Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Concrete topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haines planning commission denies concrete batching permit at one site, approves another with conditions
Summary
The Haines Borough Planning Commission denied a conditional-use permit for a concrete batching plant at a residential-zoned parcel (CUP 25‑104) for zoning reasons and approved the same operation at a properly zoned industrial parcel (CUP 25‑105) subject to six conditions, including dust control, setbacks and a production cap.
The Haines Borough Planning Commission on Jan. 20 denied a conditional-use permit to operate a commercial concrete batching plant on a parcel in a multi-residential zone and approved the same operation at a separate light-industrial parcel with conditions.
At a public hearing on CUP 25‑104, neighbors and the borough manager urged denial after staff recommended refusal because the proposed commercial use is not permitted in the property’s current zoning. Commissioner Dan Schultz moved to deny CUP 25‑104, citing the zoning prohibition; the motion was seconded and the commission voted to deny the permit.
The applicant, Roger (Mr. Schnabel), told the commission the batching plant had been used to construct houses on his own property but that he sought limited commercial sales to serve local demand. He described operating experience during 2025 and said the plant’s rated capacity and likely hours of operation would limit community impact. The manager and planner told commissioners the change from private construction use to selling product to others triggered the commercial-use designation that conflicts with the multi-residential zoning.
Don Turner Jr., a neighbor, urged the commission to uphold the manager’s denial, saying the company had begun operations without the correct land-use authorization. Another nearby resident, Haines Torme, described concerns about dust, truck traffic and weak roadbed at a low point near Greening and Major and urged infrastructure upgrades if industrial uses increase.
After denying 25‑104, the commission immediately considered CUP 25‑105, the applicant’s proposal to operate the same batching plant on a different parcel that is in a light-industrial zone. Staff recommended approval, and commissioners voted to approve CUP 25‑105 with conditions recommended by the manager. Those conditions, listed in the staff memo, include maintaining a business license, limiting allowed products (concrete only; no asphalt or rock crushing), operating from on-site well (no public water/sewer connection), implementing and maintaining dust and air-quality controls (watering unpaved roads and work areas), a minimum 200-foot setback from the nearest residential building, and an approved production limit (not to exceed 150 cubic yards per hour as specified in the manager’s memorandum).
Several commissioners said the industrial site better matched the ordinance’s allowed uses and that conditions could mitigate neighborhood impacts; public commenters who live nearest the industrial parcel said they did not expect significant dust or noise problems given the buffer. Commissioners recorded written rationales for their votes in the record.
The commission’s actions leave the applicant positioned to operate commercially from the industrial parcel under the approved conditions. The applicant indicated willingness to accept production limits and other conditions to address neighborhood concerns.
The record of formal action: CUP 25‑104 was denied due to being a disallowed commercial use in the current multi-residential zoning; CUP 25‑105 was approved with the manager’s recommended conditions. The meeting proceeded to the next agenda item.
