Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/25/1999 08:05 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 63 - LAND USE IN HOME RULE BOROUGH Number 0050 CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS announced that the first order of business before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 63, "An Act relating to land use regulation in residential zones by home rule municipalities." CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO, Sponsor of HB 63, Alaska State Legislature, said that he would explain the proposed committee substitute (CS). He informed the committee that a little over 10 years ago, his neighbors took a case regarding gravel extraction all the way to the Alaska Supreme Court. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that gravel extraction was not compatible with the designated land use development; therefore, the developers were shut down. This seems to be a constant battle. Co-Chairman Halcro acknowledged that Sand Lake gravel pit had served the community, but in the past 15 to 20 years subdivisions have developed around the border of the gravel pit. Approximately 15 years ago, the Sand Lake gravel pit was rezoned as residential R1. This legislation merely establishes in statute that extraction of gravel for commercial purposes from areas zoned residential is illegal. The legislation further provides for a public hearing if municipalities want to change a land use designation or use land for something other than allowed under the land's current classification. He pointed out that this legislation ensures that there is adequate public testimony which has not always been the case in the past. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained that on the Hillside, it is sometimes necessary for developers to go in and take out gravel for the foundation which is allowed under a building permit. Some developers may develop large tracts, this bill allows the developer to extract and utilize gravel on-site for infrastructure improvements. However, the legislation prohibits the transfer of the gravel off-site. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that last year in his area, several neighborhood meetings were held due to a developer's proposal which would have resulted in a gravel truck being on the streets in his district every five minutes for about three years. Although the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that gravel extraction is not compatible with residential land use, the temptation remains. Co-Chairman Halcro stated that this is a municipal issue. The municipality does have zoning enforcement rules, but those are not set in statute. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that this statute merely provides the municipality and the neighbors the right to say "No, that is a prohibited land use." There are a number of demands on the municipality's zoning enforcement. Over the last few years, Co-Chairman Halcro's district has found it difficult to get the municipality to respond and further the current rules are not clear. This legislation merely clarifies what is acceptable and what is not. This legislation allows a home rule borough to fine a violator up to $500 per day. More importantly, this legislation provides the community with a set of guidelines in order to know what is acceptable and not acceptable with regard to land that is prezoned residential. Number 0571 CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked for clarification on the difference between HB 63 and the proposed CS. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained that the proposed CS permits the home rule borough to fine a violator and allows the developer to extract gravel from the site under a building permit. The building permit would note the amount of gravel acceptable to be taken off-site. The proposed CS establishes the fine per day. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO agreed with Co-Chairman Harris that the legislation was targeting commercial users. Co-Chairman Halcro informed the committee that last summer a developer purchased a 57-acre tract of land on which to build homes. A week later, the developer wanted to extract some gravel in order to move for foundations, although the 57-acre tract is relatively flat. Through other industry sources it was discovered that this developer intended to take the gravel off-site and utilize it in different subdivisions as well as to bid low on public works jobs. That would have resulted in yet another large hole in the ground as well as lowering property values in the neighborhood. Number 0774 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved to adopt the proposed CS, LS0239\D, Cook, 3/5/99 as the working document before the committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that he has had much experience with this. He believed that Co-Chairman Halcro fairly accurately frames the argument. He asked if the proposed CS has a by-pass provision which would permit the use of gravel off-site, if the developer would not be impacting the neighborhood. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied no. The proposed CS prohibits the extraction of gravel in those areas zoned residential. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the legislation would prohibit a land owner from "ruining" his land even when no harm is done to anyone else. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the developer can always go before the local planning and zoning board or the local commission to request the land be rezoned to allow such. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the committee would hear from anyone from Anchorage Municipal Zoning. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO did not believe so. He noted that this legislation was sent out to a number of contacts from which there was no response. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that it would have been appropriate to invite Anchorage zoning enforcement to comment on this legislation. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO commented that Steve Ellis, Manager of Codes/Land Use Enforcement, Department of Public Works, Municipality of Anchorage has been very frustrated and overworked. Co-Chairman Halcro reiterated that the rules are not clear and there is no monitoring. Co-Chairman Halcro said that he had talked with Mr. Ellis about introducing something on this issue and Mr. Ellis seemed very supportive. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON wondered if while the committee is meeting, Anchorage Municipal Zoning could be invited to testify. Number 1207 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI posed the following situation. If a developer of a residential area that has extracted gravel does not have a legitimate purpose in using the gravel elsewhere, would the developer be restricted from moving that gravel from his land. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO clarified that the legislation would restrict the developer from moving the gravel off-site without a building permit. However, the developer could use the gravel elsewhere on that property. In further response to Representative Murkowski, Co-Chairman Halcro agreed that the developer could get individual permits to remove the gravel. