Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resource Extraction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises concerns about Mile 128 gravel pit; staff reminds commission the case is under administrative review
Summary
A resident urged the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission on April 21, 2025, to require a conditional use permit for a proposed gravel pit at Mile 128 of the Parks Highway and said nearby recreational trails and long‑range plans were ignored in the permit application.
A resident and property owner raised concerns at the April 21, 2025, Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Commission meeting about a proposed gravel pit at Mile 128 of the Parks Highway, urging the borough to treat the proposal as a conditional use permit rather than an administrative permit.
Randy Crosby identified himself as a resident of Mile 128.5 on the Parks Highway and told the commission that test pits began in February 2023, that a roughly 750‑foot access road had been built by March 2025, and that a contractor already had a sales contract for 90,000 cubic yards of gravel. Crosby said the contractor has plans to move material in connection with a DOT highway repair job through 2027 and that borough land managers appeared to envision indefinite extraction from the parcel. He said those actions, in his view, meet the thresholds for a conditional use permit and that trail and recreational plans—specifically the Cholitna Bluff Trail and the Mat‑Su Borough Recreational Trails Plan—had not been considered in the permit application.
Planning Department staff distributed a handout and noted the specific earth material extraction case is currently proceeding through the administrative review process, which the staff said is adjudicated by the planning director and is appealable to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Wade Long, a recently introduced staff member, asked commissioners to avoid ex parte communications because the matter is quasi‑judicial.
What was said and what happens next: Crosby’s statements were delivered during the public comment period; he characterized regulatory thresholds and cited past planning documents and studies as reasons the application should be elevated to a conditional use review. Staff characterized the ongoing process as administrative review and reminded commissioners that appeals go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. No commission action was taken on the permit during the meeting.
Sources: Public comment by Randy Crosby; remarks by Wade Long and staff during correspondence and commission business.
