Opinion ID: 2583951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alaska State Government Activities Are Exempt from Local Regulation in the Absence of a Statute Subjecting Them to Local Regulation.

Text: The traditional view is that state agencies are immune from municipal zoning in the absence of a statute making them subject to municipal zoning. [1] As the following discussion of the history of AS 35.30.020 and .030 will make clear, the Alaska Legislature has accepted this rule in enacting these statutory sections and their precursors. I start with these sections as they appear now. Alaska Statute 35.30.020 provides: A department shall comply with local planning and zoning ordinances and other regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as other landowners. Alaska Statute 35.30.030 provides: If a department clearly demonstrates an overriding state interest, waiver of local planning authority approval and the compliance requirement may be granted by the governor. The governor shall issue specific findings giving reasons for granting any waiver under this section. There are two other sections in AS 35.30. Both of them are helpful in understanding AS 35.30.020 and .030. Alaska Statute 35.30.010 provides: (a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, before commencing construction of a public project, (1) if the project is located in a municipality, the department shall submit the plans for the project to the planning commission of the municipality for review and approval; (2) if the project is located within two miles of a village, the department shall submit the plans to the village council for review and comment; (3) if the project is located within one-half mile of the boundary of an area represented by a community council established by municipal charter or ordinance, the department shall submit the plans to the community council for review and comment. (b) Prior approval by a municipal planning commission may not be required before the commencement of construction of a highway or local service road if (1) the department and the municipality have entered into agreement for the planning of the project under AS 19.20.060 or 19.20.070 and the plans for the project are completed in accordance with the terms of that agreement; (2) the municipality has adopted a municipal master highway plan under AS 19.20.080 and the highway or local service road is consistent with the plan adopted; or (3) the department has entered into agreement with the municipality for the planning of transportation corridors under AS 19.20.015 and the plans for the project are completed in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. (c) If final disapproval by resolution of the governing body of the affected municipality or village is not received within 90 days from the date the project was submitted to the municipality or village, the department may proceed with the project. The other section is AS 35.30.040. It provides: In this chapter (1) public project means a public building or other structure, public work, or other facility, highway, or local service road constructed or maintained by a department; the term includes the acquisition by purchase or agreement of land and rights in land for materials and the extraction or removal of materials necessary for completion of a highway under AS 19.05.080-19.05.120; (2) village means an unincorporated community of the unorganized borough where at least 25 people reside as a social unit. The definitions section of Title 35 is also important. Alaska Statute 35.95.100(3) provides: In this title, unless the context requires otherwise, ... (3) department means the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities[.] The substance of present day AS 35.30.020 and 35.30.030 were first enacted in 1975. Chapter 96, section 1, SLA 1975. The features now found separately in sections .020 and .030, the duty of compliance and waiver of compliance, were both incorporated in a single section, AS 35.10.020. As it was enacted in 1975, this section read: Before the construction of a public works in a municipality, the department shall confer with the planning commission of the municipality to determine that the welfare of the public is properly protected and its agencies and instrumentalities shall comply with all local planning and zoning ordinances and the local regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as other landowners. However, if a state agency clearly demonstrates an overriding state interest, a waiver to the compliance requirements may be granted by the governor. The history of the 1975 version of AS 35.10.020 began in 1957. Chapter 152 Laws of Alaska 1957, Title III, article 3, section 2, required the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities' territorial predecessor, the Alaska Highway and Public Works Board, to confer prior to the construction of any public work within a municipality with the planning commission of such municipality to determine that the welfare of the public is properly protected. There was no requirement that the board also comply with local planning and zoning ordinances, only that it confer. A change with respect to local building codes took place in 1968. Chapter 89, section 1, SLA 1968, was enacted requiring compliance with local building codes, but not local zoning ordinances. The 1968 enactment was codified as AS 35.10.025. As enacted it read, and still reads, as follows: A public building shall be built in accordance with applicable local building codes including the obtaining of required permits. This section applies to all buildings of the state and corporate authorities of the state. [2] An important change was made to AS 35.10.020 in 1974. [3] Previously, as noted, the highway board, and after statehood, the department, had to confer with local authorities to determine that the welfare of the public was properly protected prior to going forward with construction in a municipality. In 1974 an additional requirement was imposed relating to compliance with zoning ordinances. Under the new requirement, uses of property sold or leased by the state to other than a public entity had to comply with local zoning ordinances as long as the property was held in private use. In full, as amended in 1974, AS 35.10.020 provided: Before the construction of a public works in a municipality, the department shall confer with the planning commission of the municipality to determine that the welfare of the public is properly protected. Real property of the state which is leased, sold, exchanged, or otherwise transferred for value to other than a public entity shall conform so long as held in private use to local planning and zoning ordinances and regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as real property of other landowners subject to the local ordinances and regulations, unless the local ordinances and regulations are less stringent than comparable state standards. (Emphasis added.) Having described the history of AS 35.10.020 thus far, it is worthwhile to ask whether a reasonable argument could be made in light of AS 35.10.020 as it existed in 1974 that projects on state land that remained in state hands were required to comply with local planning and zoning ordinances. The answer is clear that they were not. The