Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - September 11, 2025 - 2025-09-11 18:30:00

Good evening and welcome to the September 11th, 2025 meeting of the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals. I'm sure that we all remember what happened 24 years ago, and hopefully we'll never forget the bravery of the first responders on that day. Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here.

Dave Hale. Here. Andrew Romerdahl. Here. Brian Bennett.

Here. Craig Bennett. Here. Jason Norris. Here.

Jonathan Lang is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. Next item of business are minutes.

We have minutes from Tuesday, July 22nd, and Thursday, August 14th. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Seeing none, could I have a positive motion for approval of the minutes, please.

Moved by Dave Hale, seconded by Jason Norris.

Are there any objections to approval of the minutes?

Seeing none, the minutes are approved, and we'll move on to special order of business. Are there any disclosures this evening?

Seeing none and moving on. The consent agenda is next. On the consent agenda, we have a resolution for approval, Resolution 2025-009.

Could I have a positive motion for approval of the consent agenda, please? Please.

Moved by Jason Norris, seconded by Craig Bennett. Does anyone want to remove this item from the agenda for further discussion? Seeing none, is there any objection to approval of the consent agenda?

Seeing none. The consent agenda is approved by unanimous consent. Nothing for appearance requests, nothing on the unfinished business, nothing on the regular agenda, which brings us to public hearings. The first case under public hearings is case 2025-0099, and the petitioner is Jim Tilly. Is the petitioner available?

Actually, actually, the, the property has been sold and the Baker is here to talk about the case. Okay.

And, uh, I'll just add a point of information that the staff report does reflect that, and we have Uh, there's the correct documentation that reflects that, but anyway, it's the— the Bakers are the petitioner tonight. Okay, and the Bakers are here? Yes. Okay.

So the next thing that happens is I explain the procedure, the procedure followed for a variance hearing.

The procedure by which the public may speak to the board at this meeting is: after the staff presentation is complete on the public hearing item, the chair will ask for the applicant to state their case. The applicant, including all of his or her representatives, has 10 minutes for for presentation and may reserve time for rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. Throughout the proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant who must convince the board by a preponderance of evidence that the variance should be granted. A concurring vote of a majority of the fully constituted membership of the board minus those excused by conflicts of interest shall be required to grant a variance. For the variance to be granted, all 8 standards must be substantially met.

On the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, the board members and the staff may then direct questions to the applicant through the chair. The chair will then open the, the hearing to public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the rules of procedure. Representative of groups such as community councils and PTAs have 5 minutes. Individuals have 3 minutes.

When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless the— unless questioned by the board. Time is kept by the secretary. The display in the front will be green to within 1 minute of the time allowed, then turn yellow. At this time, you should sum up your testimony, and at the end of the time allowed, a light will turn red and the tone will sound.

An individual may have appeal rights related to any action the Zoning Board examiners and appeals takes. The parties have 30 days from the date of mailing or other distribution of decision to file an appeal to Superior Court. So with that, will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? On August 12, 2025, a total of 27 public hearing notice were mailed to the public in accordance with the procedures of AMC 2103-028 notice. No response were received by the Planning Department.

The Turnagain Arm Community Council did not provide comments on this case.

Is there any objection to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

If not, moving on. Will the Secretary— well, will the staff please present the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a request for dimensional variance from AMC 2106-020, Table 2106-3, Table of Dimensional Standards, for the District to allow the existing structure, 2-car detached garage, to encroach 9.6 feet into the required 25-foot foot front setback within the Turnagain Arm zoning district. I would like to make a quick correction on the— to the staff report.

On page 2, the date of the property sale is listed as 2024. The correct year of the sale from Jim Tilly to Matthew and Laura Baker is 2025. The S-built survey, which uncovered the 9.6-foot feet garage and roof overhang encroachment was completed just prior to the sale. Mr. Tiller had already initiated the variance request process to address this before the Bakers took ownership. According to municipal records, the construction of the house at 24153 Seward Highway was in 1968.

The camera records indicates that the construction of the attached 2-car garage with a second floor living area was in 1985— '89. The effect of granting this variance will allow a 2-car garage completed 36 years ago to remain in place. There is no anticipated adverse effect on the surrounding properties. In order for the zoning board of examiners and appeal to approve this variance quotation mark. The application must state with particularity the relief sought and must specify the facts or circumstances that are alleged to show that the application substantially meets the following 8 standards.

Standard A: There exists exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances of the subject property, including but not limited to streams, wetlands, or slopes, and these circumstances are not applicable to other land in the same Zoned District. With regard to Approval Criteria A, the standards are met. According to the Municipal of Frankridge maps, this parcel has a slope of 31%. The steep slope and the unique lot shape are extraordinary physical— physical circumstances to this subject property, thus impacting the amount of buildable area and pushing the garage in its location encroaching into the front setback. B, because of these physical circumstances, the strict application of this code creates an exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner and would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning ordinance.

Criteria B is met. In addition to the steep slope of 31%, the unique shape, the property also has a pre-existing septic system that creates an exceptional and undue hardship upon this property owner when strictly applying this section of the code to the subject lot. See, the hardship is not self-imposed, and special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant, and such conditions and circumstances do not merely constitute inconvenience. Criteria C is met. The hardship is not self-imposed.

The unique characteristics of this property created special conditions that made the placement of the garage a necessary encroachment on the front setback. Specifically, the odd shape and steep slope of the lot, combined with the location of the septic system and the necessary DOT access to the highway, left no other viable location for construction. The location of the garage was the only option available due to these constraints. D, the variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the use of adjacent property as permitted under this code. Criteria D is met.

This structure has existed in this location since 1989. This has been— there has been no complaints, as evidenced by a lack of response from the adjacent property owners to date regarding these encroachments. The Planning Department has not received public comments or community council comments from the variance request. Reviewing agents did not object to approval of the variance request. E, the variance, if granted, does not change the character of the zoning district where the property is located.

Is in keeping with the intent of the code and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in the district in which the property lies. Criteria E is met. The intent of the code is to allow for single-family residential construction when a lot is spread— is platted. The intent of the code here is to allow the single-family to the best of their ability. In this case, As like many others, lots of lots are platted in certain circumstances to where today they don't meet all setbacks requirement.

Granting the variance would not permit the use not otherwise permitted in the Turnagain Arm zoning district, nor would it alter the district's character. The TA district as defined in AMC 2104-06G1 is intended to govern the land use for the area northwest Turnagain Arm, south of Potter Marsh, including Rainbow. The permitted use and density within the T-8 District are to conform to the Land Use Plan map, policies, land use definitions, and residential densities of the adopted Turnagain Arm Comprehensive Plan. Page 62 of the Turnagain Arm Comprehensive Plan Rainbow and McCook Creek land use plan states that all of Rainbow is designated for residential land use with a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Because of steep terrain and the community border with Chugiak State Park, little additional area is available for any new residential development.

Uh, F, the variance, if granted, does not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the municipality. Criteria F is met. This encroachment with the front setback to date has no known impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the municipality. G, persons with disabilities are provided with access as required by the American with Disabilities Act. And reasonable accommodation.

Criteria G is met. The standard is not applicable to single-family residential development. H, the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the land. Criteria H is met. This is the minimum variance that will allow the property owner to retain this structure that has existed in its location since 1989. Review agents' comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 27 of your packet.

No municipal agency has any objection in granting the variance for the encroachment into the setback. As all the approval criteria are met, the Planning Department supports the petitioner's variance request and is recommending approval subject to condition 1 and 2 on page 5 of your staff report. These are standard conditions of approval. I'll be happy to have any questions that the board may have, and the petitioner is in attendance to present his case.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff by the board?

Mr. Brian Bennett. Madam Chair, through the chair, does the— in the original approval, there was a living facility above the garages. Does that change? That is not being done in the reconstruction here, and does it change anything in the report? Thank you.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Bennett. Uh, there is— existing like a structure up from the garage, it will remain. There is no change. So they're going to— so they're going to include the living facilities above the garages? It is existing already.

They are not, they are not including like, uh, they are not asking for any additional or change to the structure. They are just like, it is existing since 1989, and they are just asking for the approval for the structure that is— they're not asking for any additional. No, but the original proposal had a living facility on the second floor of the garages. So they're going to replace the garages, or they're going to replace living facilities. They are not replacing anything.

They're not— there's not a replacement. This is just like a, uh, these issues just happened because the former owner was going to sell and it was a requirement, and that's how he found out about the actually the, the encroachment. So that is— it's not any change on the garage right now. They're not asking for for an addition of anything. Thank you.

You're welcome. Any other questions of staff?

Seeing none, will the applicant please come forward?

Turn on your mic. Turn on your mic. There's a button right in front there. Yep. All right, there you go.

Hi, my name is Matthew Baker. I'm the applicant petitioning for the variance approval. Okay, could you spell your last name for the record? Yes, uh, B-A-K-E-R. Thank you.

Yes. Um, so not yet. Do you have any questions for staff? Uh, no. Okay, then, um, please present your case.

Great. Yeah, thank you. Um, so I agree with everything that she had mentioned. Um, so we had recently closed on the property on the 18th of July, and during the sale and the survey, it was discovered that the garage was just under 10 feet too close to the front setback. So as she mentioned, this garage has been there for over 30 years.

It's got a living area above it. We're not asking for any change to the structure at all. We're just asking for the setback variance to be approved. So the only other person that has property near us, private property that is, would be the neighbor behind us, and Unfortunately, he wanted to be here tonight, but he couldn't. But I spoke with him yesterday, and he said to have to voice his approval, and he's actually built the garage himself, so he's completely okay with it.

I wish he could have made today, but he unfortunately could not. But with that being said, yeah, it's— the lot is extremely steep. There's really no other way they could have built it. It's got a unique septic system. It's literally built on the side of a mountain.

It's right below Rainbow Peak, so it's kind of a cool spot. So unfortunately, this variance issue was discovered really late into the transaction, the real estate transaction. We didn't want it to ruin the sale, and it was said that it really shouldn't cause a problem. So I'm hoping that's the case. Anyway, do you guys have any questions for me?

Okay, we— you have 8 minutes and 45 seconds of rebuttal. Any questions?

For Mr. Baker.

Thank you for your time. Are there any questions of the applicant by staff? Okay, no indicates not.

Then we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2025-0099? Anyone at all?

Okay, takes care of that.

Okay, so the staff have anything additional they want to— applicant? No. All right, moving right along. We'll close the public hearing. And the matter rests with the board.

May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Craig Bennett.

I move in case 2025-0099 to approve a variance from AMC 2106-020, Table 2106-1, Table of Dimensional Standards Residential districts to allow an existing detached garage accessory to a single-family dwelling unit or dwelling to encroach 9.6 feet into the required 25-foot front setback, subject to conditions 1 and 2 as shown on page 5 of the staff report.

And the second— it was seconded by Mr. Brian Bennett. Mr. Craig Bennett, will you please speak to your motion? Yeah, thank you. As staff shown, all 8 standards are met, A through H. No objections and from any departments, no community objections, so we'll be supporting this. Okay, Mr.

Bryant-Bennett, I'd like to say that I agree with everything that's been said here, that I have no objections to the variance. I agree with all the 8 statements that are set up, so so far. Thank you. You're welcome. Any further discussion?

Anybody else? Okay, then if we're ready for the question, the question is on the adoption of a variance to allow an existing detached garage accessory to a single-family dwelling to encroach 9.6 feet into the 25 required 25-foot setback subject to conditions 1 and 2 on page 5 of the Staff report.

A yes vote will grant the variance, a no vote will deny the variance. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote?

Yes. Thank you.

There are 6 votes in the affirmative and no votes in the negative. The variance is granted.

Okay, next item of business is case 2025-0104. Petitioner Daniel Keshagen.

Is the petitioner or the petitioner's representative? Okay, indicates yes.

All right, variances are a little different, or Appeals are a little different than variances.

Will the staff please describe the notice given in this case? Thank you, Madam Chair. The Planning Department mailed 244 public hearing notices on August 6th, 2025. The Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals considered additional notice during their meeting on August 14th, 2025 regarding this case under AMC 21.03050(b)(5), notice and public hearing. C, the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals may prescribe rules of procedure for additional notification in cases where a decision of the board would have a substantial effect on the surrounding neighborhood.

The Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals voted to notify all licensed large domestic animal facilities on residential property within the municipality of Anchorage by mail The planning department acquired a list of licensed large domestic animal facilities from the MOA Animal Care and Control Department. The planning department mailed 20 public hearing notices on August 21st, 2025, to the licensed large domestic animal facilities within the municipality of Anchorage located on residential property. As of this writing, the planning department had received one public comment. The Huffman O'Malley Community Council did not provide comments. You'll notice laid on the table the agenda item H2, supplementary packet number 1.

Our late comments received starting last night around 5:00 PM till this morning just before 11:00 AM. By my count, there are 13 comments.

Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, will all persons who wishing to attest— to testify on the appeal before the board please Do you solemnly swear to affirm that the testimony that you will give is the truth?

Are we good with that? Okay, thank you.

Will the staff please briefly outline the case? Thank you, Madam Chair. Appellants request an appeal of director's interpretation dated June 11th, 2025, memo 2025-01, pursuant to Anchorage Municipal Code 2115-010. Any person may appeal an interpretation by the director regarding a term used in this title to the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals in accordance with Section 2103.050(b).

