Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] <br />Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 1:22 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XIII, cont. <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 6, cont. <br /> <br /> <br />6.3. Public Access. <br /> <br /> <br />6.3.A.6 and 9. <br /> These need to be consistent with the nexus and rough proportionality issues <br />the Nolan/Dollan/Isla Verde cases were decide on. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />6.4. Vegetation Conservation. <br />Where does the mandate for native vegetation come from? Studies <br />show lawns are a very effective buffer strip for filtering pollutants. <br /> <br /> <br />6.4.A.3. <br />The SMA does not mandate that "New uses and/or developments should establish <br />native shoreline vegetation such that the composition, structure, and density of the plant <br />6.4.A.1 <br />community resemble a natural, unaltered shoreline as possible. also mentions "Maintain <br />shoreline vegetation to...resemble natural, unaltered shorelines." Is the protection threshold NNL or <br />"resemble natural, unaltered shorelines?" The seems to go beyond the authority of RCW 90.58.020. <br /> <br /> <br />6.4.B. Regulations 2. <br />Though these are policies, requires under that "Proponents of all new <br />shoreline uses shall demonstrate that site designs and layouts are consistent with the policies of this <br />section..." <br /> <br /> <br />6.4.A.4 6.4.B.2. <br />Both and advise landowners they are not guaranteed an unobstructed view. Can this <br />be required across the board without a site evaluation proving nexus and just cause? <br /> <br /> <br />6.4.B.3.ii. 6.1.D.8. <br />All vegetation removal must comply with this is a regulation that similar to the <br />buffers is uniformly applied in conflict with legal precedent. <br /> <br /> <br />6.4.B.3.iii. <br />Some of these conditions, such as habitat value or health of surrounding vegetation, gives <br />the administrator wide discretion in denying or further conditioning a permit for view maintenance. <br />And by the way, who in their right mind will apply for a view maintenance proposal under <br />this suffocating degree of oversight? People just won't bother with permits or permission, they will just <br />do it if the conditions lack legitimacy. This sort of uber-strict, paternalistic attitude only fosters <br />defiance, not compliance with regulations. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Jim Hagen <br /> <br />Director, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights <br /> <br />Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation <br /> <br />Jefferson County <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />