Haines Assisted Living, Inc. will go to the Haines Borough Planning Commission Thursday seeking its second, after-the-fact variance since June for a $1.25 million addition to its residence at Third Avenue and Union Street.
Work on the project stopped about three weeks ago when HAL could not ensure the federal department of Housing and Urban Development that the project met requirements of borough law. HUD is wholly funding the project, which adds kitchenette rooms to the existing residence.
The sought variance is from the 15-foot required separation between the addition on the building’s east side and a neighboring residence. In June, the commission granted HAL approval to build the structure two feet inside the setback.
But recent construction there puts the building’s roof five to six feet closer than the previous variance allowed, necessitating a second variance.
“They crunched into it last time as an after-the-fact thing. Now they’re even closer than that,” said planning commission chair Lee Heinmiller.
The second request has struck a nerve among members of the commission, including Heinmiller, who say they are forced to choose between upholding borough law and costing the non-profit considerable expense.
“What’s the sense of having rules if no one’s going to follow them?” Heinmiller said. “And if the people at the high end, who have architects and engineers and contractors, aren’t following the code, how can we enforce it on a little old lady who’s doing her project by herself? This is not like a homeowner making an honest mistake.”
Jim Studley, vice-president of HAL, explained how the most recent problem occurred. “We didn’t have architectural plans at the time. We only had the footprint of the foundation. So we measured from the footprint of the foundation to the property line. I don’t think we even considered the overhang.”
Studley said he didn’t know who was responsible for the error but said no one knowingly violated the law. “It’s a good question, how did it happen? (Contractor Dawson Construction) is the same people who built the school. MRV (Architects) are the same company who wrote the borough’s downtown plan. Is it inconceivable that someone made a mistake?”
Studley said HAL, as the project’s owner, ultimately was responsible for the work. He dismissed what he said were rumors that rules were deliberately broken. “Rumors of a conspiracy to break the law are baloney. In life, people make mistakes. If people can’t accept that, I can’t help them.”
The Haines Fire Department said the new separation between buildings isn’t a fire issue because of sprinklers and other safeguards at the HAL building.
Mike Denker and Lisa Blank, who own the historic Lidholm home next to HAL, brought the matter to the borough’s attention. In a letter to the commission they questioned the plausibility that a project utilizing a professional surveyor, architect and contractor could have misestimated the addition’s size by five or six feet.
“It pains us to think this way, but this all has the appearances of an unethical decision to blatantly disregard the code of the community… By granting this variance at best it would reward incompetence, and at worst it may very well be rewarding bad behavior. It appears that faith in the system is at stake here,” Blank and Denker wrote.
Blank and Denker declined comment on what outcome they would seek at Thursday’s meeting, but wrote, “The bottom line is if this variance is granted, what are you going to do for us to make it right?”
Planning commission member Rob Goldberg said he wanted to hear HAL’s explanation at Thursday’s meeting. “I don’t like to attribute motive but it’s hard to imagine mistakes have been made every step of the way… They knew they were two feet into the (setback). They have a foreman telling builders where to go… how did two feet turn into eight feet?”
Goldberg said the commission in recent years hasn’t adhered strictly to conditions for variances set out in code. “We’ve relaxed the conditions at times to give people variances. We let an elderly woman build a carport in the setback because she couldn’t shovel snow anymore. That didn’t technically meet the criteria. You have code on one hand and people’s lives on the other. How strict do you want to be at all times? But in this situation, you’ve got professionals. It’s hard to imagine how a mistake like this could happen a second time.”
Approving the variance would set a “very bad precedent,” Goldberg said.