Fairbanks borough planners eye process for property 'grandfather' rights
Published Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — Public planners are looking to refine the process used to figure out when landowners can employ “grandfather” property rights to stray from prescriptions in land-use laws.
Grandfather rights, when applicable, give a property owner elbow room even if his or her activities conflict with the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s zoning rules. This includes instances such as if a landowner has a chicken coop on property where borough law prohibits agriculture or if a property owner’s house sits nearer to property lines than rules in that neighborhood allow.
If it’s been going on since before the zoning rules applied, grandfather rights give the landowner a pass. The case-by-case process used to determine when grandfather rights apply can be tedious.
Under the proposal, the borough would require a landowner or real estate specialist to apply and pay $250 before public planners would figure out whether such rights apply to a property.
The borough would need to inform the property owner’s neighbors before issuing an administrative decision on the application. The proposal also would iron out wrinkles on a variety of conditions placed on grandfather rights.
“It makes the process of obtaining grandfather rights simple, it makes it transparent, it makes it fair and it makes it consistent,” Bernardo Hernandez, the borough’s lead planner, told the Borough Assembly last week.
Public planners proposed the change in law following a question about whether Dogs Bar had grandfather rights at its previous location off the Steese Expressway.
The proposal has drawn concern from residents wary of changes to land-use laws. The assembly on Thursday directed the Planning Department to hold public informational meetings on the proposal in rural neighborhoods around town. A schedule of meetings has yet to be compiled.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
So tacking on a new $250.00 fee is "fair" and "consistent"? It's truly amazing how the mind of the bureaucrat works.
Well, it's easier to be fair and consistent if the borough alienates potential filers so you have fewer applications. The borough can accomplish this by browbeating the poorer people who might live on the older, more questionable properties into not applying. I'm sure the planners would much rather deal with people who want to extend their porches all the way around the house than the ones who want to raise goats in the backyard.
This proposal also helps ensure that the people who apply have the means to comply with the planners, at least to meet them halfway. If more people would just do what they're told in the first place, this wouldn't be so complicated
Furthermore, if someone actually can cough up the $250, then the borough gets a little extra to throw on the pile, and that benefits everyone, right?
"If more people would just do what they're told in the first place, this wouldn't be so complicated"
I hope this is sarcasm.
The dimwits down at the borough building have never heard that the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. Article 1 Section 9, C.3.
Put your money where your mouth is. I challenge you too.
If you go out to where Cold Spot feed had its store at the end of Fleshman Rd you will see a fence going across the road. The fence came about because they built the store in the middle of the road along with a storage shed.
The people who used to live next door contested it, along with the residents of the road as far as her store being in a residential neighborhood. SO they put a fence down middle of the right of way.
Why should that be put to the test? This never passed a zoning commission. A state trooper by the name of Mallard came out and told everyone to leave it alone, that they could build the fence down the middle of the road and if they had a problem to contact him directly. The neighbor moved.
Why? Because necessary amount of room required for an emergency vehicle to have on a right of way was no longer available, it had been cut in half with no compensation. There ability to be provided the same safety as their neighbors was given away without a hearing. If a fire where to happen, no way to gain proper access to the property.
Native son- they probably are aware of it, who has the money to challenge it in court? That is the gamble they take.
it's one thing if the roads and sidewalks or other houses have been built after the fact.
like i am sure alot of the cabins along 1st ave probably aren't within code but they were here first....
now the question should be does the original family or business owner still have said property... i am thinking if not and the changes can easily be made then no grandpa...
but IF GRANDPA OWNED IT THEN HEY THE GRANDKIDS CAN LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS AND just bring the thing up to code as far as safety (electical and blah blah blah)
What about grandma rights?
Should read...
"Public planners are trying to strip you of your rights."
"Planners" anyway. "Plan" is one of those four letter words that'll get you in trouble around here. More like "Greedy Beaurocrats Pushing Through Their Own Agendas".
New "fee" my eye. For crying out loud: If these public servants want more money, they need to start ASKING for it!
Yes, NativeSon, that was sarcasm. I think it's despicable that bureaucrats are trying to throw up roadblocks between property owners and their rights so that planner can more easily zone them out of existence.
I own a pretty old house myself and there's a definitely-less-than-code distance between some structures and the property line. If I could figure out a way to stick a cell tower in there, I would.
Or this "Borough Working to Eliminate Property Rights.
With the 13 highest property taxes in the United States we can never own our own land within the borough. Protection of property rights is one reason that I'm supporting Tammie Wilson for mayor. As the current administration presses on it will not be long until we need building permits to build a shed or approval from the assembly to cut down a tree in our front yards.
This is a truly horrible idea. It should cost someone $250 to challenge someones grandfather rights. The fact that the borough could possibly think this is legal is truly scary. In the Fairbanks townsite MOST homes and lots don't meet the current zoning requirements, particularly setbacks. So nobody downtown coughs up $250 to keep the RIGHTS THEY ALREADY HAVE, then all of townsite homes and businesses are forced to be torn down?
What makes this even more horrible, is the FNSB has had a habit of forcing rezones on people, and even when the FNSB does it in an illegal manner, the person that is wronged better be able to risk the ~$20,000 of legal fees they could be stuck with if they take it to court. This keeps the non-rich, non-connected, from being able to do absolutely anything about being illegally re-zoned, even when the FNSB KNOWS they didn't follow their own borough ordinances and state laws.
No $250.
It's much worse than the article lets on. You will not be able to even put outside insulation on your house or building if it is in non-conformance. By the way that's the word they use (non-conforming), they have taken Grandfather rights out of the ordinance, so that it is no longer deemed a right.
Watch this one. The borough is going after enforcement powers and money making again. Right now the borough rarely does anything to enforce land use zoning. They don't want to spend the money to take cases to court. They will come out post a sign and then forget about it. They will tell neighbors it is up to the service area or subdivision to take action against someone violating land use in their neighborhood. Another example of the borough trying new ways to make money. Try calling the borough office and say you have a neighbor violating land use and see what they say. This is the part they are not telling the public, that they don't want to spend the time or money to enforce any zoning they have put into effect.
i do not know if it could be done but i would be interested in seeing if we could un incorperate the bourough. in other words do away with it. except for the fire and ambulance service i do not see what we get from the bourough except politicans trying to put their hands in our pocketbooks. and soon we will have the wood police telling people they can not burn wood unless i is out of a approved stove or furnace and suprize suprize they will be very spendy.if a politican is talking he is lying.
NO!
They are just looking to make money off of your legal right!
The tax to USE your legal right will be $500, 2000 etc if we let this the tax get started!
The grandfather rights clause was put into effect to protect us from our neighbors and the burro during the pipe line some 35+ years ago then "planners" wanted control of the whole burro.
Who do you till will look after your rights?
Luke or Tammie?
You better vote to take care of your rights. Because if you don't you will loose it when the tax is $50,000!
Remember to vote in the run off election!
Watch for them start a burro building code!
Remember the state legis agreed to put one in place in exchange for Obama bucks.
Know who took the bribe and who did not by next November!
----------
I notice a lot of "power grabbing by the government" during the last year.
Just because, NATIONALLY a communist was elected president with the help of the media... THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE CARRIED ALASKA NOR THE FNSB.
I wonder how many grandfathers out there use plastic bags.
Grandfather rights exist to protect people from changing zoning laws. With the way the borough will frequently change zoning for the benefit of developers, loud newer owners, etc, these rights are vital. One shouldn't have to pay a $250 'fee' just to have them considered. They should stay in the code, and the means to exercise them should be stream-lined.
"it will not be long until we need building permits to build a shed"
Well, I'm pretty sure technically speaking we already are required to have a building permit to build a shed. At least that's what the lady at the borough told me.
Yusef: I think it depends on where you live in the borough and how you are zoned. When I called about building a garage on my land, I was told, "We don't care what you build." I'm zoned for general use, so that might have been part of it, but there are covenants in my neighborhood (although they relate to livestock and number of dogs, not to structures). This was over a decade ago, so things might have changed.
Anyone else know where this stands?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.