Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals - August 14, 2025 - 2025-08-14 18:30:00

Good evening and welcome to the Municipality of Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals. Um, will the secretary please call the roll?

Dave Hale. Here. Ellen McKay. Here. Andrew Romerdahl.

Here. Brian Bennett. Here. Craig Bennett. Here.

Jonathan Lang. Here. Jason Norris. Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Next item of business was minutes. We don't have any for this meeting, and special order of business is next. Are there any disclosures?

Madam Chair, having been absent for the last couple of meetings, I will recuse myself from any resolutions voted on today. Um, I'm not sure that there are any, but there aren't, so that doesn't make any difference.

Um, and the next item is an item that was laid on the table, so will the staff please present this item? Uh, yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, so there, the Planning Department has received an appeal of a director's interpretation memo. So that interpretation memo, uh, it it looked at the sale of hay as it's associated with large domestic animal facilities. The director's interpretation said it did not fall— like, it did not fall under the— the sale of hay did not fall under commercial activity permitted as an— with a large domestic animal facility.

The planning department then has received an appeal of that decision, and this appeal is scheduled for the September 11th ZBA meeting. It will be case 2025-0104. Um, so there's nothing for that specific case yet. That will come, uh, as usual at the September meeting. So what's before the board tonight is a question of notice for that case.

Uh, the appellant In case 2025-0104, has requested the Planning Department to notify all LDAFs, or large domestic animal facilities, on residential land of the appeal hearing. And so we're requesting, uh, the ZBA board to rule on whether or not the Planning Department should make that additional notification. The requirement in code is for the Planning Department to notify all properties within a 500-foot radius of the property, so we will still provide that notice no matter what. Code says that ZBA 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. Uh, so this memo describing it asks the board to consider effects on neighbors of the appellant.

Uh, the board should contemplate whether the decision for notice, uh, would have a substantial effect on neighbors of Alaska Hay and Feed and other LDAFs. It's not whether this interpretation will have a substantial effect on LDAFs and property owners operating them. It's whether it would have a substantial effect on the surrounding neighborhood. The decision ZIBA makes tonight is not appealable. And then the back Uh, the back side of this, this memorandum just summarizes actions the board may take tonight.

So you could direct the planning department to, uh, to make no additional notice. We would still notify property owners within that 500-foot radius as usual. Or you could direct us to increase the size of the notification area. You could, uh, You could do as the appellant has, or you could direct the planning department to follow through on the appellant's request, which is to notify all large domestic animal facilities on residential property within the municipality, or some combination. And then we put examples of what forms of additional notification.

So we could try to highlight it on the planning department's website. We could try to get a mailing list. Um, we noted an email list may be available for licensed large domestic animal facilities. It would not be for property owners. A few other things just for procedures.

So you may ask questions of staff that I'll try to answer as best I can, and you may also ask questions of the call it if they're here. There's, there's no like presentation time for them to, to speak before you. It's just if they are here, you can call them forward to ask questions is all. So that's the end of what I wanted to try to summarize for the board, and I'm available if you have questions to help you make your decision.

Are there any questions of staff?

Yes, Matt. Yes, I'd have a question. The forms of notification that are listed, uh, potential forms of notification that are listed there— originally notification was done by posting a notice on the community message board, which is obviously not very practical in today's environment. Are any of these not acceptable as notifications by law? Any of these forms?

For instance, emailed, or etc., etc., etc.? Through the chair, the, the only one we may not be able to follow through on is email notice to property owners, because there— a property owner's email just is not part of the database for property owners that the municipality has. We did note that we believe emails would be available for licensed large animal or large domestic animal facilities If someone's operating on unlicensed, we wouldn't have their email, but we believe we would be able to get a list of emails for ones that are licensed. Thank you.

One question: can the appellant mail their own notices?

Member Bennett, yes, the appellant may mail their own notice. They could They could marshal whatever additional notice they want to try to get public support for their appeal during the public hearing. Thank you.

Anyone else? Mr. Norris? Yeah, I got a couple questions. Could you one more time explain what the determination was that hay is not an approved accessory use?

