Planning commission denies Cruise Line Agencies’ waterfront housing barge, cites zoning, environmental and safety concerns

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to adopt Planning and Zoning Resolution 25‑06R on March 13, denying conditional use permit application 2025005 from Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska to place congregate housing (a housing barge) in the waterfront zone on tideland lease area ATS 1719.

Commissioners debating the permit raised multiple concerns: whether the proposed housing would be accessory to a permitted waterfront principal use as required by the Skagway waterfront zoning code; uncertainty about wastewater discharge and required state permits; the absence of a finalized emergency‑services plan tied to municipal response capabilities at the railroad dock; rockfall and shoreline safety at the proposed location; and ambiguity about whether the Port of Skagway tariff applies to a private dock in this location. Several commissioners said these unresolved items could cause the conditional use to “permanently or substantially injure the lawful use of neighboring properties or uses.”

The applicant’s representative told the commission the barge would house security employees who work the railroad dock and other docks connected to cruise operations and that the barge could be removed if it proved unsuitable. “The principal use of the barge is to house security employees that will be working on the railroad dock and the other two docks,” an applicant representative said on the record.

Municipal staff and the borough clerk advised commissioners of procedural limits tied to the Feb. 13 public hearing: the commission had 30 days after that hearing to adopt a resolution; the clerk said failure to adopt a resolution within that window would create an undefined result and would trigger legal counsel review. Commissioners also discussed whether to refer the matter to the Ports and Harbors Advisory Board for a tariff‑application review; a motion to add that requirement to the approval failed on a roll call, and the commission proceeded to consider denial.

When the commission moved to adopt the denial resolution, the roll call recorded three yes votes and two no votes; the denial resolution passed. The resolution’s findings cite inadequate demonstration of compliance with DEC discharge permitting requirements, the need for an emergency services plan compatible with municipal response, questions about whether the waterfront zoning allows residential as a principal use at this site, and concerns about environmental compatibility and public safety.

Commissioners noted the applicant retains the right to appeal commission decisions under municipal code; the clerk reminded the public the normal appeal window applies. Municipal staff also flagged that the Port of Skagway tariff (tariff number 3) appears to regulate liveaboards in the small‑boat harbor and that the question whether the tariff applies to this private site remained unresolved.

The denial closes the commission’s action on this particular application; the applicant may revise and resubmit or pursue administrative appeals as allowed by municipal procedure.