Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After reconsideration and new testimony, planning board approves Ohana Subdivision 6-1
Summary
Following a motion to reconsider and a successful motion to suspend rules to allow new evidence, the planning board approved SD009-26 (Ohana Subdivision) 6-1. Debate centered on survey monuments, contour/slope data, sight-distance and potential tree clearing; staff, the applicant's surveyor, and interested neighbors all presented testimony.
The Fairbanks North Star Borough Planning Board approved SD009-26 (Ohana Subdivision) on April 15 after first voting to reconsider its earlier action and then allowing additional testimony. The final vote to approve was 6-1.
At the outset of the item, Board Member Perkins filed a notice of intent to reconsider the board's prior action on SD009-26. The board voted 7-0 to reconsider. During the reopened hearing the board voted 6-1 to suspend rules under Rule 38 to accept new evidence and telephonic testimony.
Staff presented new slides from a site visit showing aerial imagery and 10-foot contour lines for a general topographic review. Staff used a rise-over-run calculation on a sampled section and stated, "Using a rise over run formula where rise is 10 feet and run is the 489.85 feet, we can calculate an approximate grade of 2%." Staff and borough counsel said Title 17 requires 20-foot contour intervals only where slopes exceed 10%, and that the new materials provide sufficient general topography.
Nearby property owners Katherine Johnson and Matthew Johnson testified as interested persons, raising concerns about the location of original monuments, the boundary line, and potential tree clearing to achieve sight-distance. Katherine Johnson said an independent survey had been retained to verify the boundary monument positions.
Registered professional John Brady, who prepared spot elevations and sight-distance exhibits for the applicant, explained surveying methods and said he used survey-grade GPS on monuments: "I used survey grade GPS on all the monuments..." Brady also said he staked the northwest corner and that a bee's nest prevented him from recording one coordinate immediately but that the monument was located and staked.
Board debate focused on whether remaining sight-distance risks and drainage concerns were sufficient to deny the preliminary plat or whether the record supported approval with conditions. Mr. Levan moved to approve SD009-26 with four conditions and amended four findings of fact (the maker clarified the amendment on the record); Ms. Guthrie seconded. The motion passed on a 6-1 roll call vote. Mr. Brooks recorded his dissent and several members asked that minutes reflect reservations and discomfort about sight-distance and potential future driveway impacts.
The clerk said the decision may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment by filing a written notice of appeal within seven days of the decision.
