95.Hagen, J. 5-8_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment XV
Long Range Planning
95.Hagen, J. 5-8_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment XV
4/21/2011 2:53:52 PM
11/1/2010 3:59:48 PM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [email@example.com] <br />Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 5:16 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XV <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 10, Cont., <br /> <br /> <br />10.1.A.x. <br />mentions field visits as necessary by the Administrator. The code is very vague about the County actually going <br />out to properties and verifying conditions, either before or after construction. At least I can't find it. But <br />10.19.A. <br />monitoring requirements are mentioned as a possible condition in And monitoring is a built-in requirement for <br />Critical Area Stewardship Plans. Citizens have expressed concerns throughout the CAO and SMP about County <br /> <br />employees coming onto their land. Any provisions for "field visits" need to be spelled out in specific terms. <br /> <br />10.3. <br />describes minimum permit applications. There are 19 provisions. It is interesting to me that many of the <br />11. A <br />requirements that would be crucial in establishing site-specific baselines for no net loss are so general in nature. ( <br />general description of the character of the vegetation found on site. 12. A description of the existing ecological <br />conditions functions and processes affecting, maintaining, or influencing the shoreline at/near the project site. <br />). <br />These don't appear to require any professional assessments. For all the micro-management in the SMP, that the <br />administrator would accept a landowners general assessment of conditions prior to construction is anathema to its <br /> <br />controlling nature. This is why it is important to clarify what triggers a field visit. <br /> <br />10.3.A.8. <br />requires identification of the ordinary high water mark. "For any development that requires a precise location of <br />the OHWM, the applicant/proponent shall provide a survey and describe the biological and hydrological basis for the <br />location as indicated on the plans." Perhaps this is what triggers extensive and expensive reports, as this factor is <br />essential for all circumstances except those where the structure will be set back well beyond the 150 foot buffer <br /> <br />requirement. Certainly this will be required for those "flexible" buffer reductions. These assessments are expensive. <br /> <br />10.3.A.16. <br />wants a summary of the effects a project will have on existing ecological functions and mitigation against any <br />"likely" adverse effects. What is the standard for "likely?" Shouldn't it be consistent with the WAC 173-26 standard of <br />"significant adverse impacts?" Will the DCD accept the landowners assessment, or will a professional appraisal be <br /> <br />necessary? <br /> <br />10.3.A.18. <br />What exactly does this mean? What "1 above" are they referring to? This seems crucial, as the administrator is <br /> <br />given authority to waive requirements on a "case-by-case basis." <br /> <br />And just as an editorial point, the DCD, BoCC, and DOE have tried to reassure the public that existing uses are <br />grandfathered and won't really be affected. At the public hearing Jeffree Stewart made a specific reference to existing <br />uses "as is," meaning you're fine as long as don't change anything. But this freezes the use in time, and is totally <br />uncharacteristic of human nature and the fluid, dynamic, ever-forward moving progression of human expression. Nothing <br />stands still; not even a rock is unchanging as it is continuously shaped by the passage of time. People's homes are a <br />constant work in progress, representing the soul-based aspirations of our unique character. But the rub is DOE expects <br />uses to be frozen in time while the regulations just keep evolving. If they freeze the use then they need to freeze the rules, <br /> <br />too. <br /> <br />Article 2.A.21. *Alteration, nonconforming structures <br />Under definitions in "means any change or rearrangements in <br />the supporting members of existing buildings, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or interior partisions, as <br />10.6. <br />well as any changes in doors, windows..." does not address these circumstances of alterations of nonconforming <br />10.6.B. 9.3. <br />development. addresses normal repair allowed in accordance with but doesn't cover the alterations described <br /> <br />2.A.21. <br />Exactly what changes to nonconforming development are subject to compliance with the updated SMP? <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.