Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs code change to appeals and affirms 2015 water-dependent definition
Summary
The commission unanimously recommended adoption of ordinance 2025-3 to amend KPB code on hearings and appeals, adding standing criteria, modifying briefing and consolidation procedures, increasing decision time limits, and directing use of a 2015 planning-commission resolution defining 'water dependent.'
On Jan. 27, 2025, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward ordinance 2025-3 to the borough assembly. The ordinance would amend KPB Chapter 21.20 (hearings and appeals to a hearing officer) to add a standalone standing criterion, establish an appeals process from planning staff and the planning director to the commission, allow administrative consolidation of appeals by the borough clerk, require an appellant to pay the transcript fee, change briefing order so the appellant files an initial brief and final reply, permit dismissal of deficient appeals, and extend the hearing officer decision timeline from 15 to 45 days.
Walker Steinhaga, deputy borough attorney, told the commission there are six main features to the proposed code amendment: a new section clarifying standing (proposed section 21.22.25), an appellate path from certain staff decisions to the planning commission, an appellant-borne record transcription fee, authority for the hearing officer to dismiss appeals lacking standing or sufficient grounds, administrative consolidation of related appeals, and a change to briefing procedures with more time for written decisions (increase to 45 days). Steinhaga said the change would also make planning commissioners the hearing officer for certain appeals from staff and director decisions.
Steinhaga emphasized that quasi-judicial conditional use permits (CUPs) must be decided on the record and that applicants bear the burden of production and proof. He recommended the commission continue to use a prior planning-commission resolution passed in 2015 (Resolution 2015-35) that defines the term "water dependent" for CUPs and similar matters until superseded by another resolution or a code change. He read the resolution’s definition: a water-dependent use is a use or structure located on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body and is intrinsic to its operation; examples include piers, boat ramps and elevated walkways.
Commissioners asked about training and resources if the commission assumes hearing-officer duties. Steinhaga and staff said legal counsel (internal or outside) would be available to advise commissioners and that training would be provided.
A motion to forward the ordinance to the assembly carried unanimously. The commission’s recommendation sends the proposed code changes and the standing-definition clarification to the assembly for consideration.
