Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - November 13, 2025 - 2025-11-13 18:30:00

Let me do it again. Okay, it wasn't on.

Will the secretary please call the roll? Ellen McKay. Here. Dave Hale. Here.

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

Here. Jonathan Lang here. Andrew Romerdahl is excused. You have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, next order of business are the minutes. We have minutes for Thursday, October 9th, 2025. May I have a positive motion for approval, please?

Moved by Mr. Norris, seconded by Mr. Hale. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Seeing none, is there any objection to the approval of the minutes? Seeing none, the minutes are approved. And we'll move on.

The next order of business, special order of business, disclosures. Are there any disclosures this evening? Mr. Hale.

I was recused from participating in Case 2025-0113 and will abstain from voting on the consent agenda. Thank you.

Mr. Lang. I was also recused from participating in case 2025-0113 and will abstain from voting on the consent agenda. Thank you. Any other disclosures?

Seeing none, well, the next item is the consent agenda, and we can't take up the resolution because there are not enough voting members that who participated in the original hearing present. So the resolution will be moved to the next regular meeting.

Next item, appearance requests. There are none. And then item F, unfinished business. So we are to case 2025-0104, Alaska Hay and Feed. And the petitioner's representative is in attendance.

And this is— this is a postponement that came about when we found out that all the members that we thought were listening weren't, and it was postponed. But at the time, the public hearing had been closed and we were in discussion. I'd ask for Board Member Romerdales if he had anything to say, and we found out he wasn't here. So in the meantime, Board Member Lang, who was not in attendance, has reviewed the video and of that meeting so he can participate, and we are in mid-discussion.

Brian Bennett had made the original motion and, uh, Board Member Hale had done the second. We had had some discussion, but anybody else, particularly you, Mr. Lang, is there anything that you would like to discuss? Madam Chair, no, I have no questions.

Anybody else? Any— Mr. Norris? Yes, Chair. When we last postponed, it was so that the petitioner and staff could talk things over and see if they could come to a resolution, I believe. And I was just wondering if there was any further information about that, or if things are where they stood the last time we convened on this.

Staff, can you answer that? Through the chair, Mr. Norse, as of right now, they are currently as they were when we left it, uh, a couple months ago. Nothing has been resolved from any other interactions that I know of regarding this case. I don't know if Alex has anything or not, but I— as far as I know, nothing has been brought forth to, to change.

Anything else? Anybody else?

Okay, well, I have something to say, and to do that I have to pass the gavel to the vice chair.

Put the motion back on the floor. Okay, the motion as moved by Mr. Bennett, motion on the floor at December 11th, 2025 meeting prior to being postponed. Read: I move in case 2025-0104 to grant an appeal of the June 11th, 2025 director's interpretation memo 2025-01 regarding the definition of large domestic animal facilities accessory use. It was moved by Board Member Brian Bennett and seconded by Vice Chair Hale. Okay.

So the interpretation request asks if the sale of hay and feed is permitted— is a permitted commercial activity for a large domestic animal facility. The code in question is AMC 21- 05070D-13. The answer was yes, with limitations. It is the limitations that are the basis of the appeal. The director maintains that the sale of hay and feed must be related to animals at the facility, not just any animals.

In public testimony, we heard that there were— that there are very few places to buy hay and feed in the municipality, and that there are literally thousands of horses. I doubt that— I don't doubt the need for hay and feed sales, but I agree there should be limitations in a residential zone. The appellant's argument makes 5 points to which the staff responded, and I will address. The first point was that it, um, the interpretation ignores the plain meaning of associated. The word associated occurs in the LDAF use-specific standards, AMC 210507(d)(13)(b)(6).

Yes. Regarding allowable commercial activity, commercial activity associated with large domestic animal facilities such as boarding or riding lessons is permitted. The appellant specifically cites this portion of the code, which is one of the use-specific standards for LDAFs, as an accessory use as opposed to a primary use.

