Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93.Hagen, J. 5-8_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment XIII. Michelle McConnell From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 11:44 AM To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XIII Categories:LASMP Public Comment Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. ARTICLE 9 - PERMIT CRITERIA AND EXEMPTIONS. 9.2.A. Interesting that the County exercises liberal construction in applying the program but exemptions are narrowly construed! The burden is always on the citizen while the 10.8. County/State/Federal always cut themselves break. See 9.2.C. This is related to the meaningless classification of "exemptions" under this Program. 9.3.A.15. Watershed Restoration projects shall be reviewed in an "expeditious" manner and no fees may be charged for accepting and processing applications for watershed restoration projects. No mention of these favors for other preferred uses like single family homes or bulkheads. This is an inequitable treatment of applications. 9.4.A. To repeat, why call exempt uses exempt when they are subject to the discretion of and potentially numerous conditions set by the Administrator? 9.6.A. Under circumstances where appropriate CUPs may allow greater permitting flexibility, but when used as indiscriminately as they are throughout this program they become an inflexible and unnecessary burden on citizens exercising their constitutionally right to own private property. 9.5.C. Why is a Reasonable Economic Use Variance, pursuant to JCC Chapter 18.15.220, subject to the need for a variance in the first place? Reasonable Economic Use exceptions are to protect constitutionally guaranteed private property rights and to protect governments from having to 9.5.B. financially conmpensate landowners when a 100% takings occurrs. states "extraordinary circumstances shall be shown" in granting a variance. In the event of denial, is the County prepared to provide compensation, and shouldn't this be stated in this section? 9.6.B.4. Again, needs significant adverse impacts. ARTICLE 10 - ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. In 2005 a DCD performance audit was conducted by Latimore. The results revealed the predictable assessment that contemporary permitting processes have become so complex that "feedback loop disruptions" substantially interfered with permit efficiency, and permit efficiency is after all one of the three cornerstone promises of the GMA. The extended and contentious CAO and SMP processes have overwhelmed the limited resources a small rural county like Jefferson is able to manage and is even taxing the larger counties tot he breaking point. As a result of the regulatory "maze" (DCD Director Al Scalf's word) the newly adopted CAO put applicants through, the DCD is adding a new Watershed Resource 1 and Stewardship Center ($800,000, $500,000 from an EPA grant) solely for the purpose of assisting citizens through the maze of environmental regulation and to help in the administration and implementation of this confusing, conflicting, SMA-on-steroids SMP - and the CAO. All this without any clearly identified problem with the condition of Jefferson's environment. This is simply not sustainable from an economic or financial standpoint. The current regulatory scheme is entirely dependent on the steady flow of taxpayer-funded grant money that appears endless, even in the face of a $12 trillion federal budget deficit. Meanwhile, citizens expected to comply with these complex regulations, and in fact whose acceptance is essential to long-term stewardship of our environment, are ever more alienated by what are perceived to be illegitimate processes and intrusions placed upon the most important element of their lives - their homes. The four-year, resource-sapping, nearly $1million SMP process is Exhibit A on why local jurisdictions throughout the country are on the verge of finacial bankruptcy. The lack of enforcement of existing regulations is a common complaint in the public forum. Who is going to enforce this 200 page behemoth? And who is going to ask for permission first when they have to jump through so many hoops? When rules are not perceived to be legitimate, people will just ignore them. 10.6. Non-conforming Development. There is no reason to make even one single existing structure non-conforming. Buffer standards do not have to uniformly apply to every parcel. Exemptions - true exemptions - can easily accommodate the lawful status of existing structures so they can remained vested under the standards they were permitted under. The County has already exercised wide policy discretion that greatly exceeds the requirements of the SMA in approving the LASMP. (When asked by a Planning Commissioner why so much of the shoreline was designated Natural, lead DCD planner Michelle McConnell responded, "We saw an opportunity and we took it."). Well, here is another opportunity that DOE can seize. Relief from non-conforming status would be a policy option that wouldn't conflict with the law and would be an opportunity for some equity of treatment toward rural property owners. The argument that this would result in net loss is without any proven merit as nobody has really quantified what the NNL baseline is. (In an e-mail from Jefree Stewart to David Pater of DOE, sent on 12/6/08, Stewart states, "My assumption is Jefferson County, based as it is on the Whatcom Program, will prove an important precedent for other areas with similar issues...and it is a no-net-loss case study."). Nor has it been shown that the existing standards have failed to maintain what DOE has characterized as a shoreline in excellent condition. The evolution of the impact of the non-conforming use issue has been interesting. As the controversy grew, the number of affected structures magically began to shrink. Initially, it was thought a substantial number of structures would be made nonconforming. The Cumulative Impact Analysis, dated February 2009, indicates 917 parcels would be rendered nonconforming. On 7/15/09, DCD a "Correction & Data Supplement to February 2009 Draft Cumulative Impact Analysis, claiming there were errors in the calculations. The revised figures greatly reduced the impact of non-conforming uses and parcels. the revised numbers state 756 parcels would be made nonconforming by 150 foot buffers and 237 vacant parcels would be made non-conforming by 150 foot buffers. (By comparison, only 26 vacant parcels would be made nonconforming with 50 foot buffers). When asked how DCD arrived at the revised numbers, particularly for the 50 foot buffers, McConnell replied that "he (the county GIS specialist) drew a 50 foot line around everything," indicating this had all been done by transposing a line on a map and not by ground truthing. That the County doesn't have accurate data on the number of nonconforming structures and lots indicates the absence of a meaningful inventory of development characteristics. This is telling, especially since they were able to give names to underwater ecological functions (drift cell JE-6, fro example). 2 DCD began a concerted effort to downplay the impact of non-conforming uses. This is a reversal from the beginning of the process when their significant numbers were emphasized to impress the need to regulate future impacts. At the public hearing on 4/20/2010, for the first time I heard the number 247 in relation to non-conforming. Who knows where this came from. Throughout the process DCD has stressed that the SMP is largely about regulating new development and existing uses wouldn't be much affected. In fact, a power point presentation made prior to the release of the Preliminary draft on 12/3/08 states "SMP generally Does Not Regulate EXISTING Uses/Developments." (Capitals in presentation, not mine). The County and DOE have completely misrepresented the impact of this SMP on existing uses. DOE can live up to its initial promise and guarantee through written provisions that existing uses will be maintained in their current legally vested state. Jim Hagen Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights Director Olympic Stewardship Foundation Jefferson County 3