unmistakable meaning of section.020 as of the 1974 amendment is that while projects on state land that had been transferred for private use were required to conform with local zoning ordinances so long as held in private use, projects on state land not held in private use did not have to conform to local zoning requirements. The 1974 amendment clearly illustrates the rule that state projects are exempt from local zoning unless a statute provides otherwise. As described above, in 1975 AS 35.10.020 was amended again. Instead of being limited to state property that had been transferred for private use, the requirement of compliance with local planning and zoning ordinances subject to a waiver granted by the governor was made generally applicable. In 1976 another change was made that again illustrates legislative acceptance of the rule of general immunity. In 1976 the University of Alaska was made subject to AS 35.10.020. [4] As amended in 1976 the statute had the familiar form of the 1975 act requiring both a conference with local officials and compliance with local ordinances, with the latter subject to gubernatorial waiver. The statute read: Before the construction of a public works in a municipality, or a building or other structure by the University of Alaska in a municipality, the department or the University of Alaska, as appropriate, shall confer with the planning commission of the municipality to determine that the welfare of the public is properly protected. The University of Alaska or the department and its agencies and instrumentalities shall comply with all local planning and zoning ordinances and the local regulations in the same manner and to the same extent as other landowners. However, if a state agency or the University of Alaska clearly demonstrates an overriding state interest, a waiver to the compliance requirements may be granted by the governor. The University was added to the coverage of AS 35.10.020 because it took the position that it did not have to comply with local planning and zoning ordinances and the legislature thought it was desirable that the University be required to so comply. [5] The rule that state government entities are not subject to local zoning in the absence of a statute is illustrated by the 1976 amendment. The University had taken the position that it was not subject to zoning because no statute provided that it was subject to zoning. The legislature implicitly accepted the University's view that it was not subject to zoning but decided that as a policy matter that the University should be subject to zoning and amended AS 35.10.020 to include the University. Nothing occurred to indicate that the legislature had altered the general rule of immunity in 1984 when the legislature enacted the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act. [6] As a part of that act, AS 42.40.920 specifically provided that Title 35 of the Alaska Statutes would not apply to the Railroad. Thus AS 35.30.020 and .030 do not apply to the Railroad. This exemption put the Railroad in the position that the University had been in prior to the 1976 amendment, and in the position that all state projects had been in prior to the 1975 amendmentimmune from local planning and zoning ordinances. Having stated this conclusion, I do not mean to imply that no changes were made between 1976 and 1984 to AS 35.30.020 and.030. There was a change in 1977, but it did nothing to erode the principle that state agencies do not have to comply with local zoning unless required by statute. The change is interesting because it laid the groundwork for a broadening in the coverage of AS 35.30.020. In 1977, AS 35.30.020 as it had existed was broken into two parts, with .020 requiring compliance with local planning ordinances and .030 providing for a waiver by the governor. Other changes were also made. Instead of referring to the department as previously, .020 was written in its present form referring to a department. Likewise, the waiver provisions put in .030 referred to a department. In the definitions section of the 1977 enactment, AS 35.30.040(1) stated: In this chapter (1) `department' means the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the University of Alaska. But this was changed in 1987. Alaska Statute 35.30.040(1) was repealed. [7] This was the section that defined the department in the 1977 act to include the University of Alaska. Did this mean that the 1987 legislature no longer intended the University of Alaska to be subject to local zoning ordinances? Or did it mean that the legislature believed that without the definition the University would be covered because it is a department? It is clear that no substantive change was intended. The changes were described by the title of the act as merely corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes. In a memorandum dated May 17, 1987, the revisor wrote that section AS 35.30.040(1) was proposed for repeal because the definition of department was redundant to a definition in AS 35.25.020 that applies to all of AS 35. [8] In the same memo the revisor refers to section 57, among other sections, as a section that repeal[s] provisions that are duplicated by other applicable law, and make[s] conforming changes in related provisions. [9] Since the 1987 amendment disclaims any intent to make a substantive change, it seems that the revisor interpreted a department in AS 35.30.020 and .030 to include all departments of state government, including the University of Alaska. Otherwise the change would have been substantive, deleting the University from coverage of the statute. As the legislature enacted the change suggested by the revisor, the legislature endorsed the revisor's view. It thus appears that AS 35.30.020 and .030 now include all departments of state government that are not excluded by other statutes. But this interpretation is not central to the main premise of this dissent, which is simply that the evolution of .020 and .030 plainly shows that the legislature has accepted the traditional rule that state entities that are not made subject to local zoning by statute are not subject to local zoning. [10] In summary, the history related above shows that state entities and state activities not covered by .020 and .030 and their predecessors were assumed and intended by the legislature to be immune from local zoning. Acceptance of the rule of immunity is clearly shown in 1974 when state lands conveyed or leased to private entities were made subject to local zoning so long as they remained in private hands, but state lands not meeting these conditions remained immune from local zoning. It is also clearly shown in 1976 when the legislature included the University in the coverage of .020 because the University was not originally included and it was thought desirable to make the University comply with local zoning. Nothing occurred in the intervening years between the 1974, 1975, and 1976 enactments and 1984 to change the rule of general state immunity. Thus when the legislature enacted the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act and exempted the Railroad from coverage by .020 and .030, the Railroad retained the immunity from local zoning that it had as an instrumentality of the federal government because no statute made it subject to local zoning.