Oversized Houses: Bellingham Must Resolve Competing Issues

Lew Stevenson graduated from Western Washington University with a degree in accounting and business. He and his family have lived at their current residence for 14 years.

There is a storm brewing in Bellingham. It’s one of those storms you don’t see coming, the kind that slowly approaches so you don’t even notice. And before you know, it consumes you, your neighbors, and the community.

This storm is one I am currently in the unpleasant circumstance of having to battle, and it has to do with oversized houses, or “mega houses” as they are better known, coming into our neighborhood. This storm is one that will visit you, whether or not you currently have a view being damaged or your neighborhood character is being changed, because over time it will change the character of the entire community.

Our neighborhood is an older one, with an “upscale” reputation and having views that are highly valued. The mega house is 10,573 square feet, blocks or severely damages the views of several neighbors and would substantially change the rural, open feeling in the area.

The issue is the classic one of an owner’s right to develop their land as they see fit pitted against the right of the community and directly affected neighbors to have some say in just how much damage a property owner can inflict before someone says “enough.”

It’s not an easy issue and it’s one, I have to admit, I probably would have sided, to some extent, with the property owner before I was directly confronted with and began researching it. But they say it is difficult to argue with someone who is unencumbered with the facts.

And before this, I definitely didn’t have the facts. I now understand it is the property owner’s right to reasonable use of their property, based upon community standards, not the right to do whatever they please.

The City of Bellingham has an ordinance that was created to deal, to a degree, with mega houses and the effects they have on the surrounding neighborhood. The law basically allows a person to build up to a 5,500 square foot house without having to go through a conditional use permit (CUP) application process. Once a house exceeds the 5,500 limit, it is subject to review and the CUP criteria.

The conditional use ordinance requires it be clearly shown that:

•The proposed use will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community,

•The proposed use will satisfy the purpose and intent of the general use type in which it is located. (In this case, this is residential single development, which intent includes providing “flexibility in the arrangement of a main building upon a site in order to allow efficient and capable design, assure necessary light and air, and to encourage the development of neighborhoods while conserving and enhancing the value of land and the important physical characteristics within the residential single area”), and

•The proposed use will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.

In determining if the above items are clearly shown, the hearing examiner (who decides if a proposed building will go forward), must consider whether the proposed use will;

•Be harmonious with the general policies and specific objectives of the City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. (This plan is generally intended to outline the goals and policies for development, etc. in the area. Part of the goals and policies in the plan include preserving open space, protecting views and protecting the “character” of Bellingham and its neighborhoods.),

•Be designed so as to be compatible with the essential character of the neighborhood, and

•Not result in the destruction, loss, or damage to any natural, scenic or historic feature of major consequence.

The landowner/conditional use permit applicant must also perform a view analysis of the anticipated impacts on views from adjacent properties. Here, the examiner “must find that the proposal will not cause significant adverse impacts on views from other properties that are due to the size or design of the building and which could be reduced by an alternative design.”

Additionally, “...regardless of whether views are a consideration, the building should minimize adverse impacts on the surrounding residential area by employing roof styles and building articulation that is comparable to those commonly found in single family residential construction. Adverse impacts should be minimized by attention to the relationship between the building and topography of the site.”

In my dealings with the Planning Department, which is the gatekeeper in preliminary approval or denial of a conditional use permit, it is apparent the conditional use permit requirements for oversized houses are not fully understood and/or the Planning Department does not believe the various requirements for conditional use have to be fully addressed by an applicant when oversized houses are involved.

In short, my impressions are the Planning Department, itself, is not clear on many issues in their work to either recommend or deny approval of oversized houses. For instance, in asking for a definition of how “significant adverse affect” (a key element in view analysis) is determined, there is no clear instruction at Planning.

When requested that the view analysis include the affects from public view points, I am told this is not required—even though the street is “adjacent property” to be included in such an analysis under the law and even though the City of Bellingham Comprehensive Plan clearly speaks to the need for public input, protection of neighborhood and community wide views, open space and the like.

I’ve been told by the Planning Department in relation to view protection from an oversize house “the goal is, if possible, to preserve the primary view of the bay from public areas of the residence, when the ordinance appears to say much more than this as to intent (which intent includes, but is not limited to: private party, neighborhood, and community-wide impacts and implications). The ordinance calls for the landowner to minimize the impacts, not simply preserve some view for a particular private party.

There are many more “interpretations” similar to the above that a common citizen such as myself confronts when trying to get answers from Planning on questions pertinent to a proposal for a mega house. I am not trying to bash the Planning Department here. They have been given the extremely difficult task of trying to resolve the competing issues of private property use and view and character protection of the surrounding neighborhood and the community at large. The current system, however, needs some fixing.

There are many questions as to how the Planning Department actually comes to a conclusion on a particular proposal—the criteria used in saying “yes” or “no” to specific proposals. For instance, is the quality of the view being damaged to be part of the decision? Do cumulative affects of several mega houses over time need to be considered? Does the applicant have to design an oversized house to minimize view and character damage (as the ordinance seems to state), or do they simply have to make some changes to reduce those damages? (These are two very different criteria.) Is the Planning Department to loosely enforce the conditional use permit oversized housing rules or is Planning to follow the letter of the law? (It appears conditional use permits are supposed to be difficult to obtain, unless it is clearly shown there are overriding benefits in allowing the requested use, but with regard to oversized houses I’m finding just an opposite approach.)

Is the Planning Department to place the burden on the conditional use permit applicant to show why a proposed use should be allowed (as the ordinance states) or are parties opposed to a proposed oversized house to show why a proposal should fail? (Again, two very different criteria to be met.)

I believe the Planning Department does not have a clear understanding of the City Council’s and the community’s intent in enforcing the ordinance, as written. Do we want to protect views that the entire community enjoys or not? Do we want to insist on building within the character of an existing neighborhood or not? The Planning Department needs some direction on approval or denial of oversized houses. There need to be some well-defined, written guidelines about how such decisions are processed and about the criteria used in deciding individual cases so consistent results are obtained.

The City Council and citizens need to express their intent in having the Planning Department require an applicant for a conditional use permit meet all tests outlined in the ordinance. This would include clear instruction to review each test and insure an applicant meets all requirements of the ordinance.

This is an issue needing immediate attention. Once a mega house goes up in a neighborhood, there is almost no way to deny future mega houses in the same neighborhood. If you like the current environment in Bellingham, if you like the character, with its feeling of open space and respect for view preservation, please get involved in this issue. There is no time to waste.