Continuing use of real property, permitted by zoning ordinances, in a manner in which other similar plots of land in the same area cannot ordinarily be used.
via Encyclopedia.com
Throughout the SMP Update process, shoreline homeowners must ask our City Planners, the Planning Commission and City Council about the impact new shoreline regulations have on our homes. For example, if they they increase the existing native vegetation zone from 50 feet to 100 feet or more, will every home on Bainbridge Island’s shoreline become “nonconforming”?
If so, is their intention to “amortize” the value of our homes to $0 with the passage of time? If this is not their intention, what steps will they take to make sure that destruction of our property values will not be an unintended consequence of their actions?
Here’s what the Washington Administrative Code has to say about “nonconforming use”.
If you don’t speak out, who will? See our Speak Out page for email addresses.
“non-conforming use” is defined by state law not a legal encyclopedia.
Please note the reference to the Washington Administrative Code in the article… I believe, that qualifies as “State Law”. :-)
Providing a link to the WAC definition of non-conforming use was a good idea, but the questions raised reflect a poor understanding of what’s actually said about non-conforming development in the current SMP draft (July, 2011) — Section III. L. The Goal statement in the first workgroup draft (February 9, 2011) gave some legitimate cause for concern, but I see nothing problematic in the current Goal statement.
I would like to see a critique of the current Goal statement and the enumerated policies and regulations that follow it in the July draft.
If properties that would be rendered non-conforming by the new SMP are to be considered conforming, how is that to be done?
State law now says that local jurisdictions may declare existing homes “conforming.” Senate Bill 5451 was proposed by Kevin Ranker, a stanch environmentalist (his words), supported by our own Phil Rockefeller and Christine Rolfes, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. Learn more here.
An outline of the latest version of the SMP update draft, including goals, policies and regulations, may be found here.
In the comment above by bshadmin, the link provided leads to useful information about SB 5451 as passed in April, but the information about the draft SMP provisions for Nonconforming Development is badly out of date. The current draft, dated July, 2011, now under consideration by the Planning Commission and the Council, is very different, and much more respectful of shoreline property owners’ rights.