HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog179
Page 1 of 2
0J
David W. Johnson
From: Gyxx [gyxx@olypen.com]
Sent: Friday, December 23,200512:48 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: Fw: Marrowstone Construction: MLA05-00276 and SDP05-00014
23 December 2005
Ray Harker
155 East Beach Road
Nordland WA 98358-9622
To Whom It May Concern:
Regarding MLA 05-000276 and SDP05-00014
1) The County errs in finding the proposal exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-110-800(23)
(b). WAC 197-110-800(23) provides that the exemption in (23)(b) is not available "for installation,
construction, or alteration on lands covered by water." Lands covered by water include wetlands. WAC 197-11-
756 and 173-201A-020 ("Surface waters ofthe state" includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters,
saltwaters, wetlands and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of
Washington.) The project maps show that the project will include construction in wetlands and so SEPA review is
required. See also WAC 197-11-305(1)(b). There are additional wetlands in Phase 1 and 2 that are not now
shown in the project documents.
2) This project arguably vested on May 31, 2005 when the project application was deemed complete. The proposed
project is not consistent with the currently adopted Coordinated Water System Plan. Because the proposed project
is not consistent with the Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) in effect when the project arguably vested, the
project permits must be denied or applications resubmitted when the project is consistent with state law and local
regulations. Not only does Jefferson County Code 18.30.030(1) require development to conform to the CWSP but
also the Public Water System Coordination Act (referred to in Judge William's decision) requires PUD to
construction to comply with the CWSP.
(a) Following the approval of a coordinated water system plan by the secretary:
(b) All purveyors constructing or proposing to construct public water system facilities within the area
covered by the plan shall comply
with the plan.
RCW 70.116.060.
3) PUD has the burden of proof to demonstrate conformance with WAC 173-27-160 and the criteria in Section 4.203
of the Shoreline Management Master Program. The criteria of WAC 173-27-160 include:
(a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program;
(b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
(c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses
within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master
program;
12/23/2005
(d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shorelinrOicr1T~
# (79'
Page_Lot L_..
Page 2 of 2
which it is to be located; and
(e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
WAC 173-27-160(1). PUD can not meet its burden. The proposed public water system will have growth
inducing impacts that are inconsistent with the conservancy designation in the shoreline master program and
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Unrestricted public water increases water consumption for existing
houses which leads to septic failures and detrimental impact on shoreline water quality. Additional oversized
houses will be encouraged on existing lots with additional detrimental impact on shoreline water quality and
substantial detrimental impact on features to be protected in the conseNancy designation. Taken together, the
proposed water system will have a substantial detrimental effect on the public interest which is to minimize
building impact in the conservancy designation.
4) I would like to receive mailed notice of any hearings and receive a copy of any decisions or additional
comment periods regarding any permits associated with the proposed project.
12/2312005
LOG ITEM
# (7-9
Page_ LotL