HomeMy WebLinkAbout94.Hagen, J. 5-8_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment XIV.
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:17 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XIV
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master program.
10.6, cont.,
The real insidious consequences of making existing uses nonconforming is that it is disfavored by the
law. In 2007 Betty Renkor of DOE gave a power point presentation titled "Nonconforming basics and
SMPs."
On page four are the bullet points:
Can continue to exist
?
Long term goal: eliminate
?
Abandoned: NC status expires
?
Reality: many exist for a long time.
?
DOE made a big deal about the "hysterical over-reaction" to the second bullet - eliminate -
accompanied by the the usual assurances. But DOE has a poor track record of keeping promises
(remember in the 1990's when 25 foot buffer weren't going to increase?).
During the Planning Commission review I received a hand-out of a message from Commissioner
John Austin to Sue Enger of MRSC, asking for clarification on nonconforming provisions for SMPs.
Ms. Enger provided some links to web-sites that were relevant and further related a phone call she
had with Betty Renkor from DOE. Renkor "confirmed that DOE's position is that local jurisdictions
may adopt a different nonconforming use provision, but whatever is adopted should be consistent
with achievement of the policy of the act. She also pointed to Washington court decisions such as
Jefferson County v. Seattle Yacht Club that note that nonconforming uses are to be restricted and
eventually phased out."
So despite all assurances, why do words like eliminate and phase out keep popping up? Several
10.6,
instances in Jefferson County have demonstrated that despite the on-paper reassurances of
nonconforming status has become a very real obstacle for citizens wishing to live and do business in
an ever-shifing regulatory climate. It is interesting that before the SMP nonconforming controversey
arose, nonconforming status was an argument used by decison-makers to deny or obstruct
expansion of existing uses.
If DOE really wants to reassure landowners that their existing home is protected for themselves and
their heirs, then don't make then nonconforming. It's simple. We are living in a modern world where
stewardship and environmental protection are becoming part of mainstream life.
10.6.F.1.,10.6.I.1.ii., 10.6.I.2.vi.
and all refer to conditions related to the impact on critical areas. As
senstive and single-minded as Jefferson County DCD, BoCC, and assisting DOE Shoreline
1
Managers have been toward ecological protection, can citizens be confident their applications will be
objectively evaluated?
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation
Jefferson County
2