106.Heinzinger, P&ML 5-10_SMP Comments (52)
Long Range Planning
106.Heinzinger, P&ML 5-10_SMP Comments (52)
4/21/2011 2:53:09 PM
11/1/2010 4:08:14 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:Paul Heinzinger [email@example.com] <br />Sent:Monday, May 10, 2010 9:47 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY); firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; <br />firstname.lastname@example.org <br />Subject:SMP Comments <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Dear Mr. Jeffree Stewart, <br /> <br />Our family bought our water front property in 1936. This required a great sacrifice on the <br />part of all the members of the family as the depression was still a very real factor. The <br />original property contained a little cabin upland and numerous outbuildings on or near the <br />beach. These included a large boathouse, tool shed, woodshed and big raft of logs that <br />previously supported the cabin as a houseboat. As time has progressed the cabin was <br />remodeled using lumber obtained by beachcombing, roofed with shakes from the old logs and the <br />outbuildings destroyed. The final result is a beautiful parklike setting. This was done by <br />utilizing old discarded lumber from the beach, dismantling old buildings either on the beach <br />or right at the edge of the beach and utilizing the old float logs for <br />shakes. We have done much to restore our beaches. We have pictures <br />showing 1936 and now. We know we have been good stewards of our land. Laws don't make good <br />stewards, people make good stewards. <br /> <br />Why am I reiterating the above history. It is because during the time we were trying to <br />upgrade the area the government was making decisions that had significant ecological <br />degrading impacts. First, when we arrived on Marrowstone Island there was a bridge between <br />Marrowstone and Indian Islands. One could go by boat from Scow Bay to Oak Bay under the <br />bridge. The County then connected the two islands by filling it in and placing two small <br />culverts under the fill. This completely changed the tidal flow with many negative impacts <br />on shellfish and fish. It also contributed to a build up of sediment in the south end of <br />Scow Bay. Second was the use of Boggy Spit on Indian Island as refuse dump. This resulted <br />in this being declared a Superfund cleanup site. All kinds of contamination were found in <br />the harbor as a result of this dump site. Third , the breakthrough of the spit at Fort <br />Flagler as a result of military operations in the early 1950's. This resulted in a <br />significant change in the tidal flow in the harbor. The fourth catastrophe was permitting <br />Ivar's Acres of Clams to use their giant vacuum as a method of obtaining clams. A large <br />island protest was launched by resident that eventually stopped the operation. Is it any <br />wonder why the public doesn't trust the government? These new regulations do nothing to <br />correct the above problems. Lets correct these known problems which could have a large <br />environmental impact with a lot less money than is being spent on developing these new <br />regulations. What better of getting back to natural? <br /> <br /> <br />In addressing the presently proposed SMP I have the following questions. <br />a. Why are county shoreline owners required to have 150 foot buffers and those in the city <br />of Port Townsend only required to have 50 foot buffers? <br />b. Why are present county shoreline homes designated as nonconforming if they do not meet <br />the new SMP? They met all code requirements when built. Nonconforming indicates that the <br />ultimate objective of this regulation is to eliminate these structures. <br />c. To what extent was the impact of this regulation on home loans and insurance examined? <br />Our insurance agent and the bank can't give us definitive answers until the regulation <br />becomes law but both indicate adverse impacts. The bank indicates that they don't give loans <br />on nonconforming structures and our insurance agent says we might not be able to insure our <br />home, our greatest asset. <br />1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.