from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, No.
3HO-15-00021 CI, Third Judicial District, Homer, Carl Bauman,
Griswold, pro se, Homer, Appellant.
C. Wells and Thomas F. Klinkner, Birch Horton Bittner &
Cherot, Anchorage, for Appellees Homer Board of Adjustment
and Rick Abboud.
appearance by Appellees Jose Ramos and Kenton Bloom.
Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and
STOWERS, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Griswold twice appealed the Homer Advisory Planning
Commission's approval of a conditional use permit to the
Homer Board of Adjustment and later appealed the Board's
second decision to the superior court, which sua sponte
dismissed his appeal for lack of standing. Because Griswold
did not have notice that his standing was at issue, his due
process rights were violated. We therefore reverse and remand
for the superior court to decide his appeal on the merits.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
January 2014 the Homer Advisory Planning Commission approved
a conditional use permit allowing "[m]ore than one
building containing a permitted principal use" on Lot
1-A-1 Carl Sholin Subdivision No. 5 in the Central Business
District in Homer. Frank Griswold, as a resident of Homer and
as an owner of several lots in the area,  appealed the
Commission's decision to the Homer Board of Adjustment.
In June the Board issued a decision affirming the
Commission's decision in part; it rejected two findings
for insufficient evidence and remanded for consideration of
additional evidence. On remand the Commission again approved
the conditional use permit. Griswold again appealed. In
January 2015 the Board affirmed the Commission's
decision, and Griswold appealed to the superior court.
argument before the superior court was held in February 2016,
and the court subsequently acceptedsupplementalbriefing. In
January 2017 the court sua sponte dismissed the appeal for
lack of standing by Griswold. In its dismissal order the
court recognized that "the briefs by the parties did not
address the issue of standing," but it noted that AS
29.40.060 provides for an appeal by "a person aggrieved
from a decision," and it determined that the concerns
raised by Griswold regarding the conditional use permit
"do not rise to the level of aggrievement sufficient to
satisfy the Homer ordinance on standing." The court also
found that Griswold's "potential injury is
indistinguishable from the potential adverse effect . . . on
any member of the general public of Homer."
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He then
filed a motion for clarification of the order that denied
reconsideration, arguing that because "[t]he order [was]
captioned 'Order For Reconsideration[, ]' .
. . the [c]ourt may have intended to grant [the motion]
rather than deny it." (Emphasis in original.) In
response, the court issued an order explaining that "the
body of the Order reflects the opinion of this
[c]ourt that reconsideration was and is not
appropriate." Griswold appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
review due process claims de novo, 'adopting the rule of
law most persuasive in light of precedent, ...