By Marta Nielson
In response to Councilman Bob Jarman’s recent letter regarding the County approving a new higher tech photography, I would be interested in hearing from the current county council members that did approve this deal. (I would understand from his comments that Councilman Jarman did not.)
My first thought, I must admit, at learning of this new photography was not one of paranoia and suspicion of spying, but rather that it might be a good idea in light of the long history of islanders building both land and marine structures with either no permitting or exceeding the permits that they did apply for and receive.
For example,there are numerous out-of-code docks – ones that exceed the measurements granted in their original permits.
If we are to “trust” each other – we should be able to trust and expect that consequences (such as fines) take place when islanders choose to not follow regulations. The county does not have the budget, nor employees to do active, on the ground follow up inspections of permitting (which is quite a common practice in most counties) and it appears that some residents are even refusing to let the authorized County people on their land when there is a situation to investigate.
Regulations on building and construction do not negatively affect any “rural character,” but rather serve to protect it. There is a Commons component to land management and permitting. No private property owner has a right to do just anything, anytime that is outside of current regulations – as their choices can then negatively affect the “Commons” for us all (air quality, water safety, pollution, erosion, etc.) If there is a need to streamline the County’s permitting process, review current regulations, propose less or more – then let’s do that.
We as citizens have that right and could step forward in a positive way to accomplish it.
The County does indeed have the resources and employees to do effective permitting and enforcement; it just chooses to use those resources in other ways. CDP has some 20 employees, only ONE of which is an enforcement officer. NINE are engaged in some form of “planning.”
Perhaps the biggest single problem the County has had with enforcement of late is the insistence that the staff sit and work in the office using computer mapping data of highly questionable accuracy. Many of the cases of arbitrary and overreaching enforcement that have come to light of late have been about properties that the bureaucrats have never seen. Getting the staff into the field and in communication with land owners will cut out the miscommunications that have occurred in the past.
As for the claimed large number of violations, we have heard this repeatedly from the Friends–but never see the data. Why do the Friends pursue only selected cases if they purport to have a wealth of information about violations? Why not put it ALL out there?
Peg, I wrote my opinion as an individual – not as a member of Friends. Why do you insist on relating everything back to Friends – it seems some people are bent on bashing in anyway possible – regardless of relativity or truth.
Here’s one the Friends were not involved with but I live less than 300′ away from it: Craftsmen Corner. Owner was sent a letter saying he needed to repair the wetland violations at least 7 years ago, including: remove fill from wetland stream, replant trees illegally cut down, and replanting edge plants, road removed from in the wetland. Still not enforced. No follow through by Rene Beliveau. Why? Other violations besides the wetland ones still go unaddressed. Required permits were not obtained. Still haven’t been, as far as I know; because they never should have been.
Eastsound Subarea Plan (soon to have no teeth at all in protecting wetlands) was violated in every way. County still insists on not recognizing the ESAP so now it’s (at the request of EPRC), “incorporating” our SubArea Plan into the UDC, saying nothing will change for us here. Hogwash. Worse will be done to what little is left and believe me, there’s hardly anything left.
According to the ESAP, if you missed even one of ten things that needed to be followed in order to ignore wetland buffers, even on a small lot under an acre (the under 1 acre exemption law), buffers would automatically increase to 100 feet. Yeah, so that never happened.
Nowadays, contiguity and watersheds mean zilch, so people can destroy wetlands with impunity. That’s how well our regulations are protecting what needs protection. The “new” wetlands appearing that so many property owners are complaining about? You can blame those on clear-cutting and logging upstream and uphill, building more impervious surfaces (incl. lawns, driveways, roads, buildings, along with unaddressed stormwater and silt erosion, since the trees that would have held that all back are gone.
Marta–I am not insisting on relating “everything” back to the Friends. Your piece was about regulation and enforcement. My comment was about the failure of enforcement. Surely you are not denying that the Friends take an active role in reporting, or intervening in, permitting cases? It is my understanding that the Friends have repeatedly alleged that they are aware of multiple violations of our code, yet these have not been published or filed with the County, to my knowledge–only certain cases seem to have been pursued, either on Friends complaint or by the Permitting Department on its own motion.
That’s a fact. That’s relevant. Charles Dalton, the Speeds, the B&B owner on San Juan. But not other, better-connected people. This is a real issue that needs to be addressed.
I’m happy to correct any factual error you identify.