Laserfiche WebLink
August 10, 2014 l Volume 8 i Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin <br />ordinance that provided that nonconforming uses lose their grandfathered status if vol- <br />untarily discontinued for 12 consecutive months. <br />Case Note: <br />The case also addressed the issue of whether the City had engaged in illegal contract <br />zoning (i.e., contract zoning that did not comply with statutory procedural requirements <br />for contract zoning). The court held that the consent decree did not result in an illegal <br />contract zone. The court said that "[i]n order to be considered a form of contract zon- <br />ing, a municipality's actions with regard to an individual property must be inconsistent <br />with its statutory authority to regulate similarly zoned properties." The court found that <br />provisions of the consent decree to which Smiling Hill pointed did not conflict, but <br />instead comported, with the relevant zoning ordinance. As such, the court concluded <br />they did not create an illegal contract zone. <br />Nonconforming Use/Variance— <br />Borough refuses to grant variance <br />from setback ordinance, saying <br />unlawful addition must first be <br />removed <br />Applicant argues lack of a provision to allow for the <br />expansion of existing nonconforming structures <br />violates his substantive due process rights <br />Citation: Tweedy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Bd. of Adjustment and Ap- <br />peals, 2014 WL 2795900 (Alaska 2014) <br />ALASKA (06/20/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a landow- <br />ner's addition to a nonconforming use was lawful and thus the landowner was <br />entitled to a variance from a setback ordinance. The case also addressed <br />whether a borough's setback requirement, and its lack of a provision to allow <br />for the expansion of existing nonconforming structures was reasonably related <br />to a legitimate government purpose or whether it violated a variance applicant's <br />substantive due process rights. <br />The Background/Facts: Clifton Tweedy ("Tweedy") began leasing prop- <br />erty (the "Property") in Matanuska-Susitna Borough (the "Borough") on Big <br />Lake in May 1988. The Property included a house that was built in 1968 and <br />located less than 18 feet from the Lakeshore. When Tweedy assumed the lease, <br />the existing structure was exempt from the Borough's 75-foot shoreline setback <br />ordinance (MSBC 16.25.480)—which had been adopted in 1973, and amended <br />in 1987—because it was constructed before any setback requirement existed. <br />8 © 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />