Planning staff recommends denial of grandfather-rights claim for 204 Antoinette Ave. property

Fairbanks North Star Borough planning staff on April 17 recommended denying a request by William Riley for affirmative recognition of legal nonconforming ("grandfather") status for a building at 204 Antoinette Avenue Unit 4, saying available records do not show the structure predated the borough's Aug. 13, 1970 setback requirements.

The recommendation matters because a denial would require the owner to comply with current 20-foot front-yard setback standards in the borough’s multifamily zone or seek a variance; the determination also affects a related pending lot-size grandfathering appeal and a pending real-estate closing the applicants said they are trying to complete.

Sarah Bingham, the planning staff contact on the case, told the administrative hearing that staff’s review found no definitive building permit or clear pre-1970 photographic evidence showing the subject northeast building existed before Aug. 13, 1970. "It is our recommendation to deny the grandfather rights for this structure's 4 foot north front yard and 13 foot east front yard setback since we don't have any earlier evidence that's supporting that this building was constructed before August of thirteenth, 1970," Bingham said. Bingham identified the 1971 aerial image as the single most persuasive item in the packet, but said that image is ambiguous and other 1970–1980 imagery is unclear. She also reported a 1983 code-enforcement letter that references a garage on the parcel and noted the 1988 adoption of a street-intersection visibility standard the structure currently fails to meet.

The application seeks recognition of nonconforming setbacks for a single-family detached structure that staff describes as being about 4 feet from the north lot line and about 13 feet from the east lot line; both lot lines are treated as front yards because they border streets. The property is identified in the hearing record as Lot 1, Block 21, Lumida Subdivision, addressed as 204 Antoinette Avenue, Unit 4, in the borough's multifamily residential zoning district. Staff said notice requirements were met and that 203 property-owner letters were mailed to addresses within 1,000 feet.

William Riley, the applicant, and Robert Desrocher, the applicant’s representative, disputed staff’s interpretation of the photographic evidence and argued the structure and its dormers are visible in the historical materials and assessor images. Desrocher said the parties had attempted to assemble additional documentation and asked the department not to delay determination on an associated lot-size appeal. "It's clear that this structure has been there because you could see dormers of where it's a 2 car garage on the bottom, and then there's living quarters above it," Desrocher said during testimony. Riley added that the owners are under contract to sell the property and that delays were affecting the transaction: "we were supposed to close a while ago," he said.

The applicants also argue the parcel has functioned as a multiunit property (four units) for decades and that some structures on the lot are connected by an interior utility door, which they say bears on whether units should be classified as separate single-family dwellings. The applicants filed a separate but related application (case referenced in the hearing as GR2025074) about lot-size grandfathering; the hearing officer said the current hearing was limited to the setback issue and that the other case would be considered separately to avoid bias.

Staff and applicants agreed several records could clarify the matter: Bingham offered to provide the city building-file materials she had reviewed; the applicant and his representative said they would submit additional photos and a plot-plan showing how structures are connected. The hearing officer said all such materials submitted after the hearing may be accepted into the record and that the department must issue a written administrative determination within 15 days. "The department shall issue an administrative determination within 15 days of the hearing," the hearing officer said. The officer noted that any party may appeal that determination to the planning commission by filing a notice of appeal and fee with the borough clerk within 15 days after the determination is mailed. The clerk recorded no members of the public signed up to testify on the item.

The staff recommendation to deny, the applicants' challenge to the photographic record and building-classification questions, and the existence of a 1983 code-enforcement letter together framed the record the decisionmaker said they would review. The hearing officer asked the parties to submit additional documentation to the borough clerk (public filings and building files were discussed) and said the administrative decision will be issued within the legal 15-day time period; that decision will state whether grandfather rights are recognized and will include instructions for any appeal. For more information, the borough posts agendas and meeting materials at fnsb.gov/meetings.

(Reporting note: quotations and attributions are taken from statements recorded in the April 17 administrative hearing transcript.)