Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Frank and/or Julie Kelley [kelleyfamilyof4@msn.com] <br />Sent:Monday, May 10, 2010 8:27 AM <br />To:mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us; Jeffbocc@Co. Us; Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:FW: Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan Update Public Comments <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br /> <br /> <br />From: kelleyfamilyof4@msn.com <br />To: mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us; jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us; jeff.stewart@ecy.wa.gov <br />Subject: Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan Update Public Comments <br />Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 08:25:02 -0700 <br /> <br /> <br />Please accept this comment on the proposed revisions to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan. <br /> <br /> <br />I object to the current revisions to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan. I reject the idea that it has wide <br />support as the county tries to parrot. Many property owners saw the writing on the wall when it recognized a <br />legislature that didn't have the political courage to develop uniform guidelines. Anyone who has even <br />undertaken a cursory examination of the document has to question that it is based on science. It is based on a <br />well-meaning, activist mind-set that in general was formulated by people who have a transient interest in the <br />county and won't suffer the loss of property through these regulations. The “no net-loss policy” should start <br />with those in our community that advocated this policy change from behind the safety of bulkheads or enjoy <br />building set-backs smaller than they advocate for their neighbors. <br /> <br /> <br />I issue the following challenge to the Department of Ecology: <br /> <br />Send a biologist to objectively demonstrate the impact my home has on the shoreline (at a setback of <br />approximately 50 feet from Hood Canal) against an undeveloped lot or one with an 150 foot set-back. If you <br />can use quantitative methods to demonstrate a difference I will publicly support this regulation. Considering <br />you are taking 16,000 sq feet of property (and it is a "taking" in every sense of the word) shouldn't that be the <br />least the state can do? Please don't consider this an offer to enter my property at any time. I'm sure their will be <br />provisions for that later, for now this offer is by appointment only. <br /> <br /> <br />Water quality should be paramount in determining the size of buffers. The regime you propose to have different <br />development standards applied to the same waterways is confusing from multiple perspectives. First it is not <br />clear to the public. I question whether landowners have been provided adequate notice about the severe <br />implications for these designations on their property. The borders are heterogeneous and the designations <br />appear Gerrymandered by population density having more to do with politics of popular resistance than habitat. <br />If these changes are based on science, shouldn't some uses be restricted in Hood Canal due to the closed nature <br />of the estuary? If I'm reading your application of modern science correctly, the Department of Ecology has no <br />preference whether new NPDES permits are issued in the Hood Canal or the Strait of Juan DeFuca? <br /> <br /> <br />Common sense makes me question the magical benefits of native vegetation. The implication that native <br />vegetation reduces the ecological footprint of a small building expansion by two and half fold is inconceivable. <br />I'm referring to the provision to allow residential upland expansion to 25% of the original footprint with <br />replacement of an equal amount of native vegetation. If you really believe that residences greater than 50 feet <br />from the shoreline are responsible for the all this degradation then why abandon your principals? <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />