Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] <br />Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:11 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment VII <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br />To avoid resending them, Comments V and VI were submitted from: <br /> <br /> <br />Jim Hagen <br /> <br />Director, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights <br /> <br />Director, Olympic Stewardship foundation <br /> <br />Jefferson County <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 6 - General policies and Regulations. <br /> <br /> <br />1. Critical Areas, shoreline Buffers, and Ecological Protection. <br /> <br /> <br />6.1.A.1. <br />This policy states "Uses and developments that may cause the future ecological condition to <br />become worse than the current condition should not be allowed." Though this is a policy it is <br />supported by regulations (6.1.B.2). Use of the standard "may cause" is totally inconsistent with the <br />goals of the SMA and highlights how far beyond legal limits this SMP has strayed. <br /> <br /> <br />6.1.A.2.iv. <br />This policy asks for an assessment of the "direct effects of the project and indirect effects." <br />What are the indirect effects of a project? Though a policy, DCD staff has stated that the policies will <br />guide code interpretation, so they carry weight. Policies need to be clear and definable. <br /> <br /> <br />6.1.A.5. <br />This policy relates to evaluating development of nonconforming lots. "Should not <br />substantially impair the view of the adjacent residences." This is a potentially consequential condition <br />placed on development of nonconforming lots. What is the standard for "substantially impair?" These <br />vague and arbitrary terms need to be clarified. <br /> <br /> <br />6.1.B.1. <br />Compliance with this regulation is at once the most basic and elusive of the SMP. Review of <br />inner-department DOE correspondence and correspondence with the County reveals the concept of <br />No Net Loss remains uncertain even to the DOE. A draft white paper released on March 4, 2010 by <br />consultants Jim Kramer, Carol MacIlroy, and Margaret Clancy, written with guidance from DOE, <br />acknowledges that "Even though the SMP update process has been underway for several years, the <br />path for SMPs to meet the no net loss policy objective is still emerging." This is an astounding <br />admission considering that NNL is the cornerstone of SMPs and that landowners have been told <br />under no uncertain terms that the protection standards in the updated SMP are absolutely necessary <br />for shoreline protection. The fact is, the concept of NNL is still very much in the prototype phase, yet <br />permit applicants are being subjected to restrictive development standards nonetheless, including <br />extensive requirements for conditional use permits and even prohibitions of common uses. Taxpaying <br />citizens deserve fair regulation based on supporting data that clearly identifies a need, especially <br />1 <br /> <br />