Opinion ID: 2335720
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Any Due Process Violations Committed By The Platting Board Were Cured By The Planning Commission Hearing.

Text: Gold Country argues that its due process rights were violated by the Platting Board. The Borough counters that even if the Platting Board's procedures were inadequate, the Planning Commission's de novo review of the Platting Board's decision cured any defect in due process. Under AS 29.20.020, a governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special meetings. While this provision does not require that the public be allowed to comment at every stage of the decision-making process, it does imply that the public should have the opportunity to respond to significant new evidence or information obtained by the governing body. [46] It is troubling that Gold Country was denied the opportunity to respond to conclusions drawn and observations made by the Board at the site visit; the failure to allow public comment after the site visit and before the Board voted to reconsider the proposal may have violated Gold Country's right to be heard. But we have held that a failure to afford due process can be cured by a subsequent hearing where due process is provided. [47] And at its April 19, 2005 de novo hearing, the Planning Commission heard testimony from both Kniffens, multiple experts they hired to advise on the Fox Bluffs development, the Platting Board's attorney, many members of the public generally, and Gold Country homeowners. The Commission also heard a comprehensive presentation by Gold Country's counsel. At the conclusion of that lengthy meeting, the Planning Commission voted six to two to deny Gold Country's appeal. We hold that this meeting complied with due process and gave Gold Country an adequate opportunity to be heard on the modified condition of the site lines, thus curing any due process violations that may have occurred at the Platting Board level. The primary support for Gold Country's argument that the Planning Commission's hearing did not cure the Platting Board's due process violations is that counsel for the Platting Board, Ms. Hagen, instructed both bodies to disregard Gold Country's evidence that use of a Gold Country subdivision lot for transit access violated the Gold Country plat and its covenants. Gold Country argues that Hagen thus relieved the Kniffens of their burden to show that their subdivision enjoyed legal access and improperly made herself a participant with the Board in decision-making. We disagree. First, before Hagen testified in front of the Planning Commission she reminded its members that she was speaking as an advocate for the Platting Board and was not purporting to advise the Commission. Second, and more fundamentally, Gold Country's argument that there could be no legal access to Fox Bluffs given the restrictive covenants confining Lot 5, Block 8 to residential use misses the mark. As Hagen explained to the Planning Commission, neither it nor the Platting Board had jurisdiction to determine or enforce Gold Country's protective covenants. [48] Moreover, under the Borough Code, legal access exists if an applicant dedicates sufficient land to provide access between the subdivision and the existing public road. [49] Because the Kniffens' application proposed dedicating sufficient land to provide access between Fox Bluffs subdivision and an existing public road (Bullion Drive), it appears that legal access existed for purposes of FNSBC 17.60.070(C)(1). Hagen's instructions to the Planning Commission did not mislead the Commission's members or violate due process. We hold that the Planning Commission hearing was sufficient to cure the alleged due process violations in the Platting Board's proceedings.