Colfax zoning board denies request to divide four-plexes on University
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
COLFAX — The Colfax Zoning Board of Appeals has denied a request to divide the two four-plex units on University Avenue into two separate properties.
James Russell, of Russell Rentals, spoke to the Zoning Board of Appeals during a public hearing held June 12.
Russell said he had gotten involved with the project five years ago to build the two four-plex units at 1007 and 1009 University Avenue next to the former location of Area Nursing home.
After acquiring ownership of the four-plexes, Russell said he and his partner had decided to separate.
The four-plexes on University are the last piece holding up the separation, he said.
The request is to divide the property in half so that each of them owns one of the buildings, Russell said, noting that he has been going back and forth with attorneys and surveyors for a year.
It would not be able to be an equal split, but it would be close to half and would require an easement, Russell said.
Russell said that both he and his partner intended to have well-cared-for and well-managed properties and that neither was interested in being a “slum landlord.”
Instead of splitting the property, a partnership could be formed, but Russell said he would prefer not to do that.
Lynn Niggemann, village administrator-clerk-treasurer, said that the attorneys she had talked with said that in other similar situations, the assets are sold and then the proceeds are divided equally.
Another option would be to consider other properties the couple owns and separate those differently and keep this property together in one parcel, she said.
Russell said they were not willing for one person or the other to own the whole property.
The concern is that there is a single driveway that would require easements and a lifetime guarantee, and that if the property changes hands, there could be an issue “down the road,” said Mike Kiekhafer, chair of the Board of Appeals.
If it is a partnership, then it would require a fair exit clause and would mean a private party agreement to take care of, Russell said.
The issue of separating the properties goes before a judge in five days, he said.
Tight fit
During the construction of the four-plexes, certain accommodations were made in order to have the four-plexes built there so close together, Niggemann said.
The lots were auctioned off, and concessions were made that were not ideal and resulted in a tight fit, she said.
Area Nursing Home had purchased several lots directly west of the building and had planned to expand the former nursing home property.
Along the way, the state changed the requirements related to sprinkler systems for nursing homes, which made it cost prohibitive to remodel the existing nursing home.
Area Nursing Home, which changed its “doing business as” name to the Colfax Health and Rehabilitation Center, then decided to build a new facility on the south side of town.
After operating the new facility for a number of years, the CHRC board of directors decided to auction off the lots to the west of the former nursing home building as well as the nursing home building itself.
There have been complaints about parking, and there is a concern about the easement protecting the future of the lots. Recorded documents would be needed for both properties, Niggemann said.
The village’s engineers are concerned that it would set a precedent for future development in the village, she said.
A partnership is possible because the separation is amicable, Russell said, adding that he is not out to fight another battle and is willing to do what makes sense.
Precedent
Jeff Prince, village president, said that he, too, is concerned dividing the property would set a precedent.
The separation of the properties or how to divide the properties is more of a civil issue rather than a village issue, he said.
What happens in 10 years or 20 years, and the property is landlocked, Prince said.
If a partnership is formed, then no easements are necessary, said Gary Stene, village trustee.
If it is a partnership, the partnership can be dissolved and one or the other would own the property, Russell said, noting that the property is part of the couple’s portfolio for passive income.
Stene said he had nothing against Russell and Russell’ partner, but that if they would form a partnership, then there would be no future problems.
Stene said his “two cents” is to not make it worse and to not approve the request to split the two properties.
The best intentions can have unintended consequences, he said.
As a split property, the property would not meet the ordinance for frontage or the village’s boundary requirement, Kiekhafer said.
The property as it exists does not meet the village’s green space requirements, and there is no front yard or backyard, Niggemann said.
Russell said he had worked hard to address the concerns and did not think there was more he could do.
Deliberations
During their deliberations after the public hearing had been closed, Kiekhafer reiterated that his biggest concern was the precedent that dividing the properties might set.
Allowing the property to be divided could be setting up a precedent for other multi-family housing that has been built in Colfax or may be built in Colfax in the future, he said.
Several lots in Phase 2 of the East View residential development on Dunn Street have been designated for multi-family dwellings, and three duplexes are being built on the lot behind the Russell property on High Street.
“We could be setting a precedent for down the road that we don’t want to go,” Kiekhafer said, adding that he understood the situation that Russell did not foresee he might want to divide the property at a later date.
After hearing that the village’s engineer and attorney had serious concerns about dividing the property, Gene Gibson, BOA member, said he was “leery” of approving the property to be divided.
“I do feel better that you have another option. It may not be preferential, but you do have an option,” Kiekhafer said.
Russell apologized for the time the village and the BOA had spent on the request.
“I’m not out to make trouble or set precedents,” he said.
Jason Johnson said he was torn about the decision.
On the one hand, Johnson said he would like to say go ahead and divide the property, but then on the other hand, would it set a precedent for other properties in Colfax?
“We have to think above and beyond,” he said.
“This has been a learning experience,” Niggemann said.
The Colfax Zoning Board of Adjustment unanimously voted to deny the request to subdivide the property at 1007 and 1009 University Avenue into two properties.
Mark Mosey, BOA member, was absent from the meeting.
Voting in favor of the motion to deny the request were BOA members Kiekhafer, Gibson, Johnson and Richard Bautch.
