Sitka Assembly upholds Planning Commission, denies Sitka Dock Company appeal for Oya Way shuttle drop‑off

The Sitka City and Borough Assembly, acting as the Board of Adjustment on Feb. 24, denied an appeal by Sitka Dock Company that sought a conditional use permit for a shuttle drop‑off at 408–410 Oya Way. The assembly voted 7–0 to uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial, concluding the record supported concerns about public‑health effects, pedestrian safety and consistency with downtown goals.

Chris McGraw, general manager for Sitka Dock Company and the appellant, told the board his proposal would shorten bus routes and reduce total emissions and that the Planning Commission had relied on neighbor testimony rather than objective measurements. “Neighbor concern is not a substitute for facts,” McGraw said, urging the assembly to reverse the denial or remand the case with instructions to evaluate the five statutory criteria. He asked the board to approve CUP‑25‑17 with conditions including on‑site staffing and 8‑foot acoustic fencing.

Planning and Community Development Director Amy Ainsley defended the commission’s decision, saying the planning body followed procedures, conducted a site visit and considered traffic, noise, air and adjacent uses. Ainsley said the applicant bears the burden of proof for a conditional use permit and that, in the absence of studies tailored to the site, the commission reasonably concluded potential hazardous conditions and neighborhood impacts could result. “The record shows the commission weighed the evidence and the negatives outweighed the positives,” she said.

Dozens of neighbors and stakeholders addressed the board during the public‑comment portion. Residents who received mailed notice and others told the assembly they feared diesel exhaust, increased noise, heavier vehicle loads, jaywalking and loss of year‑round commercial and residential character in a tight Central Business District. “It’s going to be so much jaywalking and entanglement at certain times of day with parents, children and elementary school,” one nearby resident said, urging denial.

In deliberations the assembly first resolved a procedural question about whether a commissioner had relied on an incorrect legal classification of the use; members voted unanimously that the correct legal standard had been applied. On the merits, several assembly members said a conditional use permit requires the applicant to meet a high burden of proof and that McGraw had not provided traffic or air‑quality analyses sufficient to overcome neighborhood concerns. The assembly then voted to deny the appeal and to uphold the Planning Commission’s findings.

The board’s denial leaves the Planning Commission’s decision in place; Ainsley and other staff noted the applicant may reapply with additional evidence or pursue other administrative options. The assembly also suggested the broader need for clearer objective standards for pollution and street‑adequacy analyses in future code updates or planning work.

The Board of Adjustment’s recorded motion to deny the appeal passed 7–0. The assembly reconvened in regular session and continued the evening’s agenda.