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI appreciated the frustration of those in the Sand Lake area. Has there been contact with other home rule areas regarding this issue? CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the sponsor statement has an article from the Peninsula Clarion attached which discusses a similar problem in the Kenai Peninsula. The concerns in the Kenai Peninsula are regarding the property value as well as the effects on the drinking water. He anticipated, with the diminishing availability of land, that this will continue to be a problem. Co-Chairman Halcro emphasized that the legislation does protect legitimate gravel operations. In further response to Representative Murkowski, Co-Chairman Halcro said that he had not had any input from the Fairbanks area. Number 1413 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that another problem surfaces after gravel extraction takes place and no residential development occurs. In such cases, the pits end up being unattractive and when full of water, a dangerous area for children as well as a breeding ground for mosquitos. Also when these pits are dry, the dirt bikers congregate in the pit resulting in injuries and annoyed residents. Representative Dyson indicated that the difficulty is holding the developer to his commitment, especially when gravel is so valuable in Southcentral Alaska. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO agreed. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that in the aforementioned incident, one of the partners in the development company owned a paving company. The word is that when that development company bid on the public works project to repair the coastal trail, the company bid approximately $26,000 less than the next bidder. The savings would be achieved due to the gravel from the lot that the developer already owned. Co-Chairman Halcro stated that remediation is a huge problem. In another situation in Co-Chairman Halcro's area, there is a pit that has been remediated and filled in every summer for seven or eight years and it will be another 10 years before the pit is filled. The land itself is lost because the fill is overburden and tree stumps. Co-Chairman Halcro said that there are a number of issues. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to whether there is currently a requirement that if gravel is extracted there shall be remediation. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied no. Number 1631 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that there is a provision in the proposed CS that states that the "... borough may by ordinance require remediation". She asked if Co-Chairman Halcro intended for that to be retrospective as well as prospective. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated that it would be difficult to have it retrospective because these pits are large. Therefore, the remediation would be prospective. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if the legislation only referred to home rule boroughs. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO clarified that the legislation referred to home rule municipalities as is in the title. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if it would be appropriate to change the language in the body to be consistent with the title because there is a difference between home rule municipalities and home rule boroughs. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO informed the committee that the Ms. Cook, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research, drafted the legislation. He agreed with Co-Chairman Harris that the legislation refers to home rule boroughs. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS indicated that it would be appropriate to change the language in the title to be consistent and refer to the home rule borough. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether the sponsor's intent was to have this legislation speak to the home rule borough or the home rule municipality. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO was uncertain as to why the title and language of the bill were not consistent. The legislation was supposed to refer to home rule boroughs. Co-Chairman Halcro explained that Alaska statute specifies that first and second class boroughs shall provide for planning and platting. Therefore, first and second class boroughs are the only boroughs mandated to have zoning to which this legislation would apply. This legislation would not apply in a community without zoning. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved a conceptual amendment that the title of the proposed CS be changed to refer to home rule boroughs. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1846 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the zoning office in Anchorage was contacted. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS informed the committee that Don Alspach was contacted and Mr. Alspach said that he would like to submit written testimony. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he liked the intent of the legislation. He indicated the need to postpone the action on the proposed CS until hearing from the Municipality of Anchorage. He further indicated the need to formally notice the Alaska Municipal League and the contractor community regarding the proposed CS. Representative Dyson noted that it was not his intention to delay the process, but he believed those folks should have the opportunity to review this legislation. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if Co-Chairman Halcro had contacted those people mentioned by Representative Dyson. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO reiterated that he had spoken with Steve Ellis, folks in the municipality, folks in his district, and the community council. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that he had not spoken with Mr. Alspach. Co-Chairman Halcro did not have a problem with waiting for the municipality to comment. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS suggested that other home rule boroughs such as Fairbanks and Juneau be contacted for comment as well. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that after recognizing Representative Dyson's comments and the fact that HB 63 only has one committee of referral, the legislation should receive a full and fair hearing. CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS announced that HB 63 would be held and heard Tuesday, March 30, 1999 in order to receive more input. He noted his support of the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE agreed with Co-Chairman Harris' comments that all home rule boroughs be contacted for comment. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that the Alaska Municipal League should be able to notice this bill for comment per its mission. He commented that if he were an Anchorage resident, he would wonder where his lobbyist was. CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO noted that HB 63 was on the schedule over a month ago, although it was taken off for changes. He agreed with Representative Dyson and said, "The silence is deafening." The committee stood at-ease from 8:36 a.m. to 8:40 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|