The Anchorage Zoning Board of Examiners and Appeals voted Thursday to grant two variances for a Canyon Road property after the municipality acknowledged it had issued an erroneous nonconforming determination 12 years earlier.

Rob and Gina Brown, owners of 13688 Canyon Road, received approval to allow their existing home to encroach 10.4 feet into the required 25-foot rear setback and a proposed shop with accessory dwelling unit to encroach 9.9 feet into the same setback. The board approved both variances 6-0 for the existing structure and 5-1 for the proposed building.

A variance is a modification of the literal provisions of a zoning ordinance that allows an applicant to do something that would normally violate the ordinance. To establish the necessary "unnecessary hardship" for a variance, the property owner must show the property cannot reasonably be used consistent with existing zoning, the hardship is due to unique circumstances not general neighborhood conditions, the authorized use will not alter the essential character of the locality, and the hardship is not the result of the applicant's own actions.

The case centered on a 2013 nonconforming determination the municipality issued when the Browns purchased the property. Planning staff discovered in 2025 that the determination contained several errors, including incorrectly identifying the applicable zoning district setbacks and misidentifying the rear yard as a side yard.

"This 2013 NCD contains several errors. First, the letter of nonconforming determination incorrectly identified the zoning district setback and lot coverage requirements," planning staff told the board.

The Browns said they relied on the official determination for more than a decade, spending money on design work and permits based on the incorrect information.

"When we purchased this property in 2013, the municipality issued a written non-conforming determination. In 2025, 12 years later, that determination was found to be an error, both as to the applicable zoning district and by misidentifying the rear yard as a side yard. We relied on that official determination for more than a decade," Rob Brown said.

Ron Thompson, representing the Browns, expressed frustration that municipal attorneys had promised support but the staff report recommended denial. He said the property owners met with municipal attorneys twice, most recently the week before the hearing, and were assured staff would acknowledge the municipality's mistakes.

Planning staff recommended denial of both variances, finding that review standards A and B were not met for the existing structure and standards A, B, C, D, and H were not met or only partially met for the proposed structure. Staff argued there were no exceptional physical circumstances on the property and that the proposed structure could be redesigned or relocated to meet setbacks.