Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResubmittal 9-4-2019 Hiatt NeighborsJoel Peterson From: Amy Hiatt <priatt@olympus.net> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 7:40 AM To: Joel Peterson Subject: comment letter for MLA19-00013 Attachments: letter from neighbors.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Joel, I am resubmitting the letter sent to the Wilkes in May, signed by their neighbors along Sand Road, and cc'd to the Planning Commission with a cover letter dated May 8. A copy of this letter is appended to comments I submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on September 4 but I fear that it won't be noticed. Please place the attached pdf in the comment file under its own heading. Best regards, Amy Hiatt May 8, 2019 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Greetings, � r�c�r�ud� s� SEP - 4 2019 The enclosed letter is in reference to the site -specific re -zone proposal (MLA19-00013) which is on the final docket for this year's Comprehensive Plan amendments. The letter is being sent to the applicants in the hope they might be persuaded to withdraw their application once they know why so many of their close neighbors are opposed to their plan to sub -divide. If the application stays on the docket, we will of course be addressing you directly with further comments as you prepare to make your decision. Thank you very much for your consideration of this preliminary public input. Sincerely, Amy H-iZtt 234 Sand Road Port Townsend, WA 98368 priatt@olympus.net April 30, 2019 Sarah and Andrew Wilke 2023 East Sims Way, No. 322 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Sarah and Andy, sioz �7G�0�7a�1 J As your neighbors in the Sand Road and South Edwards Road community, we wish you to know that we strongly oppose your application for a site -specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. For your property to be re -zoned from RR1:10 to RR1:5, solely for the purpose of sub -dividing and selling, is contrary to the goals and policies stated in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those pertaining to the management of growth on rural lands and the protection of critical areas. As stated in the Unified Development Code Chapter 18.15.015 (1) (b), the purpose of RR1:10 zoning districts is to "preserve open space, protect critical areas, provide for the continuation of small-scale agricultural (sic) and forestry, and preserve and retain the rural landscape and character indigenous to Jefferson County." - In the case- of your parcel, no exceptional circumstances have arisen to suggest that the current RR1:10 zoning designation has become in any way unfair or invalid. The pace of growth and pattern of development in the vicinity have remained consistent with the zoning districts established in the Comprehensive Plan since it was first adopted. There have been no significant changes to the surrounding built environment and land uses, or the natural landscape, that would justify singling out your particular parcel as one on which the right should be established to double the density of future development. Approval of an application such as yours may not have a significant impact on growth management county -wide but, locally, it would set a very unwelcome precedent for up -zoning other near -by parcels in the RR1:10 and RR1:20 districts. Moreover, given the location and the geographical features of your parcel, the current zoning designation is entirely appropriate. The RR1:10 districts were created specifically to limit development on lands that, because they contain critical areas, do not have the capability to support the same density as RR1:5 parcels. Your land is crossed by the only drainage outlet for a watershed area of nearly a thousand acres. That drainage course, including the inlet, outlet and the large wetland (seasonal pond) it feeds, covers about one-third of your 10-acre parcel. The wetland would most likely be rated as Category III with high habitat value, in which case, in the absence of a formal delineation, the required buffer, plus the. building setback, is 150 feet. The wetland not only pravides significant wildlife habitat, it serves to attenuate the flow of storm water which frequently inundates large areas of the valley both upstream and downstream. Management of this storm water has been a difficult issue in the neighborhood for mangy years. The problem is likely to become even more severe in the future, given predicted changes in rainfall patterns and the gradual. build -out of the large number of previously platted, but as yet undeveloped, parcels in the watershed. The reality is that your parcel, which at present contains a residence, an ADU, one well, two septic systems, several out -buildings, driveways, parking areas, an extensive garden, and an orchard, is already fully developed to the extent of, if not exceeding, the capability of the land within its boundaries. This existing development is in. keeping, generally, with the rural character of the neighborhood: However, after subtraction of the areas covered by road easements, building setbacks, buffers, critical areas, and the land that has no road access because it is on the other side of the pond, the actual (feasible) buildable area of your 10-acre parcel is only about 2.5 acres. Two acres is generally considered the minimum suitable area for development of one residential home -site in a rural setting: The creation of a new parcel by re -zoning and subdivision confers the right to add another primary dwelling, another accessory dwelling, and all of their associated appurtenances, to an area that is already barely large enough for one home -site. The result of such build -out would inevitably have significant adverse impacts on the wetland, the drainage course, the rural character of the neighborhood, and the general welfare of the local residents. We hope you will give careful consideration to our concerns and that this letter might help persuade you to withdraw your application. Sincerely, Name(s) Address Parcel Number(s) & Amy Hiatt 234 Sand Road 001-184-006, 001-184-021 Judy Rudolph V 80 Sand Road 001-184-020 Ed es Sue Edwards 157 South Edwards Road 0017184-007,001-175-013, 001-202-017 Carol Cahill 591 Sand Road 001-184-041 i 4 Judy rench-Scott 500 Sand Road 001-184-026 Cc: e Jefferson County: Department of Community Development; Planning Commission; Board of County Commissioners a Bruce MacLearnsberry, MacLearnsberry, Inc.