Code appeal tests validity of neighborhood covenants

August 29, 2006

By MARY AMES/Frontiersman

WASILLA - In her written statement to appeal the Wasilla Planning Commission's denial of her kennel license, Deborah Luper stressed several things.

Her dogs are worth many thousands of dollars, Luper wrote. One of them is a two-time best-in-show winner, two are &#8220complex” therapy dogs, several are obedience and agility title holders, and all but two have been debarked. Luper didn't state the number of dogs she keeps, but did write she intends &#8220to continue to show Shetland sheepdogs in both conformation and performance competition, with as little disruption of the neighborhood as possible.”

Written statements ran 25 to three in opposition to granting Luper a kennel license, two of the three that did not oppose the kennel were from agencies. Tuckerman Babcock wrote as director of human relations and corporate affairs of Matanuska Electric Association that there would be no harm.

&#8220Go ahead and approve the change,” Babcock wrote, adding a clarification that MEA was neutral on the issue.

Paul Hurlbert, head of the Mat-Su Borough Platting Division, wrote &#8220none,” in the space for comments.

Gretchen Keim's letter supported Luper's request for a kennel license.

Keim lives across the street from Luper, and according to another letter, had a reason to advocate for Luper's kennel.

Keim &#8220is closely watching the outcome of this petition as she desires to operate a kennel of her own,” wrote John and Robyn Harris, who opposed Luper's request. In their letter, they said they were some of the first people to move into the subdivision in 1994. Luper was &#8220presumptuous and arrogant” to buy a home in a 90-percent-established neighborhood and immediately begin to operate an illegal kennel, they wrote.

Their letter restated the fact that no kennels are allowed in the area, and Luper was trying &#8220after-the-fact” approval through political maneuvering after twice losing her bid for a use permit.

Carol and Richard Kinney wrote that Luper's continued disregard for the covenants showed she will not be able to work with her neighbors to create the type of place they bought into.

&#8220She has now set up a ‘half-a-ed' kennel area made of chicken wire and dirt,” they wrote. &#8220Allowing her an exemption opens the door for all who wish to disregard their pre-purchase documents and do whatever they want with a property.”

Mike Larson wrote Luper's case was a test of the zoning system. Larson believed Luper knowingly bought into an area where kennels are not allowed in order to change the system.

&#8220I am concerned about so many animals crowded in the basement,” Larson wrote.

Sandra Smith wrote she had responded to Luper's proposed kennel three times, and was opposed each time.

&#8220I am hoping this will put the issue finally to rest,” she wrote.

Laura Raschal, echoed Smith when she wrote she had responded previously.

&#8220There are plenty of subdivisions that allow kennels,” Raschal wrote. &#8220Some of them are just further up Knik-Goose Bay Road.”

A third echo on the issue came from Mary E. Adams, who wrote her comments were the same as before: Opposed.

&#8220Please see that this matter is settled once and for all,” Adams wrote. &#8220I, for one, am getting tired of the same old notices.”

Contact Mary Ames at

352-2284 or mary.ames@

frontiersman.com.