The term “non-conforming use” has been a black cloud over the debate of local regulatory land use changes, particularly with regard to the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Plan.

We hope that Senate Bill 5451, which is gaining momentum in Olympia, helps to lift that pall.

Sponsored by Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-San Juan Island, the bill would remove the designation of “non-conforming use” from residential shoreline regulations. On Feb. 28, it was endorsed by the Senate, and it will be considered next by state lawmakers in the House.

The term “non-conforming” applies to a use or development that was lawfully established but does not conform to current shoreline master plan requirements. These grand-fathered developments may continue as long as they are not enlarged, intensified, increased, or altered in a way that increases the non-conformity.

The non-conforming label can hinder the ability of a property owner to buy or sell their home. Such a designation may also lead to an increase in insurance premiums or a loss in market value of a home. This legislation would remove the non-conforming designation from residential shoreline evaluation.

“I first heard about this problem at a San Juan County Realtors Association meeting,” Ranker said. “I’ve been working with a team of attorneys and realtors at the state level for a year on this issue. I’ve also sat down with the environmentalists. This is one of the greatest better government bills that our county will have.”

This will not affect any ecological or environmental protections included in a local shoreline master program. The bill states that classifying existing structures as legally conforming will not create a risk of degrading shoreline natural resources. We agree.

“The Shoreline Management Act says very clearly what you can and cannot do,” Ranker said. “The title ‘non-conforming use’ was a red flag that realtors were having a problem with. If a house was non-conforming, and more than 50 percent burned down, you could not rebuild because you were non-conforming. With this bill, if your house burned down, you could build the exact same house in the same footprint.”

Removing that pesky word from the language of shoreline management plans does not mean it’s a free-for-all. The same rules apply to anyone who is planning to expand, build, or change their land use near the shoreline.

We think this bill is a very good step towards building a bridge between proponents and opponents of updates to land and shoreline regulations.