Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals Meeting - August 15, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals Meeting - August 15, 2025
The Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals (ZEBA) met on August 15, 2025, at 4:53 PM. The board addressed two main agenda items: a request for additional public notice for an upcoming appeal hearing concerning the sale of hay at large domestic animal facilities, and a public hearing for a dimensional variance application in Girdwood. Both items resulted in unanimous votes in favor.
Discussion Items
- Appeal Notification for Case 2025-0104 (Hay Sales Interpretation): The planning department presented a request from the appellant (represented by attorney Alex Kubitz) for additional notification of the September 11 appeal hearing. The appeal challenges a director's interpretation that the retail sale of hay and feed is not permitted as commercial activity accessory to a large domestic animal facility (LDAF). The appellant requested that all LDAFs on residential property within the municipality be notified, in addition to the standard 500-foot radius notice. Staff explained that the board could prescribe rules for additional notice if a decision would have a substantial effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Board members discussed the scope of notification, the cost and feasibility, and the importance of informing potentially affected parties. The board ultimately voted to approve additional notification by mail to all LDAFs on residential property within the municipality, on top of the standard 500-foot radius notice.
- Public Hearing – Case 2025-0092 (Travis Smith Dimensional Variance): Staff presented a request for a dimensional variance to allow an existing single-family residence to encroach 2 feet 7 inches into the required 10-foot rear setback in the Girdwood GR2 district. The property owner, Travis Smith, explained that the previous owner built the structure non-compliantly and that he discovered the issue after purchase. Staff found that standards A and B (physical circumstances and exceptional hardship) were not met, but standards C through H were met or not applicable. The applicant testified that there were no plans for additional structures. No public testimony was offered. Board members discussed the nature of the adjacent Heritage Land Bank parcel (undevelopable wetlands) and the applicant's use of setback flexibility to reduce the encroachment. The board voted unanimously to grant the variance subject to conditions one and two in the staff report.
Key Outcomes
- Vote on Appeal Notification (Case 2025-0104): Approved additional notification by mail to all large domestic animal facilities on residential property within the municipality, in addition to the standard 500-foot radius notice. Motion carried 7-0.
- Vote on Dimensional Variance (Case 2025-0092): Approved the variance to allow the existing structure to encroach 2 feet 7 inches into the required rear setback, subject to conditions. Motion carried 7-0.
- Next Steps: The planning department will send out the standard and additional notices for the appeal hearing scheduled for September 11, 2025. The variance approval closes the open building permit for the subject property.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, and welcome to the municipality of Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals. Will the Secretary please call the role? Dave Hale? Here. Ellen McKay? Here. Andrew Romerdal? Here. Brian Bennett. Here. Craig Bennett. Here. Jonathan Lane. 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'll accuse myself from any resolutions voted on today. I'm not sure that there are any, but there are. So that doesn't make any difference in it. And the next item is an item that was laid on the table. So will the staff please present this item. Yes, thank you, Adam Chair. So there the planning department has received an appeal of a director's interpretation memo. So that interpretation memo, uh it looked at uh the sale of hay as it's associated with large domestic animal facilities. The director's interpretation said it did not fall uh like it 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. Uh the planning department then has received an appeal of that decision, and this appeal is scheduled for the September 11th uh ZEBA 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 it'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 Zeba 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 Zeba 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 uh the board to consider effects on neighbors of the appellant. Uh the board should contemplate whether the decision for notice uh uh would have a substantial effect on neighbors of Alaska Hand 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. Um the decision ZBA 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 uh 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 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 uh examples of what forms of additional notifications. So we could um try to highlight it on the planning department's website. Um we could try to get uh a mailing list.
openpublica.com