Court Opinion

ID: 9795727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:37:05.889951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:35:17.200011
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Chief Justice,
with whom BRYNER, Justice, joins, dissenting.
Does AMC 21.55.090, which applies only to nonconforming uses, apply to the railroad quarry? The majority answers "yes," concluding that the quarry was a nonconforming use when that section became effective. My answer is "no" because under GAABC 21.05.070(G) land uses existing when zoning was first imposed which are permissible as special exceptions in the use district where the land is located become, without further action, conforming uses. The quarry meets these qualifications because it preexisted zoning, lies in a U-use district, and quarries are permitted as special exceptions in U districts.
The central question in this case is whether the railroad quarry existed as a nonconforming use as of the institution of zoning in 1969. The answer is not to be found in GAABC 21.05.070(I).1 That subsection tells us the actions that mineral operations that are nonconforming uses must take to stay in business, but it does not tell us which mineral operations are nonconforming uses. The latter subject was addressed in GAABC 21.05.070(G). I set out this subsection at this point, along with GAABC 21.05.070(I), so that the reader can readily view both subsections in context:
GAABC 21.05.070(G) provided:
Uses Under Special Exception [2] Provisions Not Nonconforming Uses. A use existing before the effective date of this ordinance which is permitted as a Special Exception in a district under the terms of this ordinance shall not be deemed a nonconforming use in such district, but shall without further action be considered a conforming use. (Emphasis added.)
GAABC 21.05.070(I) provided in relevant part:
Mineral Resources Operations. Where exploitation of mineral resources exists as a nonconforming use, the following regulations shall govern:
(1) Time limitations on Mineral Resource Operations. Within one year from the effective date of this ordinance, either such use shall cease or the owners thereof shall prepare for submission to the Planning Commission, a plan for development and re-use of the operation site in conform*599ity with the provisions of See. 21,05.060(M)(5), which plan will result in phasing 'out the operation within a specified period.
Subsection .070(G) applied to the railroad quarry. The quarry was located in a U district when the ordinance went into effect. Mineral resource operations were permitted in U districts as a special exception.3 Since quarries were permitted as a special exception in a U district, they were not "deemed a nonconforming use in such district." 4 Instead, "without further action," under the express terms of subsection .070(G) they were to "be considered a conforming use." 5
The majority opinion disagrees with the conclusion that the railroad quarry became a conforming use at the advent of zoning under subsection .070(G). Op. at 596. It acknowledges that in U districts mineral resource operations were permitted as a special exception. Op. at 596. But it states that "[tlo qualify as a special exception, a mineral resource operation had to apply to the planning commission and submit an operations and amortization plan."6 Op. at 596. Because no application was submitted in the case of the railroad quarry, the majority concludes that "the quarry never qualified as a special exception and did not automatically become a lawful conforming use under GAABC 21.05.070(G)." Op. at 596. The majority thus reasons that an owner using property before the effective date of the ordinance which is permitted as a special exception in the district in which the land is placed must apply for a special exception in order to "automatically" obtain conforming use status. This, it seems to me, conflicts with subsection .070(G). That subsection states in clear terms that the preexisting use becomes a conforming use "without further action" when zoning is imposed.
Perhaps the majority has concluded sub silentio that natural resource extraction is a special type of special exception that is not covered by subsection .070(G). But such a conclusion would lack textual support. Subsection .070(G) speaks of special exceptions without differentiation, plainly implying that all special exceptions are meant to be included. Under that subsection only special exceptions for uses that did not preexist zoning must be applied for.7 Applications for those special exeeption uses must contain specified information setting out the details of the proposed use.8
*600To say, as the majority does, that preexisting uses that are permissible as special exceptions must have been applied for in order to qualify for "automatic" conforming use status is a contradiction in terms. Such a conclusion renders meaningless the provision in subsection .070(G@) that such a use "shall without further action be considered a conforming use."
Therefore, subsection .070(G) should be interpreted to mean what it says: Land uses in existence when zoning is first imposed which are permitted as special exceptions in the use district in which the land is located are not nonconforming uses. Instead, without further action they are considered conforming uses. The railroad quarry thus became a conforming use under subsection .070(G) when zoning was imposed in Eklutna. In turn, the quarry did not "exist[ ] as a nonconforming use" under subsection .07O(I) and therefore the requirements of subsection .070(I) did not apply to it. The amendments of August 9, 1977, contained in AMC 21.55.090, also do not apply to the quarry because section .090 only applies to mineral operations that exist "as a nonconforming use."
In summary, the railroad quarry existed as a conforming use rather than a nonconforming use. Since section .090 does not apply to the railroad quarry, the theory relied on by the majority is erroneous. As this was also the theory on which summary judgment was granted by the superior court, the judgment should be reversed and this case should be remanded for further proceedings.

. Actually as originally enacted in 1969 the section in question was GAABC 21-7(I), but this was soon recodified without change as GAABC 21.05.070(I). See note 27 of the majority opinion. I will use the recodified numbering system to avoid confusion because it is used by the majority opinion.

. In 1977 the term "Special Exception" as used in the zoning ordinance was changed to the term "Conditional Use." The terms are synonymous, for the definition of "Special Exception" became the definition of "Conditional Use." Both terms are defined as: "A provision which allows for flexibility within the zoning ordinance by permitting certain specified uses in zoning districts where such uses are generally considered appropriate, but only after additional controls and safeguards are applied to insure their compatibility with permitted principal uses."

. GAABC 21.05.050(8)(4)(d).

. GAABC 21.05.070(G).

. Id. By contrast, if at the advent of zoning the quarry had been located, for example, in an R-1 district where mineral resource operations were flatly prohibited-that is, not permitted even by special exception-then the quarry would have become a nonconforming use. As such, the operation of the quarry would have been governed by GAABC 21.05.070(I) as well as 21.05.070(A) and (C). The operation in the Alagco case, discussed by the majority on pages 593-594, was in an R-l zone and thus was a nonconforming use. See Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. Alaska Aggregate Corp., No. 74-4496 Ci. (Alaska Super., 3d Dist., Anchorage, June 16, 1975) at 2-3.

. The amortization plan is evidently a reference to one of the requirements of an application for a natural resource extraction special exception. The application must contain a narrative statement setting forth the "[eJstimated length of time necessary to complete the operation." GAABC 21.05.060(M)(5)(b)(iv).

. GAABC 21.05.080(G).

. See, eg., GAABC 21.05.060(M)(1)(b) requiring site plans for hospitals, nursing and rest homes and - similar - institutions - and - GAABC 21.05.060(M)(6)(c) requiring site plans for storage yards. All of the special exception uses for a U district are subject to various conditions and procedures under GAABC 21.05.050(8)(4):
Subject to the requirements of the special exception procedures of this ordinance, the following uses may be permitted:
a. Mobile home parks, subject to the provisions of Section 21.05 .060(M)(11).
b. Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards and salvage yards; subject to the provisions of Section 13.25.100 (Junkyards) of this code.
c. Noxious, injurious or hazardous uses, as defined in Section 21.05.060(8)(5); provided, however, that the Planning Commission may grant a special exception for such uses when it finds that the public health, safety, welfare and convenience will be adequately protected by location, topography, fencing, buffering or by observation of protective performance standards that effectively remove the proposed use from classification as a nuisance.
d. Natural resource extraction, subject to the provisions of Section 21.05.060(M)(5). e. Uses concerned with alcoholic beverage sales and dispensing allowed as special exceptions pursuant to Section 21.05.060(N).