Through the chair, Member Norris. So there was a director's interpretation from— it came from Lance Wilbur, the Planning, Development, and Public Works Director. So as an interpretation of commercial activity associated with large domestic animal facilities as an accessory use, So the question was, does commercial activity associated with large domestic animal facilities include the retail sale of hay and feed? And, and that in this case, it was found that the sale of hay and feed did not— was not permitted with the use of the large domestic animal facility, and that is what is being appealed. Okay.

Thank you. So just a quick follow-up. So Action 3 says that we would notify only LDAFs on residential property, but we're also being directed here to not consider the effects on LDAFs as much as the surrounding people. So how does Action 3 actually accomplish that intent? Yeah, the— it's— it is up to the board.

I, I guess we didn't write a recommendation for you. When the planning department was thinking about this and reading that it says you can prescribe rules of procedure for additional notice if there's substantial effect on the surrounding neighborhood, like the large LDIFs would be throughout the municipality. So the— I guess the planning department was thinking it didn't really relate to the surrounding neighborhood. So we'd probably agree with your rationale there, but we did not provide a formal recommendation to the board. Understood.

Last thing, do you have an estimate for how many LDAFs there are in the municipality? Uh, that is a good question, Member Norris, through the chair. I I do not know. Um, okay. I was— yes, I was trying to see if any of my— there is an unusual step where the— I know the planner assigned to this case is actually our senior planner Paul Hatcher, who is covering, uh, basically in the clerk's role at the meeting tonight.

I don't— I don't know if he— okay, he's shaking his head. He— we don't know. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Romigal. Through the chair, I'm curious if there's any precedent for this kind of request for changing notice. I've never— I haven't seen one before, so I'm kind of curious, is this extremely rare? I mean, this is unique, or do you guys have any background on this being asked for before and any insight on how it's been handled in the past, I guess? Through the chair, Member Ramerdaal, it is, it is a very rare request.

I guess this is one rare piece of code where it does explicitly say that the board can prescribe additional notice if there's a substantial effect on the surrounding neighborhood. I guess I've been in the, with the planning department for 5 years and I've never seen a request for additional notice that we've brought forth, or, uh, so it is a rare situation.

Anyone else?

Okay, um, discussion.

How do you feel?

Mr. Hill. Through the chair, I mean, it seemed like what's— with something that's going to affect a group, even if they fall outside the 500 feet, it'd be nice if they understood that there was a decision going to be made that could affect them. And it seems like it'd be easy enough to notify people, right? It's not that big a deal. So I don't know what harm there'd be, and Going past the 500, you know, if you go down to Girdwood and you go 500 feet, it's like you don't get the whole community.

But really, a lot of the development down there, you'd want to include more than that. So I mean, using the same logic, it seems like if it's going to affect someone, why would you cut them off at 500 feet just because it's entitled?

Request to speak. But I just want to give a point of information just because I think I saw the appellate wacky. I'll just remind you that you may, um, also Also ask the appellant questions as well to help make your decision. Thank you.

You have to turn on your mic. You need to push the button with the people on it. There you go. Thank you. Hi, my name is Alex Kubitz.

I'm an attorney at Landy Bennett Plumstein. I represent the appellants in this case, Daniel Keshogun and Alaska Hay and Feed Supply. Apparently, I'm not allowed to give a presentation on this matter, but I am here and available to answer any questions you may have about this notice issue. Thank you. Anybody having a question?

Mr. Narves. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So is your— the, your— the people you're representing, is there concern that they're not being allowed to sell hay? Or could you explain what the concern is?

Yeah, absolutely. So frankly, this stems from an enforcement case from about 8 months ago with respect to the sale of hay and feed from a large licensed domestic animal facility. And without going too much into the details, my client decided to officially just request an interpretation of what that particular section of the municipal code means with respect to the commercial activity that's permitted and allowed associated with a large domestic animal facility. Uh, the director gave his interpretation, which my client feels is a plainly incorrect interpretation, and this is simply an appeal of that interpretation. And as far as the, um, the notice piece that we requested in that appeal is simply to, to notify the other licensed large domestic animal facilities on residential properties where this would be considered an accessory use, so that they had notice that their, their property right, that their ability to operate as a licensed large domestic animal facility, uh, was potentially going to be impacted and infringed by this interpretation, and to give them the, the notice and opportunity to be heard on, on this matter.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Through the chair, through the chair, one question. Do you know how many, um, notices would need to be sent out?

