Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

: property, the site plan showed a proposed building on only the east parcel. Nothing in the application (aside from mention of the entire property) indi- cated any use of the west parcel. The city Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance. When L and G Associates Inc. (L&G) bought the west parcel from CPI in 1986, it knew about the variance. The city's zoning enforcement officer noti- fied it the variance did not apply to the west parcel; in other words, L&G could not build a commercial building there. L&G asked the court to declare that the 1978 variance applied to the west parcel. The court ruled the variance did not apply to the west parcel, and L&G , appealed. The appeals court reversed and returned the case to the trial court. After the parcel changed hands, the court, after considering the site plans, proposed use . and variance certificate, again declared the variance applied to only the east parcel. The parcel changed hands again and the new owner, Taylor, appealed. ~: Taylor argued the trial court improperly considered CPI's site plans and its proposed use for the proper!y in deciding the variance did not apply to the west ~parcel. According to Taylor, the court should have considered only the plain ~language of the 1978 variance certificate -- which referred to CPI's entire iproperty, including both the east and west parcels. Taylor also argued the trial : court's decision created an unreasonable restraint on the property's transfer- =ability. DECISION: Affirmed. The variance did not allow for construction of a commercial building on the west parcel. In deciding whether the variance applied to the west parcel, the trial court correctly considered the entire public record: site plans, proposed use and vari- ance certificate. CPI's application was for one office building located on the east parcel; CPI did not seek permission to use the west parcel for an office building or for anything else. The variance the zoning board granted was for that specific use -- not for all other similar uses on the property. Otherwise, it would not be a variance at ail, but a zoning change. ~ Declaring that the variance did not apply to the west parcel did not put an flnreasonable restraint on the property's transferability. The zoning regulations, not the court, limited the property's use. Clark County Board of Commissioners v. Taggart Co~structio~ Co., P. 2d 965. Planning- Residents want referendum to preserve 'bush lifestyle' z Price v. Dahl, 9J2 P..2d 54J (Alaska) J996 ' UnderAIaska law, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough had to adopt a compre- hensive plan. (A statute defined a comprehensive plan as a "compilation of Policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for guiding the physical, social, and economic development" of a municipality.) The plan would serve as a