Refuge Room faces uncertain future

• Board of Adjustment leaves classification ruling to planning commission

By Naomi Klouda
Homer Tribune

Whether the Refuge Room is a homeless shelter or rooming house is back before the Homer Planning Advisory Commission to decide after the city’s Board of Adjustment remanded the case.
The BOA issued its written decision last week, contending among several points that the matter is “still up to the commission to determine whether the Refuge Room constitutes a homeless shelter or something else.”
City Council members double as the Board of Adjustment, assembled to act on an appeal from litigant Frank Griswold. Since 2005, Griswold has contested the Refuge Room’s status. This is the second time the BOA responded to an appeal from Griswold on the Refuge, who has argued that the establishment is a homeless shelter and therefore requires a conditional-use permit in order to operate. Before a CUP is issued, however, a public notice would have to be given to neighbors, who could then support or object to the idea.
City Planner Rick Abboud had classified the Refuge Room as a rooming house, citing the specific language in the code that defines it. This designation meant no CUP would be needed.
City Attorney Tom Klinkner argued at the appeal hearing in November that the Refuge Room is considered a rooming house because it allows for less than 15 people, has kitchen and shower facilities and charges a nightly rate. Refuge director Rev. Darren Williams argued likewise, calling it a business offering a service, as a $10 nightly fee is charged. Shelters generally offer free beds.
In rebuttal, Griswold countered that “rooming house” is a “misreading” of the law. He argued several points, including an objection to a June 3, 2009 meeting to discuss the Refuge that he was not invited to attend. The BOA sided with Griswold on that matter, calling it “improper” for the planning commission to hold an appeal hearing because public notice was not given to Griswold.
Griswold also argued that Planner Abboud held a “disqualifying bias” in the matter.
The BOA ruled against Griswold in that matter, finding no bias. Abboud came to his Homer position last year from the City of Bethel, and any commission work prior to that took place under different planners, they noted.
The board was asked to decide five questions:
• Was the planning commission’s 2-3 vote sufficient to overturn Abboud’s determination? The BOA ruled yes.
• Does the Refuge Room constitute a shelter or a rooming house? The BOA put the question back to the commission to answer.
• Does Abboud have authority to determine an expansion on the Refuge Chapel that exceeds 30 percent of the lot require a CUP? The BOA ruled that he does.
• Was the June 3 meeting illegal? Yes, it the hearing was “improper,” the BOA decided.
• Does Abboud have a disqualifying bias? No.

The BOA continues to deliberate another zoning matter: Griswold v. Homer business owner Don Blackwell.
Blackwell operates Blackwell Pump Service on an East End Road site that previously held an auto and marine service station. In a Jan. 11 appeal hearing, he told the BOA he leased the property in 1989 and purchased it after it was cleaned up.
Griswold believes the city ruled improperly in grandfathering Blackwell’s business by granting him legal nonconforming status. City Clerk Jo Johnson had ruled Griswold was not a party to the decision and therefore had no “standing” for appeal. But an Alaska Superior Court ruling said Griswold does have “at least nominal showing of adverse effects,” since Griswold had argued he walks his dog near the pump service.
According to Griswold, operations ceased for a multi-year period prior to Blackwell’s ownership; a year of non-activity on commercial property means it shouldn’t be granted nonconforming status with its rural residential zone.
Blackwell countered that he was operating from that site nearly continuously since 1989.
Whether Blackwell has the right to operate commercially in a rural residential zone is now the question before the BOA.

Contact the writer
Posted by Newsroom on Jan 20th, 2010 and filed under Headline News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Responses for “Refuge Room faces uncertain future”

  1. Deb says:

    Both of these itmes need to be given the right to do what they are doing. Refuge Chapel has proven itself to be a good neighbor and are not the evil people Frank thinks they are…this was thrown back on a technical issue…just follow the process and give them theri permit and call it a day…

    Blackwell has been there forever and should be given his legal nonconforming status. Blackwell has helped keep hundreds of families in water and has run his business out of there for years…do the right thing!

    Frank get another hobby… move to Kenai… quit spending our money to mess with good people! Do you folks realize we all pay for Franks hobby in our own tax dollars… he is not my advocate.. QUIT!

  2. franan says:

    Editor: Comment removed for inappropriate references.

  3. Bryan Lowe says:

    It’s frustrating to see the intensity of feeling on this subject. But when it is all said and done we will still be neighbors, but will we still be friends? It’s easy to “spiritualize” this into a dark vs. light fight, but if we do the peopled to get mashed will be the guys trying to climb out of their desperate situation.

    To me, its a no-brainer. Homer needs the work of the Refuge Room.

Comments are closed