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