HomeMy WebLinkAbout61 Welch11/13/2019 Shooting ordinance comments - Planning Commission Desk
https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/#viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkAGM0ZTI0NjQ3LTE2OGItNGQzZi05MWNjLWE2NTE2NGZjMzFhN…1/1
Shooting ordinance comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially
from unknown senders.
Please find attached and cut and pasted copies (the same document) of my comments on the proposed Title 8 and 18 ordinances.
Janet Welch
Janet and/or Willi <aloha@olympus.net>
Fri 11/8/2019 3:35 PM
To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
2 attachments
PC comments.odt; ATT00001.htm;
From Janet Welch
178 Baldwin
Nordland WA
To the Planning Commission:
I value greatly the quiet splendor of our rural areas, and I share a commonly held fear that we will
continue to see the erosion of those qualities. The sound of gunfire (or of leaf blowers or military aircraft
for that matter) can easily destroy the quiet that I treasure. For that reason, I strongly support the crafting
of legislation that aims to protect rural quality. I believe, however, that some protective strategies being
proposed to the Planning Commission to regulate the siting of shooting facilities, especially regarding
increased critical area setbacks, may not be legally compliant. It is not in the interests of our community
to go backwards in our efforts to preserve what we hold dear, and that is what could happen if the courts
continue to be drawn into the fray. Please be sure that the recommendations you send to the BOCC can
be defended successfully in court, should that be necessary.
Fortunately, I believe that the latest drafts do address, with only a few needed improvements, the
problems identified by the Hearings Board. In addition to becoming compliant with GMA, this drafts
provide at least one distinct advantage over the first document. I think the comments at the hearing might
have been different if that change from the approved (and appealed) ordinance had been understood.
Since it isn't obvious, I want to bring it to your attention.
A primary concern raised at the November 5 hearing was about impacts the draft ordinance will have on
existing uses. A year ago when we were drafting the initial ordinance, I questioned whether existing
facilities should be required to come up to more rigorous new construction standards, because that is
typically not the case. (I used lack of safety exits in the courthouse as a convenient example). Becaue
of the structure of the original ordinance, it effectively imposed the same standards for new and existing
facilities. The new Title 8 and 18 drafts now distinguish between the application for an Operating Permit
and the application for new construction. This has the effect of no longer tying the standards for the
Operating Permit inextricably with new construction standards. This is an important change that enables
existing facilities to operate safely, in accordance with an operational permit, but not necessarily be
required to achieve new construction standards. It was obvious at the public hearing that supporters of
the Sportsman's Club were unaware the lesser implications to existing facilities contained in the latest
revision of the ordinances.
One speaker at the hearing asked 'What is the problem that the Operating Permit has been designed to
solve?' The answer is simple but not at all obvious. The use of Operating Permits is a tried and true
method (consider restaurants for example) to do two things: 1) know that the facility is going to be
operated according to standards, and 2) provide a means to efficiently remedy the situation if that fails
to be the case. A clear Operating Permit procedure and set of standards is not an onerous burden on the
operator. The new drafts achieve that much more so than the previous version.
As I said at the public hearing, I believe that this draft corrects the deficiencies identified in the GMHB
Final Decision and Order. In the process of dividing out the provisions into both Title 8 and Title 18,
however, some important provisions have fallen through the cracks. There are four areas that I believe
require additional changes.
First, in most cases the 'land use' wording that was originally included in Title 8 has been successfully
moved to Title 18. There are a few areas, however, where provisions that remained in Title 8 need to be
in both areas so that important information is brought forward to the Hearings Examiner. The ordinances
must create the framework by which the Hearings Examiner evaluation of a proposal is based on all the
relevant information. Without that, there can be no assurance that an accurate and correct ruling will be
made in the Conditional Use Process, for shooting facilities and everything else.
I urge the PC to duplicate the following requirements for the operating permit (under 8.50.240) by adding
them as well to 18.20.135:
From the operations component:
The days of the week and the hours of operations (if this isn't included in the CUP requirements already);
Whether the commercial shooting facility will be open to the public, open only to private membership,
open to training for groups or organizations, or any combination of these;
The types and largest caliber of firearms and ammunition to be allowed on each shooting range;
Type of shooting proposed on each shooting range;
Whether exploding targets are to be used. If so, a plan for mitigation of noise impacts on neighbors;
From the Environmental Health Component:
BMPs for the collection and disposal of bullets, cartridges, and shotgun wadding.
