HomeMy WebLinkAbout100.Hamm, S. 4-24 Comment on LA-SMP for Jefferson County
Michelle McConnell
From:Steve [steveh@olypen.com]
Sent:Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:31 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Comment on LA-SMP for Jefferson County
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Mr. Jeffree Stewart, Regional Planner
Washington State Department of Ecology
P O Box 47775
Olympia WA 98504
RE: The Locally Approved Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
We met briefly at the DOE hearing at Fort Worden and I couldn't stay for the oral comment
period but want to express my opinion on this critical issue.
First, I have been a citizen of Jefferson County for the past 15 years, and, with some
reservations noted below, I support the Shoreline Master Program adopted by the Jefferson
County Board of Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on this
issue, which I believe are objective and balanced
The primary reasons I support the LA-SMP is that it takes a conservative approach to
protecting the shoreline and that the bases for the buffer decisions and protection measures
are grounded in the best available science
(BAS) - at this point in time.
It is my understanding that none of this is written in stone and that periodic reviews will
allow for appropriate changes reflected as various ecological and economic issues develop.
I also feel that the vested interests of property owners may often take precedence over
consideration of the larger environmental picture and the general public's interests,
creating the divisive climate we now face.
In our property oriented society this is a logical reaction. However, it is in this sense
that I believe the government has the responsibility to moderate the effects of unbridled and
uneducated decisions about property development - as long as those decisions and regulations
are truly grounded in BAS.
So, in general, I support the current LA-SMP for Jefferson County.
On balance, I believe the following criticisms are valid:
First, the vetting process could have been far better handled. Because it wasn't, Jefferson
County may face significant litigation costs.
Many of those who support the SMP claim that the process was open and well publicized in
advance over the four year period preceding local approval and that the County did adequate
outreach.
I disagree. Given the lack of the public's early turnout and, in certain cases, the timing of
information supposedly shared, it should have been apparent that the County was not effective
1
in its outreach efforts and the County should have revised its publicity efforts. Admittedly,
such efforts are costly. However, we now face the probability of even more costly litigation
that might have been avoided had better outreach efforts been in place.
I also have a problem with some of the language used in the LA-SMP. For instance, perhaps
there are legal reasons for the use of a term such as "non-conforming" but to the average
person that term dominates the verbal landscape, diminishing any modifying use of "legal." A
number of those I've spoken to, who are reactively opposed to the SMP as currently written,
would have preferred and responded less reactively had a term like "grandfathered"
been used in place of "non-conforming" where a legal existing structure is in place.
Also, certain sections of this lengthy document could be better clarified.
One specific case exists on page 77 (PDF version) Section 6, where it could be made more
clear by writing it in the following manner [bracketed addition
noted]:
"Standard Buffer: [Where new development is considered, and excluding previously permitted
existing structures] the standard buffer shall be measured landward in a horizontal direction
perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the shoreline water body, and is a
three dimensional space that includes the airspace above, as follows:"
To conclude, I haven't scrutinized the entire document since it doesn't affect my ability to
manage property. So there may be numerous other areas where the language could have been
better written to avoid misinterpretations. I would encourage future revisions to include
such language considerations.
Sincerely,
Steve Hamm
PO Box 82
Nordland, WA 98358-0082
2