The Anacortes Planning Commission got an earful June 11 when 19 Old Town residents and property owners voiced their opinions of a proposed overlay district with new zoning regulations and design standards.

Ten speakers, representing 42 residents who advocate a revised version of the proposal, said the city should drop provisions requiring front porches and raising homes above grade. Five speakers rejected the idea of design standards outright, citing property owners’ rights and other concerns. The remaining four had a variety of concerns, such as preservation of historic homes, ability to replace a house destroyed by fire, protection of the neighborhood’s socioeconomic diversity and preservation of affordable housing.

Read the Full Story

Well, well...it looks like the property owners in the newly created subdivision of ‘Old Town’ Anacortes are finally showing some backbone; and maybe even some common sense. I wondered how long it would take for someone to figure out that a height restriction is just another way of saying, “ I got my view; let’s see if I can legislate yours away.” I suspect the design standards were cooked up by hysterical preservationists who like the idea of walking their dogs thru an area they wish they lived in and want a little more control over its residents. Preserving older buildings should definitely be encouraged, but not mandated by zoning changes, especially changes that would force existing structures into compliance at great expense to the property owner.

Hadenough, the height restriction has always been 35 feet, no change there. I agree, there shouldn’t be restrictions on renovations that are so stringent that they prevent renovations from happening; which is what they are headed for with the Old Town Architectural Guidelines. But a 35 foot height restriction is a good thing, and something that’s been in place for a while.

The zoning changes proposed would reduce the current height limit of 35 feet to 25 feet in addition to making compliance with at least some of the new design standards mandatory.

Hadenough, You’re absolutely right, I stand corrected. I was looking at old info and didn’t realize it - thanks for straightening me out!

Speaking of a 25 foot height restriction (which would replace the present 35 foot rule if zoning laws are changed):

A) is there any precedence in Wa sate law for doing this when current zoning laws have been in effect for 30 years, and changes would certainly benefit one group (owners who currently have a view) at the expense of another group (those who may have planned to build up above 25 feet to get a view, but would now be prohibited from doing so).... assuming view=increased property value??

B) if so, are property owners entitled to compensation for loss of property value, loss of use of ‘air space’, or loss of potential ‘view’??  Is this zoning change considered a form of ‘eminent domain’, or perhaps a ‘taking’ (legal term)? or is it just what is known as a ‘police action’, another legal term, which confers certain rights to municipalities to regulate zoning however they please with no compensation due as a result.

Are there any real estate lawyers out there who can offer an opinion? Sea lawyers? It just seems to me if you buy a property with certain expectations of what you can do with it; spend years paying off the mortgage and taxes, then find the city coming along with zoning changes that affect your land potential and/or value; either the rule changes are not fair (ie, illegal, and will eventually be rescinded by court action), or the property owner is due compensation. From where I’m sitting, the play just plain doesn’t look like a fair ball…

Any takers?