Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Comment_Response Matrix_2021_1006_subDRAFT October 7, 2021 1 Response to Comments Matrix – Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review – July 2021 Joint Review included a comment period from May 17 – June 16, 2021, and a public hearing on June 16, 2021 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale 1. Marcia Case, Resident 6/10 18.25.440 Geoduck aquaculture: ensure permitting with public comment. In addition to new geoduck operations, the proposed code revisions made all geoduck expansions and conversions a conditional use permit (CUP); while a discretionary CUP is the highest permit type in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) framework, the proposed revisions in response to the Planning Commission recommendations would create a full CUP with Hearing Examiner review known at the outset. Additional review of Kitsap County SMP with some of the application requirements incorporated, which typically made similar requirements in the Jefferson County SMP more specific. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) allows local government to choose whether conversion requires a CUP. The revised approach recognizes that non-geoduck and geoduck aquaculture have very different practices and associated environmental effects. Requiring a CUP allows for a hearing. 2. Marilyn Showalter 6/11 (speaker at 6/16 hearing with similar comments) 18.25.440 Geoduck aquaculture: ensure CUP with public comment for any tidelands not previously used for geoducks. Same as above. Same as above. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 2 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale 3. Marilyn Showalter 6/29 (post hearing) 18.25.440 Geoduck aquaculture: Suggest new Option 3 ensuring CUP with public hearing for any tidelands not previously used for geoducks whether stand-alone or as expansion. Opposes Options 1 and 2. Same as above. Same as above. 4. Neighbors in Shine 6/15 18.25.440 Geoduck aquaculture: ensure CUP with public comment for any tidelands not previously used for geoducks. Same as above. Same as above. 5. Paul Steenberg 6/16 18.25.440 Concern about increases in geoduck clam aquaculture with no public input. Same as above. Same as above. 6. Jan Wold 6/16 (speaker at 6/16 hearing with similar comments) 18.25.440 Geoduck aquaculture: ensure CUP with public comment for any tidelands not previously used for geoducks. Concern for threatened and endangered species. Same as above. Same as above. 7. Hood Canal Env. Council 6/16 18.25.440 Geoduck aquaculture: JCC 18.25.440(4)(b) and (6) are inconsistent; clarify (6)(a)(ii). Support letter from Shine Neighbors. Same as above. Same as above. 8. Taylor Shellfish 6/16 18.25.440 JCC 18.25.440(6)(a)(ii): Match WAC 173-26 241(3)(b)(iv)(B): “All subsequent cycles of planting and harvest shell not require a new conditional use permit.” Change to JCC 18.25.440(7)(b) to add: The county shall accept these materials and only require additional application materials to the extent needed to address information in subsection (a). Agree county should accept state and federal application materials, and only request supplemental information as needed. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 3 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale JCC 18.25.440(6)(a)(iv) Should require monitoring rather than shall. JCC 18.25.440(7)(b) – clarify that additional application materials is only to address subsection (a) Retained proposed language in JCC 18.25.440(6)(a)(ii) as it appears consistent with the SMA at WAC 173-26 241(3)(b)(iii) which states that “As determined by Attorney General Opinion 2007 No. 1, the planting, growing, and harvesting of farm-raised geoduck clams requires a substantial development permit if a specific project or practice causes substantial interference with normal public use of the surface waters, but not otherwise.” The full text of the Opinion notes that conditional use permits may also be used (https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago- opinions/extent-which-hydraulic- project-approval-permits-or- shoreline-substantial- development). Requiring a CUP just for those projects or practices that “would substantially interfere with normal public use of the surface waters, including public access or passage, and was not considered during review or approval of the original conditional use permit” seems consistent with County appointed officials’ direction to date (Planning Commission) to require CUPs for new and converted geoduck aquaculture and consistent with the extensive DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 4 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale public comment received on the topic of geoduck aquaculture and what level of permitting and public notice is appropriate. Retained requirement for monitoring because it: Implements the strong definition of “should” in the WAC given that there is not likely to be a “compelling reason, based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter” not to require monitoring and reporting. Provides unambiguous, implementable direction. JCC 18.25.440(6)(a)(iv): The CUP issued by the county shall include monitoring and reporting requirements necessary to verify that geoduck aquaculture operations are in compliance with shoreline limits and conditions set forth in the CUP and to support cumulative impacts analysis. 9. Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe 6/16 Consider cumulative effects of expansion of existing structures and septic systems within 150-foot buffer. No further changes proposed. See discussion/rationale. Adjustments to existing single- family in buffers achieves no net loss of ecological function with specific parameters: o Allows one-time expansions for minor DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 5 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale Mooring Buoys: support USACE permits before state and local permits if a buoy is not feasible. Sea Level Rise: Avoid armoring shorelines in response to sea level rise. Mining is not marine dependent. enlargements - landward or waterward o Limits moderate expansions to non- waterward o Adds more parameters on enhancements and monitoring o Limits on minor waterward to 200 sq ft on existing impervious with 80% enhancement and monitoring o Requires all expansions provide planting plan with specifics on enhancement and monitoring Septic in Shoreline Buffers o Incorporates existing interpretation in SMP o Applies to nonconforming only, not new residential o Must replace at same capacity o Must be in least intrusive location and reflect constraints of critical areas and topography Shoreline armoring and sea level rise – the proposal tweaks the bulkhead definition, which is intended to DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 6 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale avoid parallel “faux” armoring and is more protective. Mining – there are no change in allowances – it is prohibited in nearly all use environments – with a CUP in high intensity only. 10. Skokomish Indian Tribe 6/1 Wells, building permits, septic, impervious areas can exacerbate effects of climate change. Incremental and cumulative effect of aquaculture on habitat and on access to shorelines for treaty rights. Housing, bulkheads, buoys can change low intensity to high intensity in inventory and characterization study. Concern about liberal construction of SMP. See above. See above. Regarding liberal construction of SMP, this existing language matches the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and is intended to be more protective by maximizing the achievement of SMA objectives, which strongly protect ecological functions as well as allowing for appropriate uses and public access. See RCW 90.58.020 and RCW 90.58.900. 11. Richard Kelbon 6/13 Private forestland along Little Quilcene River – can they be harvested in buffer? SMP forest practices requirements follow the SMA and Forest Practices Act. The Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) also exempts and defers to Forest Practices Act. 12. Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner 6/16 Clarifications and corrections listed below See below. See below. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 7 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale 12.1 100(1)(aa). 1. To make the distinction between a deck that would be reviewed as an appurtenant structure and a detached one that would be reviewed as accessory structure, I suggest further clarifying to say: "...include a garage, attached deck,...". Changed as requested. A separate “deck” would be a platform that is not connected to the home. 12.2 100(12)(g). 2. Suggest adding a second sentence to the definition to say: Lateral expansion of a non- conforming structure is relative to Ordinary High Water Mark, which may or may not be lateral to the existing structure. Changed with a shortened version of sentence: Lateral expansion of a non-conforming structure is relative to Ordinary High Water Mark. For a definition, a shortened version of the requested sentenced is recommended; it adds clarity with less complexity. 12.3 100(14)(h). 3. This definition has been interpreted differently by planners and managers over time so a clarification of how the following phrase should be used is needed: "...which it is not possible to construct a structure outside of/landward of the shoreline buffer or which does not otherwise meet the minimum lot depth requirements". In Jefferson County, the shoreline buffer is 150 feet and the road setback is often 20 feet. Is the 'depth of lot' based on 170 feet (meaning any parcel that has a depth of 170 feet or less could use this provision)? Or is it something else, and if so what is that number? For example, a narrow parcel with a depth of lot that varies from 173 feet to 209 Changed to address lot width as well as depth, and to clarify the depth is measured to the furthest landward property line. Adding criteria to the definition is not recommended. Adding criteria for the likely wide range of situations is challenging, would require time to consider cumulative effects, and is beyond the scope of the periodic review at this point. However, since the current definition references “size” it is appropriate to add “width” in addition to “depth”. Also, because the County allows a reduction of frontage setbacks to limit differences with the standard buffer, it is recommended that the description include depth to the landward property line. