Four members of the Mat-Su Borough Assembly are trying to ram through legislation that will benefit a few at the expense of the many. Unless some of our assembly representatives change their minds, the borough is set to do away with Title 27, the current subdivision code, and replace it with Jim Colver’s hastily and carelessly drafted revision of the previous subdivision code, Title 16, which has caused so many costly problems in the past.

I am not opposed to a few, well thought-out changes to Title 27, but the possible impacts of a poorly written subdivision code to borough residents are difficult to overstate. How we handle our subdivisions affects future roads, access to potable water and homeowner insurance rates, as well as response times for fire and EMT emergency services. A poorly written subdivision code can also transfer the cost of our roads from the private subdivision developer to the borough-wide taxpayer.

Mr. Colver’s version of Title 16 is a 105-page document with lots of moving parts, many of which seem destined to break.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the timeline set by the assembly — 66 summer days for comment — was deliberately designed to block community input from the process. The assembly did not give community councils or road service area supervisors time to meet and digest the proposed legislation and offer meaningful comment. As a comparison, the present law was written over a period of six to 10 years with input from homeowners, builders, surveyors, community councils — hundreds of stakeholders from all walks of life.

The impacts of this ordinance could be enormous and there is no emergency — no reason for this steamroll approach — and every reason in the world to look at the code carefully and fix only the parts that need fixing.

Only a thorough public vetting will reveal all of the problems with this legislation, but here are the bugs uncovered so far:

• Mr. Colver’s version of Title 16 would reduce or eliminate public noticing requirements, which means that, in many instances, neighborhood residents and community councils would not, as a practical matter, be able to comment on an application to subdivide land. Some applications wouldn’t be noticed at all.

• Retired firefighters, teachers, nurses and others could find their dream retirement homes isolated and without reasonable access because the proposed law removes requirements that subdividers plan for future roads. Easements could be encroached upon, roads could be torn up to lay cable and pipe — leaving the taxpayer to pay the bill for such things as road repair or upgrade, utility relocation or purchase of right of way.

• Mr. Colver’s version of Title 16 seems to forbid borough staff from informing an applicant if a proposed plat is in violation of Special Land Use District standards. The version of Title 16 also removes crucial requirements that would inform property owners about necessary separations between leech fields and potable water sources.

• In one of the most bizarre changes slipped into the proposed law, Mr. Colver’s version of Title 16 would allow the members of the platting board to talk about applications among themselves in secret, outside of the public hearing process. The provision is in clear violation of the state Open Meetings Act.

Also lurking deep within the huge document is a provision that removes all protections for borough-mandated trails in the subdivision code. It also removes protections for crucial historical artifacts.

The Mat-Su Borough Platting Board and Planning Commission will be meeting at every opportunity to try and understand what Title 16 will do to the residents of the borough. To find out more about Title 16, see the Mat-Su Borough’s website for a schedule of work sessions and public hearings that have been squeezed in for the rest of the summer.

David Cheezem is a small business owner in downtown Palmer. He also serves on the Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission. The views expressed are his own.