Twilight Zoning in Bellingham: Update on Shenanigans at 423 E. Illinois

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Update on Shenanigans at 423 E. Illinois - Approval Appealed

On June 9^th I wrote a blog entry entitled How to Destroy a Neighborhood – One…House…at…a….Time. (Click here to read that entry). The lead example I provided, 423 E. Illinois is now the subject of an appeal. I have learned that a local homeowner has challenged the approval by the Planning Director of the building plans and other aspects of the development of the property. The case will be heard by the Hearing Examiner on July 15^th at 6pm. (Click here for details.)

These appeals are costly to the individual homeowner who wishes to challenge the city government. In this case the price tag is over $1,000 just to file the appeal. Attorney fees are additional. Of course, any costs for a developer or builder merely get added to the sale price of the property and are footed by the purchaser. Advantage → builder.

The approval of the permit is an especially dangerous precedent as the structure, although touted as a single family home, is no more than a mini-dormitory with 6 rooms which is reportedly destined to house protected groups such as recovering alcoholics. According to Bellingham Municipal Code, the use of a single family home must be allowed for such protected groups –all well and good. In this case, however, the home is being designed and built specifically as a structure to house such groups. Further use as a single family home is essentially precluded by the design unless your picture of a single family home resembles the Bates Motel.

Even if you do not live in Sunnyland, you may wish to attend this hearing as the decision will have a notable impact on all neighborhoods in the future.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: Hey Dick, since this is a new use doesn't a group home or rehabilitation facility require some different treatment as regards construction/reconstruction? I know that when we discussed grandfathering non-conforming uses in the Lettered Streets that the law has a financial threshold that protects the neighbors from redevelopment out of scale with the pre-existing structure. Is there some sort of concomitant rule in this case since it is clearly designed and will be operated as a 'facility' and cannot meet any definition of a single family, detached structure? Mike McAuley; July 12, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Zonemaven said...: Thanks for the comment.

What I know is that the remodel, as the construction is being called, is being recognized by the Planning Director as being simply a single family home which will occupy a non-conforming foundation. I assume that the appeal will contest not only the building plans but the calculations that were made to be able to call it a remodel rather than new construction. There may be other factors to the appeal of which I am not aware. My suggestion is that you attend the appeal hearing which, unfortunately, I will be unable to attend. I will publish an account of the hearing from those in the neighborhood who will have been in attendance. I assume the examiner will not make a decision that evening but later in the month.; July 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM

The Rationale for Rental Licensing

There is the definitive experience of cities that have already adopted rental licensing and inspections in the face of exactly the same opposition as we saw in Bellingham over the last decade. Ultimately, each of these cities was proven correct in its resolve to move ahead to protect the safety and health of the renters. We already know that the city of Pasco, WA found that 15% of the units inspected under their program had serious life/safety issues. 10% had mold problems. A full 85% had problems of varying degrees. The city of Gresham, OR performed over 1600 inspections in 2009 and issued, as a result, over 4,000 citations. Lexington, KY performed inspections of units near the University of Kentucky and found that 50% had life/safety issues. Sacramento, CA began an inspection program during which one third of the units inspected had serious safety and health issues. The question why does anyone believe that the condition of rental housing here in Bellingham does not mirror that which is found in cities that have the statistics to show that time and time again the condition of rentals in our cities is problematic? All we have had to date from those who oppose licensing are broad statements by the landlords and their paladins that are completely and utterly unsubstantiated. The Zonemaven has searched in vain for the horror stories that these opponents of licensing and inspections have predicted. On the other hand, The Zonemaven did find over 100 cities that have licensing AND inspections without the catastrophic effect for the rental markets that the landlords would have you believe. (See this blog's sidebar at bottom left for list)

One Reason Illegal Rooming Houses Do Not Work

The limit for unrelated persons at a single family home rental is three residents. Leases are signed by three people who then invite additional renters to join them to lower per capita rental rates. The perverse effect is that rental rates tend to rise under these circumstances making it difficult for single families to rent single family homes. Some local rental agencies facilitate this practice.

"To say that a family is so equivalent to a ragtag collection of college roommates as to require identical treatment in zoning decisions defies the reality of the place of the family in American society, despite any changes that institution has undergone in recent years. Only the most cynical among us would say that the American family has devolved to the point of no greater importance or consideration in governmental decision making than a group of college roommates." (Stegeman v. City of Ann Arbor)

That being said, accommodation ought to be made for protected classes, especially non-traditional unions and group houses for the disabled. These classes are laid out in federal and Washington State law.