By ARIADNE WILL
Sentinel Staff Writer
The Assembly — acting as the Board of Adjustment at Tuesday’s meeting — rejected in a 5-2 vote an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a conditional use permit for a short-term rental.
Board members Dave Miller and Crystal Duncan voted against the motion to deny the appeal.
Rebecca Himschoot said she felt that appellant Ben Timby should have made changes to his permit application and returned it to the Planning Commission, rather than going directly to the Board of Adjustment.
Timby may appear again before the Planning Commission in the coming months but must make “substantive” change to his permit application.
His property is located at 717 Sawmill Creek Road in an R-1 single-family and duplex district, and is a legal nonconformity. The property’s nonconformities include an absence of off-street parking. City code says short-term rentals are required to provide two off-street parking spots.
At its Dec. 15 meeting, the commission found that although the property as zoned is a legal nonconformity, this status does not extend to other uses, such as that of a short-term rental.
Commissioners appeared nervous not just about parking, but about setting a precedent for creating further legal nonconformities and potential parking issues: this permit would have been the first of its kind issued without off-street parking available, although a single permit for a short-term rental has been granted in which off-street parking wasn’t available at a residence. In that case, two offstreet parking spots were obtained by lease elsewhere.
While the Planning Commission’s decision was based in city code, the Board of Adjustment — and the case made before it — carried the additional weight of Timby’s financial stability.
Timby, along with a few others who spoke under public comment in favor of the appeal, said the permit would help him and his wife “make it” in Sitka.
“I want Ben and (his wife) Tiffany to be able to stay in Sitka,” said Owen Kindig, who spoke on behalf of the couple under public comment. “Those are the kind of people that we need (here).”
Timby also told the Board of Adjustment that he felt he had been treated unfairly by the Planning Commission and argued that the commission had denied the permit on account of “speculative information” and not on fact.
City Attorney Brian Hanson — who made remarks as an attorney for the Assembly and not as an advocate for the Planning Commission’s decision — explained that the information Timby argued was “speculation” is actually an important step in judicial decisions.
He said for the Planning Commission to leave behind outside information could, in fact, hinder their ability to make good and sound decisions.
Some information not included in the materials and testimony the Planning Commission received at their Dec. 15 meeting — but that was considered in their final decision — included the business of the street, a neighbor’s heavy use of off-street parking, and an upcoming DOT project as reasons that could make parking difficult.
