PROPERTY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Madison Detweiler
In Winco Anchorage Investors I, L.P. v. Huffman Building P, LLC, No. S-18582, 2024 WL 4402218 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that a party is not a “person aggrieved” with standing to appeal a zoning decision to the superior court just because (1) they are a “party of interest” with standing to appeal to the Zoning Board and (2) they have the interest of a business competitor. (Id. at 1). At the end of a 20-year lease to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Huffman Building P, LLC (Huffman) lost its bid to renew that lease to Winco Anchorage Investors I, LP (Winco). (Id.). The Planning Department approved USGS’s use in Winco’s warehouse as appropriate, so Huffman appealed that decision to the Zoning Board, but his appeal was denied. (Id.). Huffman then appealed to the superior court, which held that he did have standing for that appeal and remanded the case to the Zoning Board. (Id. at 3). Winco petitioned the Supreme Court for review on the issue of Huffman’s standing to appeal to the superior court. (Id.). Huffman argued that he was a “party aggrieved” because he was a “party of interest” that participated fully in the zoning process and lost his appeal of an adverse zoning decision. (Id. at 5). The supreme court explained the two-level Anchorage zoning appeals process allowed a “party of interest,” which includes a very broad range of people determined by the municipality, to appeal to the Zoning Board, but only a “person aggrieved,” a much narrower standard mandated by the legislature, to appeal to state courts. (Id. at 4). Thus, a “party of interest” is not always a “party aggrieved” because mere appearance before the Zoning Board does not make a person “aggrieved” with standing for further appeal since that is an opportunity available to everyone and the legislature defined “person aggrieved” more narrowly than that. (Id. at 5). Further, the court reasoned that standing based on potential business competition alone is not allowed because a more specific interest is needed to be a “person aggrieved” since zoning ordinances do not function to provide economic protection for businesses. (Id. at 7). Reversing the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that a party is not a “person aggrieved” with standing to appeal a zoning decision to the superior court just because (1) they are a “party of interest” with standing to appeal to the Zoning Board and (2) they have the interest of a business competitor. (Id. at 1).