And one thing I forgot to do was to explain the procedure by which the public may speak to the board, so I will do that now. After the staff outline of the appeal is completed, the chair will ask for the appellant to state their case. The appellant, including all of his or her representatives have 10 minutes for their presentation and may reserve time for rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. Throughout the proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the applicant who— and actually should be the appellant— who must convince the board by a preponderance of evidence that the appeal should be granted. A concurring vote of the majority of the fully constituted membership of the board minus those Hang on, just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

Minus those excused by conflicts of interest, shall be required to grant an appeal. On the conclusion of the appellant's presentation, the board members and the staff may then direct questions to the appellant through the chair. The chair will then open the public hearing to testimony on the issue. Persons wishing to testify will follow the time limits established in the rules of procedure. Representative of groups such as community councils and PTAs have 5 minutes, and individuals have 3 minutes.

When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify— excuse me— once on any issue unless questioned by the board. Time is kept by the secretary. The display at the front will be green to within 1 minute of the time allowed, and then we'll will turn yellow. At this time, you should begin to sum up your testimony, and then at the end of the time, the light will turn red and a tone will sound.

Any individual may have appeal rights related to any action the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals takes. The parties have 30 days from the date of mailing or other distribution of the decision to file an appeal to Superior Court.

Okay. Back to our regular scheduled program.

Will the appellant or the appellant's representative please come forward? State and spell your name for the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Alex Kubitz, A-L-E-X K-U-B-I-T-Z. Itzi. I'm an attorney and partner at Landy Bennett Blumstein here in Anchorage, and I represent the appellants Daniel Kishogin and Alaska Hand Feed in this matter.

Please present your case. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your time and attention this evening to this matter. I would please like to reserve 2 minutes of my time for rebuttal. This appeal is the result of over a year-long saga of the municipality trying to shut down my client's family-owned and operated large domestic animal facility, which has been around in some form of fashion for over 40 years.

The municipality has continually shifted the goalposts at the time and expense of my clients. My clients have been on the receiving end of a notice of violation, uh, complaint of municipal code violation, and an adverse determination on a request for a nonconforming designation. And central to all of these issues is the matter before this board. This appeal is frankly the last straw for my clients, and a favorable decision on this matter would resolve all of these attacks against their way of life. Will they be allowed to continue operating their large domestic animal facility and continue to support the equine and large domestic animal community in Anchorage?

The question before you on this appeal is frankly quite simple. Is the sale of hay and feed a commercial activity associated with the keeping, harboring, riding, boarding, stabling, training, exercising, and breeding, or related use of large domestic animals? The answer to that question is equally simple. Yes. The, the language in the code here is straightforward.

The plain meaning of the words used in the code are not difficult to decipher, and it's frankly surprising that we're here standing today having an argument with a straight face about whether the sale of hay and feed is associated with large domestic animals. To state the obvious, selling and consuming hay and feed directly supports the permitted operations of a large domestic animal facility. But still, the director in the planning department twist and contort and slice these basic words up into a tortured, hyper-technical, bureaucratic meaning that is all but impossible to understand. It is not a reasonable interpretation. It is a new interpretation which ignores decades of uninterrupted operations by my clients and other large domestic animal facilities in the municipality.

It is an interpretation contrary to the plain meaning of the code. It is an interpretation contrary to the understanding of the community that was tasked with drafting these exact ordinances. In short, the interpretation is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contradictory to the plain language in the code and should be given no deference whatsoever. The Director and Planning Department here are usurping the powers of the assembly and this board by drafting a new policy for large domestic animal facilities. And there's a proper procedure for codifying new policies and new law, and that's petitioning the Assembly to revise Title 21.

In this case, that is the proper democratic process for adopting new law. My understanding is that the director here did not even engage any key stakeholders in rendering this interpretation and, and made this decision in a vacuum without any input from large domestic animal facilities about its impact. And not engaging key stakeholders when rendering what is, in effect, a new law leads to bad policy. That bad policy espoused in the interpretation memo is directly contrary to the code and confuses what large domestic animal facilities are and are not allowed to do. For example, the interpretation states, quote, permissible activity— permissible commercial activity is activity that directly involves or serves the animals kept at the large domestic animal facility.

That interpretation directly contradicts the clear and express definition of large domestic animal facility, which includes training, exercising of large domestic animals, regardless of ownership of those animals. Can horse owners now not bring their horses to a large domestic animal facility for training because that horse is not, quote, kept at the large domestic animal facility. This is just one, one example of the interpretation and staff report tripping all over themselves in a dizzying display of supposed textual analysis, which on its face appears nothing more than an attempt to shut down my client's longstanding operations.

Our appeal highlights the conflict between the director's interpretation and the relevant code, but there are a few rebuttals to the staff report in particular that I would like to make for the record. The interpretation and staff report completely ignore the part of the definition in large domestic animal facilities regarding training, exercising, and breeding, regardless of animal ownership, and instead only requires that boarded animals can be trained, exercised, or bred. That is absurd and clearly contrary to the code regarding large domestic animal facilities. The code clearly contemplates that horses, for example, can come and go for training and riding and do not have to be boarded or kept on site. The staff report states, quote, selling hay and feed to owners whose animals live elsewhere is not an activity using or involving large domestic animals, end quote.

That is absurd on its face. How does the sale of hay and feed not involve or relate to large domestic animals. Who is eating the hay? Large domestic animals. The staff report states that, quote, "Large domestic animal facilities have no intensity limits," end quote, but makes no attempt whatsoever to articulate what those intensity standards are, because it can't.

There is no guidance in the code. Any traffic limitation, for example, would have to come out of thin air. The Assembly did not impose intensity limits on large domestic animal facilities because it just doesn't make sense. Either you are a large domestic animal facility that complies with what it needs to, to maintain its license, or you aren't. It should not be up to the department to arbitrarily decide, for example, how many horse trailers can come and go each day and, and what amount of traffic is required to care for large domestic animals.

The staff report takes issue with the plain language in the code regarding whether an accessory use is incidental and customarily subordinate to a principal use. Municipal Code 2105.070A regarding the purpose of accessory uses plainly states that, quote, an accessory use is incidental and customarily subordinate to a principal use if it complies with the standards set forth in this section. Frankly, I don't know what argument the staff report is trying to make here, but applying this purpose statement regarding accessory uses to the matter at hand stands for nothing more than the obvious. If a large domestic animal facility is operating as a large domestic animal facility, it is an allowable accessory use. The, the staff report also, uh, regarding this new on-site requirement in the interpretation is inconsistent with the interpretation itself and flat out wrong in its interpretation of large domestic animal facility.

Even the staff report trips on itself and, and supports my client's position, where it states that the interpretation requires, quote, commercial activity to occur at the LDAF site or use animals kept at the large domestic animal facility. The sale of hay and feed by my clients occurs at the Large Domestic Animal Facility site. If commercial activity, including the sale of hay and feed, were allowed at the LDF site, we wouldn't be arguing here today.

I see my time is about to expire, and I'd like to reserve the remainder for rebuttal, but I'm happy to answer any questions at this point.

Thank you. Are there any questions?

Mr. Hale. Thank you. Through the chair, uh, if the appeal is denied, is Is the whole company gonna need to be shut down? You kind of insinuate that they can't continue to do business if they can't sell hay. Is that true?

It's true. There's a pending stayed code enforcement case against my client for this exact practice to the tune of over $30,000, and it would shut them down and they would not be allowed to continue to operate as they're currently operating, selling hay and feed. Do they sell feed and hay anywhere else than just that residence?

Yes, yes and no. They're able to do a lot of direct deliveries from, you know, the port to customers without having to go to the residence to store some hay and feed. They have some real estate in Wasilla or Palmer to the same effect. But as far as, you know, servicing the small/large domestic animal facility that, you know, just ran out of hay and needs some immediately, that's what that property is for and what it's been used for. Would you agree that that activity would be classified under retail business?

I think it's retail in nature. I think if you look at the interpretation memo itself, it doesn't prohibit retail activity. It clearly allows for retail activity. It just creates this some kind of nebulous standard that it has to be directly related to the animals, quote, kept on site.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Mr. Craig Bennett. So that, that stop from the muni was for, for selling fee? Was that what the main— that's the thrust of it. There was some other, um, structure-type violations alleged Frankly, on the face of that notice of violation, it was somewhat difficult to decipher what it was for. It just said it exceeded home occupancy standards.

And so by inference, you can conclude it was because of the retail sale of hay and feed. Gotcha. I guess another kind of a side question, but could you sell like fertilizer? Does that— would that fall under this? Is that allowed or would that be— the same thing?

That's a good question, and I don't frankly have an answer. In some way, you could see how that might be related to large domestic animals if you're, you know, selling fertilizer to grow hay to feed them. I think that's much more attenuated than what my clients are asking for here, which is simply to state that the commercial activity associated with a large domestic animal facility includes the retail sale of, of hand feed or the sale of hand feed. Because I know some out in the valley will sell the manure for gardens, and I didn't know if that fell under this or not. That, that, that in particular would fall under this, and I know my clients have done so in the past.

I don't know if that's currently the case. That's, um, never been challenged. And I think to that particular issue You should look to the affidavit included in our appeal from Ryan Stenzel, who was involved in the drafting of this particular ordinance, and as an example of something that she says large domestic animal facilities routinely do, and what this ordinance was intended to contemplate was, was sales of manure as well.

Mr. Brian Bennett. I'd like to thank you for bringing up Mr. Stencel's affidavit as a sort of related problem or situation or condition that I'd like to comment— your comments on, related to the multi-activities of harboring, moving horses, large animals, hay, manure, and other things related to the— those ideas. Uh, Code 2101.030(I), efficient travel patterns in a residential area. Do you think that those activities are appropriate for a residential area? Um, I don't think there's any, any question that those activities are allowed by this accessory use.

I've heard no challenge of that from, from staff or, or code enforcement. I mean, at the heart of it, I mean, how do you get a— how do you get a horse to a large domestic animal facility if not in some kind of large horse trailer? Precisely. That's a change in— did you— I live in a residential area and there's been very few horse trailers around my place.

That's what I'm saying. It asks about the efficient travel patterns, you're going to be, if not already have, uh, changed the patterns of a residential area with— through this activity.

Um, I'm not sure I quite understand the question, but, um, this activity has been a permitted activity that my clients have been one of— they were one of the first licensed large animal— large domestic animal facilities under this regime, which I think was established sometime in the mid-2000s. And they've always— and even before then, they had horse trailers coming and going from, from their property for their large domestic animals. It's sort of a related question to the staff. Is there any limitations on transportation of other materials besides residential cars and vehicles? Through the chair, Mr. Bennett, when it comes to large domestic animal facilities, no, there's no— there's, there's nothing that prohibits anyone from trailing their large domestic animal across any roads or any residential— I'm actually not— sorry, I'm not actually concerned about one trailer.

I'm interested in the quantity of trailers that are for a facility. Nope, there's nothing against that. The only thing you might find is in home occupation that has to do with excessive traffic or large commercial vehicles or things like that. That might be out of place in the residential area. That's the only thing I know of in code.

Thank you. You're welcome. Done? I'm done. Okay.

Anybody else? Mr. Norris?

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Now, will the staff please give your presentation? Thank you, Madam Chair. The appellant requested the director interpret the code provision commercial activity associated with large domestic animal facilities such as boarding and riding lessons is permitted. That provision is one of the use-specific standards for the accessory use of large domestic animal facility. Large domestic animal facility, 4 or more animals, accessory use is defined as the keeping, harboring, riding, boarding, stabling, training, exercising, breeding, or related use of 4 or more large domestic animals regardless of animal ownership.

And the associated structures such as a paddock, stable, or barn. Operation of a large domestic animal facility is not a homelike occupation as stated in Title 21. The request for the interpretation asked whether the permitted commercial activity associated with the large domestic animal facilities, as that phrase is used in AMC 2105.070(d)(13)(b)(4), 4 contemplates the sale of hay and feed as an accessory use large domestic animal facility.

The director's interpretation sets reasonable bounds on the commercial activity that may take place in connection with an accessory use to large domestic animal facilities. In doing so, the interpretation achieves one of the fundamental purposes of zoning: to regulate where different uses occur to minimize the negative impacts created by incompatible uses happening next to one another. A municipal department's reasonable interpretation of the zoning code it administers, when its interpretation implicates its expertise in administering zoning ordinances or fundamental policies within the scope of the department's codified function, should be upheld. Deciding what qual— qualities make a use accessory to a residential use, deciding what commercial activity is associated with accessory use, is within the Anchorage Planning Department's expertise in administering the zoning code. And implicates the fundamental zoning policy of separating incompatible land uses.

The primary purpose of zoning with reference to land use is the preservation in the public interest in certain neighborhoods against uses which are believed to be deleterious to such neighborhoods. One of the overarching purposes of the Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21, Land Use, is promoting development patterns and site designs that protect, enhance the surrounding community character, and a variety of appealing and distinctive neighborhoods. Using zoning rules to separate uses that have a negative impact on one another, such as heavy industrial operations and a hospital, promotes development patterns that enhance the character of the surrounding community and lead to appealing neighborhoods. Interpreting the phrase commercial uses associated with large domestic animal facilities involves deciding what sort of commercial uses are appropriate in Anchorage's large lot residential zones. That decision involves a fundamental policy determination within the Planning Department's codified functions and should be upheld if it had a reasonable basis.

