As the assembly considers an ordinance that would prohibit yurts and container homes as permanent dwellings in part of the townsite, but allow them in the rural mixed-use and rural residential zones, some residents are questioning the partial ban’s justification.
A commonly cited reason for the code change is that yurts could lower nearby property values and therefore should be prohibited in certain zones.
This claim is hard to prove or disprove, particularly in Southeast Alaska, where there is a small sample size and little data on how yurts impact surrounding real estate.
Haines realtor Pam Long said according to conventional real estate principles, anything that’s inconsistent in a neighborhood can affect nearby property values. A yurt built on a block with high-end homes might lower surrounding values, whereas a high-end home on a block with only yurts might raise surrounding values. But Long said she hasn’t seen these principles play out regarding yurts in Haines, where neighborhoods already tend to have varied structures.
Long said she doesn’t anticipate the ordinance to impact her business, which sells all kinds of real estate, in and out of the townsite. “Overall I think it’s good for our community and for business to have some sort of plan in place,” Long said. “I see the issue as the planning commission trying to draw that line of permanent and non-permanent structures. I don’t think that’s easy.”
Another local realtor, Mandy Reigle, similarly said she doesn’t have firsthand evidence of yurts negatively impacting property values in the townsite but that she supports the ordinance. “I believe that the place for temporary dwellings like yurts is on larger, more secluded parcels of land,” Reigle said.
Other Alaskan communities have had similar discussions about how to zone alternative forms of housing, though not necessarily yurts.
In 2020, Sitka passed an ordinance to conditionally allow tiny homes on chassis in some of its residential zones, but the town hasn’t discussed or defined yurts.
Sitka planning director Amy Ainslie said two competing arguments predominated during the discussion about tiny houses and property values.
One was that the appraisal methodology in Southeast Alaska is such that tiny homes — or in Haines’ case, yurts — wouldn’t have a significant effect on appraised property values. Because the housing market in Sitka, as in Haines, is small and neighborhoods tend to contain a variety of homes, appraisers tend to weigh certain factors – like the values of comparable properties across a town or borough – more than others, like the value of a neighboring lot. (Appraisers at Southeast Appraisal Services could not be reached before press time.)
A counterargument, Ainslie said, was that even if tiny homes didn’t impact appraised values, they might decrease marketability because some potential buyers wouldn’t want to live next to one. Almost two years after Sitka passed the tiny house ordinance, Ainslie said it’s still unclear whether the unconventional homes affect property values.
Haines residents Natalie Dawson and Eben Sargent live in a yurt outside of the townsite. They bought the structure for $17,000, although prices have gone up during the pandemic.
“For us it was a question of finding available housing that met our needs when we came to Haines,” Dawson said.
More recently, Dawson and Sargent bought a home in the townsite. “What we learned through that house was how hard it is to get a bank loan to buy a house in Haines,” Dawson said.
Dawson and Sargent found that loan officers were used to seeing homes in Haines that had structural defects and failed to meet financing requirements. “It’s hard to get an inspection, and with no building codes the burden is on the buyers to demonstrate that the house is a sound structure,” Sargent said.
The ordinance defines “yurt,” along with “teepee” and “tent,” as “a dwelling with a fabric covering over a frame of wood or other collapsible framework,” but Sargent said many yurts are warmer and sturdier and last longer than wall tents and that the two shouldn’t be lumped into the same category. (He has lived in both types of structures.)
Sargent also questioned the borough’s housing priorities. “For example, why focus on yurts when we don’t have building codes for traditional structures? Why focus on reducing housing options… instead of…on efforts to improve affordable housing?”
In addition to worries about property values, there are a few reasons for the proposed yurt regulation.
For one, yurts (and container homes) aren’t currently defined in code. Are they more like a temporary wall tent or a tiny home or a small permanent cabin? A major function of the ordinance is to clarify what yurts and container homes are in order to facilitate zoning and planning.
Second, borough code distinguishes between temporary residences and permanent dwellings and zones and permits structures accordingly. Several years ago the borough restricted mobile homes and RVs to trailer parks. Planning commissioners have suggested that defining and regulating yurts would iron out inconsistencies in code.
The planning commission voted 5-2 in December to recommend the ordinance to the assembly. Several commissioners said they viewed the ordinance as a compromise, restricting yurts in some zones but allowing them in others.
At Tuesday’s meeting, assembly member Cheryl Stickler noted that the planning commission offered a compromise, while assembly member Tyler Huling questioned whether the ordinance would make housing more accessible.
There will be a second public hearing about the ordinance before the assembly votes on Feb. 8.