HomeMy WebLinkAboutTeresa Janssen Comment 9-16-20191
Joel Peterson
From:Teresa Jansen <tjanssen12@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 3:16 PM
To:Joel Peterson
Cc:janssenfamily6@hotmail.com; Teresa Janssen; Britta Janssen
Subject:Public Comment, Comprehensive Plan & Amendment Docket: Upzone 240 Sand Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
Addendum to Janssen Public Comment
Re: site specific (240 Sand Road) zoning amendment to the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Growth
Management Act
Dear Board of Commissioners and Planning Committee:
Upon rereading the 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket , it has come to our attention that the staff’s
recommendation to approve the upzoning request for the ten acres which would amend the GMA has been presented
as a ‘one-time’ exception based on individual ‘circumstances’.
We urge the Board and Staff to refrain from a precedent of ‘circumstantial’ exceptions for the following reasons.
1. Circumstances can change quickly. Though the goals and plans outlined by the owners state that they have no
intention to develop the upzoned 5 acres, they are under no obligation to stay consistent with this. The owners could
sell the properties at any time. New owners could develop the property unhindered. A rezone (and subdivision) is
permanent.
2. If the Planning Committee is considering individual ‘circumstances’ as reason for recommendation for approval, it is
unclear why these circumstances justify amendment to the GMA in the case of 240 Sand Road.
The parcel owners vacated the property in December of 2018 and have lived in Southern California since that time,
leaving the premises unoccupied. The parcel owner is gainfully employed as a physician out-of-state. Out-of-state
investors should not be a priority for upzoning.
3. If the planning committee still chooses to make circumstantial exceptions to the GMA, I urge these to be made for
rural parcel owners who reside, work, vote and pay taxes in the county, who may have limited economic resources to
meet fiscal obligations or to pay for representation for an appeal, and for whom an upzone could mean the ability to
remain living in their homes.
In conclusion, individual (changeable) ‘circumstances’ should not be a consideration for amendment of the GMA; but if
the planning committee wishes to change precedent in this way, priority should be given to rural parcel owners with
economic pressures who live and work in the county.
Thank you for your consideration,
Teresa and Claus Janssen
232 Sand Road
Port Townsend, Wa
98368
2