By ROB YUNDT
When Mokie Tew and I ran for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly, we both promised two things:
- We’d fight for a fiscally responsible government.
- We’d defend all residents of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough against an overreaching bureaucracy.
We are proud to say that we both have repeatedly delivered on these promises. But we need your help to do it again.
On July 18, we are establishing a working group to fix a nearly 40-year-old issue with our half-written water body setback code, and we need those residents who are affected by this to come serve.
I’ve heard the argument that there is nothing wrong with the 75-foot setback that is currently in place, and if it was simply a setback rule, I would agree.
However, due to the incomplete nature of the ordinance, it has placed undue financial burden on those who had built homes closer than 75 ft to the water’s edge prior to the ordinance being enacted.
Last year I had a concerned constituent reach out to me regarding repairs that he needed to make to his home to preserve the structural integrity. Now he lives in a home badly in need of repair but cannot fix it due to the incomplete nature of the current setback ordinance, which prescribes no remedy for homeowners to become compliant with the current Matanuska-Susitna Borough code.
Other owners who were “grandfathered” in, who have homes closer to the lake than the 75-foot setback are finding that they cannot sell their homes unless they can find a cash buyer or are able to do an owner finance deal.
Homeownership is the single largest store of wealth that most Alaskans have and these upstanding Mat-Su residents who have lived in their homes for decades are finding that it’s nearly impossible for them to access that, through no fault of their own.
I was not elected to ignore situations like this. I will not stand by idly by and ignore him or the other 672 homeowners that are also finding themselves in a similar situation. We, as a community, owe it to these folks to finish the ordinance that was created in the 1980’s and give these homeowners a path forward. I was elected to lead and fix tough problems, and that’s exactly what Mokie and I are working tirelessly to do.
Are you, or someone you know, one of the 700+ homeowners, who through no fault of your own, can’t get financing on your home because it accidentally violates the 75-foot waterbody setback ordinance? Was your home affected by the 2018 earthquake but cannot be repaired because it violates this setback? Are you required to sell your home for a cash deal only because it violates the rule?
We recognize that most (673) homes in violation were built prior to the adoption of the set back rule in 1987. The remaining homes accidentally violated the rule because of the Borough’s lack of permitting requirements that would have prevented future builds from occurring within the prohibited 75 feet.
What are the solutions? Bulldoze and start new? Hire a moving company to move these homes? What about homes that don’t have 75 feet from a waterbody to build? After nearly 40 years of code violations with no path for homeowners to become compliant, Mokie and I have introduced a much-needed solution, but we need your feedback and approval.
Ordinance 23-049’s top priority is to protect our precious water source while still providing a means for owners to become compliant. If adopted, the ordinance would provide a permit only if: 1) a civil engineer develops plans constructed in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and 2) the owner is solely responsible for maintaining the Borough approved pollution mitigation plan.
Right now, homes out of compliance pose a potential pollution to our water supply because we lack regulations, yet these homeowners have no intention of causing issues. This waterbody permit would provide an incentive to these homeowners to spend the extra money on a mitigation plan and its implementation, which is in the best interests of all residents.
If you are a homeowner affected by this waterbody set back, please contact Mokie, myself, or Mayor Edna Devries to join our task force of concerned borough citizens, industry experts, professional engineers, and governing officials to create a common-sense reform that will protect our water for generations to come. Call or text my cell phone at any time at 907-232-8340.
Rob Yundt serves on the Mat-Su Borough Assembly.
Why is permitting needed for people to abide by a rule? Why would a home built before the set back requirement was instituted not be able to be structurally repaired? Is the closeness to a water body the reason for the structural deficiency? Why cannot the Borough assembly simply find an Avenue foe those people that built before the set back requirement was in place? Mr. Yundt’ s article raises more questions than answers from my perspective. My property has a platted drainage easement requiring the 75’ setback. It is in the plat. We have never built within that setback and didn’t need anyone breathing down our neck with permit paperwork to make us not build. We can read.
I personally really do care about water and what goes into it. What would be deemed a safe distance from a water body to eliminate chance of contamination? Where did the 75’ distance come from and why?
Contamination setbacks come from the EPA, and that’s really all you need to know. If Biden’s EPA says something should be one way, we should all be fighting tooth and nail for the opposite. Get rid of the setback all together.
“Biden’s EPA” wasn’t around 40 years ago and Representative Yundt is clearly referring to a problem with the MSB code.
