Yankee v. City and Borough of Juneau, 407 P.3d 460

Bill Yankee owns property in Nunatak Terrace Subdivision; neighbors Chris and Ann Gilberto own adjoining property in Montana Creek Subdivision. A greenbelt buffer lies between the properties.
The Gilbertos built a ~5-foot wire fence along their side of the greenbelt. Yankee contended the fence violated two Montana Creek plat notes requiring a 30-foot no-build setback and a 20-foot natural greenbelt/visual buffer.
The Gilbertos say CDD staff repeatedly told them the fence was allowed. Yankee complained to the Community Development Department (CDD); the CDD Director issued a four-page letter explaining long‑standing fence policy and declined to enforce against the fence.
Yankee appealed to the Planning Commission (which denied his appeal on the merits) and then to the CBJ Assembly (which rejected the appeal for lack of standing). The superior court affirmed the Assembly on standing.
On appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, the Court declined to decide standing and instead held the Director’s decision was a discretionary enforcement decision not ordinarily subject to judicial review, and affirmed on that ground.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reviewability of Director’s action	Yankee: Director’s letter resolved his complaint under enforcement authority and thus is reviewable on the administrative appeal path	CBJ: Letter was either an advisory policy statement, an unappealable advice letter, or a discretionary enforcement decision not subject to court review	Held: Director’s refusal to pursue enforcement is discretionary enforcement and not ordinarily judicially reviewable; affirmed on that ground
Director’s authority to act	Yankee: Director acted to clarify policy and enforce plat notes	CBJ: Director had enforcement authority but exercise was discretionary	Held: Director had enforcement authority to consider plat-note complaints; he lawfully exercised discretion not to enforce
Standing to enforce plat notes	Yankee: As an adjacent property owner, he can enforce the restriction	CBJ/Assembly: Yankee lacks standing because he does not own property in Montana Creek Subdivision	Court disposition: Declined to decide standing (affirmed on alternative ground)
Availability of alternative remedies	Yankee: Administrative review should be available; appellate review of Director appropriate	CBJ: Courts should defer; Yankee can sue the Gilbertos directly in superior court	Held: Court noted Yankee could pursue a direct private suit against the Gilbertos; administrative enforcement refusal does not compel judicial review

Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court, 534 P.2d 947 (Alaska 1975) (executive prosecutorial/enforcement discretion not subject to judicial control)
Vick v. Board of Electrical Examiners, 626 P.2d 90 (Alaska 1981) (courts may review agency enforcement declinations only for conformity with law and absence of arbitrariness)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency decisions not to enforce are generally committed to agency discretion)
State, Dep’t of Fish & Game v. Meyer, 906 P.2d 1365 (Alaska 1995) (agency enforcement decisions are reviewable where statute removes discretion)
McGee v. Alaska Bar Ass’n, 353 P.3d 350 (Alaska 2015) (review standard for grievance‑closing decisions by Bar Counsel)