Planning Commission ok’s variance permit for proposed crew camp 

At a public hearing during their Tuesday, March 3 meeting the Nome Planning Commission voted in favor of a variance application to relax setbacks requirements on the internal property lines at the site of a proposed Kiewit 186-person man camp. Kiewit is the contractor awarded the first phase of the Port of Nome expansion project, to begin this summer.
The variance application was submitted by BSNC, which owns the property and is proposing to lease it to Kiewit Construction, the general contractor for Phase 1A of the Port of Nome expansion project.
The property is located off Steadman, with the Richard Forster Building to the north and Sixth Avenue to the south.  
This proposed location for the crew camp was rejected in 2023 by the Nome Common Council, as the city was tasked to find a four-acre location to accommodate a crew camp for the duration of the port expansion construction. Back then, the council cited public safety concerns and found it problematic to have a crew camp adjacent to a residential area, right in town. Subsequently, the council passed a resolution to lease a portion of Satellite Field, west of the softball field, from Alaska Gold Co., a BSNC subsidiary.
Planning Commission Chairperson Greg Smith, who was not physically present at the meeting but called in, vehemently opposed the proposed relaxation of setbacks and the location of the man camp in general.
City Clerk Dan Grimmer reminded the commission that they were not there to decide if the crew camp could be located at this location. “All that we’re looking at deciding on today is if those setbacks should be relaxed,” he said. “The conditional use is something that will come later, if this is something that is granted.”
Ron Thompson with Scope Permitting & Engineering said that the location would be ideal in terms of water and sewer connectivity and fire safety. If the camp is in town, they will be able to hook up sprinklers in the building into a water line instead of constructing a water tank. And none of the other proposed sites, including the one at Satellite Field, have water or sewer capability. “We need water. None of the other sites have the water,” he said.
Thompson said that they expect the camp to produce 16,000 gallons of sewage a day. “That’s a pretty astronomical number to haul, or to even try to create a septic system for,” he said.
Planning Commission Vice-Chair Melissa Ford asked Ken Morton if the city could handle the additional sewage. Morton, speaking not as System Manager for Nome Joint Utility System but as himself, said that city could handle the extra sewage, especially on a seasonal use.
Morton noted that the crew camp could be located at another location, but that it would be expensive. “You could put things in about anywhere,” he said. “But does it make sense to force somebody to spend $4 million to bring in utilities for a man camp that’s only going to be there for six years, understanding that they’re here to help out the city with our project?”
Smith continued to bring up the issue of public safety throughout the two and a half hour public hearing. The crew camp buildings will have one main entrance and exit with camera and a front desk staffed by security and proposes to be a dry site that will not allow alcohol. Smith argued that the internal security of the crew camp is not at question. “I’d like to point out the crimes will not happen in the camp,” he said. “They will happen in the community, outside of the camp, involving the camp people.”
Ford explained to the commissioners that when deciding whether to approve the variance permit, commissioners could only decide based on whether they believed the permit met the official matrix. “We don’t get to deviate based on our personal opinions how we feel about this. It is based on what the actual items are,” she said.
When considering the variance application, commissioners were asked to look at eight criteria: whether the variance is needed to provide the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by similarly situated properties; whether the applicant caused the condition that requires the variance; whether the variance is being requested to save money; whether the variance is being requested because the regulations are inconvenient; whether any unusual physical features make strict application of regulations unreasonable; whether the variance being requested is the minimal variance; whether granting the variance will result in increased flood heights, threats to public safety, or extraordinary public expense and whether the variance will not permit a use in a district in which that use is prohibited.
Smith also argued that the variance permit wasn’t valid under the criteria that commissioners were being asked to consider the application under. “Today we are discussing the vacation of the interior lot lines of a lot for a condition that is being caused by a project,” he said. “There are several other locations that could serve this facility well that do not include water and sewer.”
After long discussion, the planning commission voted to approve the variance permit. Grimmer noted at the end of the meeting that the next regular meeting of the Nome Planning Commission would be April 7, but that there would need to be a special meeting before then for a conditional use permit application.
That special meeting was tentatively suggested for the final week of March.