Blaine couple sue city for denying request to build backyard dwelling for homeless family

A Blaine couple are suing the city after officials denied their request to build a backyard housing unit for a homeless family.

Homeowners Alex and Lynda Pepin argue the City Council unlawfully rejected their application for a permit to build a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The backyard tiny homes are often called mother-in-law suites or granny flats.

“Ultimately we understand the legal claim is our property rights, but we are not trying to do this to make sure our rights are met,” Pepin said at a news conference Tuesday explaining the decision to file the lawsuit, represented by the nonprofit Institute for Justice. “Ultimately, we feel like there’s a group of people who are being discriminated against and don’t have a voice in this.”

He spoke from his driveway, in between neighboring homes with yard signs that read: “No ADU. NO SECOND HOUSE ON LOT,” with arrows pointed at his house.

Blaine city spokesman Ben Hayle said in a statement that “the City Council followed Minnesota law and Blaine city code when considering and ultimately denying” the permit application.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Anoka County District Court, lists the city, Mayor Tim Sanders and council members as defendants.

Attorney Ari Bargil, with the Institute for Justice, said Blaine’s decision to deny the permit was “zoning abuse personified.”

Bargil said the Pepins complied with the city’s rules, but “the City Council denied them their accessory dwelling use permit. Not because of where the ADU was going to go or what it was going to be constructed out of. But because of who it feared was going to live there.”

Pepin, who runs a nonprofit serving the homeless, said he wanted to rent out the unit to a family exiting homelessness. And he planned to someday house his mother-in-law or his kids after they graduate.

But citing concerns about Pepin renting out the space and whether the unit would be compatible with the neighborhood, the City Council in May voted to deny the request. The council then put a yearlong moratorium on accepting any ADU requests while officials rethink the regulations.

The City Council four years ago agreed to let residents build ADUs as officials considered ways to attract more affordable housing.

Some viewed it as a way for homeowners to offer an alternative housing option, including for aging relatives, without drastically changing a neighborhood’s character.

But the city hadn’t received any requests from residents looking to build a detached ADU until the Pepins put in an application.

The couple proposed a 616-square-foot home with a maximum of four occupants in their backyard overlooking Carrara East Park, which met city standards.

City code includes restrictions on the size of an ADU, how many people live there, parking, aesthetics and setbacks. The city allows ADUs to be rented out with a rental license.

Alex Pepin runs the nonprofit Ten Thirty House, and views helping the homeless as part of his Christian calling. He said renting out the dwelling would be a separate project for his family.

Pepin planned to pay for the ADU, with construction to cost up to $140,000, according to the lawsuit.

Pepin expected to rent the space to a family, possibly a single mother with children, who would be screened for criminal history and recent drug use. The Pepins would be nearby to offer support.

When neighbors learned of the plans, many protested the idea, worried about crime and harm to the character of the neighborhood and nearby park.

The Planning Commission approved the couple’s request for an ADU permit.

But in May, several council members voiced concerns. Some said they expected the ADU ordinance would be used by families wanting to add a home for their aging relatives, not looking to rent out their space.

Some council members also argued the backyard unit would not be compatible with adjoining properties, adding a level of density that does not fit the rest of the neighborhood.

Council Members Chris Ford and Terra Fleming cast the only votes to approve the permit request. Ford argued the council must decide whether an application meets the city’s criteria, not to vote based on legislative intent.

In their lawsuit, the Pepins argue the council rejected the permit request despite their proposal meeting zoning requirements. The suit argues the city’s decision violated the couple’s equal protection rights, as well as constitutional rights to establish a home and freely associate.

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the couple’s rights were violated, as well as an order compelling the council to reconsider the issuance of an ADU permit.

Meanwhile, Pepin submitted an amended application for a permit, before the council put the yearlong moratorium in place. The second attempt focuses on only using the unit for his family.

The city Planning Commission is expected to consider that request Tuesday evening.