Blaine denies tiny home request again, saying it won’t fit neighborhood and burdens park

The Blaine City Council rejected a homeowner’s second attempt at building a backyard tiny home, a project that has sparked protests from neighbors and a lawsuit against the city.

The council in May denied homeowner Alex Pepin’s first application to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which he planned to rent out to a family experiencing homelessness — drawing strong opposition from neighbors. Citing concerns about added density and the unit being a rental, the council rejected the plan.

City officials then put a yearlong moratorium on approving ADUs while they rethink the ordinance that was approved in 2021 but not tested until Pepin’s project. Pepin, represented by the Institute for Justice, is now suing the city over the denial, saying his plans met all of the city’s requirements.

But before the moratorium was put in place, Pepin submitted a second application to build the 616-square-foot dwelling in his backyard overlooking Carrara East Park. This time, Pepin agreed not to rent out the unit, and instead use it to house his mother-in-law or other relatives, which is something he always hoped to use the ADU for when it wasn’t occupied by a family in need.

“It did feel a little bit like we were playing basketball with someone who kept moving the basket every time we took a shot,” Pepin said after his second request was denied.

The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ADU after staff determined the project abides by all of the city’s rules. But the council voted 4-3 to reject his plan again, arguing it would burden the nearby park and would not be compatible with adjoining properties.

On Monday, the council approved a resolution detailing the reasons for denial, including that the ADU’s appearance would adversely affect adjoining properties.

“To force a square peg in a round hole doesn’t work for me,” Newland said at an earlier August meeting.

Pepin said in an email he does “not understand the reasons for rejecting the application as it meets all of the City’s standards, and even tried to address their previously expressed concerns, but we were not surprised it went the way it did.”

But he said he feels better knowing denial of his first application, allowing the unit to be rented, is being appealed in court.

Council Member Terra Fleming, who voted to approve the project, said Pepin “met every single thing they are supposed to for the ordinance,” adding that staff found the ADU will not have a negative effect on nearby properties.

“We might have an older gentleman and woman living there. How is that an excessive burden on a park?” Fleming asked.

“The City Council’s rejection of the second application is unfortunate,” attorney Matt Liles said. “They’re still openly violating their own ordinance. They rejected the first application because they didn’t like who would live in the ADU; beyond that, we now know that they don’t want a single new unit of housing in the neighborhood.”