## Facts

- The City of Homer adopted a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances establishing a Central Business District (CBD) intended primarily for retail sales and services conducted within enclosed structures.
- Auto-related sales and services were generally not listed as permitted principal uses in the CBD, but existing auto businesses were allowed to continue as lawful nonconforming uses.
- Frank Griswold operated an automobile repair business within the CBD as a nonconforming (grandfathered) use.
- A nearby property owner, Guy Rosi, Sr., had previously operated auto sales on a CBD parcel as a nonconforming use but lost that status after discontinuing auto sales for more than one year.
- Rosi requested a zoning change to permit auto sales in the CBD.
- The City Council adopted Ordinance 92-18 (1992), amending the zoning code to permit “motor vehicle sales and service” and similar auto uses on thirteen lots along one street in the CBD, including Rosi’s parcel, while leaving the broader CBD zoning scheme in place.
- Griswold sued, alleging the ordinance was unlawful spot zoning that departed from the comprehensive plan and improperly favored a small set of owners.
- The superior court upheld the ordinance, and Griswold appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ordinance 92-18, permitting motor vehicle sales and services on thirteen specified CBD lots, constituted impermissible spot zoning and therefore an invalid exercise of municipal zoning power.
2. Whether the ordinance was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and unsupported by a legitimate public purpose.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment.
- The Court upheld Ordinance 92-18 as a valid zoning amendment and rejected Griswold’s claim of impermissible spot zoning.
- The Court treated the ordinance as a legislative enactment entitled to deference and presumed valid unless shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to law.
- The Court concluded the limited-area change did not contradict the comprehensive plan’s CBD objectives and could be justified by legitimate public planning considerations despite benefiting particular owners.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal zoning ordinances are legislative acts reviewed under a deferential standard and carry a presumption of validity.
- A challenger bears the burden to show a zoning amendment is arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to law, or constitutes invalid spot zoning.
- In evaluating alleged spot zoning, courts consider whether the rezoning is reasonably related to legitimate public purposes and whether it is consistent with, or at least not in conflict with, the comprehensive plan.
- A zoning amendment is not invalid solely because it confers an incidental benefit on particular landowners if the ordinance is supported by rational public-welfare objectives.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld Homer’s Ordinance 92-18, holding that permitting auto-related uses on a limited set of thirteen CBD lots was a lawful legislative rezoning supported by plausible public planning objectives and not impermissible spot zoning.


Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1996)