HomeMy WebLinkAbout95.Hagen, J. 5-8_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment XV
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Saturday, May 08, 2010 5:16 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XV
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
ARTICLE 10, Cont.,
10.1.A.x.
mentions field visits as necessary by the Administrator. The code is very vague about the County actually going
out to properties and verifying conditions, either before or after construction. At least I can't find it. But
10.19.A.
monitoring requirements are mentioned as a possible condition in And monitoring is a built-in requirement for
Critical Area Stewardship Plans. Citizens have expressed concerns throughout the CAO and SMP about County
employees coming onto their land. Any provisions for "field visits" need to be spelled out in specific terms.
10.3.
describes minimum permit applications. There are 19 provisions. It is interesting to me that many of the
11. A
requirements that would be crucial in establishing site-specific baselines for no net loss are so general in nature. (
general description of the character of the vegetation found on site. 12. A description of the existing ecological
conditions functions and processes affecting, maintaining, or influencing the shoreline at/near the project site.
).
These don't appear to require any professional assessments. For all the micro-management in the SMP, that the
administrator would accept a landowners general assessment of conditions prior to construction is anathema to its
controlling nature. This is why it is important to clarify what triggers a field visit.
10.3.A.8.
requires identification of the ordinary high water mark. "For any development that requires a precise location of
the OHWM, the applicant/proponent shall provide a survey and describe the biological and hydrological basis for the
location as indicated on the plans." Perhaps this is what triggers extensive and expensive reports, as this factor is
essential for all circumstances except those where the structure will be set back well beyond the 150 foot buffer
requirement. Certainly this will be required for those "flexible" buffer reductions. These assessments are expensive.
10.3.A.16.
wants a summary of the effects a project will have on existing ecological functions and mitigation against any
"likely" adverse effects. What is the standard for "likely?" Shouldn't it be consistent with the WAC 173-26 standard of
"significant adverse impacts?" Will the DCD accept the landowners assessment, or will a professional appraisal be
necessary?
10.3.A.18.
What exactly does this mean? What "1 above" are they referring to? This seems crucial, as the administrator is
given authority to waive requirements on a "case-by-case basis."
And just as an editorial point, the DCD, BoCC, and DOE have tried to reassure the public that existing uses are
grandfathered and won't really be affected. At the public hearing Jeffree Stewart made a specific reference to existing
uses "as is," meaning you're fine as long as don't change anything. But this freezes the use in time, and is totally
uncharacteristic of human nature and the fluid, dynamic, ever-forward moving progression of human expression. Nothing
stands still; not even a rock is unchanging as it is continuously shaped by the passage of time. People's homes are a
constant work in progress, representing the soul-based aspirations of our unique character. But the rub is DOE expects
uses to be frozen in time while the regulations just keep evolving. If they freeze the use then they need to freeze the rules,
too.
Article 2.A.21. *Alteration, nonconforming structures
Under definitions in "means any change or rearrangements in
the supporting members of existing buildings, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or interior partisions, as
10.6.
well as any changes in doors, windows..." does not address these circumstances of alterations of nonconforming
10.6.B. 9.3.
development. addresses normal repair allowed in accordance with but doesn't cover the alterations described
2.A.21.
Exactly what changes to nonconforming development are subject to compliance with the updated SMP?
1
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation
Jefferson County
2