2. Do you believe all existing shoreline development that falls within the new shoreline buffers should be considered non-conforming with the long range goal of elimination?


Greg Ayers:

I do not believe that such a position is either consistent with current provisions of the Shoreline Management Act or that prompting the elimination of current structures and uses is appropriate public policy under whatever terminology, nonconforming or otherwise. The only exception to this would be when a structure or use is shown to be a public nuisance or hazard, in which case the county could use traditional procedures to abate the problem.

Rick Hughes:


Lisa Byers:

I believe that existing shoreline development should be grandfathered.


Lovel Pratt:

No. I voted for the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) which states clearly, “It is the policy of San Juan County that existing legally established structures, uses and activities established on the effective date of this ordinance may continue in perpetuity and will not be considered nonconforming as a result of critical area requirements.” (Ordinance 26-2012, page 49).

Shoreline development is also addressed in the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), which is in the process of being updated. It was the goal of the previous Council to have consistency between the CAO and the SMP. Similar language as included in the CAO could also be included in the SMP.

Bob Jarman:

Absolutely not. Most existing shoreline developments were conforming at the time of construction. The date the permits were issued and construction finished needs to be “grandfathered” in so that these developments are shown to have been conforming. Many, many homes and structures along the waterfront are now considered “nonconforming”, putting the property at risk. This is not only unfair, but ridiculous.

Mark Forleza:

No response

Comments are closed.