From the Sound Suppression Component:
Identify potential sound issues and potential solutions to those issues;
Describe proposed methodologies and technologies to suppress sound from operations proposed for the
facility;
Describe BMPs to maximize sound suppression
Second, this draft has removed provisions dealing with expansions of existing facilities (original
definition in 8.50.220 and OP requirements 8.50.230). It is imperative to regulate expansions
unambiguously. The place that requirements for facility expansions would fit would be in a further
revised 18.20.135 (2): "An application for a permit for all new or expanded shooting facilities shall
contain a facilities plan that includes:" And, of course, with the addition of this wording in Table 18, the
definition that originally existed in 8.50.220 would need to be added in a newly created 18.10.050 E
definition.
Third, section 9, Notice and Comment, in Title 8 states 'a) The director shall issue a notice of application
for on all commercial shooting facilities. (b) The notice of application shall include the following:...'
That is followed by a long list of requirements. The Notice and Comment portion under Title 18 must
be no less comprehensive than the one in Title 8. In order to assure this, I would suggest adding a Notice
and Comment section to Title 18 including any requirements listed in Title 8 that aren't included in the
current CUP requirements.
My forth suggestion includes, but goes beyond, addressing shooting facilities in an attempt to proactively
avoid the kind of reactionary rule making that we chronically find ourselves mired in. I propose that you
consider limiting the scale of allowed uses in designated Resource Lands. The way that this could happen
would be to expand Table 6-1, Density, Dimension, and Open Space Standards (18.30.050) to include a
maximum percentage of land area (on a per parcel basis) that can be taken out of resource production as
a condition of project approval.
As you know, resource lands are required to be protected under GMA. That protection is lost if allowed
(both permitted and conditionally permitted) uses on resource lands effectively preclude resource use.
Destroying the soil on ag lands or the forest on forestlands is clearly not supportable under GMA.
However, Table 3-1, Allowable and Prohibited Uses (18.15.040) allows a wide array of non-resource
uses, in many cases describing them as 'Small Scale", in resource zones without addressing the loss of
resource use. Consider the benefits if we had a standard for the maximum percentage of a parcel that
can be changed from resource production to other uses. In this way Small Scale Tourist and Recreational
uses (and other categories of use as well) would remain clearly secondary to resource use, helping to
assure that the scale of development remains small and that our rural character and resource capacity are
retained. A standard such as this one would provide clear development standards that would benefit
applicants and regulators in the permitting process.
The existing 10% impermeable surfaces limit for Resource Lands in the Table 6-1 may be intended, in
part, to preserve resource function, but it does not go far enough. Resource land can be functionally lost
in many ways without creation of impermeable surfaces (e.g. replacing forests with grass or permeable
paving). Limiting the extent to which a proposed use can alter resource lands from resource production
would clearly complement and build upon the impervious surfaces limitation.
My suggestion for accomplishing this would be to add a line to Table 3-1 that states a maximum land
area (by %) where development proposals are allowed or conditionally allowed on resource lands for all
proposed uses. This would address the use of resource lands being proposed for a variety of uses, much
more than the current issue around shooting facilities. A 20% limit would achieve a balance of protection
and flexibility of use while adding clarity to the permitting process.
This addition to the use table would be consistent with the objectives in the UDC (Title 18.15.100) in
how it currently conditions uses adjacent to resource lands: "Development permit approvals for the use
of lands adjacent to lands designated resource lands shall be conditioned ... to ensure that the use of such
lands shall not interfere with ... best management practices of those lands designated for resource
purposes."
This type of limitation is sorely needed. The shooting facility issue won't be the last of the challenges to
the rural character of Jefferson County that we hold so dear. We read recently of somebody who would
like to build a land based jet boat race track in our county. Many of the existing uses in the Use Table
could, depending on size and intensity, put us right back into the reactive regulatory mode that we've
been slogging through with shooting facilities. Limits on the intensity of non resource use could be a
way to proactively assure that resource lands remain in resource production while allowing appropriately
scaled development in those zones.
Last, and perhaps least, there are a few editing errors:
The first one is the easiest: in numerous places forest is spelled ‘forrest’.
8.50.240 (2) a Eliminate "proposed".
8.50.240 (6) c vi Eliminate "proposed".
Actually, a search of Title 8 for "proposed" might turn up a lot more incidents.
Section 8
pg43 (of 45) (4) ‘article does create any’ I'm not sure if it is supposed to be does or doesn’t!
Section 18
pg 10 (of 25)—sections 040 and 045 are out of order
also pg 10—sections 1 and 2 are new but they aren’t underlined
pg 19 —- (2) shooting is misspelled (forgot the t)
pg 20 —(5) “will not permit no…”
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of these concerns.
Janet Welch