Permit for 23-story Bellingham tower reinstated

JARED PABEN - THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

E-Mail

Print Reprint

Text Size:

tool goes here

BELLINGHAM - A permit to build a 23-story tower should be reinstated, but the developers must prove to the city they're still making progress on the project if they want to keep it, the hearing examiner said.

The decision, released Tuesday, March 17, hands Bay View Tower LLC a victory over city officials, who had expired the permit because they believed it had been abandoned.

The decision orders the city to reinstate the building permit, which developers spent millions of dollars to get ready to pick up but have yet to claim. Bay View Tower LLC's managers are Will Honea of Sedro-Woolley and Chris Hughes of Bellingham.

READ THE BAY VIEW DECISION
To read the hearing examiner's decision reinstating a building permit for Bay View Tower, click here

They've planned a mixed-use tower in a parking lot at 1217 N. State St., property that's now up for sale.

City Hearing Examiner Dawn Sturwold, in her decision, said city officials expired the permit in April 2008 without providing landowners due process, giving them a chance to demonstrate they were making a good-faith effort to keep the project going.

Still, the landowners must "continuously pursue the issuance of the permit in good faith" if they don't want it to expire.

That April, the city's then-building official had contacted architect Mike Smith and said he was going to expire the permit, but by that time Smith wasn't involved in the project anymore and had a court action against Bay View LLC alleging the company didn't pay architect's fees.

Honea said he discovered the permit had been expired only when looking on the city's Web site last summer, intending to print it out for a potential financial partner.

Assistant City Attorney Alan Marriner said the city is disappointed with the decision, but officials haven't met yet to decide what to do next. An appeal, which would go to Whatcom County Superior Court, would require the OK of the City Council, he said.

In the meantime, the city has already established new procedures for contacting applicants before expiring permits and giving them a chance to argue that they're still making progress, Marriner said.

Honea couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday, March 18.

In October, he filed a damages claim against the city, claiming that the permit was erroneously expired and financially harmed the landowners. They asked for at least $3.675 million, which the owners say is the property's lost value from yanking the permit. They also asked for $7.7 million for lost profits.

Even if the hearing examiner reinstated the permit, Honea wrote at the time, it wouldn't completely satisfy the damages claim because they've already suffered economic harm. Yanking the permit hurt their efforts to find financial partners who could provide the money to get the project moving, he argued.