The Nome Common Council voted Monday to grant an appeal by local businessman Joe Burnham and his company, Kanosak LLC, reversing a February enforcement action by the city that alleged improper use of commercially zoned property along the Nome-Teller Highway.
In a letter addressed to Burnham in February, the city argued that Kanosak was improperly storing “vehicles, implements, trailers and so on” in the commercial-zoned property. The letter claimed that such outdoor storage is only permitted as an “accessory use to a permitted use” in commercial districts.
The letter demanded Burnham remove the items from the property or risk a $250 daily fine that, two weeks later, escalated to $500 a day.
The letter offered Burnham to apply for a conditional use permit to continue storing the materials at the site, but maintained that the use would still violate city code. Burnham subsequently appealed the decision.
Burnham’s attorney, Stacey Stone of Holmes Weddle & Barcott, argued that the city misapplied its zoning code when it determined the property was being used solely for “unroofed outdoor storage”.
Stone argued that the property also contained several 20 and 40 foot conex containers totaling about 3,200 square feet of enclosed storage, which she described as “the backbone of the property’s function”. Stone said Burnham sells equipment stored at the site, for which he pays sales tax.
“These containers are widely recognized in Nome and across rural Alaska as secure, weather-resistant storage buildings,” Stone told the council via Zoom. “The use is consistent with the code’s plain language, the city’s own practices, and the realities of operating in Nome.”
Representing the city, attorney Sam Severin and City Planner Erin Reinders maintained that outdoor storage remains the property’s primary use and therefore violates Nome’s zoning rules.
Reinders explained that the city’s code defines outdoor storage as “the keeping, in an unroofed area, of any goods, material, merchandise or vehicles for more than 24 hours,” and said the property fit that description. Reinders added that while conex containers may provide covering, they are not considered buildings or warehouses typically used for commercial purposes.
Council members questioned both attorneys about the city’s interpretation of the zoning code, particularly whether conex containers qualify as warehouse space and whether the city has enforced similar restrictions elsewhere.
During public testimony, several residents spoke in support of Burnham. Business owner Kenneth Kerr and former Planning Commission member Derek McLarty both described the property as typical for Nome and said enforcing the restriction appeared unfair.
“He looks around and sees a bunch of what we call junk that ends up in the monofill and turns it into something usable and sells it and makes money,” McLarty said. “And I think that a lot of Nome was built that way. And I think that his property, though some might call it a junkyard, others might call it a treasure.”
Burnham himself thanked the council and offered to donate $5,000 toward improving the city’s meeting audio system, citing difficulty hearing the proceeding from the back of the council chambers.
Following a 30 minute closed-doors executive session, the council returned to open session and voted 5-1 in favor of granting Burnham’s appeal. Newly-installed councilmember and Nome Planning Commission member Adam Lust cast the lone vote against the appeal.
