HomeMy WebLinkAbout129.Kelley, F 5-10_FW JeffCo Shoreline Master Plan Update Public Comments
Michelle McConnell
From:Frank and/or Julie Kelley [kelleyfamilyof4@msn.com]
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2010 8:27 AM
To:mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us; Jeffbocc@Co. Us; Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:FW: Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan Update Public Comments
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
From: kelleyfamilyof4@msn.com
To: mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us; jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us; jeff.stewart@ecy.wa.gov
Subject: Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan Update Public Comments
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 08:25:02 -0700
Please accept this comment on the proposed revisions to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan.
I object to the current revisions to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan. I reject the idea that it has wide
support as the county tries to parrot. Many property owners saw the writing on the wall when it recognized a
legislature that didn't have the political courage to develop uniform guidelines. Anyone who has even
undertaken a cursory examination of the document has to question that it is based on science. It is based on a
well-meaning, activist mind-set that in general was formulated by people who have a transient interest in the
county and won't suffer the loss of property through these regulations. The “no net-loss policy” should start
with those in our community that advocated this policy change from behind the safety of bulkheads or enjoy
building set-backs smaller than they advocate for their neighbors.
I issue the following challenge to the Department of Ecology:
Send a biologist to objectively demonstrate the impact my home has on the shoreline (at a setback of
approximately 50 feet from Hood Canal) against an undeveloped lot or one with an 150 foot set-back. If you
can use quantitative methods to demonstrate a difference I will publicly support this regulation. Considering
you are taking 16,000 sq feet of property (and it is a "taking" in every sense of the word) shouldn't that be the
least the state can do? Please don't consider this an offer to enter my property at any time. I'm sure their will be
provisions for that later, for now this offer is by appointment only.
Water quality should be paramount in determining the size of buffers. The regime you propose to have different
development standards applied to the same waterways is confusing from multiple perspectives. First it is not
clear to the public. I question whether landowners have been provided adequate notice about the severe
implications for these designations on their property. The borders are heterogeneous and the designations
appear Gerrymandered by population density having more to do with politics of popular resistance than habitat.
If these changes are based on science, shouldn't some uses be restricted in Hood Canal due to the closed nature
of the estuary? If I'm reading your application of modern science correctly, the Department of Ecology has no
preference whether new NPDES permits are issued in the Hood Canal or the Strait of Juan DeFuca?
Common sense makes me question the magical benefits of native vegetation. The implication that native
vegetation reduces the ecological footprint of a small building expansion by two and half fold is inconceivable.
I'm referring to the provision to allow residential upland expansion to 25% of the original footprint with
replacement of an equal amount of native vegetation. If you really believe that residences greater than 50 feet
from the shoreline are responsible for the all this degradation then why abandon your principals?
1
These setbacks will cause a catastrophic and disproportional hardship on some for a theoretical benefit.
Waterfront density is already essentially capped by other physical characteristics and the Growth Management
Act. I realize we all have an environmental impact but this is unwarranted. In our area it has not been shown
that faulty septic systems are responsible for the low oxygenation problem in Hood Canal (or off the
Washington Coast or in several other undeveloped fresh water lakes for that matter). There is fecal matter on
the beach near us, but it is left by otters. If the goal is really no net loss of habitat then the state needs to get on
with the applying modern science to runoff contamination to public spaces. On South Point Road no measures
are taken to keep the oil runoff from entering the canal. We have open ditches along the road and direct
drainage ditches right into the canal.
I don't accept the suggestion that this won't have a detrimental effect on property values. The utility of some
property will be limited by these additional restrictions and these buffers will essentially condemn some
properties. County staff suggestions that there are provisions for conditional exemption are dishonest about the
true legal burden of the process. Many won't be interested in buying properties that don't meet their needs and
can't be expanded without an expensive and uncertain process. It is also inevitable that our adjacent counties
will be more balanced with smaller buffers affecting the same waterways. These smaller buffers will be offered
as amenities by realtors. Being an owner of waterfront property that carries a high tax burden along with the
nauseating aspects of having a bureaucracy to regulate how and when something was planted will make
waterfront view property a value. Based on my experience in Jefferson County these regulations won't be
considered legitimate by many or applied in a consistent way (wasn't one of our county commissioners who
approved this change recently injured cutting down vegetation on his family's waterfront bluff?).
I doubt the Department of Ecology has the power or inclination to be more balanced than "our" own Jefferson
County government but please consider me opposed to this abuse. I'm opposed to using under represented rural
lands to “mitigate” urban abuses. We will contribute to the legal fund to challenge this change. In the future I
will vote for those who have more common sense and some respect for the concept of property rights. I will
also make an effort to support the economies of counties that consider these important values.
Frank Kelley
773 South Point Road
Port Ludlow, WA
2