Chilkat Valley News - Serving Haines and Klukwan, Alaska since 1966

Due to a technicality, the Haines Borough Assembly on Tuesday reaffirmed its May 24 decision to prohibit commercial events in the Mud Bay rural residential zone following a long discussion and public testimony.

The assembly voted 3-2 to reconsider their previous action, falling one vote short of the four votes required to pass a motion, as established by borough code. Assembly member Catie Kirby was absent and excused from the meeting.

The assembly also voted unanimously to rezone Chilkat Inlet Retreat into the general use zone.

In testimony Tuesday, supporters of a petition to prohibit commercial events were indignant at the assembly's possible reconsideration. The body had voted 4-2 to support the petition on May 24, following what they said was the majority opinion among residents in the zone.

Petition organizer Patty Kermoian said she was "shocked and dismayed" to hear that the assembly might reconsider its ruling. Mud Bay resident Cecily Stern said, "There is no information that justifies reconsidering this vote."

During assembly discussion, member Paul Rogers led the push for reconsideration, reversing his former position. Rogers had asked for reconsideration to be included on the meeting agenda.

Rogers said he regretted his choice to support the petition at the last meeting because "I lost sight of my responsibility to represent people who weren't speaking up." He said he now believed a contingent of Mud Bay residents had either not signed the petition or had not fully supported it, but that this group hadn't been vocal in the discussion leading up to the May vote.

No other assembly members changed their position. Gabe Thomas and Debra Schnabel supported reconsideration and Cheryl Stickler and Tyler Huling voted against it.

Stickler contested Rogers's point about Mud Bay residents who may disagree with the petition but didn't speak up. "I can't make assumptions about people who, in these last eight or nine months, chose to not come in and speak. That's part of the process," she said.

Stickler also pointed out that only two or three signers of the original petition had asked to have their names removed. She said that still leaves a majority of residents who signed the request for assembly action. "I'm having a difficult time going against what the majority have signed up to do," she said.

Schnabel said the issue was at its core about enforcement rather than code. Had the existing code been more stringently enforced, she said, an effort to rewrite the neighborhood law wouldn't have been needed.

Mayor Douglas Olerud stressed that his suggestion to re-open the conversation about the petition was prompted not by his own beliefs about the validity of the petition but rather by new information about what it would mean for two Mud Bay businesses, Viking Cove and Chilkat Inlet Retreat.

Olerud said that after the May 24 meeting he had been troubled by several possible repercussions the assembly had not considered. He cited two main concerns: first, he'd wanted to confirm that Chilkat Inlet Retreat would be "grandfathered in" – a desire that had been voiced by many in the May 24 meeting.

But borough attorney Brooks Chandler told staff that because the retreat's permit had expired it would not be exempt from the new regulation.

Olerud said he also wondered after the meeting if Viking Cove – the wedding venue whose loud events had catalyzed the petition – would be allowed to keep operating because the planning commission had repeatedly deemed them not in violation of their permit when complaints arose.

"Is that then kind of a de facto permit for them?" he asked himself. He reported that the borough attorney agreed that Viking Cove would have a very sound legal argument to continue operating on these grounds.

The attorney's opinion didn't appear to weigh heavily in the assembly's consideration of the issue. Much of the meeting was consumed by discussion about conversations and a meeting that had occurred at city hall since the May 24 meeting. Olerud and borough manager Annette Kreitzer denied allegations that they had pressured assembly members into reconsideration.

"It doesn't matter to me which way you vote (on the reconsideration)," Olerud said. But he said he "believed it was best for public process" that the assembly discuss the issue again given the new information.

Olerud called Huling for a meeting with him and staff after the May 24 meeting. Rogers said he had acted independently in calling for reconsideration.

After Tuesday's meeting, Olerud told the CVN that he had felt slightly relieved knowing that Kirby was not scheduled to be at the meeting, because it meant he wouldn't have to break any ties. "I really didn't know which way I'd vote if it came down to that," he told the CVN after the meeting.

The prohibition barring new commercial ventures in Mud Bay will take effect Jan. 1, 2023.

Where the future of Chilkat Inlet Retreat is concerned, community members and assembly members voiced a shared desire to protect the business's future. Aaron Davidman said 65 people sent in letters before the meeting, attesting to the venture's valued place in the community and supporting its petition to be rezoned to General Use.

The assembly moved unanimously to adopt the Chilkat Inlet Retreat's rezoning petition, which was initially proposed by planner Dave Long and approved by the planning commission on May 12. The six properties owned by Beth MacCready, Gregg Bigsby, Sarana Miller and Aaron Davidman lie on the edge of the Mud Bay Rural Residential Zone, and a seventh property owned by MacCready and Bigsby – which is contiguous to the other six – is already in the Carrs Cove General Use Zone.

The six lots previously in the Mud Bay zone will be brought into alignment with the seventh property in General Use and both zones will remain contiguous. The new designation means that Bigsby's business will be allowed to stay open despite its expired permit.

"I think we did something almost egregious last meeting when we didn't consider the Chilkat Inlet Retreat," Stickler said. "But I think we did something very good tonight to help rectify that."

The rezoning passed in spite of testimony that it would set a dangerous precedent for "spot zoning," motivating other property owners to file for similar rezoning. However, attorney Chandler wrote that Bigsby's change doesn't constitute spot zoning because the parcel is greater than one acre, it has more than one property owner, and both affected zones will remain contiguous.

Schnabel requested that more language be added to code to spell out circumstances under which future business can request to be rezoned. The assembly did not act upon her request and its discussion was largely limited to Bigsby's petition.

Citing attorney Chandler, Olerud reminded the assembly that zoning is a legislative decision and therefore falls squarely in their purview. He said Tuesday's vote was solely "to protect a business currently operating."