Opinion ID: 2583951
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Previous proceedings regarding the Eklutna quarry

Text: The larger of the two Eklutna knobs has been the subject of two previous appeals before this court. In July 1995 the National Bank of Alaska, which owned part of the quarry operated by the Railroad, filed an application for a conditional use permit to conduct a granite mining operation there. [5] The Municipality of Anchorage's Planning and Zoning Commission approved the conditional use permit, and the Anchorage Board of Adjustment and the superior court affirmed this decision. [6] We reversed and remanded in 2000, concluding that the Board's finding that `no cultural resources will be adversely affected' was unsupported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. [7] The second case, Alaska Railroad Corp. v. Native Village of Eklutna, arose after the Railroad entered into a licensing agreement in 1995 granting Damco Paving Corporation the exclusive use of the quarry for commercial quarrying operations in exchange for the Railroad receiving royalty payments for the rock quarried. [8] In 1997 Eklutna filed suit to enjoin Damco's quarrying operations, alleging that the quarry was a nonconforming use of the land and that neither the Railroad nor Damco had sought a conditional use permit to proceed with the commercial quarrying operation. [9] In May 1999 the superior court granted judgment in favor of Eklutna, requiring Damco to obtain a conditional use permit before it could continue with quarrying operations. [10] We affirmed in February 2002. [11] Not addressed in that decision was the question now before us: whether the Railroad enjoys sovereign immunity from local zoning laws in its own operation of the quarry.