Advisory board recommends stricter lakefront rules, new permit path and fuel‑tank limits for Mat‑Su

The Water Body Setback Advisory Board presented its recommendations to the Matanuska‑Susitna Borough assembly and planning commission on March 11, urging tighter shore‑line protections while carving a regulated permitting path for limited future development.

Board and staff materials propose to keep the borough’s nominal 75‑foot setback in place, bar certain activities within the first 25 feet of shoreline (including wholesale removal of riparian vegetation beyond 50 percent and stockpiling of snow and solid waste), and require a land‑use permit for mechanized clearing within 75 feet of lakes. Under the draft recommendations, property owners could seek engineering review and a land‑use permit to build between 45 and 75 feet, but the board recommended that variances not be allowed for proposals that would place structures within 45 feet of a water body.

The board’s recommendations also address fuel storage and hazardous liquids: the draft would require secondary containment for liquid hazardous substances within 75 feet of a lake and gives property owners a multi‑year compliance window for retrofits. Alex Traun, the borough’s planning director, said a fuel‑tank supplier estimated retrofit costs could be substantial, “he quoted $50,000 all said and done,” though Traun cautioned cost estimates vary.

The board described its work as extensive. Traun told the joint bodies the advisory board held 22 meetings totaling roughly 48 hours and received about 85 public comments while crafting the draft. A GIS screening of lakefront structures — limited to lake shorelines in the borough — suggested “somewhere around 750 or so homes that were built in violation of the water body setback,” Traun said, adding that about 309 of those homes fell within 45 feet; he also cautioned the GIS results are an estimate and the data are imperfect.

Why it matters: the draft would expand the code’s reach to include some commercial and industrial facilities (for example, parking areas within 75 feet would be required to treat runoff before discharging toward the lake), create a new permit pathway for engineered mitigation, and seek an enforcement posture that would make the borough more proactive about waterfront clearing and development.

Legal and enforcement issues: the board wrestled with grandfathering and equal‑protection concerns. Traun said the board ultimately recommended a permit system that would apply prospectively as well as to many existing situations to avoid legal problems. Several assembly members and commissioners raised enforcement questions; Commissioners and staff acknowledged the borough would need additional enforcement capacity to monitor and police violations and that funding and legal authority for enforcement will require further discussion.

In addition to regulatory changes, the advisory board recommended exploring a habitat protection tax incentive modeled on a Kenai Peninsula Borough program, intended to help fund shoreline improvements for water quality. Board members also proposed enhanced public outreach and more routine monitoring to detect clearing or other work near shorelines earlier.

Public comment: resident Patty Fisher of Meadow Lakes addressed the assembly before the presentation and praised the advisory board: “They deserve a formal commendation,” she said. Planning commission chair CJ Cohn told the group that state reporting rules require immediate notification of DEC for spills: “any amount of oil or petroleum products spilled in the water must be reported immediately to DEC immediately,” Cohn said during discussion as staff noted DEC remains the principal state regulator for water quality.

Next steps: Traun said the board will deliver its written and oral report to the assembly on March 18; if an assembly member sponsors an ordinance the proposal would then go to the planning commission for review and back to the assembly for introduction and public hearing. Traun and board members emphasized the draft is intended to be refined during the formal legislative process and that some technical and enforcement questions still must be resolved.