The director's interpretation had a reasonable basis and should be upheld. The appellant raised 5 points in their appeal. Following each point is the municipality's response. I'm not going to go through all of them. The interpretation ignores the meaning of associated.

Associated is ordinarily means one that aligns with the 2 examples in the code. The interpretation concluded that it— that is used in the sentence commercial activity associated with the large domestic animal facilities means any commercial activity must be directly related to the animals kept on the lot as part of the large domestic animal facility.

Permissible commercial activity is a— is an activity that directly involves or serves the animals kept at the large domestic animal facility. 2, Unduly reads intensify standards into AMC 2105070D.13, which has none. The appellant asserts the interpretation imposes intensity standards on the commercial activity that can occur alongside a large domestic animal animal facility use when the code has none. The appellant, however, ignores the context and greater structure of the code when he makes the argument about D13 having no intensity limits. By their very nature, any accessory use to residential living, including large domestic animal facilities, have intensity limits.

The sport should also look at the language and structure of Title 21 as a whole when determining whether the director correctly defined the associated commercial activity related to large domestic animal facilities.

Large domestic animal facilities is an accessory use to a principal use allowed in Anchorage's low-density residential zoning districts. Not only must accessory uses comply with their use-specific standards, but accessory uses shall comply with all standards of this title applicable to the principal use with which they are associated. Large domestic animal facilities therefore must comply with all standards applicable to household living residential use. The R-6 residential district where the appellant's property is located is, is designed to encourage low-density residential development and is intended to protect and enhance those physical and environmental features that add to the desirability of large lot residential living, living. The code does not specify the physical and environmental features that make large lot residential living desirable, but it is not far-fetched to imagine that privacy, quiet, and green space were attributes, attributes the Assembly envisioned as making large lot living desirable.

Many uses are incompatible with quiet, privacy, and green space. Commercial activities like retail sales, wholesale distribution, out-to-end consumers, or industrial processing all generate traffic, noise, vehicle dust, and light pollution that are at odds with preserving the dense desirability of large lot residential living. This is likely why no commercial principal uses are allowed by right in the low-density residential districts.

The interpretation misconstrues the umbrella standard that accessory uses are incidental and customarily subordinate to the principal use. The appellant argues that the accessory uses listed in Section AMC 2105070 are by definition incidental and customarily subordinate to a principal use if the accessory use complies with the standards set forth in AMC 2105070. The appellant states that large domestic animal facilities may in fact be considered home occupations and subject to the corresponding standards if they do more than a diminished amount of sales of hay and feed necessary to keep and harbor large domestic Animals. The standards for home occupation as an accessory use in a residential district are found either on page 39 or 23 of your staff packet. The definition of a home occupation is an activity that results in a product or service carried out for consideration or not and conducted as a customary incidental and accessory use in a dwelling unit.

This use expressly does not include bed and breakfasts, hobby farms, large domestic animal facilities, small and large assisted living facilities, or adult or child care homes.

4 Offers no textual basis that all operations or commercial activity occur on site. The appellant's understanding of the structure and context of the code when stating that the director was wrong to require the commercial activity to occur at the large domestic animal facility site or use animals kept at the large domestic animal facility site. He also seems to misunderstand zoning and business regulations, that the land use of large domestic animal facility accessory use exists to regulate how people use land and anchorages low-density zoning districts where large domestic animal facilities are permitted. A large domestic animal facility exists when 4 or more large domestic animals are present on the property. Thus, for the land to be a large domestic animal facility and for the accessory use large domestic animal facility provision that allows associated commercial use to kick in At least 4 large domestic animals must be kept on the property.

For the commercial activity to be related to the animals, it must primarily use or serve the 4 or more on-site large animals. Thus, the commercial activity must have happened primarily on-site where the animals that constitute the large domestic animal facility land use— land use in the first place are located. The appellant's example, whether it is disallowed to take a bull kept at a large domestic animal facility to breed a cow at another property, or for the operator of a large domestic animal facility to get paid to care of horses at another large domestic animal facility or property. Both of the foregoing are permissible, but neither is an example of commercial activity associated with a large domestic animal facility. The Large Domestic Animal Facility Accessory Uses regulates how residential lots are used.

It has no bearing on where or how animals are transported to be a stud, or whether a person may earn money by going to another person's property to care for animals. Conversely, commercial activity associated with large animal Large domestic animal facility use could look like a large domestic animal facility operator who keeps a stallion charging owners of mares a fee to bring their mares to the large domestic animal facility for breeding. In the— in this example, one of the activities specified in the definition of large domestic animal facilities, animal breeding, is being commercialized and therefore is a permissible associated commercial use.

The appellant argues that the director's interpretation ignores Title 21 express— 21's express definition of commercial. Title 21 defines commercial to mean an enterprise involved in the production, processing, or merchandising of a commodity for usually but not necessarily a profit. Generally, wholesale, retail trade, and services are considered commercial. The appellant seems to suggest that all potential forms of commercial activity mentioned in the broad definition of commercial must be permitted in connection with a large domestic animal facility. That conclusion incorrectly supplants the the word's meaning in context with the general definition offered in entire Title of the Municipal Code.

Municipal reviewing agencies had no objection to this appeal. The Traffic Department provided comments only regarding the existing condition of the road and that commercial activity will increase wear, tear, and maintenance. The reference to the on-site water and wastewater sections Comments only was regarding the need to maintain and meet separation distances from water wells to the animal containment areas and manure storage. That is part of Title 15 in code. This is also Attachment 5 of your staff report found on page 58.

Comments include all comments received by the Planning Department in the original format.

The department recommends denial of this appeal. I can answer any questions that the board members may have, and Allison Lang with MOA Legal is also here to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff by the board? Mr. Norris.

Thank you, ma'am. Uh, thanks for the presentation. I did want to ask, so prior to the memo, it sounds like these sales were taking place for quite some time. Can you speak to whatever may or may not have been in place to regulate that? Through the chair, uh, Board Member Norris, I, I cannot.

I, I know that the facility or the structure that is currently located there had a building permit in 2024, so that's a newer structure. I'm not sure where they were operating. I believe they were operating in another lot adjacent to this one. In the same area, and to what extent, I'm not sure. It doesn't look like there's enough storage on the— in any of the structures to hold that much, so I'm not sure what— when that happened.

[Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Thank you. And just one more real quick. Looking at page 13 of the packet, at the bottom, it does list— does state that 2 bales of hay hay to take home would be permissible. I was wondering where 2 bales of hay came from. What— I'll defer to Allison for that one.

Yeah, so I believe that example says— the director's interpretation says that if an animal that has been, say, boarded at a large domestic animal facility for a month, so the animal's been there on-site paying boarding fees to the LDAF owner-operator, if they want to pay to take 2 bales of hay home with them when they pick up their horse after a month of boarding, the director's interpretation was, you know, that's de minimis, that should be allowed, and that is connected with an animal that has been at the large domestic animal facility.

Thank you. No further questions. Anybody else? Mr. Brian Bennett? No, nothing.

Mr. Hale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, this is complicated, I know, but I'm trying to simplify it in my head. You're selling feed, that's retail sales, right?

Is that— do we all agree with that? Seem like So on the table of allowable uses, 2105-1, page 49 of our packet, it's got a list of different retail sales types. This one seems to fall under, I guess, grocery or food store. Did you guys classify what this would even fall under in the table of allowable uses? Well, I think it's kind of impossible to classify this use under any of the principal uses, and as the staff memo points out, no commercial uses, no commercial principal uses at all are allowed in the R-6 and the other low-density residential zoning districts.

You can't have a pet store in the R-6 or the R-7. You can't have a grocery store in the R-6 or the R-7.

Large domestic animal facilities, the— at least the ones that the appellant based their appeal on, are only accessory uses to residential household living. So I guess, yeah, I certainly— I think the— and we've heard appellant say, basically talk about their use as retail. Sales, but retail sales aren't— ah, while I think there are certainly similarities to retail sales, retail sales aren't allowed in the R-6 or any of Anchorage's other large lot residential zoning districts. Yeah, that's what I was looking at at this table, and there are no retail sales permissible in the R-6. So I mean, if you're selling anything, it's not an allowed use.

Through the chair, Mr. Hale, also you'll notice on page 47, large domestic animal facility is a permitted use in the I-1.

A permitted principal use. Principal use, thank you. Permitted principal use under commercial uses. It's a conditional use in the B-3, the I-2, the parks and rec— parks and reserve, I believe it is, and the public lands and institutions. As a principal use.

Which I think raises a good point that, uh, to the intensity question, the Assembly clearly envisioned that some large domestic animal facilities could become so intense as to become a principal use, but that LDAF principal use is only allowed in some of our commercial districts like industrial or public lands.

How do you quantify the intensity of it?

Well, our— for all accessory uses, they are— remain accessory so long as the standards and code are complied with. And you need to comply with the standards of the primary use. So this does get it That does leave us here with the debate of what is associated commercial activity and what associated commercial activity is permissible to go along with the already accessory use of an LDAF in a residential zone. Thank you.

Any other questions? Mr. Craig Bennett. I guess I'll go back to— through the chair, I guess I'll go back to, um, could you sell manure for gardens, or would that fall under— would that be viewed as the same? I don't know if it really matters, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.

Under the director's interpretation, no, I think that's too— getting too attenuated from a large domestic animal facility, which, you know, at its core you have an LDAF and you need to get a license when you have 4 or more large domestic animals. But I think selling manure is getting too far away from the keeping, harboring, riding, boarding, stabling, training, exercising, or breeding and commercializing those listed activities.

I guess one other question for staff. Has there been any community surrounding complaints from any of the neighbors?

Through, through the chair, Mr. Bennett, um, not to the current planning department, but I believe there was an original complaint that was filed with code— thank you, land use enforcement. Thank you, Francis. Land use enforcement. And that's part of the reason why we're here. Thank you.

Yep.

Anybody else? Okay, I have a couple. Um, so my first question was— I think what you just answered was why was the code interpretation requested, and that's because there was a complaint.

Well, I think it's important to remember that we are— the board is sitting tonight because a code interpretation was requested and appellant decided to appeal it. So I mean, as an attorney, I think it is important that we stay— you know, we are not here— we are not here to decide if the appellant's particular use is correct. We are here to decide if the director correctly interpreted our land use code. I hesitate to have us focus too much on the appellant's particular activities, but since they brought it up, there was— there is a land use enforcement case that is stayed, and then I think it might be— the question might be better directed at the appellant of why they chose to go this route of asking for a director's interpretation and then appealing it. Okay, thank you.

And I notice on the charts that this LDAF is allowed in R-6 with a conditional use review. Did that take place at some point? Madam Chair, that's if it doesn't meet the use-specific standards, and I believe it's the 8,000 square If they were to build an enclosed structure larger than 8,000 square feet, it requires a conditional use permit. There's a couple other ones they could go through that might require it, but that's the main one. Okay.

Is that what you were asking? Yeah. Thank you. And then the last one is, is there a distinction between commercial activity and commercial services?

I think commercial services is one form or subset of commercial activity. The broad— the commercial act— commercial definition that appellant cites and that staff responds to incorporates services. I think the director's interpretation, particularly because the two examples of associated commercial activity commercial activity are both services, boarding, and riding lessons. The interpretation goes in a direction that primarily services using large animals are what was envisioned for the commercial activity with large domestic animal facilities.

Okay.

Are there any questions of staff by the appellant?

I guess just to that, that last point and last question.

Does the interpretation memo allow for retail sales?

No, certainly not anything beyond a de minimis, as we talked about, selling a bale or two of hay to an animal that's been there at the facility. Does it talk about selling tack to a, um, somebody who might be, uh, taking riding lessons, for example, at a large domestic animal facility, or safety equipment, or riding equipment?

Yes, selling it to people who are taking riding lessons. With animals that are there present at the facility.

So back, back to the original question, certain retail sales under the interpretation memo apparently are permitted.

Was that a question? That was, that was a question. Are I didn't realize that was a question. I think—. My apologies—.

Again, it's, is it related to an animal that is present at the facility? Because a large domestic animal facility is about having 4 or more animals on a property. So, uh, thank you for that answer. I guess a related question: if, say, there is a large domestic animal facility that has 4 or more horses on it, those horses are taken to Alaska State Fair for a show for 3 days, and there are no large domestic animals present on that large domestic animal facility for 4 days, does it cease being a large domestic animal facility? No, just as if you travel to the lower 48 for a week, your home doesn't cease to be residential living or a single-family home.

Is that consistent with the, uh, staff report saying that 4 or more large domestic animal— animals have to be present at the large domestic animal facility for it to be a large domestic animal facility?

I think the staff report is saying that why would anyone get a large domestic animal facility license if they don't have 4 or more animals and therefore don't need it? Okay, so I guess to that, to that point, um, there, there don't have— there doesn't have to be presently on the premises 4 or more large domestic animals for it to be a large domestic animal facility, correct?

Not at every moment. So the, um use of the large domestic animal facility then therefore does not have to directly relate to the animals therein on the large domestic animal facility, correct?

I don't have an answer to that. Okay, I think you should—. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

All right. Then we'll open the public hearing. And is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in case 2025-01-04? Please come forward and state and spell your name for the record. My name is Deborah Baines.

No, you're going to have to move. Okay, we can't hear. There you go. Deborah Baines, B-A-I-N-E-S. I'm Dalton's mother.

