Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jesse Stewart [] <br />Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:44 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Jefferson County SMP <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />As a resident of Jefferson County and as an owner of shoreline property, I’m writing to express my opinion of <br />the proposed Shoreline Master plan update. <br /> <br />I don’t believe that many of the provisions of the SMP are based on valid science nor reality. Why should rural <br />Jefferson County residents have a 150 foot buffer when 50 feet is acceptable in Port Townsend? This doesn’t <br />make any sense – if 50 feet works in one place it should work in another! And, what’s wrong with the current <br />30 foot buffer anyway? Why should I lose use of a large part of my property when 30 foot buffers have worked <br />fine for a number of years? DOE has stated that our shorelines are in good shape! What is the basis for a five- <br />fold increase in unusable property? <br /> <br />Where is the science that suggests lawns can’t be effective buffers – that only ‘native’ vegetation will do? Why <br />should a property owner be restricted in tree removal for creating views of the water and mountains? I was <br />attracted to my property, in part, because of the view – now it will be partially blocked, at best, because I will <br />only be able to remove 25% of the trees! <br /> <br />own <br />The restrictions on use of my property will result in the reduction of its value. Not being able to maintain <br />my view through tree removal will negatively impact my property value. Keeping a 150 foot undisturbed buffer <br />will negatively impact my property value. I own this land, I pay property taxes on this land, but it’s value will <br />be reduced. Who will compensate me for this loss – the County, the State, DOE? <br /> <br />Finally, the increased cost, bureaucracy, and time required to get permits for changes to my property are <br />protect <br />unacceptable. Government is supposed to our liberties, not wrap them up in unnecessary, costly, <br />burdensome red tape. <br /> <br />I am a lover of nature, so want to ensure the viability of our ecosystems. However, people and their rights are <br />equally important. I believe this SMP is a over-reaction to a non-proven need. And, I’m concerned with the <br />cost to taxpayers for the implementation of this expansive plan and the cost of fighting litigation which is sure <br />to arise. <br /> <br />rejectreject <br />DOE should this SMP proposal as too extreme. The Attorney General should this SMP proposal <br />as an un-Constitutional abuse of property rights. <br /> <br />Jesse Stewart <br />3229 Oak Bay Road <br />Port Hadlock, WA 98339 <br />1 <br />