HomeMy WebLinkAbout232.Stewart, J. 4-27_Jefferson County SMP (80)
Michelle McConnell
From:Jesse Stewart [jessebirder@cablespeed.com]
Sent:Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:44 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Jefferson County SMP
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
As a resident of Jefferson County and as an owner of shoreline property, I’m writing to express my opinion of
the proposed Shoreline Master plan update.
I don’t believe that many of the provisions of the SMP are based on valid science nor reality. Why should rural
Jefferson County residents have a 150 foot buffer when 50 feet is acceptable in Port Townsend? This doesn’t
make any sense – if 50 feet works in one place it should work in another! And, what’s wrong with the current
30 foot buffer anyway? Why should I lose use of a large part of my property when 30 foot buffers have worked
fine for a number of years? DOE has stated that our shorelines are in good shape! What is the basis for a five-
fold increase in unusable property?
Where is the science that suggests lawns can’t be effective buffers – that only ‘native’ vegetation will do? Why
should a property owner be restricted in tree removal for creating views of the water and mountains? I was
attracted to my property, in part, because of the view – now it will be partially blocked, at best, because I will
only be able to remove 25% of the trees!
own
The restrictions on use of my property will result in the reduction of its value. Not being able to maintain
my view through tree removal will negatively impact my property value. Keeping a 150 foot undisturbed buffer
will negatively impact my property value. I own this land, I pay property taxes on this land, but it’s value will
be reduced. Who will compensate me for this loss – the County, the State, DOE?
Finally, the increased cost, bureaucracy, and time required to get permits for changes to my property are
protect
unacceptable. Government is supposed to our liberties, not wrap them up in unnecessary, costly,
burdensome red tape.
I am a lover of nature, so want to ensure the viability of our ecosystems. However, people and their rights are
equally important. I believe this SMP is a over-reaction to a non-proven need. And, I’m concerned with the
cost to taxpayers for the implementation of this expansive plan and the cost of fighting litigation which is sure
to arise.
rejectreject
DOE should this SMP proposal as too extreme. The Attorney General should this SMP proposal
as an un-Constitutional abuse of property rights.
Jesse Stewart
3229 Oak Bay Road
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
1