Okay. Um, I began the farm in 1978. Our first border was 1980. Over the years, I've had a school, the Learning Farm, with up to 100 kids per week. We've had birthday parties, riding lessons, 8 to 10 horse boarders at any time.

During my Easter event, we would have up to 500 people over the weekend, um, with cars going down Gander Street. We've never had a complaint, and so it just amazes me that it would even be an issue with traffic where there's typically now only 8 to 10 cars maybe a day that are at the farm. Um, in the early '80s, I began to bring up hay to reduce the cost and get quality hay with these hay sources. I was able to sell excess, and selling hay has never been challenged in the state, in Anchorage. And it isn't— and when you bring up retail sales, I'm going to answer that question.

The best way to get cheap hay was by the vanload. So for me to get a better price, I had to get a vanload. So I get my hay and I sell the rest. So it's more of a co-op than it is retail sales. So we usually have it all pre-ordered, who's gonna get that hay before it even gets here.

Same with feed. The best way to get your feed is a van load. That's the only way. Same with bedding. I had to get a whole van load of bedding to get the best price.

And so it's really, to me, not really a typical retail sale. We have no store. There's no store there. You don't walk in and look around. You can order online or pick it up.

But you don't walk into a store. And so it's very common for our barns in Alaska to You know, if somebody's short, one barn's short, they sell to the other barn. Somebody's— and that's just common in Alaska. We help each other out. And ultimately the goal is just to take care of our animals.

And when— because in Alaska with the weather, there's often— in fact, Rose put in her testimony that, you know, she ran a big barn and she ran out of hay. And anyway, she had to bring up hay from down the lower 48, and I'm talking too fast.

I got a large animal facility license as they were required within the city. I got a conservation plan with NRCS, Anchored Soil and Water. I moved my fences and made green belts around my arena, planted trees. I know I complied with all the recommendations of NRCS. They, they designed a compost facility.

So to answer your compost one, we have a huge compost facility that was designed by NRCS. I am compliant within the city for manure management. What we do with our compost, we donate it to gardens. We have donated to community gardens. One of the community gardens— I'm sorry.

You need to wrap up. Your time is over, so— Okay, but I can answer questions too with, like, traffic. Half of— if you would look at where we're at, we're at the end of a dead-end road. One half of the side of the road is backyards. The other half is acre and a quarter lots.

Okay, is there any question for Ms. Banks? But I have a question. So you had a question about the, um, manure. So we— yeah, we don't sell it, we donate it, and it's really nice compost. Okay, thank you for your testimony.

Hi, my name is Brandy Pennington. I am a real estate broker. And, uh, last name, please? P-E-N-N. ING, TON, and certified appraiser. I really appreciate the time and effort you've put into this, and I thought some of your questions were really good.

I just want to reemphasize some questions that came from you here that I took notes on. Title 21 does not prohibit the sale of hay or manure anywhere. This original complaint that started all of this was a noise complaint. As a former board member of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton School, which is at the end of the road, We've done traffic studies and noise studies to figure out how our school impacts the community around us, and it was determined that like 93% of the traffic came from our school. And I— maybe I'm not seeing this correctly, or maybe I could share some history of that section of the hillside.

That section of the hillside has always kind of been renegade. There is lots of stuff that happens over there, a lot of Quonset huts that are operating mechanic shops and all sorts of interesting things up there. In fact, the majority of the professional licenses are held on the Hillside. They're addressed to the Hillside. And you can look that up through the Department of Licensing, State of Alaska.

So just to give you some context, this is not full disclosure. I do have— I did have a professional business relationship with Dalton and a personal relationship in that my 5th grade son started popping an attitude, so I walked down there and asked if he could have a job at the farm. And so now I can tell you that he has shoveled plenty of manure, and he has learned that life only gets better from there. Um, and yeah, and, and their primary, their primary, um, things that are occurring there are typical farm and stable, um, activities. And I see the hay sales not as retail.

Please do not misconstrue what is done. This is not a box store. This is maybe a truck or so every other week of pre-ordered material that goes from their site, which, by the way, their building was approved by the municipality. So that's a bigger problem, Mike. The muni knew that they were conducting this business and had been conducting it.

They even approved a new warehouse where this family has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to build. Someone files an erroneous noise complaint, and then all of a sudden code enforcement goes in and says, this, this, this, and this, and this is wrong, and you need to fix it and come in line. Well, I looked at the history of their business relationship in the municipality, and it seems like every 10 to 15 years they're having to come in line somehow with a new code or a new ordinance. But I would very respectfully like to submit to this body that— let me pull it up real quick. I think it's Stetson and Sons, the— oh well, there's a court hearing, Steffen and Sons versus the municipality, where the Supreme Court determined— the Alaska Supreme Court determined that people are not responsible for coming in line with new ordinances, etc.

So these are just the thoughts that have come to my mind as I've listened to what's important to the board and what I know about their practices. And if you don't mind, I've got 23 seconds. I'm just going to say that ultimately this boils down to problems of a new city, and that different— as life changes, different things come up. And COVID showed us that we have supply chain problems, and co-ops are acceptable anywhere without any restriction through Title 21 so far that I could find. And it's Steffen Sons versus the Municipality of Anchorage.

I'd encourage you to look up that court case because it applies very much here. Thank you. Wait, wait. Wait, hang on.

Are there any questions for Ms. Pendleton? Any questions? Okay, thank you. Oh, thank you.

Next. Okay, hello, my name is Carrie Jackson, uh, and since 2009 my family has lived directly across the street from what is now the Alaska Hay and Feed Supply Warehouse. I'm sorry to be here today as our family loved the learning farm in its original form. Our daughter attended camps and took horse riding lessons there, and our son helped haul hay by hand when the hay business operated out of a conex. What was once the beloved learning farm with animals and children's programs permanently closed in 2019.

What's there today is not the nonprofit farm, but a large-scale for-profit wholesale commercial warehouse operating in a residential residential neighborhood. This business harms our neighborhood and violates zoning laws. The property is zoned residential, not commercial. The Hay Supply website openly advertises a warehouse, and nothing suggests they operate as a farm. We were surprised at the situation because in 2014 there was a trucking business that submitted an application to rezone the property in question.

We had worked with the Learning Farm and the city's planning division to keep the property in R-60 designation. At the time, we were all in agreement that the property should stay residential and not be rezoned. In that case, the municipality rejected the rezoning request, and it has remained an R-6 residential designation. As it stands now, the Hay and Feed business impacts our quality of life and lowers properties— property values of nearby homes. At times, we've had up to 5 semi-truck deliveries in a single day.

Not to mention the traffic from dozens of customers. In fact, just 2 days ago, there were 4 semi-trucks delivering connexes to both properties. Instead of hearing goats and horses, we hear heavy machinery rattling our walls. Noise comes from semi-trucks, forklifts, loaders, and skid steers, along with the diesel fumes that fill the air. In May, a realtor told us directly, the business negatively impacts the salability of our home and the homes around us.

These homes were built long before the warehouse existed. The owners of the Hay Business plead their case by invoking the memory of the Learning Farm, but the truth is that farm has not existed for years. Where there were once animals and children, there are now pallets, conexes, and industrial equipment. In their recent flyer calling for people to testify at this hearing on their behalf, they failed to disclose that they built a large wholesale warehouse business on property strictly zoned for residential use. Their own business license states they are a wholesale trade business.

I venture to say those who sympathize with the Hay Business would not be as accepting if this commercial property occurred within feet of their homes with the industrial noise, fumes, and lowering of their property values. Please uphold the zoning regulations and deny this appeal. The municipality already has dedicated zoning for businesses of this type, and it is not located in quiet residential areas. Our neighborhood should not be forced to live beside a large-scale commercial warehouse business that ignored the zoning and permitting rules everyone else is expected to follow. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Wow, 3 minutes exactly. Any questions for Ms. Jackson? Mr. Norris? Yeah, through the chair, thank you for your testimony, and I appreciate you coming out. Um, I guess my— because you've leaned on the zoning question quite a bit, is it your opinion then that this should have been rezoned, or would this be resolved if it were to be rezoned in the future to something more appropriate?

Um, I think it's, it's zoned residential, and so we were shocked to see semi-trucks. The warehouse has a loading dock for it, and so I would just like, you know, the horses are fine, the horse trailers were fine. It's the rest of it that seems to be an issue for us. So any other questions for Ms. Jackson? Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, my name is Peter Jackson.

I've seen and heard a lot of discourse surrounding this property, and by and large it misses the point of why we are here today. I'm not standing here in opposition to a farm, especially the memory of the learning farm. I'm standing in opposition to a warehouse that was constructed last year in a residential area. We are expected to follow the rules of our community, but these individuals would like to see the rules bend for them after they violated them. They did not have to break the rules by building this structure.

But they purposefully did. It is not the farm with horses next door, in the next door property, that we are standing against. It is the commercial facility on this property that we're discussing that is outside of the rules. The farm and this warehouse are not connected. They're not together.

The orders knew this. The image they invoke does not apply to this property. It also doesn't apply to the farm either, after they let their business license lapse and shut down. Not to mention it was for sport and leisure prior to this. I love to see the, the learning farm return, and I love that when it was previously operating, I would gladly trade the sounds of semis and commercial equipment all day for horse trailers, animals, and happy members of this community.

This warehouse is not that. It also does not excuse the rules that have been broken, nor the effect it has on our neighborhood. Their lawyer says they were out of hay, but they just took a delivery of several semi-trucks worth the other day that blocked the road for hours as well as disturb our community with noise. Deb says they are not a store, but their website says to visit them and see what they offer. Warehouses and semis are not something that anybody should expect in a residential area.

Do not allow this to continue to disrupt our neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Are there any questions by the board for Mr. Jackson?

Thank you.

Good evening. Name? My name is Jen Jarvis. Spelled Jarvis? J-A-R-V-I-S. Go ahead.

My name is Jen Jarvis and I'm here as a part of Sure Food Solutions, a company based out of Anchorage, Alaska. We work with communities, ag business, and organizations to increase to increase food security here in the state of Alaska. We don't actually represent the farm or have any ties to it at this time, but we're made aware of it. But many of our clients are in need of any support that they can be given for feed. When we're looking at this from an angle of food security right now, the state of Alaska grows— produces about 4,400 head of cattle is what we currently produce annually.

We need 88,000 head in order to feed our state. Now, I'm not advocating that that happens in Anchorage, but I'm advocating that across the state we have a responsibility to help feed Alaskans, to be able to help do that. And the support that any organization can give or any, any place can give is definitely needed. If it's coming from a warehouse, if it's actually coordinating at a loading dock, If a business is operating and being able to do that, then it's greatly appreciated. So as we work to look to grow, grow our herds across Alaska over 10% every year for the next 10 years, we need a couple of things.

We need to grow farmers and we need to have feed. I think it was about 3 or 4 years ago we had a massive culling of herds in Alaska, which took us down to an astonishing low level with that. And no plan of how we were going to grow them back, and now we're starting to course correct that.

If you would have asked me if the municipality supported food security and supported Feeding Alaskans, I would resoundingly say yes, especially in light of the support to the 2050 food system vision that was out there. And on the— with the passing of AO 2025 HB 662, which, um, the language from that is to expand the definition of agricultural land use farming activity to include things like raising and harvesting crops, feeding, breeding, or managing livestock, dairying, propagating, or cultivating aquatic cultures. Also incentivizing private property used for farming activity would be eligible for a property tax exemption if the owner or lease sells at least $2,500 in agricultural products in a calendar year. Clearly encouraging the sale of agriculture products from a private facility. Also looking at that with Chapter 21.05 from Title 12 to permit broader range of agricultural activity in a greater variety of zoning districts and waiving Planning and Zoning Commission review of certain provisions.

So clearly our, our assembly and our leadership as of 2025, in fact, I think the date was July 15th of 2025, is highly encouraging us to do this.

And it seems as though our zoning may be acting contrary to that. Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Darves?

Seeing none, thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Katie Nolan, N-O-L-A-N. And before I begin, I need to recognize that today is the 24th anniversary of I am getting kicked in the back. But about that same time, I was serving on the Animal Control Advisory Board, and in that responsibility, I was co-chair of the Title 17 rewrite committee. Now, y'all are aware, writing code is a tremendous responsibility. It took almost a year of weekly and sometimes more often than that meetings, but we met with every user group, including kennel clubs, ski drawing, mushers, working dog groups, even the Anchorage Police Department for their canine program.

We worked with the municipal departments and created code that worked together, and we passed it together. And it is now the law that we're all dealing with. Well, in the same general subject, I also was active in the creation of the large domestic animal ordinance. And that ordinance was a result of the same type of community coordination. We had numerous meetings, we had work sessions all over the place, we examined every possible scenario— we thought— that would ensure that we crafted a fair, reasonable, and efficient solution that could be upheld and that was challenged.

Unfortunately, Our goal was creating an ordinance that would apply and protect private property rights throughout the municipality, and apparently we have failed on that. Uh, we wanted the new code to respect the rights of private property while meeting the community needs. The code was successful for almost 20 years, and now we're looking at an interpretation that changes the intent of what we so carefully crafted.

