Mat-Su advisory board backs narrower, permit‑based path for some lakefront homes; borough faces legal, public pushback

A Matanuska‑Susitna Borough advisory board recommended creating a permit‑based path that would allow some existing and future homes to be built or remain closer than the borough’s current 75‑foot water‑body setback — a proposal that drew public criticism at an Assembly work session and prompted a borough attorney to warn that any path for existing homes would likely have to be available to future builders.

The Water Body Setback Advisory Board’s draft ordinance would let structures that are not within 45 feet of a lake pursue a path to legal compliance if they meet new engineered stormwater controls, limit impervious surfaces and preserve riparian vegetation. Alex Strahan, planning director for the Matanuska‑Susitna Borough, summarized the board’s approach: "Homes previously built in violation of 75 foot water body setback of lake can become legal provided. So they are not within 45 feet of the lake. They have to hire an engineer, to, calculate, storm water to manage the storm water that comes off that property."

Why it matters: the borough’s long‑standing 75‑foot setback dates to the 1970s and was reinstated by ballot action in 1987; changing how nonconforming properties are treated would affect shoreline property values, neighborhood character and water quality across lakes and streams in the borough. More than 137 pages of public feedback collected earlier this year showed opposition from many residents: the North Lakes Community Council reported 52 percent of respondents were “definitely opposed,” 21 percent were “definitely in favor” and the rest mixed.

What the advisory board recommended

- A compliance path for existing structures located between 45 and 75 feet of a water body, provided the structure is not within 45 feet and property owners submit engineered stormwater controls. - New construction (going forward) could be allowed up to 45 feet if a land‑use permit is obtained and the permit conditions are met. - A cap on impervious surfaces equal to 20 percent of the area within the 75‑foot setback; a requirement to retain 50 percent of riparian vegetation in the 25 feet nearest the water; and a ban on fertilizers or herbicides with restrictions on storage and paved parking within 25 feet. - Petroleum (fuel) storage within 75 feet would need secondary containment, pump‑activated delivery or other leak‑control methods; owners of existing petroleum storage within 75 feet would get five years to comply under the draft language. - Mechanized land clearing on waterfront property would require a land‑use permit. - The code would be expanded to apply setback and related requirements to commercial and industrial structures as well as residences. - The board recommended limiting variances inside 45 feet (no variance allowed within 45 feet) and exploring a voluntary habitat‑protection tax incentive like the Kenai Peninsula Borough program.

Public reaction and advisory board rationale

Several residents told the assembly they oppose any reduction from 75 feet. Rod Hansen, president of the North Lakes Community Council, told the Assembly: "Bottom line, we strongly believe the setbacks should remain at 75 feet." Jean Holt, a longtime resident, said she did not "believe that we should change the setback for future homes between '75 and '45.'"

Board members said their work was painstaking and that many recommendations were added after technical briefings with engineers and resource agencies. Bill Kleebesaddle, a civil engineer and advisory board member, said the panel wrestled with tradeoffs and compiled a broad set of technical standards so the assembly could "pick and choose" what to adopt. Kendra Zamzow, representing the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the board, said members balanced water quality, habitat and neighborhood aesthetics while trying to draft enforceable standards.

Legal constraint highlighted

At the work session a borough attorney told the assembly that providing a path for existing nonconforming property owners to come into compliance while denying the same option to future builders could be legally vulnerable. The attorney summarized the legal point: if the borough creates a regulatory benefit for people who are already on the land, courts often require the rule to be applied consistently to similarly situated people who come later. That legal view influenced the board’s final change to let both existing and future homes have a defined, permit‑condition path up to the 45‑foot line.

Costs and enforcement

Board and staff discussion addressed enforcement and the cost burden for homeowners who must retrofit tanks, septic or stormwater systems to comply. Planning staff told the assembly that a contractor estimated replacing and retrofitting a small residential heating fuel system to meet secondary containment could be on the order of $20,000. The board proposed enhanced enforcement and at least one dedicated borough staff position to monitor mechanized clearing and permit compliance; staff noted the borough currently receives only a handful of mandatory land‑use permit applications related to waterfront work each year.

Data and scope

Planning staff said the advisory board met 19 times and that a GIS analysis found about 156 structures built between 45 and 75 feet after May 12, 1987; the analysis counted structures larger than roughly 480 square feet and used assessment year‑built data, which planners cautioned is an imperfect proxy. Assemblymembers asked for more water‑quality monitoring data; advisory and staff members said borough sampling is limited and that many lakes and streams have localized problems (for example, Big Lake’s contamination is primarily linked to watercraft hydrocarbons, while other water bodies show issues tied to septic or fertilizer inputs).

Next steps

There was no final vote. Assemblymember Bill Hale said he intends to refer the draft ordinance and the board’s resolution for further review by the planning commission and to the Fish and Wildlife Commission for additional comment. Planning staff also said they expect follow‑up questions and more public outreach before the assembly considers any ordinance.

Ending

Assembly members and advisory board members thanked each other for the months of work and public outreach; several assembly members urged staff to return more data on water quality, cost estimates and enforcement options before any ordinance is introduced for a vote.