Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council to limit Roche Harbor master‑plan expansion in comprehensive‑plan hearing
Summary
Residents at a long San Juan County hearing urged the council to restrict a Roche Harbor map amendment they say would risk wetlands, water, roads and rural character; Roche Harbor’s general manager said the land‑use capacity would not increase beyond 180 dwelling units and described an intent to prioritize year‑round rental housing, half at reduced rents.
A string of neighbors and island advocates urged San Juan County Council on Nov. 25 to limit a proposed map amendment expanding the Roche Harbor master‑plan resort boundary, saying the change risks wetlands, water and septic systems, traffic, fire access and permanent shifts in rural character.
At public comment, Tom Tucci of Bellevue Farms said the map changes would put housing close to his property and called for a larger buffer along Rogue Harbor Road. “I’m strongly opposed to that — it changes the rural character and raises wetlands, traffic and infrastructure concerns,” Tucci told the council.
Glenn and Kim Corson, immediate neighbors, said they feared the expansion could enable hundreds of additional units and a resort‑style development that would degrade local ecology and tranquility. “This amendment isn’t just a development — it’s a permanent redefinition of who we are as a community,” Kim Corson said.
Roche Harbor’s representative, Matthew Allen, told council the NPR (resort) boundary amendment would increase acreage but not the master‑plan’s historical capacity: “By virtue of the map amendment … the total number of dwelling units allowed, 180, for the entire expanded district does not change,” Allen said. He added that Roche Harbor was discussing far fewer units in practice — he described a concept of roughly 48 homes as a possible scenario and said the resort had discussed aiming for about half to be priced below market rents to serve year‑round working households, with further review required through future planned‑unit‑development and permitting processes.
Council and staff questioned whether the council could hold the resort to verbal commitments and discussed possible conditions the council could add if it moved forward, including buffer widths (staff said the buffer was revised to 150 feet), limits on vacation‑rental conversions, requirements tied to affordability metrics and utility capacity reviews. Planning staff told council the map amendment is a site‑specific redesignation application that can be continued or carried forward and noted staff would recommend continuing the Roche Harbor discussion to Dec. 9 to allow time for written commitments or additional analysis.
Why it matters: The Roche Harbor amendment sits at the center of a broader comprehensive‑plan update that sets long‑term land‑use designations across the county. Neighbors framed the map change as immediate and place‑defining; Roche Harbor described potential housing benefits but no firm development plan. Council signaled interest in getting written commitments and exploring conditions but also warned that private ownership can change and that binding commitments require explicit code or ordinance language.
What’s next: Council continued the comprehensive‑plan hearing and scheduled follow‑ups: staff asked to return with edits and, in the interim, council set additional hearings on Dec. 2 and Dec. 9 to refine conditions and review any written proposals from Roche Harbor.
