Adjoining property owner and resident group urged assembly to improve notice, residents urge recognition for Petersburg Indian Association

Petersburg Borough Assembly ยท January 23, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two residents spoke during public comment: Gary Alba urged the borough to formally recognize the Petersburg Indian Association for extensive community projects, and adjoining property owner Belinda Chase raised concerns that she and other neighbors were not directly notified before the assembly approved a land-trade resolution tied to the Airport Addition subdivision.

Gary Alba, speaking as a resident, thanked the assembly and borough for working with the Petersburg Indian Association (PIA) on the Airport Addition and urged the borough to recognize PIA for funding, building and maintaining numerous community projects. Alba listed completed and in-progress PIA projects, including trail work, sidewalks, boardwalks, duplex construction and other community improvements, and suggested a plaque, sign or dedication to acknowledge the organization's contributions.

Belinda Chase, an owner of a lot adjoining the Airport Addition subdivision, said she did not learn about Resolution 202501 (the land trade and conveyance agreement with the Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority) until it appeared in the January 9, 2025 newspaper and on local radio, after the assembly had unanimously approved the measure Jan. 6, 2025. Chase asked whether the last lot in the subdivision (plat 305 lot 15) remains available to adjoining owners and urged the borough to provide clearer communication to residents in the affected neighborhood as the land trade proceeds.

Clerk Thompson and the mayor responded that notices were posted on the borough agenda and website and that the planning commission had handled prior review and notice requirements; the mayor acknowledged individual notice to adjoining owners was not required under the ordinance and that staff would look back at the record to confirm the dates and notices.