Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30.Burke, C&C 5-11_SMP Michelle McConnell From:Cynthia [scoopy@rainierconnect.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:32 AM To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) Cc:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) Subject:SMP Categories:LASMP Public Comment May 10, 2010 Re: SMP Jeffree Stewart, Shoreline Specialist WA Dept of Ecology P O Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504-7775 PROLOGUE It is hard to be calm about this. It would be interesting to know who at the DOE that has worked on this shoreline project has undeveloped waterfront property they are hoping to build on. Our anger is generated not by the fact there are changing regulations themselves; but that the changes are based not on any proven correlation; but on vague opinions. We’re not speaking of situations where houses are hung out over/in the water; but houses and potential houses that are already observing a 50 foot setback. The language of this plan is crafted without any apparent logic, balance or fairness. TUNNEL VISION It is easy for government agencies at all levels to spend money, as it is not “theirs”; it seems equally easy to ignore loss when it is not they themselves that are facing the loss. There appears to be no thought given to the economic damage to individuals and even to the county should this document be accepted. Your previous comments that total economic use has not been removed is irrelevant. Do you own your own house? Does anyone who works at DOE own their own house? I would like to permanently plant a hedge around your house. You’ll have to park your car down the street as I need your driveway too. Do you have a problem with this? You have NOT been denied total ECONOMIC use of your property. Why are you upset? FLAWS: HI BANK vs NO BANK Making one set of rules work for low bank/no bank property AND medium to high bank property is beyond bizarre. Constructing the plan with this variable accounted for renders the plan worthless from the start. WHAT PROBLEM? WHERE IS THE DATA? No offer of any proof of ANY future shoreline damage related specifically to the LOCATION of the building. Erosion problems are ALREADY dealt with the building permit and grading plan. Gross safety of the bluff is ALREADY dealt with by the requirement of a geology report. Wildlife support is ALREADY dealt with by the Department of Wildlife’s Eagle Management Team. Tree health, understory health...why does Washington State’s Department of Natural Resources disagree with your ideas about leaving every tree? You can find examples of healthy trees and struggling trees; and depending on the soil and terrain; healthy trees are usually healthy as a result of lack of competition for water, sunlight or soil resources. There have been NO problems presented that can be reduced by me moving a housesite from 140 to 160 feet. NONE. We move the building site back; guess what; more trees have to come down. 1 Please do not tell me to go apply for a variance...a variance just indicates there is no REAL problem; if there was you wouldn’t have “variances.” A “variance” or additional permit is just a way for the county and the state to extort additional funds from people. Why is the scientific analysis from studies been done on lakes...but only two studies done on the canal? We are shoreline property owners...please give us the facts on how we are damaging the shoreline so we can find a way to mitigate them; not across the board blanket restrictions of NO KNOWN BUILDING SITE RELATED PROBLEM. (OK, my house is back 160 feet...how does that prevent me from throwing debris off the bluff; pouring my motoroil on the bluff and spraying herbicides everywhere? It doesn’t. This plan as it is does nothing for pollution. It is just regulation for the fun of it all. REASON FOR PLAN We are given “It must be updated; it must be updated...” Requirement to update does not mean throw out what exists, it means adjust to meet current challenges. If nothing has changed; or there is no proven correlation that setbacks are the solution to solve a change; we leave plan as it is. Shall we all meet again in 2015 and make the setbacks 300 feet? Why not? Based on current information given we could. It’s only a few more people stomped on. FAIRNESS Either there is a problem or there is not. If there is a problem then ALL built or undeveloped property in all parts of WASHINGTON should have a shoreline buffer at 150 feet. Why is Port Townsend exempt from the 150 foot buffer! In fact why not REALLY make this plan fair. We can start by tearing up Olympia around the bay; especially those filthy docks. Water Street in Port Townsend can be next. Stupid idea? Why? There is a heck of a bigger problem with old docks sitting in the water than whether or not a house is at 