On 4/2/09 the FHA received a policy paper from DPD regarding floating homes, accompanied by a matrix or table which attempted to combine conforming and non-conforming floating homes regulations. Bob Bowman and the SMP Workgroup responded with the following comments on 4/21/09. See the our SMP Revsion page for more information
I want to thank Maggie and the DPD staff for meeting with Floating Homes Association representatives on two occasions to give us their initial proposals and to listen to our issues and concerns. From DPD's Policy Paper it is clear that they responded to some of FHA's concerns, particularly the proposed requirements to reduce float size at time of replacement and to create standards to regulate the maintenance of floats. At the same time, FHA still has serious concerns about several proposed regulatory changes and some specific language in the Policy Paper. We strongly oppose the proposal to combine the conforming and non-conforming regulations and ask that Table 1 be withdrawn. I will provide feedback on our specific concerns below.
Floating Homes Policy Paper
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Language
DPD proposed the following Comprehensive Plan language:
"Existing floating home communities represent an important cultural resource because of their historic role in providing affordable housing for Seattle's working class and their unique contribution to Seattle's maritime culture. Existing communities should be allowed to remain; however, new houseboats should be prohibited since overwater residences are not a preferred use of Seattle's shorelines."
FHA proposes the following language that retains current Comprehensive Plan language (I.E. "Preserve the existing floating home community") and allows no net increase in floating homes while protecting existing floating homes that may lose their current moorage. This proposed language leaves room for future flexibility to allow extension of floating home communities if they are developed in a way that provides better environmental alternatives than other allowed uses.
"Existing floating home communities represent an important cultural resource because of their historic and unique contribution to Seattle's maritime culture. Existing floating home communities, moorages and homes, should be preserved, including allowance for repair, replacement, and relocation as necessary. Because current regulations treat floating homes as overwater residences, not a preferred shoreline use, extension of floating home communities (as distinct from repair, replacement, and relocation) would be allowed only if developed in a manner that provides a better environmental alternative than other allowed uses."
Proposed Regulatory Changes
-
Prohibit new floating homes.
See our proposed language above which adds important clarifications.
-
Combine standards for conforming and non-conforming houseboat moorages.
FHA strongly opposes combining the conforming and non-conforming standards. The historic and distinctive history of floating homes in Seattle shaped the unique regulatory context of floating homes and their moorages. The variety of existing floating home sizes, heights, setbacks etc is the result of numerous decisions by the City of Seattle over the years. It is in this context that new proposed regulations should be addressed. In addition, floating homes and moorages are not only physically interdependent, but are constrained by a web of DNR leases, private leases, cooperative or condominium legal requirements and state and local regulations. Combining the standards will create more complexity and potential contradictions than keeping the two distinct standards. We strongly support DPD's earlier suggestion to abolish the conforming/non-conforming nomenclature and substitute categories such as standard A and standard B.
-
Prohibit new basements, but allow repair and replacement of existing basements.
FHA concurs with the proposal to allow repair and replacement. While FHA has not taken a formal stand on this issue, we question the scientific basis for prohibiting new basements. FHA believes it is in the best interest of both the community and DPD that new regulations are based on solid scientific evidence and note that the data that have been available through DPD do not appear now to justify a complete and outright ban on what might be a useful and environmentally benign floating home component. FHA recommends further scientific study before any regulatory action is taken.
-
Prohibit additional floor area unless total float area is 1200 sq ft or less.
This regulation could have a significant financial and quality of life impact on houseboat owners without any gain for the environment. The size of the enclosed area of a houseboat, whatever the size of the float, has no demonstrable bearing on protecting salmon. Yet, as noted, this regulation would work a hardship on floating home residents (E.G. those living in very small houses on large floats). FHA strongly recommends this proposed regulation be withdrawn.
Depth of Floats
We strongly concur with DPD's decision not to create standards to regulate the maintenance of floats. FHA would like to work with DPD as they consider standards for float depth when floating homes are rebuilt or replaced. Such standards could have a direct impact on the viability of floating homes since we are in an ongoing process of float replacement and renewal in response to the unrelenting impacts of wind, waves, and weather.
