Assembly denies request to purchase CBJ conservation strip near Duck Creek; applicant says encroachment was discovered during sale

The Juneau City and Borough Assembly on Feb. 3 denied an application from Alan Baptiste to purchase a roughly 7-foot-by-100-foot strip of city-managed parkland adjacent to 4128 Taku Boulevard, citing staff recommendations and the property's conservation designation.

Staff background and committee recommendation: City staff told the assembly the parcel in question is part of the Juneau Parks and Open Space System and is managed as conservation land because it lies near the headwaters of Duck Creek. Community Development staff reviewed imagery and records and found no building permit for the boat shed/structure that crosses the apparent parcel line. The staff memo cited a 50-foot setback from Duck Creek and noted the 2016 land management plan recommends retaining the property. The lands, housing and economic development committee recommended the assembly deny the sale and retain the parcel.

Applicant testimony: Applicant Alan Baptiste told the assembly he purchased the property in 1989 and believed structures existed in-place then. He said a recent survey filed in the course of a sale revealed the shed and carport extend across the city-owned land. Baptiste said he sought the city's assistance to purchase a narrow strip to fix an encroachment that, he said, prevents the sale of his home and estimated replacement cost of a conforming structure at roughly $40,000.

Neighbors and supporters: Lawton (Dutch) Knight, representing the Baptiste family’s real estate interests and neighborhood petitioners, presented a petition of about 40 signatures in favor of resolving the encroachment by selling the strip to Baptiste. Longtime neighbor Bill Diebels also urged assembly consideration and described the situation as one warranting a waiver.

Staff and legal concerns: City staff and the municipal attorney explained three coexisting problems: the shed has no recorded permit (making it an illegal structure under the code), the structure encroaches across a property line and the building sits inside the 50-foot Duck Creek setback. The attorney told the assembly that the primary options are negotiated sale of the land or removal of the shed; she said whether a post‑hoc permit could be granted was not certain because of creek‑setback requirements.

Assembly action and rationale: Assemblymember Smith moved, per the earlier committee recommendation, to deny the sale. Several members expressed sympathy for the Baptistes but said the combination of an unpermitted structure, an encroachment and a creek setback made the parcel ineligible for disposal in the manner requested. The motion to deny carried without objection.

Next steps and context: Staff advised the applicant to consult with city lands staff and the attorney’s office about alternate paths (a negotiated sale or lease process, variance options, or removal). The manager’s office noted that if the assembly were to authorize a negotiated sale it would provide explicit guidance to staff on terms; the committee had recommended retaining the land for conservation. The assembly did not authorize a sale or lease at the Feb. 3 meeting.