I agree with the staff's analysis with regards to the term use in the definition of LDAF: the keeping, harboring, riding, boarding, stabling, training, exercising, breeding, or related use of 4 or more large domestic animals. The sale of hay and feed, particularly feed for animals not classified as large domestic animals, to just anyone is a retail business and is not listed as an allowed use or an accessory use in the R-6 zone.

Point number 2 was that the director's interpretation ignores the definition of commercial. Unlike terms like related to, associated with, incidental to, and addition to, the code does define commercial. AMC 2115.040 defines commercial as 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 asserts that the director's interpretation imposes intensity standards or limitations on the commercial activities where none exist.

I agree with staff's analysis on limiting the commercial activity that can occur with an LDAF as an accessory use in a residential zone The appellant also asserts that by not allowing the sale of hay and feed, it means only independently wealthy can afford to own a large domestic animal. I know many people who own large domestic animals, horses particularly, that are not independently wealthy. Number 3 was that the interpretation was inconsistent with clearly permitted commercial activity in and AMC 2105070D-13. I agree with the director's interpretation that as an accessory use in a residential zone, limiting commercial activity is in keeping with the code. Accessory uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use, which is in this case residential.

I don't find the retail sale of hay and feed, particularly at the volume implied in the public testimony, for animals not classified as large domestic, domestic animals is a clearly permitted commercial activity in a residential zone. Just the opposite. Point 4, the interpretation ignores the intent of the assembly to allow commercial activity associated with an LDAF. Not hearing direct testimony from a member or members of the assembly when the code was written, it is up to the director to interpret what was intended. This is in AMC 2115.010.

I agree with the staff and the director that commercial activity has to be connected to the animals on site. If not the particular animals physically present on the site, at least animals of the same number and classification which have been documented, which have a document— which have documented connection to the site. The sale of hay and feed by Alaska Hay and Feed is a standalone enterprise, a retail sales business use that is not permitted in the R-6 zone. Point 5: The interpretation unduly reads intensity standards into AMC 2105.070(d)(13). This section is a rehash of the arguments in number 2, asserting that there are no limitations on commercial activities for a LD-AF in a residential zone in the code, which I agree with staff and the director is not the case, and I will not be supporting the motion.

Anybody? Georgia Gavel back. Yes, thank you.

Okay, if there's no other discussion Then did we speak to our motions last time? Uh-huh. Okay, you can add or—. I can't remember what I said last time, but I have reviewed— I looked at the packet again and I've reviewed all this stuff to make sure I understood what was going on. And I remember what I got hung up on last time was the whole retail aspect of things as well.

It's specifically not allowed. So I don't know how you can package this as not a retail endeavor. And so I don't know how we can support it, you know, based on the current code. So I'm not sure that I can support it either.

To the chair, please. I would— yes, my question about retail and commercial has to do with the relationship between the large domestic animal facility and t-shirts which are for sale. And I was wondering if that doesn't, as a philosophy, they also have on their website a come and review our show. Oh yes, shop for our new arrivals, which is to me a commercial statement, not a statement of association in a sense. The last meeting when they had the line up the back talking about hay and feed, and I'm not sure that they could stop— need to be stopped selling and purchasing hay and feed as long as the attitude and the philosophy changes a little bit in terms of how they're presenting themselves to the community.

As an example, the t-shirts. I'm not sure how— I suppose if you had a t-shirt on and somebody said it was a really good idea, what could I— where could I get one? You might have one under the counter, but to advertise tends to make it more of a commercial entity than anything else. Thank you.

Mr. Lang, anything?

Uh, to the chair, uh, yes, I also question the retail nature as a matter of scale. It seems to be incompatible with residential uses, which is the intention of the code. Okay.

We all good?

Mr. Craig Ben. Yeah, through the chair, I'd just like to mention that I counted 21 people showed up here that were in favor. We don't often see that for our cases, and that was pretty impressive. And then I believe 13 people wrote in, so a total of 34 people were for it from the community versus— I think there were about 4 against, which is fairly significant, I think, just because we don't see that often. Um, and Also, I believe that legal mentioned something about a few bale of hay would be fine, and I guess where's the cutoff?