100 or 150 feet back from the water! Either admit there is no problem with a building’s location; (at least past 50 feet) or start buying up and tearing down those buildings that exist. Either there is a problem....or there is not. If this was a FAIR Plan it would be STATEWIDE at the same time. Why start with Jefferson County? You know why. They are gullible enough to take your money and don’t have a dozen attorney’s on staff twiddling their thumbs. Your answer is (paraphrasing) Look how you all have LOCAL control! We thought this was about shoreline health. Do the FACTS about shoreline health differ in King or Thurston county? As to local fairness; why were the owners of all the shoreline properties in Jefferson County notified in 2003 that you were working to make sure no dandelion within 200 feet of the water was kicked, or that they might not be able to use their property? We’ve followed this for 20 years but many people think they are going to retire here. Boy won’t that be fun when they arrive! A RULE FOR YOU AND A RULE FOR ME (ha ha ha) Just like Ecology’s neck stomping well water rules (also appearing in Jefferson County) draconian ridulous regulations are put on top of anyone dumb enough to want to build a house. I don’t even believe you can prove there is a water problem. If you could why wouldn’t the legislature have changed the 5000 gallon per day rule to 4,3, or 2000 gallon a day rule for EVERYONE? That is so screwed up; now you want the newbys knocked down to 350 gpd? This is exactly what you are doing with the SMP. Screw the New; Screw the New... IF there is a problem with house siting; and I do not believe there 2 is; you again set out to create almost a second class group of landowners. You don’t think there is any growing resentment with this? Don’t talk to the current house owners...don’t try to get them to alter their chemical uses; or return any part of their property to ANYTHING approaching “natural”. Just stomp the newbys. Basically you destroy what little there is left of society by doing this. I can see idiot neighbors ratting someone out for trimming their weeds.(WEEDS ARE NATIVE TOO!) The state and federal government like it when people rat each other out. Call 764 HERO when you see someone driving in the carpool lane...many zoning complaints are only handled after a COMPLAINT. You see this as no big deal. Without society there is nothing. True, if these people were already predisposed to doing this there is still a problem; but you are encouraging it by creating a second class group of property owners. Regulations change all the time but this plan is so far out of bounds... REALITY vs. BOOKS & OPINIONS Your regulations are not based on what is actually happening. On the property we own that we have watched for 20 years; the top edge of the bluff does NOT noticeably sluff off where it is grass or strongly rooted plants i.e. salal, evergreen huckleberry. Most destruction occurs where mature trees are located near the edge. High winds whipsaw them. They are unable to acquire necessary water and show stagnant growth. They have no roots on their salt water side (roots don’t like air). When they go down they take HUGE blocks of the bluff with them. Your regulations pertaining to trees; especially what is a hazard tree and if it can be removed are ridiculous. Because our property is hit by high winds often; mother nature has topped most of the trees; some multiple times. And not with a cut; but by SHATTERING the tree. The comments about a tree not being hazardous if can’t hit the house is based on it’s length; which is ridiculous. We had a tree top fly over 300 feet before hitting the ground. Our trees are a collection of forked trees, previously split tops; and obviously previously healed wounds. Hardly any of them are structurally sound; but it is what we accept to have property where it is. Some are worse than others; and to suggest that it is fine if the tree KILLS ME when I am outside but not OK to remove unless it can fall on the house is an unbelievably stupid statement. OK if I’m dead; just NOT OK if the HOUSE is damaged? This is not a National Park; where widow makers are above everyone’s heads. I cannot comprehend why you keep slapping blanket regulations down when reality shows they are wrong and misguided. (If you think you know where I’m coming from you may be in error. The house we have lived in for 30 years looks like Hansel and Gretl’s house in the woods. My sixth grade science project was trees. I went back in the military so I could pursue a forestry degree. We spent a VERY long time building our initial driveway into this property using a toy tractor to protect the trees. From there on we used old logging roads wherever possible. We were overjoyed to find that the one tree we had to cut for the septic tanks was rotten in the center) DOE