Through the chair, I do not off the top of my head. If I were to simply pull a number out of the air, it would be maybe in the 20s. It's It sounds like potentially there is an email list there. My guess is that would be a pretty good estimation of the amount of currently licensed large domestic animal facilities. Thank you.

Anyone else?

We done? Okay. I have a question.

So the 500 feet. As I remember it, and I might be wrong, let me know, um, there has to be 50 people in that 500 feet. If not, it goes out farther. Uh, Chair McKay, yes, that is correct. And so there are 50 people in this 500 feet?

I, I believe so. That just thinking about this part of town, I, I believe there are. It's usually, um like further out of town where there's large parcels of property, where I'm, I'm pretty certain that there would be 50 parcels within 500 feet of this location. Okay, thank you. Any other discussion?

Madam Chair, through the chair, um, I believe this falls into another area that I've been looking at, trying to figure it out. The words exceptional, extraordinary, undue, reasonable, and difficult, which I've asked for some kind of example or clarification, and this, this used, the words are being used here again, and exceptional might be an interesting comment about what is exceptional. Because you have to define that, or at least agree to a definition of that, in order to decide if this is an exceptional hardship or along those lines. And I haven't— I asked the chair about these words a while back and I have not received any clarification on it. Oh, you know how she is.

Hmm? You know how she is.

But I was just interested if that change of wordage causes this to be a problem.

Through the chair, If I'm understanding the, the question correctly, I don't know actually what provision of code you're citing to with respect to that language. I, I think the portion of the code that, you know, at least we cited to our appeal here is, um, AMC 2103050B.

5(C), which states 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. Um, one other issue here, or, um, something I would, I would flag, is my client and I were recently informed that there's not going to be a posting requirement, uh, on my client's property with respect to this matter either. So as that relates to the 500-foot issue, I'm not sure how that is supposed to come into play.

So I have a question of staff. They don't have to post for an appeal? Chair McKay, yes, that's correct. I, I just pulled up Table 21.03-1, Summary of Notice Requirements, and so for appeals to ZBA, we do have to send the mailed notice. So that's to property owners within the 500-foot radius.

We publish it to the website and we send notice to the community council, but there is not a requirement for a sign to be posted on the property. Well, that's weird. Interesting.

You may. Through the chair, I think the intent of these notices is so that the community that has an interest in it is notified and they have an opportunity to speak and share information so that we can make an informed decision. The community expands past the 500 feet. Obviously, with maybe a small community, it's not a lot of mailers, but I think it'd be important for the board to gather as much information as we can to make an informed decision. So I don't know why we wouldn't expand it out on an arbitrary 500 feet.

It doesn't make any sense. We're trying to include the people that are affected by this, right? Seems like— and it seems like a small way to do it. We'll gather more info. Make a better decision.

Would you like to make a motion? Sure.

I move to notify all LDAFs on residential property within the Municipality of Anchorage about this appeals action. Could I put one, one point of interest, uh, point of introduction? Um, could you make your motion a little more specific just so, so we're clear what action we should take. Like, are you requesting that we mail, uh, like, like we send a— we physically mail something, or if we— or do we use the email list? Um, just tell us how you would like the notice.

I personally, I think that, you know, you don't have everybody's email, so you're not gonna be able to reach everybody. So I think the address, the mailers, are the way to go. So I guess I would amend my motion to say notify all LDFs via mail, uh, on residential property within the municipality of Anchorage. How about that? Can you do it again?

By mail. By mail to all LDFs. Notify by mail all LDFs at residential property within the municipality of Anchorage about the appeals action.

That way it goes out to everybody with an interest, right?

Second. It has been moved and seconded. Oh my God. That question is whether we are going to mail notice to the LAAFs in Anchorage, correct? Yes.

Okay, a yes vote will direct them to mail, and a no vote will say the 500 feet is enough, or 50 people. Please vote. All right. You guys are just too quick.

Does that look right, Dave?

Not residential property, on. Yeah, okay, I got it. Or is that too many alls? Is that too many alls? Yes.

All the apps on—. There you go. Thank you. This will be by mail.

I guess I'll give one more point of information. Maybe it's minor, but we will have the list of licensed ones, and we'll do what we can to find any others. But if they're not licensed, there is a chance we— I guess when I read this, I'm thinking in my head, OK, we can for sure find the licensed ones. So I just wanted to make sure that's clear to everyone.

And that's—. Yeah, that's all you can do. Well, I think if they haven't registered, they don't get the notice. Is it? Yeah.

Yes, it is.

Sure. Thanks. So, to the mover, I was reading this and it says that we should consider the broader effects to the neighborhood, and so Is it sufficient to only notify the LDAS, or is it the people around them? She said that we're gonna— they would get the $500. Okay, okay, thank you.

Um, it does— that does bring a question to my mind. How much are hay sales affecting those people? But well, that's for the, for the appeal itself. Okay, okay. —People to do it.

Or not, right? Yeah. OK. Thank you.

OK. Then if we're ready to vote, maybe? Yes, you need to move, Dave. John, you need a second. Second it, right? Mr. Allen?

No, not you, Brian. Mr. Blankenship. So just so we're clear, it's to approve notification of all LDAFs by mail on residential property within the municipality of Anchorage. And the surrounding neighbors? That's already being done, right?

The surrounding neighbors as well, because that's who we're—. That's different then. Surrounding neighbors is already a requirement. Yeah. The additional notice is what we're being asked to consider.

That's what I thought. That's what I thought. Because you're going to mail it to the 500 feet. Yeah. Yeah.

OK. Yes. Yeah, that's my understanding is no matter what the 500 feet, because that is a code requirement, and then you're considering additional notice. Yeah, okay, we should be good. We're considering an additional 20, 30, not an additional 20, 30 and 500 feet.

They're going to do the 500 feet, so then we're going to have a requirement to do additional, but only LPNs. Not— maybe make the—. I could put forth a point of information or point of interjection to perhaps just make it approve additional notification, just to be clear that it's on top of of the, uh, so, so yes vote would be 500 feet of the subject property as, or 500 feet of the subject property as usual, and then this is a dish— this is a vote on any additional notice above that.

So then it'd be to approve additional notification of all LDAFs by mail on residential property with within the municipality of Anchorage. I think it would read easier if you put by mail at the end of the sentence. Okay. On residential property within the municipality of Anchorage by mail.

Good thing we're not lawyers. Yeah, I know.

Okay.

Grammatically, anybody? Okay.

He's ready? All right. Go for it. Okay. There are 7, um, Votes in the affirmative and 0 votes in the negative.

So the— whatever this is— appeal notification— notification of appeal is granted. Yes, uh, thank you, thank you to the board, uh, and also to the appellant for being here. So the planning department, uh, we will send out the notice to property owners within 500 feet, and then as directed tonight, we will send out, uh, the additional notice to the the large domestic animal facilities on residential property by mail. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, now that we've hacked our way through that, nothing on the consent agenda, no appearance requests. No unfinished business, nothing on the regular agenda, which brings us to public hearings. The case, um, for public hearings is Case 2025-0092, and the petitioner is Travis Smith.

No, okay, see, you're just very— explain the procedure. You got it. Okay, okay, okay. Um, so the procedure to be followed, as I've been directed to explain by code, the procedure by which the public may speak to the board at this meeting is after the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask the appellant to state their case. The appellant— the applicant, excuse me— the applicant, including all of his or her representatives, has 10 minutes 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 the majority of the fully constituted membership of the board, minus those excused by conflicts of interest, shall be required to grant a variance. For a variance to be granted, all 8 standards must be substantially met. On 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 public hearing— will open the hearing to public testimony on the issue.

Persons who wish to testify follow the time limits established by the rules of procedure. Representatives of groups like community councils or 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 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, then turn yellow. At this time, you should begin to sum up your testimony, and at the end of the allowed time, the light will turn red and a tone will sound. An individual may have appeal rights— yay, appeal— related to any action that the Zoning Board of 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? Thank you, Madam Chair. On July 3rd, 2025, the Planning Department mailed 92 public hearing notices in accordance with the procedures of AMC 21.03.020H. Notice: As of writing, the department has not received public comments. The Girdwood Board of Supervisors did not provide comments on this case.

