In Griswold v. Homer Board of Adjustment,[1] the supreme court held that standing determinations concerning an “aggrieved person” is interpreted broadly, despite the legislature limiting standing in similarly related land-use decisions. Griswold appealed the Homer Advisory Planning Commission’s decision to grant a conditional use permit to another property within his zoning district to the Homer Board of Adjustment (Board), which was rejected for lack of standing. The Board ruled that because Griswold was unable to show how he was confronted with adverse effects different than his neighbors, Griswold was not an “aggrieved person” under Homer City Code, warning otherwise that any person in a zoning district would have standing to appeal zoning decisions. The Board’s decision was upheld by the superior court, who awarded Attorneys’ fees to the Board. The supreme court noted that standing doctrine is typically interpreted broadly, while acknowledging that the inquiry has been limited by statute for land-use decisions. However, the court held that an “aggrieved person” within land-use decisions still falls under the traditionally broad inquiry in favor of increased accessibility to courts. Because the Homer City Code holds no requirement of evidentiary burdens on those making claims as an aggrieved person and even allows claims that a decision “could have” changed a property-owner’s value or enjoyment of property, the causation chain that must be shown to prove standing is “minimal.” The supreme court reversed the superior court, holding that standing determinations for an “aggrieved person” warrant the traditionally broad interpretation.
[1] 440 P.3d 428 (Alaska 2019).
