A major Haines construction firm, Southeast Road Builders, lost an appeal yesterday for a permit to dig a gravel pit along Lutak Road, just west of the ferry terminal.
The Haines Borough Assembly on Wednesday effectively upheld an earlier denial of the company’s permit application. The move — which came after two nights of deliberation, spanning some six hours — followed a decision last month by Haines’ planning commission to deny a permit for Southeast Road Builders, citing concerns about noise, truck traffic, and landslide risk.
Assembly members were divided. Craig Loomis, Natalie Dawson, and Ben Aultman-Moore sided with the planning commission’s decision. Debra Schnabel, Kevin Forster, and Gabe Thomas voted to reverse it. The assembly ultimately lacked a supermajority of five votes that borough code requires for decisions about appeals.
One sticking point was the potential threat of landslides in the area. Aultman-Moore said he wanted to see a risk analysis using geotechnical data, called LiDAR, that state geologists have been collecting in the region.
“I don’t think it makes sense to grant a permit and then study the LiDAR afterwards,” Aultman-Moore said. “That doesn’t make any sense to me. In order for me to vote in a good conscience on this issue, we would need a slope stability study complete and in front of us and then we could have some idea of what we’re actually dealing with.”
Loomis said he didn’t believe Southeast Road Builders would be able to mitigate dust and noise from the operation. When asked by Mayor Tom Morphet to explain his position, he added, “I have other reasons that I’m going to hold to myself, but I’m pretty sure the general public knows why I voted ‘no’ on this. It’s called 700 some people that voted me in. It’s called a democracy.”
Other assembly members argued that the planning commission erred in its denial of the permit. Debra Schnabel called the commission’s process “highly questionable” and said that it could lead to a “protracted legal engagement.”
Because the site is in the “waterfront industrial zone,” where borough code allows heavy industrial activity as a “use-by-right,” Schnabel said it wasn’t up to the planning commission or the assembly to say whether activities that make noise or create traffic were allowable. Rather the assembly’s job, she said, was to decide what conditions were needed to limit those impacts.
“I think it is important for us to recognize that the zoning is not on trial,” she said. “Whether the planning commission wanted to allow resource extraction at this location really doesn’t matter. What matters is under what conditions the use could be allowed.”
Southeast Road Builders had appealed the commission’s permit denial arguing that the commissioners reflected “a stunning lack of consideration” for borough manager Annette Kreitzer’s recommendation to approve the permit under certain conditions, like submitting an engineering plan for work on steep slopes.
Southeast Road Builders’ area manager TJ Mason told the assembly on Tuesday — at the start of their deliberation — that the company did not think it had been treated fairly throughout the process.
“We do not feel like our permit was treated the same as how the borough has treated their own projects or projects from other applicants,” he said. “This was frustrating because there does not seem to be a discernible or consistent standard by which our permit is being considered relative to others.”
Mason did not respond to a request for comment before press time.
The assembly’s decision may not be the end of the issue. Earlier this year, Southeast Road Builders filed an appeal of the planning commission’s permit denial in state court.