An attachment to application— the— of the application, you will find an affidavit of public hearing sign posting on the property. Thank you. Are there any objections to the sufficiency of notice in this case?

Seeing none, will the staff please present the case?

Madam Chair, Travis Smith, the owner, is requesting a dimensional variance from AMC 21.09.060 Table 21.09-5, Table of Dimensional Standards, Girdwood Residential Districts, to allow the existing primary single-family residence to encroach 2 feet 7 inches into the required 10-foot rear setback. According to the narrative in the application, the previous owner of the property built the subject structure and kept a building permit open with the intention of constructing a garage/ADU. The as-built in the application only shows the house and does not show a garage/ADU. And the prior owner did not complete this construction. The current property owners discovered the open building permit R-18-2569 when looking into a remodel.

The required rear setback is 15 feet for a single-family dwelling within the GR-2 district. However, footnote 2 of AMC 21.09.060-Table 21.09-5 permits, permits side and rear setback flexibility where rear setbacks may be reduced by 5 feet but the amount shall be added to the front setback. The property owner in their application narrative described using this option to reduce the amount of encroachment for the variance request. The required front setback has an increase of 5 feet for total required front setback of 25 feet, in order to reduce the rear's— the required rear setback by 5 feet to get to a required rear setback of 10 feet. This significantly reduces the non-compliance from a 7-foot and 7-inch encroachment to a 2-foot and 7-inch encroachment.

The 8th standard is presentation. In order for the Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals to approve the variance, 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: Standard A is not met. According to Anchorage— municipality of Anchorage maps, This parcel has a gentle slope of 7%. There are Class C low valuation wetlands north of the subject parcel that do not extend into the subject parcel.

There are also no streams passing through the parcel. Therefore, there are no physical circumstances to this subject property that are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district. Standard B. Standard B is also not met. As established by Standard A, the parcel is not subject to any exceptional circumstances that are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district.

Thus, the strict application of this code will not impose exceptional or undue hardship upon the property owner and would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under terms of the zoning ordinance. However, it is notable that the property owner describes how the hot water heater, garage unit heater, and furnace are located in the encroachment— encroaching corner of the structure, and that the north wall is a there's a load-bearing plane. The, the parcel also borders undeveloped land in HLB ownership to the west and to the north. Standard C. Standard C is met. The current owner purchased the property with the encroachment.

The previous owner built the non-compliance structure and did not close out the building permit. The variance for this existing structure does not merely constitute an inconvenience for the property owner. Standard D is met. The proposed variance will not change the building envelope of the pre-existing subject structure. The variance application will close out an open building permit for the existing single-family home.

HLB provided comments of non-objection to the variance and noted the requested variance does not appear to adversely affect the planned use of HLB parcel 6-036, which is adjacent to the target parcel. The Planning Department did not receive any comments or objection to the granting of the variance from either public or reviewing agencies. Standard E. Standard E is met. This variance does not change the character of the zoning district and does not change— and does not permit a use not otherwise permitted in a GR-2 zoning district. The variance for this existing single-family home aligns with the overall intent of code.

Standard F. Standard F is met. The encroachment within the rear setback has no impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the municipality. The proposed variance will not change the existing building envelope and hence does not adversely affect the properties nearby. Standard G— Standard G is not applicable to a single-family residence and is thus met. Standard H is also met.

This is the minimum variance, 2 feet and 7 inches, that will allow the property owner to close the corresponding building property and use the single-family structure as intended. Other agency comments and public comments. Reviewing agency comments are included in Attachment 3, starting on page 26 of your packet. On page 33, the Heritage Land Bank provided comments of no— of non-objection to the variance. Recommendations: the department finds criteria— approval criteria C, D, E, F, G, and H are met, and A and B are not met.

Therefore, the department recommends denial of the variance. I can answer any questions of the board that the board may have, and the petitioner is in attendance. Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff by the board? Mr. Bennett, through the chair, what is the effect of, of not agreeing to the variance? The building already exists. Uh, what would have to occur because of the denial of the variance?

