Title 16: Rural vs urban

September 15, 2006

By Michael Rovito

Frontiersman

Designating an area as rural in the Mat-Su Borough has become a hot-button issue both in the borough assembly and in areas that for years have considered themselves to be just that: rural.

Concerns over the distinction stem from the proposed Title 16 rewrite that would update planning and zoning regulations and would affect the process by which land is subdivided, regardless of where in the borough a resident lives, adding more steps private landowners must take to legally subdivide their property.

That one-size-fits-all mentality has kept a steady stream of residents, and some local leaders, in opposition of the rewrite, speaking out during borough assembly meetings with the common theme that what applies in congested areas such as Wasilla should not necessarily be enacted in places outside what has become known as the core.

Assembly member Betty Vehrs, the outgoing District 7 representative, voiced concern at a Sept. 5 assembly meeting about the need for a solid

designation of what is rural in the

borough.

Vehrs, who represents more sparsely populated areas such as Trapper Creek, Talkeetna and Willow, blames the delay of a final Title 16 decision on what she said are politicians straying from seeking what is best to seeking votes this October.

&#8220Don't be fooled into thinking much of this has to do with representing constituents,” she said. &#8220A lot of it has to do with getting re-elected.”

That's not how borough Mayor Tim Anderson sees it, calling Vehrs' statement a common accusation during election time.

&#8220I don't think it's about being re-elected,” Anderson said, &#8220It's about fixing a code that is out of date.”

Anderson, who is running for the Assembly District 3 seat, offered up a solution to the rural-urban argument by proposing a waiver process, in which applications for subdivisions would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, giving the landowner a chance to show why their property should be exempt from some Title 16 regulations.

That determination could be based on population density, or whether the land is on or off the road system, along with other arguments, Anderson said.

&#8220This is a better approach than drawing a line on a map,” Anderson said.

Michelle Church, one of Anderson's opponents for District 3, agrees that a line designating rural from urban does not have to be drawn, and added that, with safe and sound development standards written into Title 16, there is no need for different treatment.

But even with local politicians offering up different solutions to the urban-rural quagmire, those who live far outside the core area aren't finding much comfort.

Tom Kluberton, a candidate for the Assembly District 7 seat, said his neighbors in the Talkeetna area are nervous about new regulations the rewrite would put on subdividing.

&#8220Everybody's scared of it,” Kluberton said, adding that the rewrite is complex enough that there is a lot of confusion among the general public.

Kluberton said he agrees the revision to Title 16 is necessary for core areas such as Butte and Lazy Mountain, a place where he said development and roads are out of control.

But much like his fellow residents in the northern parts of the borough, Kluberton said there must be a distinction between how regulations are applied in cities such as Wasilla and how they are applied in areas like Talkeetna, where urban sprawl is not a problem.

He mentioned some of his elderly neighbors, mostly homesteaders, who might want to subdivide their land eventually for family members, and fear the new regulations would force them to sell to a developer instead because of the costs associated with the proposed Title 16 rewrite.

Title 16, which last was revised in 1988, is meant to protect the health, safety and welfare of borough residents and to

promote the orderly development of the borough, according to Mat-Su Borough documents.

Even with that claim, and the fact that the borough has heard much public comment on the issue, many Mat-Su residents, especially longtime Alaskans, say they are worried their lifestyles would drastically change with the rewrite.

That drastic change is something Jim Colver, who is finishing his term representing District 6, said he is trying to change.

&#8220I definitely think we need to have a way to deal with rural,” Colver said, adding that the borough assembly doesn't know exactly what it would cost landowners to comply with the rewrite's regulations.

Colver has proposed a multitude of amendments that he said attempt to ease the price crush on subdividers.

He said he expects the issue of a rural designation to come up again at the next regular assembly meeting, scheduled for Tuesday.

Contact Michael Rovito at 352-2252 or michael.rovito@frontiersman.com.