HomeMy WebLinkAbout105.Heinzinger, G. 4-28_Dept of Ecology Shoreline
Michelle McConnell
From:Gladys H. [dgheinz@olypen.com]
Sent:Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:10 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Cc:Hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov; Roger.Je-Anne@leg.wa.gov; Van De Wege, Kevin
Subject:Dept of Ecology Shoreline
Attachments:DOE SMP Letter.docx
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Please read the attached written comments to the SMP update. I will look forward to your reply.
1
April 28, 2010
Jeffree Stewart, Shoreline Specialist
WA Dept of Ecology
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-7775
Dear Mr. Stewart:
I attended the SMP Public Hearing April 20 at Fort Worden Commons and it appeared the majority of
attendees were in opposition of the proposed updates. After listening to the many comments, I came
away with a BIG question, how will you let us know you listened and not just heard? Another question,
since you exempted Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and Cape George from this update program, will you
also exempt their comments for fairness? It’s always easy to support something when you don’t have to
walk in the shoes of those affected. The award of a $1million grant to Clallam and Jefferson Counties to
implement their plans, Jefferson receiving $800,000 plus, gives the appearance DOE does not intend to
listen and the Public Hearing was after-the-fact.
Yes, Jefferson County did have a Hearing Board which met for two years and recommended a 50’ buffer
to the County Commissions who chose to listen to government agencies and receive grants rather than
listen to the people. Consequently, please do not tell us we had our chance. I believe the County
Commissions would possibly change their decision if made after the April 20 hearing, and now we plead
for DOE to listen.
Our family purchased property on Marrowstone Island in 1936 and has practiced good conservation of
the land and beach ever since. I own an undeveloped parcel adjacent to developed family property
which only has public water. This waterfront is a flat Kilisuit Harbor parcel located on a bluff, and with a
150‘plus 10’ buffer, a residence structure would not even see the water and possibly only see blue sky.
It is my intent to save this property for grandchildren and if the update is mandated, it will not only be a
very significant loss to my family but the decreased desirability and decreased value is another major
concern. It sure feels like the DOE and Jefferson County are taking control of my land without any
consideration. How can DOE make a “one size fit’s all” SMP update? I do not believe variances will be a
viable solution and, if available, will place the burden of proof on the landowner with expensive studies,
etc. making it a prohibitive process.
My residence property is, also, located on Marrowstone Island’s Mystery Bay and will be nonconforming
even though we located the house back 75’ rather than the 30’ setback required. We, also, chose to
pump the sewage to a drain field located in back of the residence rather than near the beach which was
allowed in 1993. The obvious reason for all this was not to pollute the beach. Furthermore, we have
seen very little beach change in the last 74 years which is historical data supported by photos. Recently
the WA State DOH together with DNR, Jefferson County, State Parks, WDFW and WA Tribes developed a
management plan to maintain the already good quality of Mystery Bay for shellfish harvesting.
Why does DOE not consider the water quality tests, boat monitoring, and data from other state agencies
before proposing blanket policies? Why is an updated program even needed if our shorelines are in
good condition? When I worked as a banker prior to retirement, nonconforming residential loans were
not granted because the loans would have to be held as portfolio loans and not eligible for sale in the
secondary market. How will we ever secure sales without financing?
I remember and supported the Shoreline Act in the early 70’s when primarily industry, cities and towns
were abusing our lands and waters and many cases were widely exposed in the press. However, I never
in my wildest dreams imagined shoreline management would have evolved into this program! Public
awareness has made a significant ecology improvement since the Shoreline Act was adopted. Why do
we need more extreme regulations with loss of possible use? Balance and net loss are unnecessary
words for our pristine waterfront as net loss cannot be measured. Is balance included to provide a
guarantee of extreme regulations to pacify the Puget Sound environmentalists?
Owning property is a right and government owes us that right. We purchased, have maintained and
paid taxes for that right. First, we had the small step of GMA and now a much larger SMP step is being
updated in the “take over!” Why does the DOE and WA State not understand this will lead to litigation
or even care? Where will DOE get the finances to defend lawsuits given the state’s current financial
position? Funds may be set aside for litigation, but is this the best use of state funds?
This updated program poses an undue risk on the property owners, and for this reason, I have joined
and am a supporting member of Citizens Alliance for Property Rights. Furthermore, I resent the fact
that I had to join such a group to fight against my own state. Economic ramifications will also pose an
undue risk for all of Jefferson County and Washington State taxpayers.
Lastly, please listen and give this SMP update your very serious consideration with emphasis on how
each change will affect citizens’ lives.
Sincerely,
Gladys Heinzinger
85 Heinzinger Road
PO Box 152
Nordland, WA 98358
Email: dgheinz@olypen.com