Twilight Zoning in Bellingham: A Win for the Sunnyland Neighborhood

Monday, August 3, 2009

A Win for the Sunnyland Neighborhood – For the Moment

On July 9th, I reported on the appeal hearing of a building permit for the equivalent of a no-tell motel at 423 E. Illinois in the Sunnyland neighborhood. (Click here to read that blog entry.) The property owner had secured a permit which allowed him to build a “single family” home which he claimed, and the Planning Director agreed, was a remodel of the existing structure. A hearing was held on July 15th and a judgment by the examiner was rendered on 29 July. You can read the examiner’s decision by clicking here.

Essentially, the hearing examiner saw that which the neighbors saw and that which the Planning Director did not see – that the plans were not of a mere remodel and that they violated several portions of the Bellingham Municipal Code.

(Click on image at left to see the current state of the structure) I will leave it to the reader to go through the examiner’s reasoning which is relatively straightforward. [Remember that the appeal cost the neighbors over $1000.] Here is a portion of the decision:

“The permit erroneously allows the additional encroachment of wall extensions for a second story. This encroachment cannot be permitted without first obtaining a variance as provided in BMC 20.18. The permit also was issued without first properly calculating the percentage of destruction of the building that is proposed in relation to the entire structure. If this calculation shows that the actual cost to repair the portion of the building that is destroyed is 50% or more than the estimated cost to replace the entire structure the building permit may not be granted unless a plan is first approved by the Hearing Examiner as provided in BMC 20.14.010C.” Nothing, of course, prohibits the property owner from redoing the plans and causing further problems for the residents of Sunnyland. At $1,000 a pop, these appeals become expensive - mosh skosh.

The examiner goes on to say: “The potential or proposed use of a building is not relevant to a determination whether a building permit should be issued provided the building is configured so as to be consistent with the permitted uses allowed within the use district in which the building is located. The permit in this case allows construction of a single family dwelling unit.” This is a reference to the neighbors’ contention that the structure was a “single family” dwelling in name only and was being constructed expressly to house groups of renters who the property owner would claim to be “protected classes" under the Bellingham Municipal Code which prohibits more than 3 unrelated persons from renting a home.

Given the existing code, the examiner was likely correct in not entertaining the complaint regarding the eventual use of the structure. That being said, this points out a glaring problem which allows structures to be built, structures at which future neighbors will look and say, “Who allowed that to be built?” If you do not believe me, take a look at another property owned by the same individual at 2605 Hampton Place (image at left) about which I also wrote on July 9th. (Click here for more info on Hampton Place.)

Who allowed that?

5 comments:

mrostron said...: Seems we have a planning department that can't tell the difference between a bunkhouse and a single family dwelling. Maybe we should pass the collection plate and send them back to school. This is only one battle in the bigger war to save the historically valuable parts of our town which the city at times seems to be hell-bent in destroying. This isn't Venice or Rome of course, but the whole town does not have to look like a fever dream from the architectually challenged. Those are nice lots (on E. Illinois), and a nice home or homes could be built there which would net the owner a handsome profit, and still be in keeping with neighborhood character and zoning ordinances.; August 3, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Zonemaven said...: Thanks, Mike, but there you go again being reasonable. When "enforcement" is a four letter word, these are the neighborhoods you get.; August 3, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Anonymous said...: The Hearing Examiner pulled out the very issue I was wondering about....I'm not aware of any neighborhood other than the Lettered Streets that allows rebuilds, and only after some kind of disaster, at the 51% and greater level without significantly more process. And in the Lettered Streets that only applies to Non-conforming uses grandfathered in during rezones. Good on ya Dawn! M McAuley; August 3, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Jack Builder said...: Planning permission is always a difficult area. Its essential builder and planning permission officers try to work together.; August 4, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Zonemaven said...: Jack,

That seem to be exactly the problem here - the planners and the builders are too cozy. It is the local homeowners who will have to live with the result of the permitting process, not the planner and not the builder.; August 4, 2009 at 6:58 AM

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.