The new interpretation, if accepted, will dramatically impact not just license holders but also anybody that utilizes their free manure or their hay buying through them on a contract basis. But they also are gonna deal with feed for their laying hens that provide fresh eggs for their family. Local-raised beef are fed from the purchases. Handcrafted goat cheese that I enjoy from my farmer's market is available only because they have goats feed. That's an important part of providing nutritional supplements for our— in our municipality.

Um, I know I'm running out of time. I want to talk about real quickly the intent. Um, the intent was again to provide protections for private property rights. We failed, and if this appeal is lost, I think we have to go back to the drawing board and do further work to protect these properties. Thank you.

Any questions for Ms. Nolan? Mr. Norris. Thank you. Through the chair, Ms. Nolan, thank you for your testimony. Uh, appreciate you giving us some history of the code on LDAFs, and I was just wondering, since you were there when it was written, uh, does the current use by the appellant meet —what you as a drafter envisioned when the code was drafted?

Does the current interpretation? No, does the current use by the appellant? By the appellant? Absolutely. It's an accessory use.

In the—I hate to use the word intensity, but in the intensity in which it is happening, does it meet it? [SIGH] You're asking if the intensity— Yeah. —Was envisioned. Right. That in my opinion, right, okay, me, because I can't go back 20 years, but my intention was to create something where these facilities could be self-supporting because they were so important to our community.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Lori, are you Lori? No, thank you. Could you bring up the mic so we can hear you? Hi, Lori. Your name?

I'm Steve Hickman, H-I-C-K-M-A-N, and I'm a local neighbor of the Hay Place. And, uh, we bought our house a few years ago, 2 years ago, our family. And as a former real estate agent, one of the things that you do when you look at a property as a person or an agent is you have a responsibility to investigate the area and look at it. And frankly, I'm not a fan of horses, just being honest. I had to test— I had to swear to that, right?

So I don't really like horses. But be that as may, we saw the business there and we made the decision to buy the house. And we're directly over the hill, right behind the hay place. And honestly, we don't hear anything from it all day. And we work at home, some.

I do some, and my wife works a lot at home. And we don't really get any noise from it at all. And so when I read the complaint, I was wondering what it was all about, or the case, or whatever you want to call it. And the wording, this gentleman here was correct, the wordsmithing. Of the complaint and the response is amazing.

So it just made me think of what is this all about? And it's about somebody complained and the city responded to that, right? And it's a business that's been there for how long? 40— That was a question I had too— 40 years, right? And so if you move into a neighborhood that has a business at it already, then it's your responsibility at that time to decide what you think.

And I know things change, right? Businesses always change. And so you have to think about that too. And they're changing there. And the building that people are complaining about had a permit to be built, right?

Yes or no? It did. And so I don't know what the complaint's about, to be honest. And, you know, we don't hear anything, so I'm sure other people are being honest and they hear stuff, but it's not all— it's not like they opened a strip club, right, and changed the business completely. It's a hay place, they have animals, stuff's going to happen.

And so I just wanted to let you know that a neighbor is thinking that it's not really that big of a problem right now, but we'll keep an eye on it.

Okay, gotta watch those horses. Any questions? Any questions? Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Denise Brown Chifluk. And yes, I can spell it. Oh, good. B-R-O-W-N hyphen C-H-Y-T-H-L-O-O-K. I had notes prepared, but I put them in my pocket for a reason, because I too am a neighbor, not immediately next door, but just around the corner.

More importantly, I'm a horse owner and a part of this community. I've been purchasing hay as a part of this hay community. From this farm for more than a decade. And frankly, it's made my horse life possible. The life of horses in Anchorage is a bit like a desert.

We don't have a lot of friends. In fact, I remember moving in and having neighbors ask if they needed safety protection for the horses to bite them over the fence. They did not. There was a lot of— we, we talked a lot about putting up scientific signs about our horses. What I say about that, I say to make the point of explaining things like the qualities of large animals in our community in the appropriate places is an important part of being a large animal owner in this community.

Over the years, we've been able to use our property, as the farm has, um, nearby, just around the corner, to communicate the beauty of large animal ownership both for individual joy, also for raising children and creating healthy environments and higher immune systems. And I think that the associated use question, which is what this appeal is about, is one that also baffles me because it is in fact the hay associated with this farm that makes it possible for the rest of our small horse community to exist. It is an associated use. We are all interconnected. There's been more than one time when I can cite calling multiple horse owners in the community very nearby, including the owners of this farm, for help with other horse issues.

We are all associated, and without this kind of connection and support system, the life that we live is not particularly possible. It's also one that we work very hard to stay within the bounds of with the Title 21 and large animal codes that we work to do. We also have had setbacks on our property put in just as the farm has. We have also had varieties of, of transportation into our property. We are not a large domestic animal facility.

We don't need to be. We have 3 horses and they are within the property size that we have. This farm is associated with the horse use and hay purchases that they provide. It is an associated use, and if it is not, then we should also not buy eggs from the chicken owners. We should also not buy other things from the farm owners here in town.

It's an important part of our community and it is associated.

Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Brown-Scheithlis? Good job. Scheithlis, yes. Mr. Brian Bennett.

Through the chair, thanks. Um, you buy hay from these people. Why? Why don't you have your own hay? It's not possible to have my own hay.

I would have to ship my own hay up or purchase it from the valley, which is not possible for me. Or grow it. Or grow it. Well, I have an acre and a third. So that's a challenge.

My yard produces very little hay, unfortunately. So I'm not able to grow hay in the community. I have to purchase it from outside of the community. And this particular opportunity is the best one that I have. I should also note the facility that's been described several times as a warehouse is a beautiful home inside.

I don't know how many people have gone in it. I have. Yes, it has a large garage, but I don't think that's unusual for this area to have a large garage. So to the point of it being permitted and to the point of me growing and baling my own hay, I have to buy hay from them or somebody else. So there are other options besides these facilities.

I would say there are other options, but they're challenging. I'm incredibly grateful for this option because Without this option, I would regularly be without hay. I had to buy hay dramatically far in advance to make sure that I was not going to run out of hay for my horses. It's challenging to be a horse owner here. It's costly.

And this farm has kept the cost affordable, kept it down to a point where, boy, if it's retail, I worry for them.

We, you know, I know what it costs to bring hay up here and their option, their hay, is not only the most affordable, but it is the best quality for my animals. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Nope.

Thank you. Thank you.

Come on down. Hi, my name is Regan Brooks. It's R-E-G-A-N and B-R-O-O-K-S. Thank you all for being here and listening to all of us and making difficult decisions. I wanted to open by saying I am a horse owner.

I live on a 5-acre property, and I buy hay from Dalton, who, by the way, did not ask me to be here tonight. I came because the pink paper I got in the mail. And I want to thank you for that question question you asked, Mr. Bennett. It is not possible. I live on 5 acres with 3.5 horses.

One of them is a mini, but even— and that's well below the allowed number of horses on that size property in Anchorage. But even with at that ratio, there is no way we could feed the animals from, from that acreage. We absolutely need hay from outside. And yes, there are some other places you can buy hay, But sometimes you go and there is no hay there. We need this business in order for these farms to survive.

And I can only speak from the perspective of being a horse farm, but I would assume the same is true for other agricultural— other folks with livestock.

Several of the people here tonight have spoken about the learning farm not existing anymore. But I think it's really important to remember that what Dalton does allows things like the learning farm to exist in other places. I bought my property from someone who had learned from Deb and was doing activities that, um, that Deb had taught her. She encouraged me to talk to Deb and to look up similar things. I now run a similar program.

I'm in grad school to become, um, therapist so that I can do equine-assisted therapy. And I think this is something our community really wants and needs. Um, sorry, I feel emotional about it, and also it's scary to talk to all of you. Um, a few years ago, my family was thinking about potentially leaving the state. And by the way, I don't have many skills, but I'm married to somebody who does, and it's a kind of job that people want to recruit to in Alaska.

And one of the things that made us stay here was this amazing thing about Anchorage, which is that it's a city that also has little farms in it. And in order for that kind of wonderful mix to exist, you need businesses like this. And I, um, I really appreciate what Mr. Hickman said. And I also want to say that I'm saying this all as someone who understands just how unpleasant it is to have difficult noise around you, but also sometimes you don't get I used to live on L Street. That was very loud, a lot of semi-trucks.

But also recently, wonderful, super nice neighbors moved in next door and their kids scream a lot. But, you know, it happens. I know that's different from semi-trucks, but respectfully, noise is a— can be an irritating thing that you can't always control. Thank you so much. Any questions for Ms. Brooks?

Do you want to know my mini's name? Sure. Pumpkin. Spicy.

Hi, I'm Lauren Benner, B-E-N-N-E-R.

I'm Circe Andrews, A-N-D-R-E-W-S. Ksenia Bryant, B-R-Y-A-N-T. I'm Natalie Fabry, F-A-B-R-Y. Violet Lischeski, L-I-S-H-E-S-K-I.

Crystal Borstad, B-O-R-S-T-A-D. Darla Smith, S-M-I-T-H. We are here to support the businesses: the Alaska Youth Equestrian Club, Midnight Sun Barrel Racers, and hay burners, and rodeo Alaska. We feel the definition of ancillary activities should remain as its original intended definition by the written— by the writers of Article 17 as it applies to the large domestic animal facilities. A little about what we do with horses and why it is so important to us is this is our sport: barrel racing, drill performances, trick riding, game nights, and trail rides. Our equine activities benefit us by teaching us to teamwork, responsibility, animal care, integrity, and friendship. We bring the community together when we interact with our general public, such as trail rides or performances where the public can safely approach and interact with our horses and teams.

Our horses are as much athletes as we are. Changing the original intended definition of, um, insularly activities could negatively impact our ability to practice our sport and keep ourselves and our horses healthy in mind and body. Our sport is very expensive, and a local family-owned business allows us for lower daily costs and supports our local economy. In summary, our large domestic animal facilities depend heavily on Alaska Hay Sales for transport and supply feed and hay for our horses to allow us to continue practicing the sport that we deeply love. Thank you.

Are there any questions for these girls?

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Brunhilde Benner, B-E-N-N-E-R. First of all, thank you for listening and for what you're trying to do to make Anchorage great and a good place to live. You just heard from my daughter. She's passionate about horses. That, that passion led her to Crystal, who leads Alaska Youth Equestrian Club. And that is— they do their training at Darla's Place Hay Burners up on Yarmen.

She's learning so much about hard work, responsibility, teamwork, and community, and it's been an amazing opportunity for her.

I am very appreciative of the gal, the lady that spoke about the code that was written and all the effort that was put into that. I have serious concerns about changing that. I've been looking through this packet, and as soon as I read zoning when I first heard about this I thought, oh no, this is obviously extremely complex and there will be unintended consequences with a major change like that, things that can't even be thought of right now. Also, I was amazed with the number of horse owners in Anchorage. This spring I was talking to someone and they were explaining that there's a lady trying to come up with an evacuation plan for horses, horse owners on Hillside in the— if there were a fire on Hillside.

And I was thinking to myself, you know, a couple hundred horses. She said there were like 2,000. It was either horses or horse owners on Hillside. And I think because it's so wooded, we just don't see it. So there's a lot of horses, there's a lot of people.

And the gal that was speaking before also said about the hardships of owning a horse in Alaska, and making changes to this code will increase their hardships. And living in Alaska with a horse is hard enough. So I would ask you to consider leaving things the way they are. Thank you for your time. Are there any questions for Ms. Brenner?

Mr. Morris, through the chair, thank you. I just wondered, do you, do you purchase hay and feed from this facility? My daughter leases a horse through Darla, who owns Hay Burners, and she— my understanding is she does purchase hay from them. She said the quality of hay that's grown in Alaska is not the kind of quality that she's looking for. It's subpar.

And that there's one other place to get hay, and they are sometimes out of hay. This is where she purchased her hay for the horses on her property. And I don't want you to speculate if you don't know, that's fine. But would that secondary source that is sometimes out of hay, would that be affected by this too if this were not to be upheld? I don't know where M. Bardee gets her hay from.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Good evening, my name is Ryan Stenzel. Um, my affidavit is in your packet. In addition to my deep involvement with the large animal ordinance, I was also the contractor responsible to work for all of the Chugach Eagle River Community Councils to create and implement their chapter of Title 21. And I was on the Title 21 rewrite committee starting with the original, uh, Clarion committee back many years ago. So I have been very much involved with Title 21.

The large animal ordinance was not created or implemented quickly. Carelessly. We paid attention to each and every detail involved, including the provision being questioned now by the Planning Department 20 years later. We, the Planning Department, Assembly, and all the others involved, knew exactly what we were doing with regard to accessory use, and it has worked well for the ag properties all these years. To now cause a de facto change to the code will be detrimental and will have broad effects.

Please find in favor of the ag properties and keep the code as is and continue as it has been for the last 20-plus years. Agriculture has been a part of the rural parts of Anchorage since its inception. Most of the roads on Hillside were built with horses. That was how you got up and down the mountain. To try to implement or to impose R-1 or, or purely residential subdivision standards into a rural area like Hillside doesn't work.

This property specifically is residential. It's continuing to be residential. The building was permitted, is permitted by the planning department as a residential structure. Accessory to that is a large garage and areas for large animals where paddocks will be and other things as it is developed. Because of the problems that have been created by the municipality in this process, a lot of things have been held off.

They haven't been able to put in paddocks to bring in the animals, to get on with life. They're stuck in construction, and it's time to let them out of it. It's time to close this and get their CEO and, and let life go on and let the property go back to operating as it has for 40 years with no complaints. Thank you.

