Talk of lake plans packs chamber

PALMER -- It was standing room only for public hearings concerning revisions to the borough's lake management plan guidelines and process.

At its March 4 meeting, the commission heard citizen testimony on a proposed resolution to recommend assembly approval of amendments to borough regulations covering initiation and amendment of lake management plans, as well as proposed amendments to guidelines for developing lake management plans.

According to commissioner and acting chair Lee Sharp, the staff proposal responded to a previous commission request for amendments that would bring more flexibility to the standards. This would enable the commission to be more responsive to requests from lake property owners for latitude in establishing restrictions for lake usage.

Although Sharp hoped to expedite the evening's business with a preliminary vote to delete certain language, many members of the audience chose to voice their objections to the deleted verbiage anyway.

According to the language proposed by borough planning staff, variances to guidelines could be established by a majority of property owners within 600 feet of the shoreline of the lake, as well as by non-property owners who had attended at least one lake management planning meeting, as shown by sign-in sheets.

After the commission voted to delete the section of language relating to non-property owners, many members of the audience who had signed up to speak against the proposal chose to pass, but several others rose to voice their concerns.

Cathy Forsgren, who identified herself as a longtime Alaskan, implored the commission, "Don't let people from outside the area control our lakes."

Don Sherwood said he believes there are enough restrictions already.

"Special-interest groups should not be allowed to come in and participate in the process," he said, adding that the assembly could address issues if needed where there is no consensus.

Marc Cottini referred to his own past experience with lake-planning guidelines when he asked the commission to leave the guidelines alone.

"Let sleeping dogs lie," he said, adding that lake associations might be the answer to lake planning issues.

Cliff Judkins and Doug Millard also agreed that the existing guidelines should be left as they are.

Judkins, representing the Alaska Boating Association, stated, "I'm concerned that both the owners and the public are protected already."

Others voiced concern that the public does not have a great enough voice in the process.

Under existing borough regulations, public input into the lake management planning initiation and amendment process is accomplished through public announcements, public hearings and participation in all lake management plan meetings.

Ben Hermon observed, however, that many area lakes do not have public access although lakes are public water, and suggested that the borough might take a greater role in assuring such access.

"Fish and Game are stocking lakes that have no public access," he added.

Jeff Disney recommended that the commission consider a mathematical approach to determining public representation for voting on lake management issues.

"Perhaps you could establish a six-to-one ratio or some other ratio of people who don't live on the lake," he suggested.

Some speakers objected not only to voting participation by non-property owners, but also to voting participation by the borough.

Proposed changes to the borough regulation MSB 15.24.031 would permit the borough to participate in the petition process to establish a lake management plan.

According to the regulation, such a petition must include the signatures of legal property owners of at least 50 percent of all parcels within 600 feet of the shoreline, or 50 signatures of such property owners, whichever is less.

Under the proposed change, borough-owned parcels would not be counted toward the petition threshold unless the borough manager finds it is in the borough's best interest to participate in a particular lake management plan process.

"I'm concerned that the borough could weigh in on lake management," Ron Farnsworth said. "That should be 50 percent of property owners instead."

Although none of the proposed changes dealt with limitations on watercraft traffic, several speakers voiced concerns that such provisions as horsepower limitations would serve to limit or ban the use of float planes on area lakes. The commission assured the audience that airplanes are not considered watercraft for purposes of the lake management plans.

Although the commission spent more than one and a half hours of meeting time on the lake management plan issues, no final vote was taken on whether to recommend the proposed resolution to the assembly.

Before discussion of the lake management plans began for the evening, borough staff planner Beth McKibben had briefed the commission on inconsistencies between existing regulations governing lake management plans and other borough regulations covering motorized uses on lakes and waterways.

After hearing public testimony, commissioners agreed that consideration of the lake management issues had been premature because of those inconsistencies.

The commission voted to delay further consideration of lake management regulations, asking the borough planning staff to provide recommendations for reconciling the conflicting processes.