Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] <br />Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:17 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XIV <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />10.6, cont., <br /> <br /> <br />The real insidious consequences of making existing uses nonconforming is that it is disfavored by the <br />law. In 2007 Betty Renkor of DOE gave a power point presentation titled "Nonconforming basics and <br />SMPs." <br /> <br /> <br />On page four are the bullet points: <br /> <br />Can continue to exist <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />Long term goal: eliminate <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />Abandoned: NC status expires <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />Reality: many exist for a long time. <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />DOE made a big deal about the "hysterical over-reaction" to the second bullet - eliminate - <br />accompanied by the the usual assurances. But DOE has a poor track record of keeping promises <br />(remember in the 1990's when 25 foot buffer weren't going to increase?). <br /> <br /> <br />During the Planning Commission review I received a hand-out of a message from Commissioner <br />John Austin to Sue Enger of MRSC, asking for clarification on nonconforming provisions for SMPs. <br />Ms. Enger provided some links to web-sites that were relevant and further related a phone call she <br />had with Betty Renkor from DOE. Renkor "confirmed that DOE's position is that local jurisdictions <br />may adopt a different nonconforming use provision, but whatever is adopted should be consistent <br />with achievement of the policy of the act. She also pointed to Washington court decisions such as <br />Jefferson County v. Seattle Yacht Club that note that nonconforming uses are to be restricted and <br />eventually phased out." <br /> <br /> <br />So despite all assurances, why do words like eliminate and phase out keep popping up? Several <br />10.6, <br />instances in Jefferson County have demonstrated that despite the on-paper reassurances of <br />nonconforming status has become a very real obstacle for citizens wishing to live and do business in <br />an ever-shifing regulatory climate. It is interesting that before the SMP nonconforming controversey <br />arose, nonconforming status was an argument used by decison-makers to deny or obstruct <br />expansion of existing uses. <br /> <br /> <br />If DOE really wants to reassure landowners that their existing home is protected for themselves and <br />their heirs, then don't make then nonconforming. It's simple. We are living in a modern world where <br />stewardship and environmental protection are becoming part of mainstream life. <br /> <br /> <br />10.6.F.1.,10.6.I.1.ii., 10.6.I.2.vi. <br /> and all refer to conditions related to the impact on critical areas. As <br />senstive and single-minded as Jefferson County DCD, BoCC, and assisting DOE Shoreline <br />1 <br /> <br />