[Note: This article originally appeared in NWCitizen on August 4, 2015.]
The saga continues.
Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood |
Local lawyers Belcher and Swanson threw the legal
equivalent of a hissy fit while representing Cottonwood Units LLC -
otherwise known as David and Jon Hansen of Lakeway Realty. This tantrum was in
response to the city's "delay" in permitting the Hansens' Iron Street
rental megaplexes, even though under code the city has until September 28th to
respond. Without a hint of embarassment at having been caught with their hand
in the rental-unit cookie jar, the Hansens, through their attorneys, demanded
in high dudgeon the immediate issuance of building permits for five-bedroom
plus two bonus room "homes." The owner's claim that these homes are
five bedrooms plus two bonus rooms is also a ruse to circumvent parking requirements.
The houses had already been advertised for rent to seven (or more?) individual
tenants on craigslist earlier this year. You can read reports of this
attempted sleight of hand in my article of June 1st entitled Hansen-IronStreet Rental Megaplex Planned for York Neighborhood.
We are witnessing nothing less than an attempt at
code-busting which will destroy single family zoning. This is a direct violation
of the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) regarding the creation of rooming houses
in single family neighborhoods. Initially, the city wrote to the Hansens saying
the permits would be contingent on the owner's agreement to separate covenants
on the property that would preclude turning the megaplexes into rooming houses.
Later, the city requirement devolved into "restrictive language"
within the permits themselves. Here is that language:
"The residential building and use approved under permit
#CMB 2015-00XX was applied for and reviewed as a single family residence as
regulated under the International Residential Code and Beliingham Municipal
Code (BMC) Title 20- Land Use Development. Use of the building as a
boarding or rooming house or congregate living facility as defined by the
International Building Code and the Land Use Code shall be prohibited.
The use of the property shall be resticted to one single family dwelling unit
and at no time may more than three unrelated persons reside in the single family
dwelling unit as defined under BMC 20.08.020. Violation of this condition
shall be subject to enforcement action as allowed under City of Bellingham
adopted building and land use codes."
As of yesterday, August 3rd, the building permits so
vehemently demanded by the Hansens and their attorneys were still sitting in
the permit center at city hall, even though it has been a week since the center
notified the applicants that the permits were ready. Ironically, code
enforcement action continues on another five-bedroom plus two bonus room home
recently constructed by the Hansens on Humboldt Street - see a separate
NWCitizen article I wrote on July 7th entitled Family Home for Rent:$44,000/year. The house on Humboldt Street was likely the beta test for the
Iron Street megaplexes as the applicant maneuvered it through the permitting
process by hiding the intention to use the bonus rooms as bedrooms.
The code enforcement complaint on these yet-to-be-built
rental megaplexes has, of course, revived the polemic regarding the so-called
"rule of three." That rule was discussed and then ignored by
Bellingham City Council a few years ago in the hopes that it might magically
disappear. No such luck. At the council meeting on July 27th, Dan Hammill and
Terry Bornemann brought up the heretofore unspoken problem behind the five-bedroom
plus two bonus room houses, and that is: more than three unrelated persons
living together, or in other words, illegal rooming/boarding houses. The term
family* - as in "single-family" - was discovered by our former
planning director, Tim Stewart, to be not so easily banished from the BMC since
the term is used in other code titles. One way or another, it has to be defined
- and therein lies the rub. Unless the council is actively looking to radically
change the nature of single family zoning or eliminate it entirely, it must
face and confront this direct and deliberate attempt to ignore city statutes.
All of this may have an eerie ring to it because I wrote
about the destruction of Bellingham's neighborhoods one house at a time nearly
six years ago in an article on my Zonemaven blog aptly entitled How toDestroy a Neighborhood - One...House...at...a...Time. The city's response to
enforcement back then was ready, aim, aim, aim, aim... Can't we do better
now?
But now the neighborhoods are beginning to fight back. The
York Neighborhood grabbed this bull by the horns and has not let go. On May
26th, the York Neighborhood Association board submitted a seven pageletter to our current planning director, Rick Sepler, about the
"seven-actual bedrooms" illegal use intention. They then initiated a
petition campaign and within three weeks had collected 250 signatures, which
included 100 collected door-to-door by Sehome residents in that neighborhood.
Then, on July 27th they turned in more, bringing the total to 300. The petition
called for an investigation, which the planning department is conducting, along
with "monitoring" of the situation on the other proposed rental
megaplexes. The Sunnyland Neighborhood Association submitted a letter to the
city in support of the York Neighborhood. For ALL neighborhood associations,
and especially York, Sehome, and Sunnyland, this fight is about protecting
single family neighborhoods and stopping the illegal up-zoning that has been
going on for years, supported by the rental industry. It appears that we
finally have people in city hall who are paying attention to the rules and
listening to voices other than those of the developers, landlords and real
estate agents.
The petition also called on the council to direct the
planning department to begin work on design guidelines for single family
historic districts. At its last meeting, the council unanimously approved
directing the planning department to study and bring back an approach for
design standards of neighborhood character in historic districts. You can watch
the video of the Planning Committee's discussion at the city website here. The
topic is a direct result of the petition and the aforesaid attempt by David and
Jon Hansen, again under the guise of Cottonwood Units, LLC, to build these
five-bedroom plus two bonus room homes on Iron Street in the York Neigbhorhood.
While new standards unfortunately would not affect the lots on Iron Street,
they would provide some future assurance that homes left to deteriorate in
historic districts would not be razed in order to build the equivalent of
mini-apartment/rental megaplexes. The concept is that any new home construction
would have to fit with the character of the street or block's surrounding
homes. The council opted to focus on historic areas, after which consideration
might be given to expanding the concept throughout the city.
*“BMC 20.08.020 - Family” means one or more persons related
by blood, marriage, or adoption, or not more than three unrelated persons,
living together within a single dwelling unit. For purposes of this definition,
children with familial status within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 3602(k) and
individuals with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 3602(h) will not
be counted as unrelated persons. “Adult family homes,” as defined by RCW
70.128.010, are included within the definition of “family.” Facilities housing
individuals who are incarcerated as the result of a conviction or other court
order shall not be included within this definition.