Waterbody setbacks are intended to protect water quality–for example, it limits the ability to install a septic system within the setback to try and prevent or minimize potential contamination. Representative Yundt is trying to amend the code to “grandfather” these properties to remove legal clauses tied with the owners completing property transfers (i.e, sales) or getting permits for modifications to existing structures or new structures on the property. When a property is out of compliance with codes, it is encumbered and there are limitations on what sorts of actions can be executed.
MSB code doesn’t regulate septic system water body setbacks. ADEC and EPA do. Educate yourself. MSB Code only applies to buildings and delegates septic system regulation to ADEC and EPA.
acfak: Biden has nothing to do with this issue. Try some critical thinking.
Biden became a US senator back in, what’s that? 1973. He’s been helping write and implement federal laws and regulations for a decade longer than these setback rules. And what’s been one of his biggest focus pieces? Oh that’s right, environmental regulation through EPA. Which SINGLE INDIVIDUAL has contributed through political action the greatest amount of support both monetarily and through policy to the EPA since its inception in 1970? That’s right, Biden, fact. He BRAGS about this fact and his long history with environmental law. Who governs water body setbacks as they relate to pollution prevention from things like septic systems in Alaska? Only ADEC. Who does ADEC fall under in federal jurisdiction and share physical office with? EPA.
They actually do not share office space with the EPA, the DEC office is on 5th in Anchorage, EPA office is on W. 7th in the Federal Building but dont let facts get in the way of your rage
What an oddly specific issue to write an op-ed on.
It is refreshing for an assembly person to straightforwardly invite the public to direct solutions in a community. As It should be.
As a property owner in the MSB, although in compliance, in my view this ordinance is very much needed. As pointed out, there is no mechanism to address “grandfathered” properties that are closer than the current limit. Reading the proposed ordinance….an exercise that many of it’s opponents clearly didn’t do…reveals a couple of interesting points: 1) the ordinance does not repeat does not alter / impair / reduce current requirements for septic setback or other separation requirements; and 2) the ordinance requires submission and approval of a run-off pollution prevention system for any house to be built up to the (new) 25′ setback distance. I’d far rather see a house built with a 30′ setback where it has an approved run-off plan than the unfettered development outside of 75′ that currently exists.
Opponents to the change are those that want to halt development at all costs and hurt the bottom line of local developers and businesses which in turn increases the prices for all of us and crushes our economy. Enemies of the state.
If a developer can’t abide by simple rules, then they shouldn’t be building. It’s all about the dollar for them.
I understand the grandfathering rule and don’t see any need for any structure too be close to the waterline. Especially understand the need for septic setback. What we need is for clear understanding of the rules and people to follow them. Don’t turn this place into Lake Washington.
Few things left out of this #1 Councilman Yundt did not state anywhere that he is the owner of a construction company and would directly benefit from this legislation (even if it is needed) and that Mookie Tew, also an owner of a company who could benefit from this legislation should recuse themselves from the vote due to conflict of interests.
I agree things need to change which is fine but a little transparency here fellas would be nice, even if it is good legislation. Also how about doing something about the unregulated junk yards and existing code enforcement that still plague the valley. The MSB does need to change some zoning things around. I get its a tough line to walk between development and maintaining a fiscal responsibility but enforce the codes you already have first then we can talk
What is that comment: speak with forked tongue. Talk is cheap but sounds good. Look who built a 2 plex, 3 plex and 4 plex too close to Wasilla lake then asked for variances. All were denied!!!!Then look to the online EPA file – the complaint of heavy equipment & dumping dirt, rocks, gravel in the lake. It’s online including the fine! The forked tongue is a mouthful.
This whole thing makes me nervous.
Anchorage started playing zoning and code enforcement games about 30 years ago. Today, homeowners in Anchorage need a permit (pronounced “TAX”) just to maintain their home. I’m not talking additions. Replace the shingles, water heater, or deck and city hall wants some cash to pay for the regulatory guys that “keep us safe.”
I’m not opposed to reviewing or altering existing code when its it’s really important. Just concerned that once the authorities start making or fixing codes they tend to get very efficent at “fixing” more and more of them.
MSB is growing fast. Nothing says we have to grow our government along with it. Tread carefully.
Rob, in defense of Americans Property Rights please resource these two US Supreme Court Cases :
Dolan v. City of Tigard https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/93-518 Oral Augments
Lucas v. South Carolina Coast Council https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-453 Oral Augments
Then, speak to them, at the next Matsu Assembly Meeting & ask the Borough Attorney what he or she has advisement with regard to their decisions ! This fight to protect Americans Property Rights is in full movement across our nations landscape today !
Comments are closed.