Shoreline plan updates could use a little logic

An older couple in Kitsap County had finally decided to move. Their landmark lakefront home, the headquarters for family reunions, community events and Sunday religious services, would soon be offered for sale.

They’d retired there, after decades in their Pierce County residence where they raised their children, and now it was time to move closer to the city for in-home care and the proximity to a specific hospital.

The couple’s two children had grown and moved away. As much as they wanted to keep their parents’ home in the family, the distance, maintenance and property taxes proved too much for them to handle. It’s difficult to justify a cross-country plane trip and two weeks’ vacation time every year just to visit the lake home, they said.

The family contacted a long-time realtor friend to conduct a preliminary market evaluation in order to ascertain what amount of money the older couple could expect at sale. The lakefront home’s value comprised more than half of their assets.

They couple was surprised and confused when the realtor told them: “It depends what happens under the Shoreline Master Plan update.”

The original intent of the state’s 2003 Shoreline Master Plan was to protect and manage the vast and varied coastlines and wetlands of the Evergreen State. It was not a deliberate attempt to devalue the properly permitted structures originally built within the legal boundaries set by local codes. In some cases, homes built outside new buffer zones have been deemed “non-conforming” and have been difficult to rebuild, even after a fire.

“It just did not make sense to me,” said Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island. “But it was more than simply not being able to rebuild your house if it burned down. It was the negative perception of ‘”non-conforming.”‘
Ranker, is a self-described “staunch environmentalist” not known for wanting to knock down trees or bulldoze buffers. (“There are people opposed to anything that I do; regardless if it helps property owners.”)

However, he does get that some older homes were built outside present buffer guidelines and should not be penalized for doing so.

“Let’s say a Realtor is showing a gorgeous piece of property to a client and is forced to say ‘Well, it’s the nicest property I’m going to show you today, but it’s ‘non-conforming.’ That would immediately throw up a red flag to any potential buyer and reduce interest in the home.”

In an attempt to resolve the problem, Ranker helped to draft Senate Bill 5451, which allows local jurisdictions to include in their mandatory SMP updates the following language:

“New or amended master programs approved by the department on or after September 1, 2011, must include the following: (a) A structure legally established or vested on or before the effective date of a master program must be considered a conforming structure; and (b) Redevelopment, expansion, change within the class of occupancy, or replacement of the structure must be consistent with the master program including no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.”

“Senator Ranker is certainly a guy who cares a lot about protecting existing shorelines,” said Nathan Gorton, government affairs director for the Washington Association of Realtors. “He would not have run a bill if it would have led to additional encroachment, but he does agree with us that existing use shouldn’t be discriminated against.”

Ranker said the non-conforming tag on homes could increase home insurance rates (a hardship, especially for retirees on a fixed income), possibly impose higher home-loan rates and a possibly reduce opportunity for future appreciation.

What if local authorities do not approve the language of SB 5451 in its SMP update and a homeowner wants to sell without the non-conforming designation?

In a capsule, Gorton believes the law gives local jurisdictions the final say in the matter.

“I don’t see a judge ruling for the homeowner on that request alone,” Gorton said. “I would think there would have to be other circumstances involved.”

Ranker is not so sure.

“Then I guess the onus would be on the property owner to push back on it,” Ranker said. “And I’m sure that would be costly and take a lot of time. It just makes sense for local jurisdictions to adopt because it protects homeowners who followed the rules when they originally built their homes.”

The Shoreline Management Act is a complex, controversial document with elements that many consumers believe too restrictive and illogical. SB 5451 removes the “non-conforming” tag from once conforming homes. Doesn’t that make sense?

Tom Kelly’s book “Cashing In on a Second Home in Central America: How to Buy, Rent and Profit in the World’s Bargain Zone” was written with Mitch Creekmore, senior vice president of Houston-based Stewart International and Jeff Hornberger, the National Association of Realtors’ international market development manager.