Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals Meeting – October 9, 2026

The Municipality of Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals met on October 9, 2026, to consider variance requests for a property in Girdwood (Case 2026-0125, petitioner Elliaska Serendipity LLC). The board also approved prior meeting minutes and a consent agenda with two resolutions.

Consent Calendar

• The board approved the minutes from September 10, 2026, by unanimous consent.
• The consent agenda, containing two resolutions, was approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Derek Brewer (adjacent property owner) objected to the variances, arguing the hardships were self-imposed and the applicant sought to maximize density on a constrained lot. He expressed concerns about impacts to drainage, utility easements, and the watershed.
• Nancy Elrod (civil engineer, downstream neighbor) argued the application fails to satisfy standards D, F, and H, noting that proposed sheet piling and vegetation removal would constrict stream flow and increase runoff. She stated the design does not comply with Title 20 runoff requirements.
• Will Brennan (across-street neighbor) opposed the variances, stating the proposed 4,700 sq ft of living space is not the minimum reasonable use and is out of scale with the neighborhood. He asserted that the hardship was self-imposed because the structural deficiencies were apparent at purchase.
• Mike Edgington (former Girdwood Board of Supervisors member) commented that stream-crossed lots are common in Girdwood and that the scale of the project far exceeds what is typical. He expressed concern that the variance would not result in a net benefit to the stream setback. The board also acknowledged written comments from the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and other individuals.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Staff described the three requested variances, noted that the existing structure had non-conforming rights, and explained that the department recommended denial for variances 1 and 2 (because standard H was only partially met) and recommended approval for variance 3.
• Applicant Presentation: The applicants (Todd and Wendy Moe, with architect Marco Zaccaro) described their goal of creating a generational family home providing workforce housing, detailed the site constraints (stream bisecting the lot, steep slopes, utility easements), and explained their efforts to minimize impacts through thoughtful design and coordination with watershed management.
• Board Deliberation:
  • Procedural Motions: A motion to consider all three variances together failed (2-4). A subsequent motion to split variance one into two parts (house addition and garage/ADU) passed (6-0).
  • Variance 1, Part 1 (house addition encroaching 4.5 ft into stream setback): The board found that all eight criteria were satisfied, and the variance was approved (6-0).
  • Variance 1, Part 2 (garage/ADU encroaching 14 ft into stream setback): Board members expressed concerns about self-imposed hardship and whether criteria C and H were satisfied. The variance was denied (2-4).
  • Variance 2 (footbridge crossing the stream): The board agreed that all criteria were met, and the variance was approved (6-0). Several members noted the footbridge was necessary to provide access to the home.
  • Variance 3 (garage/ADU encroaching 5 ft into front and side setbacks): The department recommended approval, but after discussion about the appropriateness of the ADU under Girdwood-specific code and the linkage to the denied stream-setback component, the variance was denied (3-3; five votes required).

Key Outcomes

• Approved: Variance for existing structure with addition to encroach 4.5 ft into the stream setback (6-0).
• Approved: Variance to allow a footbridge across the stream (6-0).
• Denied: Variance for detached garage with ADU to encroach 14 ft into the stream setback (2-4).
• Denied: Variance for detached garage with ADU to encroach 5 ft into front and side setbacks (3-3, insufficient votes).
• The board took no further action on the case; the applicant may revise and resubmit for the denied components.

The meeting concluded with board member comments thanking staff and participants for a complex discussion.