Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] <br />Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 11:44 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XIII <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 9 - PERMIT CRITERIA AND EXEMPTIONS. <br /> <br /> <br />9.2.A. <br />Interesting that the County exercises liberal construction in applying the program but <br />exemptions are narrowly construed! The burden is always on the citizen while the <br />10.8. <br />County/State/Federal always cut themselves break. See <br /> <br /> <br />9.2.C. <br />This is related to the meaningless classification of "exemptions" under this Program. <br /> <br /> <br />9.3.A.15. <br />Watershed Restoration projects shall be reviewed in an "expeditious" manner and no fees <br />may be charged for accepting and processing applications for watershed restoration projects. No <br />mention of these favors for other preferred uses like single family homes or bulkheads. This is an <br />inequitable treatment of applications. <br /> <br /> <br />9.4.A. <br />To repeat, why call exempt uses exempt when they are subject to the discretion of and <br />potentially numerous conditions set by the Administrator? <br /> <br /> <br />9.6.A. <br />Under circumstances where appropriate CUPs may allow greater permitting flexibility, but <br />when used as indiscriminately as they are throughout this program they become an inflexible and <br />unnecessary burden on citizens exercising their constitutionally right to own private property. <br /> <br /> <br />9.5.C. <br />Why is a Reasonable Economic Use Variance, pursuant to JCC Chapter 18.15.220, subject to <br />the need for a variance in the first place? Reasonable Economic Use exceptions are to protect <br />constitutionally guaranteed private property rights and to protect governments from having to <br />9.5.B. <br />financially conmpensate landowners when a 100% takings occurrs. states "extraordinary <br />circumstances shall be shown" in granting a variance. In the event of denial, is the County prepared <br />to provide compensation, and shouldn't this be stated in this section? <br /> <br /> <br />9.6.B.4. <br />Again, needs significant adverse impacts. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 10 - ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. <br />In 2005 a DCD performance audit was <br />conducted by Latimore. The results revealed the predictable assessment that contemporary <br />permitting processes have become so complex that "feedback loop disruptions" substantially <br />interfered with permit efficiency, and permit efficiency is after all one of the three cornerstone <br />promises of the GMA. The extended and contentious CAO and SMP processes have overwhelmed <br />the limited resources a small rural county like Jefferson is able to manage and is even taxing the <br />larger counties tot he breaking point. As a result of the regulatory "maze" (DCD Director Al Scalf's <br />word) the newly adopted CAO put applicants through, the DCD is adding a new Watershed Resource <br />1 <br /> <br />