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

By Madeline Perreard

The planning commission last week voted 3-2 to approve a heliport at 24 Miles Haines Highway–a decision that sparked opposition from dozens of residents and motivated some residents and elected officials to reconsider whether commission members ought to be elected, and what constitutes a quorum.

On Dec. 8 the commission approved the borough manager’s recommendation to issue a conditional-use permit (CUP) for a heliport on Chilkat River Adventures’ property along the Chilkat River near Wells Bridge. The permit is temporary and would be in effect only during the 2023 heliski season.

Alaska Mountain Guides (AMG) co-owner and president Sean Gaffney, who recently co-purchased jet boat tour company Chilkat River Adventures, applied for a permit to build a heliport for AMG’s commercial heliskiing tours. Gaffney said he “spent a lot of time on the application” and addressed all required criteria.

The permit will be valid from Feb. 1 through May 3, 2023 and can be used only for heliski operations. The heliport is allowed to operate one helicopter March 1 through April 23 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. unless otherwise noted on the borough’s heliski area map, according to permit conditions outlined by borough staff. Chilkat River Adventures would need to apply for another CUP after that period if it wanted to continue using the heliport.

The motion, created by Don Turner Jr., passed 3-2 with commission chair Diana Lapham and commissioner Richard Clement in support and commissioners Rob Goldberg and Justin Mitman in opposition. “I don’t think that for a short-term and for a one-year trial at least that this is going to (cause) undue noise,” Turner Jr. said, adding that he empathizes with residents concerned about noise but the site is in the borough’s general use zone where heliports are allowed as a conditional use.

The proposal drew opposition from 24 residents, the Chilkat Indian Village (CIV), the Klukwan Advisory school board and Lynn Canal Conservation (LCC). One resident wrote a letter in support of the application and Andrew Letchworth voiced support on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce.

CIV claimed that approval of the permit violates borough code and federal law and impacts the wellbeing of Klukwan citizens. The village asked commissioners to deny the permit in a letter written on Dec. 5.

“The applicant has not shown that the permit’s benefits would accrue to anyone other than a private business owner and his clientele that live outside this community and this state,” CIV president Kimberley Strong wrote. “Borough code makes clear that the concerns of the impacted communities and not the permittee are to be taken into account first and foremost.”

When approving a conditional use permit, planning commissioners are required to give “due weight” to “comments received from property owners impacted by the proposed development,” according to borough code.

Strong’s letter also says the borough should have notified several federal agencies, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Federal Aviation Administration, before issuing the permit. CIV also argued that six of eight criteria outlined in borough code for approving the CUP had not been met.

Borough manager Annette Kreitzer said borough staff reviewed CIV’s letter with the borough attorney and recommended adding to the permit a condition that the applicant must follow all state and federal laws.

“We believe we've done everything we were required to do,” Kreitzer said. “I have run all the oppositions through our attorney and we have complied with our code and what we're required to do.”

LCC, CIV and several residents also have raised concerns in recent months about the project’s impact on eagle populations. The property is within the Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, but it’s a private parcel and Alaska State Parks Southeast area superintendent Preston Kroes says Alaska State Parks have “no jurisdictional authority” over helicopter activity originating from private land.

Several residents that live within a mile of the proposed heliport expressed concern about helicopter noise in their neighborhood. The heliport would be near the North Chilkat subdivision, an area with more than a dozen lots off Haines Highway west of Wells Bridge and the Chilkat River, as well as two Native allotments at Wells Bridge.

North Chilkat resident and mental health counselor Riley Hall said noise pollution would impact his business as he meets with clients virtually.

“The only things my business needs to thrive are an internet connection, quiet and privacy,” Hall said. “Earlier this year during the hunting season there were search and rescue helicopters going over my property. As an outdoorsman and hunter, I’m greatly in support of that, but it was an eye opener to how caustic the noise can be to my business. It made it difficult to hear my clients and for my clients to hear me.”

Nicholas Szatkowski commented on behalf of the Klukwan Advisory school board. The proposed heliport is just under two miles from the Klukwan school.

“It makes me concerned for the safety and wellbeing of the students there to think that this municipal government would even consider (the heliport),” Szatkowski said.

Scott Sundberg, whose tour company was denied a heliport permit several times in the past decade due to noise concerns, said he thought the planning commission shouldn’t approve Chilkat River Adventures’ application.

“If you were to allow this heliport at 24 Mile, obviously that would be in contention with the denial of the permit at (26) Mile,” Sundberg said. “Ironically, I am suggesting to not approve this heliport for the same reasons.”

Controversy over Sundberg’s permit in 2015 led the borough to conduct a $41,300 “noise study.” The study found that noise levels reached 104 decibels at the 26 mile heliport site, 94 decibels at the closest property and 77 decibels on Chilkat Lake Road. The borough does not have specific noise standards to measure “undue noise” objectively, according to the borough manager’s recommendation.

The planning commission decision can be appealed to the assembly by Dec. 22.

Staff says commission’s 3-2 decision holds

The seven-member planning commission met last week with only five members and approved a permit application for a controversial heliport after a 3-2 vote.

Commissioner Rob Goldberg questioned whether the seven-member commission — which had one member absent and a new appointee not yet approved by the assembly — could take action with only three affirmative votes.

Borough code (18.30.040B) says the planning commission requires a quorum of four commissioners to vote and “an affirmative vote of the quorum” to take action.

Borough clerk Alekka Fullerton told the CVN that the language implies a majority vote of the quorum, not a unanimous vote.

The planning commission vote provision is not explicit in the way other sections of code are. Code is clear that assembly action requires “four affirmative votes” (2.10.200). It’s also explicit that advisory board action requires “an affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum” (2.60.100).

“The fact that we have a clear provision for the assembly shows that we know how to make a clear provision in the event we intended the Planning Commission to require 4 votes. Since we did not make that special provision extend to the Planning Commission, it does not,” Fullerton said in an email.

In a memo to borough staff, borough attorney Brooks Chandler said he researched the issue and found no material evidence that the difference between “an affirmative vote of the quorum” and “an affirmative vote of majority of the quorum” was a conscious choice intended to require a minimum of four yes votes for the planning commission. He said the disparity on its own is “not specific enough” to mean the commission needs more than an affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum to take action.

The borough assembly Tuesday voted 4-0 to direct the clerk to draft an ordinance that, if approved, would change code to be specific in requiring four affirmative votes for planning commission action.