Tweedy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Board of Adjustment and Appeals, 332 P.3d 12

Tweedy leased a Big Lake property in 1988; the 1968 house sits 17.6 feet from the shore; a stairwell addition was built after he took possession.
The shoreline setback evolved from 75 feet in 1973 to MSBC 16.25.480 (1981) and later moved to MSBC 17.55.020 (1988) with an identical 75-foot requirement.
An exemption for pre-existing structures was created in 1986 but not retroactively applied to Tweedy’s stairwell because it was constructed after January 1, 1987.
Tweedy sought to purchase the property in 2010; due to the structure’s proximity, the Borough required a shoreline-setback exemption; the Borough deemed the stairwell unlawful.
The Board of Adjustment and the superior court both upheld that the 75-foot setback applied when Tweedy built the stairwell, rendering the addition unlawful and not eligible for exemption; Tweedy appealed.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding former MSBC 16.25.480 applicable to Tweedy’s construction and that the modern setback provisions are not unconstitutional as applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether former MSBC 16.25.480 applied to Tweedy’s stairwell	Tweedy contends it was a subdivision regulation; not applicable to preexisting structures	Borough argues it was a general zoning/subdivision regulation governing construction within subdivisions	Yes, former MSBC 16.25.480 applied to Tweedy’s property when stairwell built
Whether MSBC 17.55.020 is retroactively applied to Tweedy’s improvements	Argues retroactive application would violate due process and takings	Retroactive application is not warranted given the prior ordinance’s effect	Not retroactively applied; even if considered, stairwell would be unlawful under either provision
Whether the setback as applied violates substantive due process or constitutes a taking	Seeks protection for vested nonconforming rights and argues no taking	Setback serves legitimate government purposes and nonconforming-use rules are constitutional	Not a taking; setback serves legitimate purposes and Tweedy had no vested right to expand unlawfully built structure
Whether Tweedy was entitled to an exemption for the stairwell as a legal nonconforming structure	Suggests pre-1987 construction could qualify for exemption	Stairwell not constructed prior to 1987; not eligible for exemption under 17.55.020(C)	Stairwell not eligible for exemption; not legally nonconforming under the code as built

Kohl v. Legoullon, 936 P.2d 514 (Alaska 1997) (setback provisions serve multiple public purposes)
Balough v. Fairbanks N. Star Bor., 995 P.2d 245 (Alaska 2000) (nonconforming-use protections and vested rights principles)
Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1019 (Alaska 1996) (zoning amendments and due process considerations discussed)
Pruitt v. City of Seward, 152 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2007) (statutory interpretation in planning and zoning; vested rights)
Heller v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 314 P.3d 69 (Alaska 2013) (substantive due process and statutory interpretation standards)
City of Skagway v. Robertson, 143 P.3d 965 (Alaska 2006) (interpretation of municipal ordinances and standards)
Philips v. Wash. Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1998) (due process and takings considerations in regulatory context)