Table 1: Current and Proposed Floating Home Regulations
As mentioned above, FHA strongly opposes combining conforming and non-conforming standards. Combining the standards will cause unnecessary complexity and confusion. If needed, FHA has the knowledge to assist DPD in developing an inventory of conforming and non-conforming moorages, including the few docks with both conforming and non-conforming moorages. We support DPD's earlier proposal to re-name the standards as A and B or some other designation. Because of the pitfalls inherent in attempting to combine standards for contrasting circumstances in one standard, the approach reflected in Table 1 should be discarded. Instead, any changes should be adopted in the context of the current conforming/ nonconforming narrative Code approach, with an adjustment to more neutral nomenclature (for example, "A" and "B" instead of "conforming" and "nonconforming" since these zoning terms do not necessarily apply perfectly in the floating home context).
Proposed Floating Home Regulations
FHA has concerns with a number of the proposed regulatory changes. All of our comments below are offered in the context of our conclusion that the attempt to combine "nonconforming" and "conforming" standards will increase rather than reduce confusion. Instead, we suggest maintaining the discrete categories. Because of the confusion caused by the combined standards in Table 1, FHA may have additional concerns about specific proposed code changes as these issues become clearer.
Float Area
We are in agreement - thank you for responding to our concerns.
Height
"No expansion of existing structures shall be allowed above 18 ft."
Clarification would be helpful here. We recommend language such as "Rebuild to existing height standards for non-conforming moorages." A prohibition on replacement of a floating home to its existing height, if that is what the proposal here intends, would be punitive and not conducive to preservation of the existing floating home community. It needs to be clarified that houseboats on conforming moorages can be built to the 21 ft standard.
Setback
"Setbacks may not be reduced below existing conforming requirements or current setback and must meet existing non-conforming minimums if rebuilt or replaced."
Many older floating homes are too close together for this to be practical. For example, this proposed policy negatively impacts people in older floating homes who lose their homes by disaster or need to rebuild/replace for other reasons (for example, due to the wear and tear on floating homes that commonly occurs from wind, waves, and weather).
We suggest the following wording to avoid such consequences in the "nonconforming" standards context: "Setbacks may not be reduced below the lesser of existing applicable code requirements or current setback". Again, combining the standards makes this issue confusing.
Open Water
No comments
Walkway Access
No comments
Accessory Float
"No new accessory structures. Floats existing prior to 3/1/1977 may be maintained & replaced, not expanded or transferred."
This proposal should be clarified to the effect that if a floating home is moved to another site the legal existing accessory float can be moved with it.
Minimum Site Area
"The total site area shall not be reduced below 2,000 sq ft or current site area".
The current Code provisions, respectively applicable in nonconforming and conforming contexts should be continued. Attempts to impose a standard applicable across the board to nonconforming and conforming alike, and with a uniform minimum built-in for both, which the matrix seems to intend, would be unworkable. For example, the intent and effect of this proposal in the context of existing co-op and similar docks (which are not necessarily organized in the same manner as other docks) would be unclear, making adoption inadvisable.
Total Water Coverage
This appears to be the standard currently applicable to "conforming" docks pursuant to SMC 23.60.196.B1.d. Continuation is appropriate, but if the matrix reflects a proposal to apply this standard in the "nonconforming" context, that would be unworkable since we are not writing on a clean slate with regard to floating home moorages.
View Corridor
No comments
Floor Area
"The total floor area of a structure may not be increased unless total float area is 1,200 sq ft or less"
This regulation could have a significant financial and quality of life impact on houseboat owners without any gain for the environment. The size of the enclosed area of a houseboat, whatever the size of the float, has no demonstrable bearing on protecting salmon. Yet, as noted, this regulation would work a hardship on floating home residents living in very small houses on large floats. We recommend this proposed regulation be withdrawn.
Basements
"No new living or storage space may be located below water level. Existing living or storage space below water level may be remodeled, replaced or rebuilt, but may not be expanded."
FHA concurs with the proposal to allow repair and replacement. While FHA has not taken a formal stand on this issue, we question the scientific basis for prohibiting new basements. FHA believes it is in the best interest of both the community and DPD that new regulations are based on solid scientific evidence and note that the data that have been available through DPD do not appear now to justify a complete and outright ban on what might be a useful and environmentally benign floating home component. FHA recommends further scientific study before any regulatory action is taken.
If there are questions about this response paper, please contact me.