Good, good job. Is there any questions for Miss Stenzel?

I for one really appreciate your affidavit and your perspective on this. Thank you. You're welcome.

Hello, my name is, uh, Roy Cook. I live in a property attached to, to my neighbors, uh, Baines and them. Anyway, uh, after hearing, uh, about this traffic, I, I, I live right there. I'm connected to them. And there's no traffic.

There's no crazy traffic there. I don't know where that came from. But I'm just here to say that the place is kept clean. There's no smell. And I don't hear anything going on.

There's no noise. I don't even think they show up till like 10 o'clock in the afternoon to start doing whatever they do. But they've been there for 100 years. And I don't know anybody that's complaining. Complained about them that I know of.

That's all I really got to say. Any questions for Mr. Cook? No? Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Hadden, last name H-A-D-D-E-N.

I'm really nervous right now. I'm not professional, nor am I eloquent like so many many have been here today. I have a personal relationship with Deb and Dalton, they're cousins. I met Deb when I was 13 back in 1991 and spent almost every day for years helping her with the chickens, the horses, the pigs, the turkeys, the sheep, the— all the animals. She taught me a life.

She taught me a lot in life and ethics and morals, how to work, how to, how to be. I attended many events the Learning Farm put on with my children. I've been down their road all times a day, different, different times a day, different days since 1991. I feel like the traffic that the Learning Farm put on has far outweighed anything that Dalton's has, and even that traffic, Deb's traffic, was even manageable. I babysat Dalton when he was born.

Um, I've watched him grow up into the conscientious, hard-working young man that he is. The one thing I can say about Dalton and Deb is that they are honest, they are hard-working, they do things the right way.

That's it. Any questions for Miss Cook?

Thank you.

Actually, that was Hadden, wasn't it? Oh, well. Hello. Hello. My name is Jacob Hauser, H-O-U-S-E-R. Oh, gosh.

I'm a small business owner. I understand the logistics of shipping, especially from the lower 48 to Anchorage. Um, I've been quoted $6,000 for one ConEx to get shipped from Seattle to Anchorage. Now you talk about growing hay— have you ever grown a tomato in Alaska? It takes about 55 days.

Not only that, you have to have the correct temperature. It can't be, you know, a bad summer. So how do you get hay enough to feed a horse?

You know, I don't own horses. I'm a small-time gardener. I hunt, I fish, probably like many of you guys. Um, but I do know that there's not very many sources to get hay. Especially inside Anchorage.

So you got Alaska or Mill and Feed, right?

As far as Anchorage goes, I think that's it. What happens when, you know, someone like Alaska Hay and Feed and Mill and Feed run out of food? So what happens? The same with the groceries, you know.

It's kind of nervous. I'm sorry. It's okay. But the supply in Alaska is hard. And these guys have taken on the brunt of it where they have connected their shipping to Alaska.

And for someone like the other people that have talked about where to get their food from for the horses, what's their options? If there is none, especially up here? What happens if we had an extremely rainy summer and it's completely wiped out the crops for hay? So what are your options? You've got mill and feed, which ship up from the lower 48, but if they run out, you have nothing.

And so I know it's a concern of there's a lot of traffic coming to and from But there's no other options for people like us. There's just nothing much. So, you know, I hope you take that into consideration when you are looking at this. Um, if that dries up, there just isn't very many options left. So, thank you.

Any questions for Mr. Hauser?

Nope. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Zoe Seppi. S-E-P-P-I.

Go ahead. So, uh, I am a very active member of the horse community. I've been born and raised in Anchorage, Alaska for 30 years, had horses for 30 years. I've been on the board of the Anchorage Horse Council. I do not speak for the Anchorage Horse Council, but I have been a representative of the Anchorage horse community before.

There are, like others have said, only 3 places, including Dalton's, to buy hay in Anchorage for horses. There are an estimated, depending on the years, between 2,000 and 5,000 horses in Anchorage alone. Um, I am also an emergency manager by degree, and one of the very hard things up here is to secure enough hay for your horse for a full year. An average-sized horse eats between 7,000 and 8,000 pounds of hay a year, and so you have to be able to have that. And if you don't have the storage for that, you have to be able to go buy that.

If you can't just drive somewhere in town, you have to drive out to the valley. If you're not driving out to the valley, you're driving up to Delta. If you're not getting it from Delta, you're getting it from Seattle. The list goes on and on. That is just for horses.

There's goats, chickens, sheep, pigs all throughout Anchorage tucked away and behind. I have worked with many animal owners trying to create emergency disaster plans. And access to food in a disaster is extremely imperative.

Additionally, there's only 3 hay suppliers in town. I have purchased from all 3 at any one given time because often one or another is out. Horses are very particular about their diets. Some horses can have certain hays, some can have only other certain hays. Um, they might even be the same type of hay, but they like it from a different supplier than the other supplier.

That's just how it goes. Um, and so yeah, by not allowing this facility to operate, it would be creating somewhat of a monopoly for the other hay suppliers. By diversifying the market, there will be a wider range available to the horse community to purchase their hay and feed.

Any questions for Miss Seppi? Thank you.

Hello, my name is Joseph Galluzzi. Is that too loud? That's G-A-L-L-U-Z-Z-I.

I live in the Terraces. Which is adjacent to the property. I'm about less than 200 feet from the subject properties and about 460 feet from the warehouse. The warehouse, I got to mention, does have a loading dock, as you would expect at a commercial facility. And as a lot of people write— and I, and I do recognize there is a need for such facilities for such commercial activities as other people, but again, this is a commercial entity, a commercial endeavor.

This is a business, and this is placed firmly inside a residential zoned area.

According to 13B-6, uh, it allows for commercial activity associated with large animal facilities such as boarding or riding lessons, right? I think it's a bit of a stretch for full-scale commercial activities that includes a warehouse and loading dock and such as exists now. Uh, the director memo— or director's memo mentions allowing sales of a diminished amount of hay or feed, which seems reasonable, right? Uh, but it does not allow for full-scale or commercial sale of hay, feed, tack, and so on. And according to their website, they have products for poultry, livestock, including cattle and llamas and alpacas, dogs, hogs, rabbits, and horses.

So this is clearly intended as a commercial facility at a commercial-scale endeavor, and it's in violation of zoning. Um, so again, others mentioned that they need this business. They need this commercial, this commercial entity repeatedly. So is this truly a commercial entity or is this an accessory use? And I guess I'll stop that.

Well, I will mention one other thing about the traffic. I walk that street, our neighborhood and the Terraces. We have a good trail system and we have one that comes out at the end of Gardner And we walk the street and it connects to the trail into the Meadow Woods subdivision. A lot of people use that trail, kids on bikes or whatever. Usually when I go in the evening, hardly traffic, but I heard from others that, you know, there is elevated traffic.

I do hear noise from the operation. Even when the learning farm was there, I occasionally hear some bangs, but it seems like it has increased a little bit more. That's no big deal to me. To me, it's just that if we get it back to what's being discussed, not whether this business is needed or not— I agree it is needed, but this is the wrong spot for it, not for this zoning. It's not appropriate for this zoning.

That's it. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kaluzzi?

Thank you. Thank you.

Clapping.

My name is H.Y.E. Could you bring your mic down so we can hear you? Thank you. My name is H.Y.E. J.I.N.

Last name L.E.E. I didn't get that. Try one more time. The last name. L.E.E.

Lee. Yeah, Lee. Okay, thank you. Yeah, very close to my house, you know, and Horse ground almost very close to my house and front door. Even sometimes my front door and temp it after, you know, and sometimes summertime horse walking.

I'm little scared. And inside have a lot of doggy, big doggy. And nighttime so noisy too. And summertime And a lot of fly come to my house too. Even I cannot open my front door summertime.

Yeah, but okay, I make my house over there with my fork, but I didn't know that over there have a— I buy a lot and after I know that over there have a horse camp. And summertime, horse, somebody listen to the horse too, you know. And I can see them at my front door. I'm a little bit scared. And inside a lot of doggy too, big doggy too.

And so noisy too. But I'm so sorry, but you know, yeah, I'm tired. Even sometimes in delivery time, even my feeling my house is shaking. So noisy.

That's my feeling.

Thank you. Is there any questions for Ms. Nee?

Thank you.

Hello, hello everyone. My name is Linda Perkins and I am a large domestic animal, most animal facility owner, along with my husband, and we've been I've lived on the hillside for 27 years, and this ordinance, the reinterpretation that they're talking about doing on the ordinance itself, uh, it affects everybody. And the planning and the time and commitment that everybody prior to this that testified to, that put in to get that LDAF done was extensive. And these folks have been there. Operating for over 40 years.

Um, the building, I understand, is a permitted building. It's not like the city didn't know they were selling hay. And to come after the fact, permit everything, and then change it and tell them, no, you can't do this anymore, uh, to me, it seems to be like a disservice. Um, from the municipality standpoint, why did they permit them to build Knowing what they were doing, if this was going to be in violation. And as far as retail sales goes, it's not retail sales, it's accessory to the facility.

And everybody is dependent in the community on the hillside for options for hay. Like there was testified previously, we can't always go out and buy hay in the valley. I get mine from other sources, but when we have a bad hay year, And if there's a problem, I purchase from them. Um, lots of people buy vanloads of hay and sell hay. They don't just sell tack.

They don't just, uh, take their horses and go elsewhere. They don't just breed. Hay sales is an accessory use to a large domestic animal facility, as well as all of the other animals that it provides for in the community. You've got people with rabbits and goats and chickens and Also out to the locations that are from the port that they ship to all over the, all over the state, they provide stuff. And so I went by there.

I hadn't seen the new place, and I went by and took a look at it. And it's a beautiful place. If they didn't want to build them to build a house with a loading dock, they shouldn't have permitted it. They knew what they were doing. And so, you know, just to say accessory use to the gentleman that spoke before that, this isn't new.

It's not a new commercial activity. This is accessory use to their commercial facility that they've always had. Also, alfalfa, I would give you, would be an example of feed we cannot get locally. We can't grow alfalfa here. And so having sources for good alfalfa and Dalton is one of those.

I don't always feed alfalfa, but when I do, when I need it, I need a place to purchase it. And so Dalton would be who I would go to for the alfalfa.

And so the retail sales— oh, I apologize. So that's all really I have to say.

Any questions? Any questions for Ms. Perkins? Nope. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Anyone at all?

Do we have somebody on the phone?

Okay, go for it.

So just a point of information before I dial, you'll have to give him the oath. Over the phone then. Okay, I'm on it.

Hello? Hi, is this Jonathan Davis speaking? This is the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals. We are calling for test— for your public testimony in case 2025-0104. Are you testifying tonight as an individual or are you representing a group?

Individual. Okay, you will have 3 minutes to testify. Uh, first we're going to give you the oath since this is an appeal case. Um, after that, uh, state your full name, uh, please spell your last name and then begin your testimony. Uh, but first, uh, I'll hand it over to the zoning board of examiners and appeals chair.

She will administer the oath. Okay. Mr. Davis, do you solemnly swear— Yes, ma'am. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth?

I do. Okay, state your case. Okay, my name is Jonathan Davis, D-A-V-I-S. I own Caswell Farm and Food out in Willow. Alaska Hay and Feed Supply is my main supplier and helps provide food security for my local area.

We've been providing for our areas for the past 2.5 years. We cover from Big Lake to Trapper Creek. Without Alaska Hay and Feed Supply, we would not be able to have economical feed to supply our animals or our community's animals. Like I said, our number one priority is food security, and without the feed that they provide, we cannot have that. Alaska Hay and Feed Supply has been great.

With us and working with communities. They cover communities all the way to Fairbanks and down to Kenai and everything in between. So please do not deny their appeal tonight. All of you, please have a great night, and thank you for your time. Hang on just a sec.

Any questions from the board? Okay, thank you, Mr. Davis. Yep, thank you.

You are very popular.

All right, then that was the only one? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Does the staff have any rebuttal?

Yes, yes, Madam Chair. I'll probably take a little bit of time. I'm sure Miss Lang will have a few, a few other things. Um, first off, on the plans, we do not have and have not seen the building plans that were submitted and approved by the building department, so I'm not sure how or how that was approved. So I have nothing on that question if you had that question for us.

Um, Miss Stenzel talked about her affidavit and the writing of code. Uh, if I'm understanding correctly, that was the original code written in 2005-2006, which was old code. I'm not sure she had any dealings with the new code that was a 2015, which is what we currently use today. Um, but she could probably testify to that, or if you needed to ask her that one. Um, I did look up on CAMA data what the, what the structure is showing as.

I don't know if you want to know that or not. It shows that it's an 800-square-foot residential portion with a 3,500-square-foot garage with two carports, one 800 square feet and the other one 1,400 square feet. Um, and I don't know if Allison had any other things.

Uh, I guess I would just point out as well, based on the timing that Ms. Nolan mentioned in her testimony, it sounds like she also worked on the original LDAF code, which went out of effect when new Title 21 took over in 2015, and the code provisions about LDAFs did change. In fact, you know, this— what we're dealing with tonight, this sentence about commercial activity, was not in the previous version at all.

Okay. Does the appellant have any rebuttal? You have 2 minutes, 3 minutes?

