Resident’s plan to build backyard dwelling for homeless family prompts Blaine to rethink rules

Looking at ways to allow more affordable housing, the Blaine City Council four years ago agreed to let residents build accessory dwelling units, the backyard tiny homes often called mother-in-law suites.

But the city hadn’t received any requests from residents looking to build one — until homeowner Alex Pepin put in an application earlier this year and sparked a debate that has prompted the city to reconsider the idea altogether.

Pepin, who runs a nonprofit serving the homeless, asked for a permit to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in his backyard, hoping to rent it out to a family in need.

“Everybody is upset,” resident David Hime told the council. “The neighborhood is up in arms over this.”

The Planning Commission approved Pepin’s request. But then the City Council, citing concerns about density and Pepin renting out the unit, voted 5-2 to deny it. Now, the council has put a yearlong moratorium on accepting requests for ADUs so it can rethink the city’s rules.

“It was disappointing for us,” Pepin said. “We’re just trying to do an allowable activity in the city. This is an allowable means to get affordable housing for people who need help in our community.”

He said his request led to residents circulating petitions and putting up signs that read “No ADU.” Some people equated the project to an encampment cropping up in their neighborhood.

More suburbs have allowed ADUs in recent years to tackle housing shortages and provide alternatives for older residents wanting to downsize. The dwellings are often considered a restrained way of adding more housing without drastically changing a neighborhood’s character. But ADUs have still been controversial in some cities as neighbors fight increased density.

Some cities, including Blaine, allow ADUs to be rented out with a rental license.

Blaine Mayor Tim Sanders, who voted against Pepin’s request, said he believes the pause on ADUs is needed so officials can reevaluate the city ordinance and determine any “unintended consequences.”

“The intent was for families to have an option for housing, whether it be for parents or in-laws, or kids trying to get their start,” Sanders said. “It was not intended to be a revenue generator for the homeowner to rent out the space to a second family more or less living in someone else’s backyard.”

Pepin said he wanted to offer the space to a family working to exit homelessness. But he said he mostly wants to build the unit to some day house his mother-in-law or his kids after they graduate.

Pepin, with his wife and some fellow church members, started the nonprofit Ten Thirty House to help families who are experiencing homelessness find housing and other resources.

But Pepin said the idea to build an ADU would be a separate project for his family. He had planned to ask the county or a service provider to refer a family in need of housing, likely a single mother with children, after screening for criminal history and recent drug use.

Living on the same property, Pepin said his family aimed to offer a support network, which he said people experiencing homelessness often lack.

“We try to live out our Christian lives by caring for people who need support,” Pepin said. “And we know that people coming out of homelessness need time and stability.”

He expected each family to live there for a year or two, pay 30% of their income in rent and then hopefully be ready to find a more permanent home.

His backyard, with a treehouse and space for his three kids to run, overlooks Carrara East Park.

City code includes restrictions on the size of an ADU structure, how many people live there, parking, aesthetics and setbacks. It says the dwellings cannot be an excessive burden on streets, parks or schools, and the ADU must match the character of the neighborhood.

Pepin proposed a two-bedroom, 616-square-foot home, with a maximum of four occupants, which met the city requirements.

Then he was required to notify his neighbors of his permit request. Pepin said he chose to be transparent and explain his plans for housing families in need. Neighbors were immediately opposed.

“This will destroy the enjoyment of our backyard,” Hime said at a recent city meeting. He added that he worried about traffic, threats to children playing in the nearby park and home values dropping.

Several neighbors have fought to get the project shut down, saying they appreciate Pepin’s efforts to help the community but feel the quiet neighborhood is the wrong place for it. Some others have come out to support Pepin.

Pepin said he understands where his neighbors are coming from, but also believes they jumped to the wrong conclusions about who he hoped to serve.

Council Member Tom Newland, who voted against the project, said the proposed use was adding density that does not fit the rest of the neighborhood.

Several members said they expected the ADU ordinance would be used by families wanting to add a home for their aging relatives.

Council Member Chris Ford, who voted in favor of Pepin’s request, said it was the council’s job to determine whether an application meets the city’s criteria, not to wade into debates about legislative intent. He felt the project met the city’s standards.

“I know it’s a highly emotional, charged thing. I do feel for you, the neighbors that don’t want this,” Ford said. “But right now, it’s policy.”

Pepin said he’s weighing next steps, questioning how best to advocate for families in need of affordable housing.

He has already submitted a new application only focused on building the unit for his family. He said he’s considering appealing the council’s decision as well because he felt his initial request met all of the city’s standards.

“I feel bad that the code is now getting looked at again and may potentially get rewritten, because I think that’s an amazing idea to have an ADU in your backyard,” Pepin said. “There’s been one [application] in four years. How is this going to be a big problem?”