DIRECTION I do not understand DOE’s purpose in this shoreline (and Puget Sound) area. A couple of years ago 10-20,000 gallons of sewage leaked from Port Ludlow; some time after that 200- 400,000 gallons of sewage leaked from Bainbridge Island; some time after that 1-2 MILLION gallons of sewage leaked from Seattle. EACH time, almost without fail, the reports were “no lasting damage”. Where was Ecology in those adventures? How 3 can you possibly expect people to not laugh in your face when you bring up the siting of their house as a PROBLEM for the Shoreline and/or Puget Sound? New construction has NEW septic systems. We were told we could locate our system on the bluff; below the house; 50 feet from the bluff edge. I didn’t like the idea of the water going into the bluff; from what I have seen of what tiny natural underground gravel streams can do if they vent out a bluff. So I found a spot 500 feet back in perfect medium sand that is at least 9 feet deep that was dry all the way down (watched it for a couple of years); with roots 9 feet down. It might go even farther I could only reach down 9 feet. And the county wants us to MONITOR this system? What a Joke. It’s 330 feet long; the designer said we’ll probably only use a 5th of it. I’m convinced that the solution to any septic system problem in Puget sound is because people have septic systems; they should pipe it directly into the water untreated; as Port Ludlow, Bainbridge Island and Seattle did; without damage and evidentally without a fine! Why don’t we constantly hear about increased safeguards to metropolitan systems? This SMP money has got to be the biggest waste of time, money and spirit. There ARE things that need to be adjusted...but the location of single family homes from 50 to 150 feet? Is it really our best use of our resources to screw everyone out of their property and then have them call Al Scalf everytime they notice a blackberry vine is around their feet and they are 198 feet from the high water mark and can’t cut it without his permission? ECONOMIC IMPACT When you talk to the people at DOE they seem to be in a rather odd space...thinking this is all wonderful...they are paid well....everything is glorious...and have rather stone faces esp when the public outcry says what they are planning to write into law is crap. The DOE can justify the need to do all this. This was started four years ago when the economy was doing well. Now we are in the worst economic crisis and at this point you want to offer an iron hand to anyone interested in actually building on their property. Much has been said by others on this. If by some miracle DOE’s pay structure was cut in half or half of you were terminated you might better understand what is going on in the world. We don’t have much hope you can see this as you work in somewhat of a cult atmosphere. We’ve been to your offices (everyone should visit). The volleyball play area, the trails, the shared bicycles; the recycling bins; the cute Prius cars in the parking lot; the table to the right of the receptionist desk with the little games you get to play with so you won’t tear the furniture apart when you are waiting to try to meet with someone about their attempts to destroy your dream... FUTURE I was amazed at the civility shown at the public meetings I have attended. These aren’t discussions about whether or not we want sidewalks on a given road; they are about the DOE’s taking people’s property; and taking it for no valid reason. You may call it “regulation for the common good”; but when these regulations are baseless; i.e. no proven damage from houses built to current setbacks; the “regulations” result in economic, emotional and physical LOSS. My request would be to cancel this SMP update now; and redo it with the idea you are looking at preventing damage PROVEN to be applicable to the residence being within 150 feet of the high water mark. As I stated above; having a house in a given location is not itself the cause of the problem. It is the occupants who may lack the knowledge or willingness to do their part in protecting the shoreline. If the owner wants to pollute; knowingly or unknowlingly; or otherwise truly damage the shoreline; the location of the structure has no bearing on his/her ability. Punishing EVERYONE else with a 150 foot setback is an outrage. Shoreline owners WANT to work to protect against VALID threats. Don’t shatter whatever chance you have of taking on worthwhile projects in the future working with a cooperating public. The way this and other items are proceeding in Jefferson County (local and state) we have 4 gone from being what we thought were environmentalists to not wanting to cooperate on anything for any reason. We try to keep an open mind but... Sincerely, Cordell and Cynthia Burke P O Box 38 Port Gamble, WA 98364 faxed and emailed 5