Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 21 ALASKA (09/14/18)—This case addressed the issues of: (1) whether the laches defense (i.e., an equitable defense available when a party delays asserting a claim for an "unconscionable period") could be invoked by a variance applicant; (2) whether a municipal code's require- ment that circumstances show that a variance application "substantially" meets seven standards required a variance application to substantially meet each of the seven standards or required the application to meet only a substantial number of the seven standards; and (3) whether a vari- ance standard requiring the applicant show the existence of "exception or extraordinary physical circumstances of the subject property" is limited to the physical features of the land itself or also includes artificial structures built on the land. The Background/Facts: Patrick and Brooke Corkery (the "Cork- erys") purchased their home in the Municipality of Anchorage (the "Municipality") in 1998. Since 1965, the lot on which the home was lo- cated was zoned R-1A. In such a zone, the maximum allowable lot coverage was 30%. In 1983, the prior owner substantially expanded the house so that the lot coverage significantly exceeded the 30% limit. In 2018, the home's footprint was 4,401 square feet. In 2013, when replacing the home's roof, the Corkerys discovered significant rot in the roof and in the wall between the home interior and an attached greenhouse. The Corkerys applied for a construction permit to tear down and rebuild the greenhouse. The Municipality issued the Corkerys a conditional permit allowing for necessary repairs at the Corkerys' own risk and requiring the Corkerys obtain a zoning variance before a certificate of occupancy would be issued for the home follow- ing repairs. The variance was required because the footprint of the home exceeded 30% of the lot coverage and therefore violated the R-1A zon- ing restriction. The Municipality's Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals ("ZBA") ultimately denied the Corkerys' variance application, finding that the ap- plication failed to meet four of the seven standards used to evaluate ap- plications for a variance from zoning regulations. Anchorage Municipal Code ("AMC") 21.15.010(c) provides that any application for a variance "must specify facts or circumstances that are alleged that the application substantially meets the following [seven] standards": (1) exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances of the property, which (2) would create an exceptional or undue hardship upon the property if the municipal code was strictly enforced, that were not (3) self-imposed; and (4) if the variance was granted, it would not adversely affect the use of adjacent property, and (5) would not change the character of the zoning district in which the property is located; and (6) would not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the Municipality; and (7) would be the minimum variance that would make possible a reasonable use of the land. © 2018 Thomson Reuters