[Previous entry: "Housing Bank Proposal Will Not Be On Ballot"] [Next entry: "The Whale Museum's Summer Lecture Series Presents"]

08/21/2005: "Building Is History"

(Churchhill Building, on Left)

J & Y Ventures request for a variance from Town regulations that control density and side yard setbacks was somewhat reluctantly turned down by the Town Council on Thursday night. The denial will not, however, save the historical building from destruction, or possibly moving it to some other property. Because of the value of the land, and the potential for increased rental income from the additional square footage a new building would provide, it is highly unlikely the building can be saved; unless, of course, someone with both deep pockets and a deep commitment to retaining Friday Harbor's old traditional buildings steps forward with an offer to buy the property.

The variance request was for one of the lots that the Church Hill Square building sits on, and even with the recommendation by the Town staff that the application be approved, one sensed what the outcome might be when Town Attorney Don Eaton was joined by John Linde, the attorney for the adjoining neighbor, in repeatedly reminding and instructing members of the Council that they were to decide for, or against, the request, based on the ability of the applicant to convince them that the request was allowed by the code.

Eaton, and then Linde, listed the salient points of the criteria that the law requires the applicant to prove: Town code states The applicant shall have the burden of clearly establishing that each of ..the criteria are met, that the applicant is being deprived of a substantial property right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone -which Linde told the council you must ask yourselves "what right is the applicant being denied"?. The code also includes a criterion that the need for the variance is a result of special circumstances, such as irregular shape or size, or natural features not generally existing within the same zone.., and once again Linde pointed out the lots are simple rectangles, and are the same as other lots, and so it went through the rest of the criteria.

Near the end of the period when the council members may ask questions prior to going into deliberations among themselves, Council member Howard Rosenfield asked Don Eaton if the variance request was for both lots, or just one of the lots. When Don stated the request, if granted, would effect both lots, but the only one of the lots was the subject of the request, things appeared to be moving away from the Council blessing the application. Councilman Rosenfield then wondered out loud if he had a conflict or not, since he had a history with the building and special feelings about it. Attorney Eaton told Rosenfield that he would need to decide if his past history and current feelings would not allow him to apply the law without prejudice, and if not, he needed to step down. After a moment of self reflection, he removed himself from the proceedings, and the Council returned to the matter at hand.

During the deliberations period it quickly became clear that that the Council was not convinced that the burden of proof had been met by the applicant; as Council member Debbie Emery stated, the applicant did not express it strongly". A motion was made to deny the request, and the vote was all for, none against.

While the applicant did not get what they came for, it does not prevent them from moving or tearing down Churchill Square, and it is unlikely the building will be spared. What will happen next is not clear, and may not be clear to the applicant either.