2 Minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So in closing here, in, in this appeal, you're essentially acting like a court of appeals and having to determine as a matter of law the meaning of words in a particular code section. And I'm sure that's something you're all perfectly capable of doing, um, but I would just suggest that if, if you feel you're somehow out of your depth there on your discretion or scope of authority that you ascertain if there's any resources available to you to obtain counsel, to counsel you as a board in particular on this matter. Um, but at any rate, this, this isn't a close call. The sale of hay and feed is and always has been a permitted commercial activity associated with a large domestic animal facility, and the, the only evidence that has been introduced in this matter regarding the intent of the assembly at any point in time is that commercial activity is associated with a large domestic animal facility.

And if I understand— understood the standard correctly articulated by the Chair at the beginning of this proceeding, is that this is a preponderance of the evidence standard. And on the only evidence that has been introduced in this matter regarding the, the critical issue, the intent of the assembly, is that the commercial activity associated with a large domestic animal facility includes the sale of hay and feed. So in, in closing, we ask that you don't shut down my client's operations, that you allow this dwindling but vibrant community to continue to exist, and we ask that you not jeopardize the food security, health, and well-being of horses, cows, and pigs in the Municipality of Anchorage as winter ensues. Thank you for your time, and attention to this matter, and I'm happy to answer any, any final questions. Any questions for Mr. Kubitz?

We good?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, with that, the public hearing is closed and the matter rests with the board. May I have a positive motion, please?

Mr. Brian Bennett. Move the case, uh, 2025- sorry, I move that the case 2025- 01-04 to grant the appeal on the June 11th, 2025 Director's Interpretation Memo of 2025-01 regarding the definition of large domestic animal facility accessory use.

Seconded by Mr. Hale.

Mr. Brian Bennett, will you speak to your motion? Uh, I find it an interesting choice of definitions here and who's— how they are applied. And, uh, basically it gets down to quantity and the ability to call something commercial. I'm not inclined to agree with the presentation here in terms of allowing this to proceed with an approval.

You're not going to support your motion? I'm not going to support it. Okay. I'm going to move the case, but I don't want to support it.

Mr. Hale.

Thanks. Uh, yeah, it's a complicated one, but I, I think that, you know, if you're going to allow this type of use in a residential area, there had to have been a lot of thought and discussion that went into that. And I don't know how you could not include some sales in a business like this. So I don't— I mean, it just seems like it's just associated use. I don't know how you could not have it.

You know, how do you support the horses and the chickens and everything without having the feed for them as well. So I, I am going to support it. I, I feel like it's just part of it. If you're going to allow them to have large domestic animals, you've got to allow certain things to support those animals. And I think it's just that simple.

Any further discussion? Anybody else? Mr. Norris. Thank you, Chair. So I took a lot of notes, and so I apologize if I'm going a little bit here, going a little bit, but I do intend to support.

Uh, it was not something I arrived at easily because the testimony I heard is that there are, you know, 3 places in town to buy this sort of feed, and 2 of them I'm fairly familiar with that I don't believe are on residential properties. And so that would indicate to me this may be the only LDAF in a residential zone doing this. And so it does make me wonder what happens if other LDAs in residential zones begin to do this. And the supplier is selling all the way out to Willow, which does seem awfully commercial in nature. But that being said, uh, we were directed— and I'm going to quote the memo by Miss Appleby— where it says we should contemplate the substantial effect on the surrounding neighborhood And quite frankly, I don't think that this, this activity is incremental— incrementally detrimental to the neighborhood beyond what the LDAF itself would be.

The sights, smells, sounds of large animals itself, I don't think that this is incrementally detrimental. And to hear testimony of surrounding property owners, it seems almost positive in nature that allows them to lead a lifestyle on their own property properties that they want to live. I did want to reference page 3 of the packet, and it seems that associated— yeah, it can be taken a lot, a lot of ways. It seems that the, the planning department is tying associated to the animals tied to the property through boarding, but it all— they also say that you can sell a de minimis amount, but they're still selling an amount to be taken off-site that isn't necessarily going to be fed to that particular horse. And if you sell tack, it doesn't mean that tack is going to be used on the horse that is used at the property.

So there's already a disconnect on the animals tied to the property there. Um, let's see.

For, uh, on page 65, traffic said that they were worried about the, the quality of the road and being able to handle the traffic, but this has been ongoing for some time. The traffic isn't just going to show up tomorrow when it hasn't been, so traffic is already there. I, I'm also— I do wonder that since this has been there for so long operating, uh, with the reason— and I'm not a lawyer, but I'm more than familiar, more familiar than I wish I was, with the recent Idi Aker situation and decision by the Supreme Court, and it lowered the bar quite a bit for the definition of a taking. I wonder if we're, if we would be tripping into that territory. But lastly, the impact seems like it surrounds the community that surrounds it, the neighborhood that surrounds it.

It's actually a positive And so I do intend to support. Thanks for hearing me out.

Mr. Craig Bennett, do you have anything?

I guess one thing I keep focusing on is the commercial activities versus commercial services and where that line is. Doesn't seem as clear encode as it probably should be. So it's hard to say, tell them no, when I'm not sure where that line actually is when it crosses over to activities.

I guess there's something I'm thinking about.

Mr. Romer Dahl, do you have anything?

Are you still there? Mr. Romer Dahl, are you with us?

It's gonna fuck things up.

Mr. Romerdaal? Yes. Do you have anything to say? I know.

I guess the next thing I have to ask is Ms. Williams, have you heard all of the testimony?

Uh, no, I haven't heard the last, right, 30 minutes. You have not heard the last 30 minutes? No.

Okay. Mr. Parliamentarian?

We may need to have a point of order. Good. Yeah, I guess I've, I've not been presented with this situation, but I, I do have concerns if Mr. Rom— if Board Member Romerdaal has not heard all of the testimony before voting. Um, I, I don't want to delay a decision, but maybe we need to consider postponing. I, I don't know, maybe I'll just throw it up to any other staff if you've ever been in this situation, or, uh, I have not yet, where, where a board member didn't see all of the testimony.

It doesn't, it doesn't seem like they should be able to to vote if they haven't heard at all, right? And then if he doesn't vote, we're a 5-member board, we're a short board, and the petitioner or the appellant has the, uh, the right to postpone.

Listen to the tape and then vote.

[Speaker:ED] Can we postpone it and have Ramadhal listen to it later, and then we can just vote? We can call in, right, and vote after he's had time to review it and listen to it?

Just have a quick Teams meeting. You got a decision over there?

Uh, Chair, we've discussed some options. Um, we could move on to the next case and Mr. Romerdel could watch the YouTube from this case. However, The issue is, so there's 6, there's 6 board members. We need 5 for a quorum. If there are only 5 members who are able to vote, then that's a short board, and the petitioner can choose to postpone.

There's no fee, or like normally you pay a fee and it's a bigger deal to request to postpone, but it's the petitioner can choose to move forward or not. The situation is, uh, if there's only 5 board members, then all of you have to, um, vote to— well, I guess in this case it would be, uh, let's see, it would be an approval. You need 5, you need all 5 of you to vote to get to an approval, basically. Um, so that's the situation. I, I don't think that I guess maybe is one— let me ask one other question among staff.

Okay, so Chair, we've We would like, uh, we believe it is the, the chair should say whether or not you, you feel Mr. Rambertal is able to vote. Um, that our advice from staff is he needs to see all of the testimony in, in order to vote. That's our recommendation. Uh, from there, then we would have to ask the appellant if they wish to move forward with the 5-member short board, or if they wish to postpone. Um, the public— I'll note that the public hearing has been closed, so there would not be any additional public testimony.

It would basically— you would come back to revisit for the decision, and if Mr. Ramadhal had watched the video recording, then he would be able to vote if present.

So we could either just leave it for next time, right? Or we can call in a special.

I don't think we can do that. Special doesn't help people remotely, Gary. It's not a big deal. We can just vote for it in October then.

Will we get Lang back by then? I know he's going to be gone for a while.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] All right, I'd like to hear from the appellant.

Yeah, just to cut to the chase here, the issue is my client's fundamental due process right here, where, um, there is a member of the board who we thought was, uh, in attendance and heard all all the testimony and whether there is prejudice to my client because he did not hear the complete testimony. I think it's a, a reasonable cure to allow him to review the testimony that was provided and then have a decision of the full Board. I don't quite follow or understand the recommendation about postponement in that matter. I'm not clear whether that review can be, um, completed within the allotted time frame tonight. And, and while, um, presumably that member is listening to the testimony in the following case as well simultaneously, um, so that seems like an issue.

And then the question becomes, for the excused member, should that excused member then have the right to listen to all the testimony and vote as well? And my position would be yes. Yeah, well, that would be our position as well. If he listens to the tape, the entire tape, he would be able to. And to be clear, when I say the excused member, I, I do mean Mr. Lang.

Yeah. Okay, so on the back of the, of the agenda is the policy regarding a short board. Okay. It is my feeling, and I'm the chair, that we should postpone and give time for both Romer Dahl and Lang to review. And so we'll postpone the vote, but the public hearing part of it is closed.

That work for you? Understood, Madam Chair, and yes, I agree. Okay, so I would entertain a motion to postpone this to a date certain next— I'll give one other point of order to help the board. So this This board meets monthly, so I don't have the calendar in front of me, but it would be a date in October. I believe it would be October 9th.

We have it. We have calendar. Oh, okay. October. It'll be— I'll also throw it out there, you could have a special meeting also through the chair.

We do have an alternate Thursday scheduled for them in case something something were to happen to this one. So it would be September 25th would be an alternate day. It's good, it's, um, scheduled for us to be here if we needed it.

Does the petitioner have a— do you wish for the September 25th or the October— did you get October 9th. May confer with my client briefly, Madam Chair.

Sure. October 11th.

Wait, that's September. Yeah, it's nice. September's October. Yeah, so October 9th. Madam Chair, our preference would be September 25th.

Okay, so I would entertain a motion to postpone this case to September 25th. Move to postpone case 2025-0104 to September 25th. Second. By Mr. Norris.

Is there any opposition to the motion?

Seeing none, it's postponed and we will revisit this on September 25th.

Well, that was exciting. All right, one more. Do you want a break? Please. Okay.

Oh, the ability for Mr. Romanoff to hear the next case, is that possible? And should we even proceed? Oh, there we go. If he's back on. If not, then we have a short break.

Should be on. It looks like— ask him if he's on.

Mr. Romadal, are you with us? I'm here. Okay, so you'll be here for this next case?

Yeah, yeah. I think you said yes. And we're currently on a 5-10 minute break. 10 Minutes. We got 10 minutes.

Ready? Okay, we're back from our break, and Mr. Hale is going to make a motion. I move to reconsider the postponement of case 2025-0104.

Is there a second?

Mr. Craig Bennett seconds.

If there's no objection to the reconsideration, seeing none, we are now— it's now being reconsidered.

So now I move to postpone case 2025-01.

-0104 To the October 9th meeting of the ZBA board.

Is there a second? Second.

That was Mr. Norris. Okay, it's been moved and seconded to postpone case— excuse me— case 2025-0104 to October 9th, and at that meeting, the public hearing has been closed.

All right, now we will try to move on.

I think I already did that, didn't I? But point of order, did we take a vote on the Post phone rate? Yes. Okay, there was no objection. Oh, okay, it just— okay, all good.

Did you have an objection? Nobody has an objection. We're fine, we're moving.

All right, one more.

Page 3.

Okay, the next— the next case is Case 2025-0114. The petitioner is Abby Van Orum Sykes. Is the petitioner with us? Yes, petitioner indicates that she is here, and this is another appeal, so I will read the procedure for appeal just in case.

After the— this is the procedure by which the public may speak to the board. After the staff outline of the appeal is completed, the chair will ask the appellant to state their case. The appellant, including all of his or her representatives, has 10 minutes for their presentation and may reserve time for rebuttal at the end of the public hearing. Throughout the proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the appellant, who must convince the board by a preponderance of evidence that the appeal should be granted. A concurring vote of the fully constituted membership of the board, minus those excused by conflicts of interest, shall be required.

To grant an appeal. On the conclusion of the appellant's presentation, board members and the staff may then direct questions to the appellant through the chair. The chair will then open the hearing to public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify follow the time limit— limits established by the rules of procedure. Representative of groups such as community councils, PTAs, groups, et cetera, have 5 minutes and individuals have 3 minutes.

When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board. Time is kept by the secretary. The display in the front will be green to within 1 minute of the time allowed and then turn yellow. At this time, you should begin to sum up your testimony.

At the end of the time allowed, the light will turn red and a tone will sound. Any individual may have appeal rights related to any action the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals takes. The parties have 30 days from the date of mailing or other distribution of the decision to file an appeal to Superior Court.

All right, and with that, um, will the persons wishing to testify on the appeal— on the appeal before the board, which is, uh, case 2025-0114, um, please stand.

And, uh, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth? Okay, thank you. Will the staff please briefly outline the case?

Uh, the, uh, thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Uh, the Planning Department's, uh, verification of nonconforming status denied the rebuild of a garage attached to a house. Um, the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals has the authority to decide appeals of the denial of a verification of nonconforming status. Thank you.

So will the appellant or the appellant's representative please come forward?

State and spell your name for the record.

My name is Devin Goode, D-E-V-I-N G-O-O-D. I'm a project manager for TCM Restoration Company, who was hired by Ms. Van Orum Sykes to complete the rebuild in our garage following the fire that destroyed it.

