South Anchorage Coalition v. Coffey

27 Citing cases

  1. Eklutna v. Board of Adjustment

    995 P.2d 641 (Alaska 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Setting out established standards of review for zoning board decisions, including "a presumption of validity" for the decisions and "considerable deference" to "a zoning board's interpretation of zoning ordinances and planning documents" (quoting S. Anchorage Concerned Coal., Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 173 & n.12 (Alaska 1993))

    " 862 P.2d 168 (Alaska 1993).Id. at 173.

  2. Zenk v. City & Borough of Juneau

    Supreme Court No. S-16118 (Alaska Jun. 28, 2017)

    "In a case that involves a zoning board's interpretation of zoning ordinances and planning documents, [we] will give such interpretations 'considerable deference.' "Native Vill. of Eklutna v. Bd. of Adjustment for Municipality of Anchorage, 995 P.2d 641, 643 (Alaska 2000) (quoting S. Anchorage Concerned Coal., Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 173 (Alaska 1993)). Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Coffey, 862 P.2d at 173).

  3. Griswold v. City of Homer

    55 P.3d 64 (Alaska 2002)   Cited 9 times

    The zoning body's decision shall not be reversed if it is supported by substantial evidence.South Anchorage Concerned Coalition, Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 173 (Alaska 1993).Id.; Galt v. Stanton, 591 P.2d 960, 962-63 (Alaska 1979).

  4. Anchorage Board of Adjustment v. LBJ, LLC

    228 P.3d 87 (Alaska 2010)

    Questions that do involve agency expertise are reviewed to determine if they have a reasonable basis.Anchorage Concerned Coal., Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 173 (Alaska 1993); AS 29.40.060; AMC 21.30.180(A), 190.Raad v. State Comm'n for Human Rights, 86 P.3d 899, 903 (Alaska 2004).

  5. Faulk v. Board of Equalization

    934 P.2d 750 (Alaska 1997)   Cited 6 times
    Noting court can look to record in reviewing sufficiency of agency's findings

    In answering that question, "[t]he test of sufficiency is . . . a functional one: do the [agency's] findings facilitate this court's review, assist the parties and restrain the agency within proper bounds?" South Anchorage Concerned Coalition, Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 175 (Alaska 1993). "[I]n the usual case findings of fact [are] required even in the absence of a statutory duty. . . ."

  6. Griswold v. City of Homer

    925 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1996)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that a suit challenging alleged spot zoning served to vindicate the strong public policy of ensuring that zoning ordinances are not arbitrary or capricious

    However, we will invalidate zoning decisions which are the result of prejudice, arbitrary decision-making, or improper motives. See South Anchorage Concerned Coalition v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 174 (Alaska 1993) ("In reviewing zoning decisions, courts generally try to guard against prejudice, arbitrary decision-making, and improper motives.") (citing 3 Edward H. Ziegler Jr., Rathkoph's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 41.06, at 41-29, § 41.14(3)(b), at 41-93 (1992)). Similarly, a legislative body's zoning decision violates substantive due process if it has no reasonable relationship to a legitimate government purpose.

  7. Lazy Mountain Land Club v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Board of Adjustment & Appeals

    904 P.2d 373 (Alaska 1995)   Cited 16 times

    The legitimate function of a zoning regulation is to implement a plan for the future development of the community.").South Anchorage Concerned Coalition, Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 174 (Alaska 1993); see also Roseta v. County of Washington, 254 Or. 161, 458 P.2d 405, 409 (1969) ("[M]any of the evils in zoning practice can be ameliorated by a judicial insistence upon the zoning board's compliance with the statutory requirement that any changes in the zoning ordinance be made `in accordance with a comprehensive plan.'"). This vision of land use regulation is evident in Alaska's statutory language.

  8. Griswold v. Homer Advisory Planning Comm'n

    484 P.3d 120 (Alaska 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Id. (quoting Jager v. State , 537 P.2d 1100, 1107 n.23 (Alaska 1975) ).Griswold v. City of Homer , 55 P.3d 64, 67-68 (Alaska 2002) (quoting S. Anchorage Concerned Coal., Inc. v. Coffey , 862 P.2d 168, 173 (Alaska 1993) ).Fantasies on 5th Ave., LLC v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. , 446 P.3d 360, 367 (Alaska 2019).

  9. Horan v. Peninsula Borough Bd. of Equaliz

    247 P.3d 990 (Alaska 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Noting that whether or not to apply tax credits in the valuation of real estate has not been a unanimously accepted process in all states and summarizing the split among the out-of-state courts on the issue

    Alvarez v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 28 P.3d 935, 938 (Alaska 2001) (citing Ayele v. Vnisea. Inc. 980 P.2d 955, 957 n. 2 (Alaska 1999)).Faulk v. Bd. of Equalization, 934 P.2d 750, 751 (Alaska 1997) (quoting S. Anchorage Concemed Coal., Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 175(Alaska 1993)).See id. (citing S. Anchorage Concerned Coal., Inc., 862 P.2d at 175 and Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 518 P.2d 92, 97 (Alaska 1974)).

  10. Faulk v. Borough

    Supreme Court No. S-12729 (Alaska Oct. 15, 2008)

    KPBC 05.12.060(O).S. Anchorage Concerned Coal., Inc. v. Coffey, 862 P.2d 168, 175 (Alaska1993).Faulk I, 934 P.2d at 751 (internal quotations omitted).