Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civic Affairs committee forwards setback amendment to assembly after debate on planning review and safety
Summary
The Civic Affairs Committee voted to recommend Ordinance 24-09, which would allow certain preexisting setback nonconformities while leaving other municipal codes intact; committee members split over whether the change circumvents Planning and Zoning review and public notice.
The Skagway Municipality Civic Affairs Committee voted to recommend Ordinance 24-09 to the full assembly after a lengthy discussion about how to balance increased housing flexibility with safety and Planning and Zoning oversight.
Chair and Assembly member Deb Potter told the committee she and Assembly member Hanson met with attorney Blasco and restored language that makes clear any building exempted from setback requirements "must still comply with all other municipal codes," including fire, building, electrical and residential codes. Potter said the change came following Blasco's concerns the earlier proposed amendments might open unintended exemptions.
Assembly member Kate Kolodie challenged the approach, arguing the ordinance as drafted could bypass Planning and Zoning review, public hearings and the documentation that protects both current and future property owners. "If we continue to allow those things without proper review from Planning and Zoning, that means people in the future will not be privy to that information as well," Kolodie said, stressing that Planning and Zoning decisions are filed with the State and provide a public record.
Committee members discussed the timeframe the amendment would cover, with Potter and others describing the measure as aimed at buildings that are nonconforming on or before October 1, 2024, while the code currently references grandfathering for structures built before November 1972. Potter said owners of buildings exempted under the section "must provide proof to the municipality" of the building's nonconforming status; she and other members emphasized that any further alteration or modification would still require permitting and could trigger Planning and Zoning or variance processes.
Attorney Blasco's liability concerns were raised in committee discussion: Potter said the attorney was uncomfortable with municipal staff unilaterally signing off on "life safety" determinations, and the committee discussed whether building officials or the fire chief could be involved in sign-offs without creating added risk for the municipality.
After discussion, Potter moved that the committee recommend Ordinance 24-09, as revised in the meeting packet, to the full assembly for additional consideration; Assembly member Henry seconded. A roll-call vote recorded Assembly member Henry voting yes, Assembly member Kolodie voting no, and Chair Potter voting yes. The committee therefore voted to forward the ordinance for assembly discussion.
What happens next: the committee's recommendation moves the amendment to the full assembly for debate and any further amendments. Committee members asked for additional assembly-level discussion before final action.
Reporting note: The committee framed the change as limited to preexisting, nonconforming setbacks while maintaining all other municipal code requirements; members repeatedly emphasized safety, public notice and the documentation role of Planning and Zoning.