Through the chair, they would have to move the building to a place that makes the lot and the structure in compliance with code. Uh, second question, please. Um, the garage or the ADU, which is suggested but not proposed, uh, can a condition of the variance be met that the extent that the existence of the ADU or the garage does not intrude into the property setbacks. So that what essentially, by the maps and the drawings that have been provided, uh, if you extend the rear deck over the rear wall of the existing structure, it would more— it would have a greater impact on the setback than what is now preferred, so that you'd have to move the garage off of the back of the deck, back wall of the structure based on the, uh, 21 gets into the IF where it says that the any additional ADUs must meet the conditions of the setbacks. How does that play into this?

Through the chair, uh, this variance would only give— would only apply to the structure that is currently present. Any further development will have to abide by the, by the rules of Title 21, which would not allow them to extend or build in the setback. Thank you, Mr. Romardahl. Through the chair, do you happen to know the, the size, even the approximate size, of HLB Parcel 6-036 that the subject property borders?

Through the chair, while I do not recall the exact size of it, but it was a significantly large parcel. It's mostly densely forested, and it's— I, I assume it's more than a few acres, definitely. Yeah, thanks.

Any other question? Any other questions of staff? Okay, moving on.

Will the applicant Can please come forward and state your name and spell it for the record, please? You have to turn on the—. Yes, ma'am. My name is Travis Smith, T-R-A-V-I-S-S-M-I-T-H. Thank you.

Do you have any questions of staff at this point? I do not, but I did hear the prior question, and I believe it's a 200-plus acre parcel next to me that HLB owns. Oh. Good. Thank you.

Okay, um, please present your case. Um, uh, I, I bought this house and I didn't quite understand this process, and after purchasing it, I figured it out. And, um, the, the person I bought the house from is a commercial fisherman, and apparently the house was kind of a little bit off, jar from the driveway. And essentially the building I bought is a huge garage with a little tiny apartment on top of it, and they asked the builder to realign with the driveway such that they could get their commercial fishing gear in and out. And I don't know who dropped the ball or anything like that.

All I know is that I bought the house and part of it is not where it's supposed to be, and I'm here today to ask you all to please approve it. The variance. Can you, can you speak to, uh, Conditions A and B, um, why you think, um, uh, Condition A, why there is exceptional, extraordinarily extraordinary physical, uh, circumstances on your property that would allow us to approve the variance? I think perhaps, um, the property on the north and east side are wetlands, and I don't have an exact answer of why the, the prior owner, um, what they did would qualify for Section A beyond the fact that they messed up, I don't, you know, I don't. Okay, thank you.

You have 8 minutes for rebuttal should you need it at the end.

Okay, and so my next question is Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify in this case?

Case 2025-0092.

Seeing none.

If there's any— because you have an additional 8 minutes, is there anything else you want to say? Before I close the public hearing, um, I will, um, just add that, uh, we have no additional plans to build any extra buildings on this property, no extra ADUs. We just were planning on doing an infill in that building that exists to make it a house for my family. Okay, then with that, um, close the public hearing. And the matter rests with the board.

May I have a positive motion, please?

We don't have a little doodad yet. He's working on it.

Sure, I'll second. I'll make the motion. Madam Chair, hit the move. Oh, there. Okay, and will you please state your motion?

The motion is to approve the request for a dimensional variance from AMC 21.09.060, Table 2109-5, Table of Dimensional Standards at Girdwood Residential Districts, to allow the existing structure to encroach 2.7 feet— or 2 feet 7 inches into the required rear setback subject conditions 1 and 2 found on page 5 of the staff report. Seconded by Mr. Romerdel. Mr. Bennett, would you please speak to your motion? I, I think basically what we have here is a person who purchased some property a fairly distant long time ago. I'm not sure when, but obviously took it at face value as to what was being offered and what the agreements could be.

My only concern is that the— which has been resolved by saying that you're not going to build an ADU or a garage on the property— would be the further encroachment into the setback if the structure were to be extended out along the lines that already exist. And it appears that something was planned because the gravel— the line of demarcation for the gravel is perpendicular to the garage. Anticipated to put something in there. But if that's not the case, and I don't think we— it would be more costly and probably more damaging environmentally to remove that piece of setback and make the property meet the code than allowing it to exist as it is.

