Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout199.Ricketts, S&G 5-11_Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program comments Michelle McConnell From:Steve & Gloria Ricketts [sgricketts@olympus.net] Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:45 AM To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) Cc:baysiders@cablespeed.com; Larry Carter Subject:Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program comments Attachments:2010.5 ltr to WA Ecology.doc Categories:LASMP Public Comment Please find attached our letter in response to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. Steve and Gloria Ricketts sgricketts@olympus.net 1 Mr. Jeffree Stewart, Regional Planner Department of Ecology, State of Washington P.O. Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504 jeff.stewart@ecy.wa.gov May 10, 2010 Dear Sir: We are against approval of the Jefferson County Commissioners Shoreline Master Program. It imposes unreasonable regulations on property owners and goes against the recommendations of the county’s own planning committee. We own property adjacent to the greenbelt buffer along Chimacum Creek. The existing greenbelt is greater than the current legal 30-foot buffer which has been in place and has been working well for over the past quarter century that we have lived in and owned our home. The City of Port Townsend has no buffers. What scientific evidence is there that shows the semi-rural setting of Chimacum creek must have so much more buffer than the city density? How are we so different? The planners recommended expanding the current 30-foot buffer to a 50-foot buffer which is still inclusive of our existing green belt. What justification can the commissioners have for increasing that to 150 feet? This will take much of our property. Since we have used and enjoyed our property for a quarter of a century, will all our uses be grandfathered? If there is a nonconforming use, will that also be grandfathered? If not, what specific uses will not be allowed? How will the State and County compensate us for the loss? This plan states “The County should recognize and honor buffers and setbacks established by existing plats and by development agreements…..” p. 6-1. When our housing area was platted, specific greenbelt buffers and public access routes were built into it, recognizing environmental concerns. The greenbelt boundary followed logical site specific topography and environment. This plat was approved by the county. How is this agreement with the developer and current home-owners recognized within this plan? With loss of use caused by this plan, our property values will significantly decline. What percentage reduction in taxes can we expect and how much will that be for remaining Jefferson County property owners to shoulder? How will non-shoreline owning businesses and homeowners be affected throughout the county? Washington court decisions have ruled nonconforming uses are to be phased out over time. This amounts to a "taking over time." How will landowners be compensated for their losses? 1 The plan puts great emphasis on increasing recreational opportunities for the public. Jefferson County cannot maintain the public recreational areas it already owns and is relying on volunteers. How can increasing the number of recreational areas be justified?? Jefferson County and Washington State have spent millions of dollars on the Growth Management Act, Critical Area Ordinances, Storm Water Management Plans, Clearing and Grading Ordinances, Watershed Plans and Rules. Where is the scientific proof that we need a five-fold expansion ofour Shoreline Master Program? Shoreline/streamside buffers and lakeside buffers differ in size in this plan. What scientific evidence indicates changing buffer size with each aquatic type? Since Port Townsend has no buffers, how are they less of an impact than rural users which require these buffers? Why are this plan’s buffers a one-size-fits-all (with the exception of the lakes) without regard to site specific variations? What justifications are needed to change the buffer sizes with site-specific needs on the ground? Differences can include: saltwater, wetlands, fresh water lakes and streams; farmland, residential areas, industrial areas, geological differences, soil types. The Department of Ecology (DOE) has consistently said Jefferson shorelines are in excellent condition. Since this demonstrates that the current building standards are working, what are the demonstrated scientific needs to greatly expand the current buffers? Good public policy is developed in response to an identified need. There has been no clearly stated cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed problem and solution. We ask that the Department of Ecology reject Jefferson County’s submitted Shoreline Master Program. Sincerely, Stephen and Gloria Ricketts 200 Chimacum Creek Drive Port Hadlock, WA 98339 2