[Previous entry: "PA & CC At Odds..Again"] [Next entry: "Father-Daughter Dance on SJI is sold out!"]

02/09/2006: "CC Limits Exemption On Farm Blds"

(Francine Shaw asks "Why only one exemption"?)

San Juan County government has a long history of supporting and encouraging farming in the county, and has included a number of exemptions in the building and land use codes in recognition of the historical fact that farmers, perhaps everywhere, but certainly in San Juan County, have struggled to make a living from the land, and to impose the same demands and restrictions that apply to garages and homes is not necessary or appropriate if the County is to retain that rural "look" of old farm buildings that do not look like modern garages, or so-called "hobby farms", but rather look like -what often they are- buildings built with what was available, and without concern for the modern code requirements for homes.

One of these exemptions has been the right to build "miscellaneous small agricultural buildings", and so as to not be accursed by islanders who did not farm, the County Commissions included definitions that allowed limited additional uses, such as tool, wood and other storage; and in a nod to past national stories in the press about the government putting stop-work orders, and imposing fines, on some little kids tree-house, the BOCC included "playhouses" in the exemption. All well and good for over 20 years; until now.


(continued from front)

Running a little behind State mandated requirements to adopt the new International codes for construction and fire, the Planning Department and the County Council decided this was a good time to also make some changes in the County Code on exemptions, one of which was, to restrict the exemption on the 400 square foot building to only one exemption, and that any additional buildings of that size would have to meet all of the normal code requirements. The original draft presented to the Council also limited the exemptions for even smaller buildings, but after a number of concerns were expressed by the public on the wisdom of removing any of the exemptions, they were retained for the smaller buildings.

Todd Goldsmith, Chairman of the newly formed Agricultural Resource Committee, which was created by the County to advise the County on farm related concerns, advised the Council to keep the exemptions as they are currently written. Goldsmith testified that removal of the exemption would have a "very negative impact on farmers".

Francine Shaw, former Deputy Director of Planning, asked the Council "Why only one exemption?"
Councilman Lichter asked staff if there would be a significant loss of revenue if the County did not collect normal permit fees for exempt buildings, but was told by Staff the loss of permit income would not be significant.

After some discussion by the Council, and additional testimony from the public against removing the exemptions, Councilman Ranker moved to adopt the draft changes as presented, Myhr made the second, and Lichter voted in favor. In passing the motion, the Council did not clearly state the reasons, and the public benefit, that would result in the change to the County Code.

As a result, farmers, and others, will now have to have formal concrete foundations, approved (new) lumber, structural shear walls, hurricane tie-downs, and a host of other requirements when they decide they need to build a second building. If they decide to build a traditional post-and-beam building, they will also be required to submit engineering for the building.