Griswold v. City Of Homer

925 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D adopted a comprehensive land use plan in 1983 and revised it in 1989. The City Council enacted zoning ordinances to implement the plans. Motor vehicle sales and services were not a permissible use within the Central Business District (CBD). Several businesses provided automobile services in the CBD before the City adopted the zoning ordinances. Those businesses were 'grandfathered' into the zoning district and allowed to continue to provide those services as nonconforming uses, so long as those uses did not extend beyond the original lot boundaries and the property owners did not discontinue their nonconforming uses for more than one year. Guy Rosi Sr. owns Lot 13 in the CBD and has continuously operated an automobile repair service on the lot. He also operated an automobile dealership on Lot 13 until sometime prior to 1990 but lost the right to continue that nonconforming use on that lot by discontinuing the vehicle sales business for more than one year. Guy Rosi Jr. owns Lot 12, which is adjacent to his father's lot. Lot 12 is also in the CBD. In 1986 D received complaints that Lot 12 was being used for vehicle sales in violation of the zoning ordinance. In May 1986 Rosi Jr. applied to the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit for Lot 12. It denied the application. Rosi Jr. then applied for a contract rezone under Homer City Code (HCC) 21.63.020(c). The City granted the application in 1986, rezoning Rosi Jr.'s lot to General Commercial 1 (GC1) and restricting its use to vehicle sales. Rosi Sr.'s Lot 13 was not affected by the Lot 12 contract rezone. In September 1990 Rosi Sr. requested that the CBD be rezoned to allow vehicle sales and related services. In April 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance 92-18, which amended HCC 21.48.020 by adding automobile and vehicle repair, vehicle maintenance, public garage, and motor vehicle sales, showrooms, and sales lots, but only on Main Street from Pioneer Avenue to the Homer Bypass Road, excluding corner lots with frontage on Pioneer Avenue or the Homer Bypass Road, be allowed as a permitted use. Brian Sweiven was one of the council members voting for the amendment. He owned one of the thirteen lots on which automobile sales and services were to be allowed under Ordinance 92-18. Sweiven both lived on his lot and operated an appliance repair business there. P owns an automobile repair shop in the CBD that was grandfathered in under the zoning code. He also lives in the CBD. P's lot was not affected by Ordinance 92-18. P claimed that Ordinance 92-18 is an invalid exercise of the City's zoning power and that Sweiven's participation in the adoption of Ordinance 92-18 invalidates the Ordinance. The superior court found against P on all issues. P appealed.