Please state your case. So this is a— I mean, Ms. Sykes has been through, you know, a lot of really difficult things lately. Her home that she's been living in, helping her daughter raise her 3 kids, 3, 10, and 12, had a catastrophic fire back in June of 2024, so a little over a year ago now, and they've been dealing with all this unrest, uncertainty since. We are asking the board to please grant our appeal to allow us to rebuild the garage, which allow us to complete the home, to get them back, back into their home, back in the comfort space that they've been displaced from for over a year now. Um, you know, going through the insurance process, it's long and it's, it's hard.

And, you know, Abby has hired us to kind of help navigate that. It took months to get the insurance to agree to a settlement to allow her to have the money to rebuild the home.

Now, we, you know, through my research and working with members of the staff, including various members down at the municipal offices in the zoning planning Department. Um, you know, we've, you know, gotten on that pretty well, I feel like. So this property, uh, was, you know, in this area dates back to the early 1950s. This particular property was created in 1960, and the, the house was existing into the early '70s. I'm not sure the exact date the home was built, but early '70s.

The property was zoned to B-3, so which is a business district, which now is CEB-3 for Chugiak/Eagle River Business District. This happened in 1974. In 1976, the Greater Anchorage Borough— so before the municipality as we know even existed— the Greater Anchorage Borough issued a building permit for the garage addition to the home. That was 48 years before the fire. The— this building was permitted and was allowed to stand and be an addition to this home.

At that time, a well permit was issued, well was dug, and the, the home basically, it changed from the status it was before. You know, there used to be wood fire— wood stoves heating the home. After the addition was built, the furnace, water heater, boiler were moved to the garage and allowed the house to be configured to allow a family to live in it. You know, as you, um, I'm sure you've seen in, uh, in the letter that, that we submitted, that was part of your documentation, the home is a little over 1,000 square feet. It's, it's not a large home, you know, and we're not asking to enlarge the home.

We're asking just to rebuild a garage which will allow us to put the mechanical units back into the space where it was previously. By not building the garage, we ultimately would have to completely reconfigure the home in which Ms. Van Orum Sykes and her daughter and 3 kids live. You know, fitting a family of 5 in a home under 1,000 square feet and then losing, you know, 100 to 200 square feet for, for a mechanical room, it's just, it's not realistic and it creates undue hardship upon their family. Um, AMC 2113, um, 020A, damage or destruction, states any lawfully erected non-conforming single or two-family structure that is damaged or destroyed may be rebuilt in the same location to the same dimensions so that the non-conformity or damaged or destroyed structure is not increased. This garage was legally and lawfully built under a permit in 1976.

Through, through the rebuild process, once we were able to come to an insurance settlement with, you know, negotiating back and forth with the adjusters, TCM applied for a new permit for this property so we could rebuild the garage and, you know, make sure that we were following all the legal standard procedures. That permit was given to us by the municipality in June of this year, so this garage has been permitted twice. Twice, once in '76 and once just a few months ago, allowing us to start building the garage. Work started on the garage and then got a call from the board saying— or not the board, the municipality— issuing a stop work order saying that they issued the permit by mistake. You know, that— I don't know exactly how that came about, that that was found.

But it was permitted twice, and we feel that the undue hardship of all of this back and forth has caused a lot of stress for Abby and her family. You know, they're still living in a rental home that they are— insurance usually pays for those for a year, and we're past that point now. Yeah, I don't know if insurance has granted them some specific, um, you extensions to that, but we have been dead stop for a couple of months now after we began work just to try to get this resolved so that we can do everything legally and within the bounds of municipality. Um, over the course of speaking with, with staff and working through this, 235 public notices were mailed out to adjacent properties. No written objections were received by any of the neighboring properties within the area.

8 Different municipal and state agencies also emailed back to staff stating that they support our appeal and have no objections to us being able to rebuild the garage. All these different agencies, you know, including the State Fire Marshal, which out in that area has discretion, you know, right-of-way, land use, they all agree and think that we can rebuild the garage without, you know, causing any harm to any of the surrounding properties or public facilities. This area is zoned B-3, but right next door the property is residential zoning.

You know, poor, poor placement of the zones made back 50 years ago put this in a commercial district that otherwise would not have— be having these issues. Um, even in the B-3 area, there are other single-family homes that were built before that time that exist in that zoning district. There's no commercial operations around this area. It's on the outskirts of Eagle River. Um, you know, Meadow Creek is one of the borders of the property.

Um, so it's a very quiet, quiet wooded area, um, and I think the neighbors would like to see it that way. You know, they don't want to see a commercial business come in to replace a house. And this, this home also has no road access. The way that this was built, um, issued with the, um, patent, uh, right-of-way patents back in the day, um, the only access to this property is through easements. There's no road access, so any commercial building that would come in here wouldn't be able to operate anyways.

So we, we feel that having a single-family home here is the best use case of the land, and having a garage to sustain that house is 100% necessary without completely destroying the, the ability for a family to live comfortably in this small home. Um, you know, 3, 4 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, small, modest living space. We're not asking for, for much. We're not asking to increase the size of the house or for the garage. The foundation of the garage is existing.

While the garage was demoed, none of the foundation was touched. The anchor bolts are still in place sticking out the concrete. So if, if this appeal is denied, you know, what are we supposed to do with, with that concrete? It's just going to be a parking pad, you know. You can't— you still partial walls coming up around it.

So we, we feel that this garage should be able to be rebuilt in the manner that it is. And again, after the stop work order was issued, we began working closely with the zoning department and just the permitting department in general to get things, get things approved and back on track. And I was verbally told by the, by one of the members of the planning department after they had reviewed the case that yes, we are going to be allowing you to build the garage. And in fact, the municipal website, permitting website itself, has a spot— and this is a— this is one of the screenshots in that attachment in your document stating that the permit is no longer revoked and can be reissued. That was on a Friday afternoon.

The following Monday morning, I got another call saying, hey, over the weekend, the— they, you know, being their higher-ups, did some thinking and are going to go ahead and issue the nonconform determination. So at this time, I'd like to again thank you for your time and just ask you to consider Abby and her family, and, you know, what— and just kind of consider what you would want for your, your neighbors, your families in this situation. You know, they didn't choose to tear down the garage. You know, it was legally built under a permit for 48 years, 49 years ago now. By the time the garage is done, it'll have been 50 years since that initial permit issued.

We believe that, you know, 50 years of time should justify that, you know, a single-family house with a small garage should be permitted to, to exist in this area. That's what the neighbors want. I actually have a couple of letters here that Ms. Sykes got from a couple of neighbors. If you'd like to see them, I do have— she did bear out some extra copies, but there are a couple different neighbors that wrote letters stating support for having her home rebuilt and not seeing it torn down, turned into something else, and having the zoning come through and mess it up. Thank you.

Okay. You used all but one second of your time, so you really don't have anything left for rebuttal, but I don't think you're going to need it.

Are there any questions of the appellant by board members? Anybody have a question?

No, good. All right, are there any questions of the appellant by staff? Uh, no, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you.

Then will the staff please give your presentation? Uh, thank you. Um, so, uh, the Planning Department mailed 235 public hearing notices on August 14th and no responses were received. No written comments were received from the public and nothing from the community, the Eagle River Community Council, either. Abby Sykes is seeking to rebuild her single-family house and attached garage.

A fire destroyed it last summer. The Planning Department concluded that the 1,080-square-foot house has legal non-conforming rights, but the 780 square foot attached garage does not have legal nonconforming rights because the property— and the property is zoned B-3, prohibits single-family houses. That's why the house has nonconforming rights, but technically the garage was constructed after zoning came into effect, but of course this was still when it was in the borough. So Ms. Sykes is appealing the verification of nonconforming status, the letter dated July 22nd, 2025, saying— let's see.

The planning— I'm sorry, the municipality has issued building permits to— the original garage was built under an approved building permit, land use permit issued by the borough. And after the garage burned down last summer, they applied for a permit for the rebuild, and that was granted, and then it was stopped. And then this is where we are now, the appeal of this verification of nonconforming status letter.

It's worth noting that the garage— or that the house is dependent on the garage because that's where the mechanical is for the house, the boiler.

So the Planning Department is recommending denial of the, uh, um, appeal, um, um, based on findings 1 and 2 in your staff report. Um, and, um, um, I'll point out that, um, page 4 of your packet, um, is an aerial photo of the neighborhood. And, um, on page 4, you can see within the dotted line, uh, the subject property The, the arrow for petition site is pointing right at the roof of the house. The white roof is the smaller garage. It's about 50 feet from the north property line and about 60 feet from the west property line, so pretty close to the middle of the property.

And yes, I'd be happy to answer any questions. That's the conclusion of my presentation. Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff by the board members?

Does the appellant have any questions of staff? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Okay, then is there anyone from the public wishing to testify?

Come on down.

Come forward, state and spell your name for the record. Joe Spurlock, S-P-U-R-L-O-C-K.

Okay, Mr. Spurlock. Um, approximately 20 years ago, I was standing in here trying to get a permit to build a garage or enlarge it for a commercial garage under the B-3 District, which was passed April 29, 1974. And through that zoning map amendment, these 4 properties, Lot 54, 55, are sandwiched on 3 sides by Meadow Creek. And your recommendation of the Assembly Planning and Zoning's recommendation at that time, before passing AO7466, was that these properties be R-2M.

And the 3 residential properties have been there since before statehood. You had one walk-in style business. Today, like 50 years ago, the property's never met the intent of the B-3 district. When they diverted the Glen Highway, which originally was VFW, there went all the arterial intersections. I'm not opposed to Abbey rebuilding, but Jane Jones, homesteading family of Lot 54, her house burnt to the ground and she was forced to rezone to R-2M.

I tried. Planning and Zoning went out of their way, code enforcement, to prevent me from putting a roof on a garage structure that I also have a permit and a copy of the receipt from the Greater Ankeny-Juror Borough, because we started at the same time. We got screwed by the assembly at the time with this B-3 district. And the best thing is for just to have Mayor Levant rezoned Lot 55 to R-2M. Jane Jones on the south half of 54 got R-2M zoning.

Eklutna is R-3 on the other side, but apparently they've never done anything, so they might resort back to PLI.

We're, as they've said, off the beaten path. Our address is VFW Road. We're on Eagle River Road. We don't touch VFW Road. So for sake of addressing, they've used the road construction that we did.

The Sykes— Van Oren Sykes— they reside on my family's old property on the south half of Lot 55, and we purchased that from Herman Jones, who was the patentee for Lot 54. So you got Jones here for 7 decades, Spurlocks for 6, and Van Oren for 5. We've been— we're the oldest families on VFW. The best thing that could happen is to simply rezone Lot 55 R-2M.

But as long as we're here in a non-conforming status and the homesteaders had to rezone their property and I'm denied the ability to construct a commercial garage, which my foundation is set up going out to the creek because originally it was supposed to be storage units— was my time up? Shit, I didn't even see it. Sorry. Any questions of Mr. Spurlock?

No? Okay. Um, any questions of Mr. Spurlock by the staff?

No, thank you.

Okay, uh, does the appellant Have any questions for Mr. Spurlock? Nope. Okay, then we are to the rebuttal phase. Does the staff have any rebuttal? No, I do not.

Okay, and the appellant doesn't have any time to rebut, so he probably doesn't want to. Um, so, uh, we are going to close the public hearing and the matter rests with the board. All right, I just want to remind everyone that we're here solely to either affirm or reverse the decision. Okay, we don't, um, we don't have the authority to rezone anything.

So can I have a positive motion for this case.

Mr. Hale, I move in case 2025-0114 to grant an appeal of the verification of nonconforming status dated July July 22nd, 2025.

Seconded by Mr. Craig Bennett.

So it's been moved and seconded that we grant an appeal to the verification of nonconforming status dated July 22nd, 2025. And Mr. Hale, would you please speak to your motion?

Thank you. Yeah, it seems like this is just bad timing for everybody and not a great deal for everybody involved. But I think if the municipality issued a permit and allowed them to build that structure in '76, and it's been there ever since, then it burned down and they just want to build it exactly the way it was, it's going to— it's not going to increase footprint or anything, I'm inclined to let them.

Mr. Craig Bennett?

I agree with the permit being back in '76 being permitted. Um, I agree that they should be able to rebuild again.

Anyone else have anything?

I probably shouldn't say anything. Um, Mr. Romodahl, do you have anything? That was the answer. Uh, through the chair, I agree with the other two. And intend to support.

Thank you. All right then, if we are ready for the question, um, the question is on the adoption of the motion to grant appeal to, uh, of the verification of nonconforming status. A yes vote will grant the appeal, a no vote will deny the appeal. A yes vote will reverse the appeal?

No. Yes.

No. Okay, we'll just go with a yes vote will grant the appeal and a no vote will deny the appeal. Please vote.

Mr. Romerdaal, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

Okay, there are 6 votes in the affirmative, there are 0 votes in the negative, and the appeal is granted. There you go.

All right, sorry I had to sit through the hay thing.

The hay thing.

I was just apologizing to— anyway, so the next item on the agenda are reports. I don't have any report. Secretary doesn't have any report. We don't have any committees. Anybody want to say anything?

Nope. Remember, you're supposed to be trolling for new members, and I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn, Madam Chair. Moved by me, Mr. Brian Bennett. Second.

Seconded by Mr. Craig Bennett. We are adjourned.