Related Pages

List of stories about Growth Management Act in San Juan County

County adopts MPA rules in comp plan

posted 12/05/01
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are now part of the county's Comprehensive Plan (CP). Depending on which commissioner is asked, MPAs are either "important to the health" of the environment or they are "a serious and fatal error." Commissioners Darcie Nielsen and Rhea Miller approved the ordinance that included the MPAs. Commissioner Evans strongly disapproved.

The county's county's Web site. explains the new section:

A new section B.3.3.J is added to Element 3, Shoreline Master Program, of the CP to provide and allow for a new "Marine Protected Area" overlay district shoreline environment. Currently the CP only allows for a Marine Habitat Management Area Environment shoreline environment which is designed to be applied to specific water bodies only in concert with the development of a watershed plan and the designation of the associated watershed. However, a number of marine areas (such as Marine Protected Areas for bottom fish) could benefit from overlay protection but need no upland watershed plan development or designation. The new shoreline environment will address this need.

Evans said the section will create a regulatory regime. He noted the tribes have expressed concern about MPAs. Miller who has dealt extensively with the tribes said, "I don't foresee San Juan County creating any MPA without the tribes coming on board. What we've done here is put what our criteria would be."

Nielsen hoped the regulations created for MPAs would be mostly voluntary.

Evans responded, "No good deed goes unpunished."

The commissioners dealt with three ordinances related to the Comprehensive Plan, Official Maps, and Unified Development Code during their Dec. 4, 2001 meeting. The full text of the three ordinances is available on the county's Web site.The vote on the ordinance concerning the amendments was unanimously approved. The commissioners split on the third ordinance which dealt with redesignations of resource lands with Nielsen and Evans voting for it.

Public Hearing on Comp Plan amendments resumes Nov. 13

By Sharon Kivisto

posted 11/12/01
The public hearing on amendments and changes to the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Code (UDC) and Official Maps will resume at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 13 in the commissioners' hearing room. Last week the commissioners dealt with site specific redesignations. A majority of the commissioners approved redesignations which resulted in an increase in the density for six properties.

In a Nov. 30, 2000 Growth Management Hearings Board ruling redesignations affecting 1,000 acres of resource land were declared invalid. In its ruling the board said.

"The County bypassed its previously adopted process, provided virtually no public participation opportunities, and made the redesignations without any supporting evidence in the record. The County further adopted a new policy to review all resource lands designations over the next three years. It is contrary to the GMA to redesignate some 3 percent of the County's total resource lands piecemeal through a remand process that was not required by the Final Decision and Order (FDO) to address any resource land designation issues.

After the ruling, the planning department reviewed parcels designated as resource land. Recommendations for redesignations were forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The BOCC held a public hearing Nov. 6, 2001 and agreed to redesignate six properties.

All three commissioners agreed to change the Lawrence property from Forest 20 to Agricultural 10 and the 61-acre Eagle Lake Div. IV property from Forest 20 to Rural Farm Forest (RFF) 5. (The number refers to the number of dwelling units allowed per acre.)

Commissioner Rhea Miller did not agree with Commissioners Darcie Nielsen and John Evans' decision to change the Bell property from Forest 20 to RFF 10. "I do not concur. This is not a matter of redesignation, it is a matter of density," she said. She preferred to wait until the county looked at overall density, noting this parcel was "particularly vulnerable for litigation."

Evans said, "No matter what the BOCC does someone will sue. The board had promised and committed and we should stand by it. ".

Evans and Nielsen agreed to change the two Bond parcels from Forest 20 to Ag 10. Miller said changing one of the Bond's parcels was justified but not the other.

All three commissioners agreed to redesignate the northern 200 acres of the Sandwith property from Forest 20 to Rural Residential 5. The change was based on a previous legal agreement between the county and the Sandwith family. Miller agreed with the change on the basis of the legal contract not on the merits of the redesignation.

Friends of the San Juan Director Stephanie Buffum said, "We oppose this redesignation because it is based on a private contract rather than on the scientific data on which resource lands are to be evaluated."

The Wood property on Lopez Island was changed from Forest 20 to RFF 10. Miller applauded the low impact the four families who live there have had on the property but could not support the change. She said the change was not a matter of redesignation but a matter of density.

Referring to the county Land Bank's upcoming projects which the BOCC had reviewed earlier in the day, Nielsen said, "The density is reduced proportionally through the Land Bank. The net impact of potential increased density is not happening."

The property owners had asked for the above mentioned redesignations. Other properties -- on Aleck Bay and Griffin Bay -- were also reviewed by the planning department. No changes were made in the designations of those properties.

Other property owners living in San Juan Valley had opposed downzoning of their land to fit the state's definition of resource land. Under the Comp Plan an overlay district will be created. The property owners would have 12 months (with a possible 6-month extension if necessary) to develop a San Juan Valley Heritage Plan which would allow for a variety of densities. The amendments under consideration take out wording which set a target of an average of one unit per 15 acres. If an agreement cannot be reached in the time allowed, the density reverts to those listed on the official maps.

Changes to the UDC are also to be discussed. Permit Center Director recommended against a suggestion to make conditional use permits (CUP) expire in 15 years. He also did not favor making CUPs non-transferrable to the new property owner. "I can't see the county telling someone to rip out a hotel," he said.

At last week's hearing, citizens commented on the need for more communication with the public. Referring to recommended changes to the allowable setbacks for waterfront properties (regarding cases where neighboring houses are closer than current regulations) Sam Buck said, "This needs more exposure to the people or else it's stealing from the blind."

More information is available on the county's Web site

Background story:

Background

posted 11/11/01
The Growth Management Hearings Board disagreed with the county's resource land designations in its July 1999 ruling. The board said Forest resource land density must be no more than one unit per 20 acres; Agricultural land density must be no more than one unit per 10 acres. There are criteria which need to be met for land to be considered resource land. For example, the state bases its designation of agricultural land on soil type and the ability to grow crops.

In the process of working on a response to the 1999 ruling the commissioners approved redesignations of five properties involving resource land. In other words they were changed from Forest Resource land to Agricultural or to Rural Farm Forest or to Rural Residential.

The hearings board in Nov. 2000 took exception to the BOCC's redesignation of almost 1,000 acres of resource land and ruled the redesignations invalid. The hearings board said the county did not follow its own procedures and made the changes without sufficient public notice.

Since last November, the planning department has reviewed the resource land in the county and issued a report. The county's volunteer Planning Commission drew up its own recommendations after reviewing the report. The BOCC then held a public hearing on Nov. 6, 2001 which was continued to Nov. 13, 2001.

After the hearings are completed and the BOCC finishes its deliberations, they will adopt the revised Comprehensive Plan. It will then be sent back to the hearings board for review.

Note about Guesthouses

Comp Plan changes regarding guesthouses have been separated out from the current process. The issues regarding accessory dwelling units and transient rentals will be dealt with together. The relevant data is being compiled and a report is being written. There will be discussions, public meetings and hearings after the report is finished.