Um, if some hay is allowed, but is 10 bales too much? Is 20 bales too much? I don't really see that cutoff in code. That's it.

Code does— it does limit the number of animals that you can have.

40,000 Square feet for 4, with an additional 10,000 square feet for each animal. So for the 3.4 acres that are in this site, they could have 12, 15 animals, but with, um, only— I think they said 3 places to buy hay and feed, and literally thousands of horses that are here. I mean, the scale of, of what's going on, I think, is beyond a residential area. But that's—.

Any other?

Mr. Norris. All right, just so we've all spoken, um, I did state last time I would support, and I gave a good number of reasons why. And just to get to the question that was raised about how much is too much, Where I fell on that was you, by, by means of allowing them to take feed, hay and feed off-site for an animal, you lose the ability to tie it to the animal. You could buy hay and then go home and feed it to a different horse that was never there. And they are also allowed, I presume, to sell tack.

Tack doesn't get assigned to a single animal. Can be to whatever animal that can fit it, right? And so I think where I fell on this is we've already crossed the Rubicon on that. We've already allowed for sale of items that lose the ability to be tied to the animal as soon as it leaves the site. And so that was a bigger reason why I'm— I guess I'm in the minority here, but I did tend to think that we already have established that this is allowed behavior because it's been going on for so long, uh, to the point where the community clearly has come to depend on this.

And so your point is well taken, Chair, that because there's only 3 places, then necessarily this place has to have a great deal of activity. But on the flip side, to me, the greater public good would not be well served by going from 3 to 2 with the number of animals that are present. So those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Mr. Hale. Through the chair, I would just add that, you know, we're not precluding people from selling hay. We're precluding them from performing retail sale of hay in a residential area. They can go to a business place, get a warehouse, they can sell hay out of that. I mean, if it's something that's needed and profitable, That'd be the thing to do is go where it is allowed and continue and sell it that way.

So it's— we're not stopping them from selling hay, we're stopping them from an unallowed use in our zoning, right?

Through the chair, but it sounds like it is allowed use. They can sell a few bales of hay.

Per what I remember the legal saying. So it's allowed use, it's just how much is the use. And until it says, you know, commercial activity associated with large domestic animals, animal facility is permitted.

Hay, large animals, I think it's associated.

But if we're telling them they can sell a few bales of hay to individual customers, where's the cutoff, I guess?

Uh, well, I interpreted that to mean, you know, as in a as part of what they're doing. They're, they're boarding horses. The horses need to eat, so they need to feed the horses, and they're not going to do it for free, so they're selling them the hay, and then they're giving them a little to take with them. So I mean, if it's an— if it's just part of the service that is allowed, I could see that. And to me, that's the cutoff, is when you start selling multiple bales to people and they leave with it You're in the retail business then.

If you're boarding a horse, the horse necessarily needs to eat, and there's a price associated with that. And so I see that being okay. And to me, that's the cutoff, is are you giving them, you know, a quarter bale of hay to feed them and give them a little to go, or are you loading up their truck with 12 bales of hay? You know, it's a scale thing, I guess, for me. Anybody else?

Are we ready for the question?

Okay. The question— who knows— is whether or not to grant the appeal.

A yes vote will grant the appeal and a no vote will deny the appeal. Please vote.

We have 3 votes in the affirmative and 3 votes in the negative. And the appeal is not— is denied. We have taken 5, and the director's decision is affirmed. Thank you.

On the regular agenda, there are no public hearings.

Reports— I don't have a report. The secretary is going to tell us about the next meeting. No December meeting, no committees. Any board member comments? Nothing.

A motion for adjournment. Move to adjourn. Mr. Brian Bennett moves. Second. Mr. Lang, we are adjourned.