Thank you. Can you speak to each Condition. Oh, do I have to speak to each condition? As the mover, yes. I know, sorry.

As far as Condition A, I would agree with the staff. I would agree with the staff in terms of B as well.

The hardship is not self-imposed, although I might ask a question about self-imposed. C, the heart— or excuse me, that's C, the application creates exceptional A cost-effective measure is considered cost of hardship here. D, if granted, not adversely affecting different other properties. There is apparently no objection from anybody else and it doesn't appear to be much of an objection. It doesn't change the character or the intent or permitted use as per the E. For F, does not adversely affect the health and safety or welfare.

That's not appearing to be a consideration here. I didn't even consider disabilities because there is no application at this point. And the minimum variance possible, I don't know how you can do nothing more than what's already— leave— do anything more than what's already there.

But I'd like to point out, if you agree with staff on A and B, then all the standards are not substantially met. That's correct. And so you don't support—.

I don't— I'm not sure, ma'am— Madam Chair. Okay. I'm still puzzling that one. Okay. As to support, because of the relative influence around surrounding properties and the nature of the property itself.

So I'm hesitating and hedging my bets here a little bit. Okay, Mr. Romerdaal. Yeah, through the chair, I do intend to support the motion. Um, you know, the, the standards that are met, D through H, I agree with. On Standard C, that staff says is partially met, I, you know, generally it appears that it was not self-imposed given the applicant's testimony, so I would tend to say that that is met.

As for A and B, you know, it's kind of curious, but in a way I feel like— and that was my question on the adjoining HLB parcel— I think there is a peculiarity of this lot, and that's bordering 200 acres of, or plus acres of wetlands and other what I would consider non-developable lands, and that the, you know, that even the Gerdwood Long Range Plan classifies as open space. So as such, by the nature of that, I would make a, you know, a general assumption that that land is not to be developed. You know, you look at the idea and the spirit of a setback, it's really to limit or, you know, try and maintain a boundary and limit the impact of this parcel and development on this parcel of adjacent parcels in this case. I don't see how anything could ever happen to that HLB parcel adjacent to it that would be negatively impacted by the very— in the granting the variance of the development on this lot on the rear setback. Um, so on A and B, I— because of that, I know it's kind of a different interpretation of, um, exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances.

I do think that appears on this lot because of the relative nature of the adjacent parcel. Um, other than that, I, I would say, um, I, I think it's important to note the applicant's, I guess, desire, willingness in trying to limit the impact of the variance on the rear setback by taking into account the fact that they can kind of rob Peter to pay Paul on the front setback, and that he's able to do that by increasing that front setback. So, and in doing so, really limits that— the impact of the rear setback to 2 feet 7 inches. So, any other discussion?

Mr. Hale. To the Chair, just so I understand, we're basically— you're saying the extraordinary physical circumstances are the undeveloped probability of the adjacent parcel kind of rendering the setbacks kind of pointless.

I guess the, the impact of that setback, or lack thereof, doesn't have the same impact as it would in a, you know, in a fully developed residential subdivision where you're looking at a rear lot line bordering another rear lot line that's a developable or developed parcel. Yeah.

Interesting. Thanks.

Any other discussion?

Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Chair. I will just note that there were no public comments received. And I think that speaks to it also, that the community did not object.

Okay, are we ready for the question? Looks like it. The question is on the adoption of a variance, a dimensional variance, to allow existing structure to encroach 2 feet 7 inches into the required rear setback, subject to conditions 1 and 2 found on page 5 of the staff report. Staff report. A yes vote will grant the variance, a no vote will deny the variance.

Please vote.

There are 7 votes in the affirmative, there are 0 votes, um, in the negative. The variance is granted.

Alrighty, no reports. Board member comments?

Anybody knows anybody we need to, uh, we need more members because we're losing one. You don't need more surveyors. Oh, I don't know, I like surveyors. Okay, that's it. I would entertain a motion for adjournment.

Move to adjourn, Madam Chair. Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting about that part. Moved by Brian Bennett, seconded by Jason Norris. We are adjourned. I came tonight to be convinced is what I.