HomeMy WebLinkAbout45.Coburn, J. 5-11_Public Coomment Jefferson Co SMP
Michelle McConnell
From:JerCoburn@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:59 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Public Coomment Jefferson Co.SMP
Attachments:Department of Ecology public comment SMP.doc
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Attached File
1
Pg. 1 of 3
Department of Ecology
Jefferson County SMP Amendment
Public Comments
To Whom It May Concern:
The SMP update was officially started when
Jefferson County entered a grant funding
contract agreement with Ecology in June 2006.
A Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee and
Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee’s were
formed and work to update our SMP was
underway. Unfortunally the shoreline property
owner was not represented in this process.
Some people will say that there was waterfront
property owners on the committees, but these
carefully selected owners did not represent
waterfront property owners in anyway.
The overwhelming majority of shoreline property
owners first clue to what the SMP update
involved was when we received the January
2009 Shoreline Update from Jefferson DCD.
(Blue postcard)
It has been reported that Committee members
were hand selected with preference given to
people with strong environmental agenda’s
while qualified volunteers that may have spoken
out about unnecessary proposals were rejected.
Dick Broders a member of the SPAC Citizen
representation Committee spoke during the
public comment period with the Jefferson
County Commissioners and related insight to
committee meetings, he said the meetings were
a one sided view with no quarter given to
property rights, he also related that many
members were openly contempt of shoreline
property owners. Mr. Broders said he could see
where this SMP update was going and sold his
waterfront property.
SMA 90.58.130 requires that local governments
involve all interested parties in updating SMP’s.
It goes on to describe local property owners in
that group. If a balance in property use and the
environment as mandated by the SMP had
made its way into this document I think we
would have had the support of most shoreline
property owners.
Pg. 2 of 3
The shoreline property owners first opportunity
to be heard came when the SMP Draft made its
way to the Jefferson County Planning
Commission. The public comment period at
each Planning Commission meeting gave the
property owners their first opportunity to be
involved in the SMP update process.
The Planning Commission, by a vote of six in
favor to zero opposed, on July 15, 2009
transmitted the Final Draft SMP
recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners.
The Planning Commissions Final Draft complied
with:
Goals of the SMA (RCW) and Guidelines.
(WAC)
No Net Loss of ecological functions as described
by DOE report on no net loss in the 2003
guidelines.
Preference for water dependent uses.
Economic Development.
Conservation and Shoreline Resources.
Respected private property rights while
protecting the environment.
Set shoreline buffers in Shoreline Residential
and High Intensity zones at 50’ just like our
neighbor in Port Townsend.
DOE attempted to directly influence the Planning
Commission and the DCD. A summary of Public
comments was published and gives a window to
how the DOE was attempting to influence the
process.
See Jeffree Stewarts letter to Planning
Commission Chair Peter Downey (2961-334)
Jeffree Stewarts letter to Michelle McConnell
DCD Planner (2961-14)
DCD Staff and DOE recommendations called for
a reversal of most significant changes to the
SMP Draft made by the Planning Commission.
Pg. 3 of 3
The County Commissioners voted with DCD
Staff and DOE.
The voice and input of the shoreline property
owners was extinguished.
The entire process of updating our SMP has
been flawed from the hand selected committee
Members to the heavy influence of the DOE.
The State and Federal Constitutions prohibit the
government from taking property without due
process and compensation.
Placing a 150’ buffer plus a 10’ building setback
in our backyards is a taking of control and use of
our property. The updated SMP will make the
overwhelming majority of waterfront homes non-
conforming, but will do nothing to protect the
environment in shoreline residential. Studies
used to support big buffers are studies looking at
natural habitats and are not generally applicable
to the built environment.
The big buffer drafts are based on the premise
that the goal of the GMA is to restore functions
and values by making large bands of developed
lands bordering shorelines nonconforming. The
common objective of creating nonconforming
uses or structures within the buffer is to
encourage the abatement of the structure over
time and force a reversion to a predeveloped
state. The GMA does not dictate such a result
as a prerequisite for protecting critical areas.
Betty Renkor’s DOE program on Nonconforming
Uses and Structures
(www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/s
mp/download) states the long term goal is to
eliminate the Nonconforming Structure.
Science took a backseat to ideology in creating
the SMP update.
Thank you,
Jerry Coburn
Port Hadlock, WA