HomeMy WebLinkAbout106.Heinzinger, P&ML 5-10_SMP Comments (52)
Michelle McConnell
From:Paul Heinzinger [guppy@olympus.net]
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2010 9:47 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY); pjh@hirschlawoffice.com; baysiders@cablespeed.com;
rgrush@olympus.net
Subject:SMP Comments
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Dear Mr. Jeffree Stewart,
Our family bought our water front property in 1936. This required a great sacrifice on the
part of all the members of the family as the depression was still a very real factor. The
original property contained a little cabin upland and numerous outbuildings on or near the
beach. These included a large boathouse, tool shed, woodshed and big raft of logs that
previously supported the cabin as a houseboat. As time has progressed the cabin was
remodeled using lumber obtained by beachcombing, roofed with shakes from the old logs and the
outbuildings destroyed. The final result is a beautiful parklike setting. This was done by
utilizing old discarded lumber from the beach, dismantling old buildings either on the beach
or right at the edge of the beach and utilizing the old float logs for
shakes. We have done much to restore our beaches. We have pictures
showing 1936 and now. We know we have been good stewards of our land. Laws don't make good
stewards, people make good stewards.
Why am I reiterating the above history. It is because during the time we were trying to
upgrade the area the government was making decisions that had significant ecological
degrading impacts. First, when we arrived on Marrowstone Island there was a bridge between
Marrowstone and Indian Islands. One could go by boat from Scow Bay to Oak Bay under the
bridge. The County then connected the two islands by filling it in and placing two small
culverts under the fill. This completely changed the tidal flow with many negative impacts
on shellfish and fish. It also contributed to a build up of sediment in the south end of
Scow Bay. Second was the use of Boggy Spit on Indian Island as refuse dump. This resulted
in this being declared a Superfund cleanup site. All kinds of contamination were found in
the harbor as a result of this dump site. Third , the breakthrough of the spit at Fort
Flagler as a result of military operations in the early 1950's. This resulted in a
significant change in the tidal flow in the harbor. The fourth catastrophe was permitting
Ivar's Acres of Clams to use their giant vacuum as a method of obtaining clams. A large
island protest was launched by resident that eventually stopped the operation. Is it any
wonder why the public doesn't trust the government? These new regulations do nothing to
correct the above problems. Lets correct these known problems which could have a large
environmental impact with a lot less money than is being spent on developing these new
regulations. What better of getting back to natural?
In addressing the presently proposed SMP I have the following questions.
a. Why are county shoreline owners required to have 150 foot buffers and those in the city
of Port Townsend only required to have 50 foot buffers?
b. Why are present county shoreline homes designated as nonconforming if they do not meet
the new SMP? They met all code requirements when built. Nonconforming indicates that the
ultimate objective of this regulation is to eliminate these structures.
c. To what extent was the impact of this regulation on home loans and insurance examined?
Our insurance agent and the bank can't give us definitive answers until the regulation
becomes law but both indicate adverse impacts. The bank indicates that they don't give loans
on nonconforming structures and our insurance agent says we might not be able to insure our
home, our greatest asset.
1
d. Beach access appears to require a Conditional Use Permit. This is costly and indicates
that just to walk down onto our beach it has to be authorized even though we bought our
tidelands. We have no-bank access to our beach. How do you propose we access our beach?
e. To classify 41% of the county beach as natural appears to be completely unjustified. It
appears that the motive for this is just one thing. Limit growth. How do justify turning
over this amount of shoreline to DOE oversite and prohibit beach access to private beach
owners.
f. When the county commissioners met with Marrowstone Island residents they could not
adequately explain the "No net loss" policy. As they tried to define it, it appeared to be
almost impossible to meet and would impose a large financial burden on the landowner to
access his own beach.
We submit these remarks as shoreline landowners and members of CAPR.
Paul & Mary Lou Heinzinger
P.O. Box 213
Nordland, WA.
98358
360-385-0772
2