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 8 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale feet, is bigger than 170 feet, but not big enough for a house and septic system. Given the big procedural differences between a shoreline variance and a shoreline exemption, I am recommending more substantive criteria be added to this definition. 12.4 100(19)(w)(i). 4. Suggest adding as a second sentence: Shoreline jurisdiction extends west from Ordinary High Water Mark one league, which is 3.45 miles or 3.0 nautical miles. No change is proposed. This change does not appear necessary, or always accurate given bays/inlets/shoreline orientation. 12.5 100{19)(ee) and (II). 5. Delete reference to SPAADs as this type of permit has been removed from Title 18. Suggest a global search to find and delete any refences to SPAADs. Changes made as requested. Agree there are no more SPAADs. 12.6 100(23). 6. Add definition of Waterward, and clarify that waterward development is relative to Ordinary High Water Mark, not existing structures. Definition is added, though differing from the clarification. Clarified to meet intent of comment: waterward is relative to the structure - not waterward of OHWM. 12.7 270(4)(a). 7. Ordinance number should be 05-0310-20. Changes made as requested. Corrects ordinance number. 12.8 270(4)(a)(i) and (ii). 8. The language in these two subsections have been a source of confusion. Consider revising to state that if there is a discrepancy between the CAO and the SMP, the SMP prevails but relevant sections of the CAO may be applicable. For example, the SMP does not have critical area buffer Added clarifications that both the SMP and CAO apply. Made other adjustments to note that reasonable use does not apply in SMP. Responded to request for clarification. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 9 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale widths, reporting requirements, or other detailed protection standards for nonconforming lots, modest home provision, or common line buffer, yet we have to rely on those CAO requirements for showing compliance with no net loss requirements. 12.9 270(5)(b). 9. If development using the common line buffer has constraints similar to those in (5)(a) for modest home provision (e.g., size of development, 30-foot setback), this should be clarified. Added a cross reference with similar language as requested. It appears possible that both common line and modest home provisions could interact if the standards / criteria are met for both. 12.10 270(5)(e) and (f). 10. To be consistent with the rest of the SMP, revise 'Section .560(2)' to 'JCC 18.25.560(2)'. Editorial change made as requested. Adds extra clarity. 12.11 270(5)(f)(i) and (iv). 11. I do not think there are any unexpired SPAADs in which the residential construction is not currently underway. Should be able to delete both of these. Changes made as requested. Agree there are no more SPAADs. 12.12 270(5)(f)(iii). 12. Probably want to reference Articles VI, VII, and IX. Editorial change made as requested. Adds extra clarity. 12.13 300(2)(a). 13. Clarify if the 10-foot setback applies in all circumstances. It is clear that it applies for the standard shoreline buffer width, but what about other circumstances, such as when the modest home provision will be used? For example, is the closest a development can be to OHWM 30 The 10-foot setback applies to the standard buffer. Upon reviewing the source of the 10-foot setback (added as a cross reference) and reviewing diagrams, the 10-foot setback is meant to apply to the standard buffer. Clarification made as such. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 10 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale feet, as stated in JCC 18.25.270(5)(a)(ix), or is the closest 40 feet because there is also a 10-foot building setback? DCD has not been applying the building setback to the modest home provision, and it would be helpful to have this clarified in the SMP. 12.14 14. 340(j)(i) to (vvi). Typos. Typographical corrections made. Corrects incorrect numbering. 12.15 410{5)(c)(iii). 15. Shouldn't this be "...in Chapter 15.15 JCC"? Clarification added. Adds extra clarity. 12.16 440(4)(b). 16. More clarification would be helpful. Suppose an existing aquaculture farm wants to expand the in-water portion by more than 25% but then add in the facility above OHWM (in which no expansion is proposed) so the percent expansion is then less than 25%. Which percentage should be used? Also, is the calculation based on the footprint of the aquaculture or, in the case of facilities above OHWM, the size of the parcel being used for aquaculture. We have ongoing issues about how to calculate the percentage. See responses to comments 1-7. See responses to comments 1-7. 12.17 500. 17. There is currently a loophole in this section. Applicants can come in to build a small house (i.e., one that is less than 1,250 square feet) and Clarification made in 18.25.500 (3)(g). The definition of single family home indicates “a” single family home. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 11 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale claim it is a main residence so the application is processed as a Type I shoreline exemption in the Shoreline Residential, Conservancy, and High Intensity shoreline designations. Then they (or subsequent property owners) come in later, wanting a second, larger residence, which would then be the main residence, and get that proposal processed as a shoreline exemption as well. This loophole should be addressed; possibly by requiring any second residential structure in shoreline jurisdiction be processed as a C(d). 12.18 660(8). 18. Shouldn't the revision say: "...with a Type I Shoreline Exemption Permit,..." since the section header says expansion without a CUP? Or is the intent that all non-conforming expansions will be noticed? No change made. The minimum permit type is Type II to address regulatory reform while continuing noticing provisions. 12.19 660{8)(d)(ii)(D). 19. Typo- delete 'b; and'. Change made as requested. Corrects text. 12.20 660(8) and (9). 20. Expansions can waterward, lateral, landward, or vertical. There is still some uncertainty for processing vertical expansions in the drafted version, which appears to focus on two-dimensional expansions. Given the number of applications we receive for vertical expansions, more clarifications are Comment noted. See below clarifications. See below. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 12 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale needed to address three- dimensional expansions of nonconforming structures. 12.20a 660(8) and (9). a. Based on (9), it appears that vertical expansions are to be processed as a C(d) only if they obstruct views. Since this is rarely, if ever, an issue for vertical expansions submitted to DCD, how would these applications be reviewed? Consider having all vertical expansions be processed under subsection (9). Clarifications made to indicate that (9) would include expansions at the 10-25% volume of space. Agree that since buffer is 3- dimensional it is important to be clear. 12.20b 660(8) and (9). b. If vertical expansions are not allowed under (8), it would be helpful to have another General Standard that says: "(d) The expansion is not vertical" (and then Waterward (d) to meet (a) through (d). The intent was to allow vertical expansions under (8). Clarifications in (9) help interpret (8). Change not needed to (8) to limit vertical expansions, but clarifications between (8) and (9) were helpful to address distinctions. 12.20c 660(8) and (9). c. However, if vertical expansions are allowed under (8), consider basing the increase on square footage, not increase in footprint since most nonconforming vertical expansions are above an existing footprint. There have been ongoing discussions about how to process vertical expansions under (8)(f) because a vertical expansion generally does not increase the footprint but increases living space by more than 25%. If vertical Changes made to refer to volume of space as well as footprint, and that (8) is based on up to 10% space and (9) is based on 10-25%. Adds clarity. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 13 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale expansions can be processed as a shoreline exemption, better criteria are needed for when the expansion can be processed under (8), and when it needs to be reviewed as a CUP under (9). 12.20d 660(8) and (9). d. If an applicant proposes a change to the roof pitch (and does not increase the footprint, square footage, or living space of the existing structure), would it be processed under (8) or (9)? Seems like it would be under (8) because noticing an application that only changes the roof pitch (and does not result in an increase in living space) seems excessive. Since we occasionally get applications that propose only a roof pitch change (i.e., a vertical change only), clarify how this is to be reviewed (or if it should be reviewed at all: at least one past DCD manager has stated a 'de minimus' should apply to changes in roof pitch and that it should not be subject to shoreline review). No change proposed. Suggest applying same criteria where volume of space increases since there is a 3-dimensional buffer and as the non-habitable space can someday become habitable. 12.20e 660(8)(f). e. Similar to the above comment: Clarify what "...increase the structure height up to the limits allowed by this program..." means. Is it the upper limits of the roof height of the existing No change. The SMP maximum height is 35 feet. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 14 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale nonconforming structure or is it 35 feet? Clarify at what point or under what conditions height increases can be proposed under (8) and when it would need to be reviewed under (9). 12.20f 660 (9). f. Since moderate expansion is clarified in (9) as nonwaterward, can (a)(i) and (ii) be combined as (a)(i) to say: "Enlargement or expansion of nonconforming single- family residences by the addition to the exterior of the main structure or appurtenances where the total footprint will increase by more than 25 percent; the exterior expansion is likely to affect critical areas; or any vertical expansion."? No change. Section (8) and (9) both address vertical expansions. 12.20g 660(8)(g). g. allows the administrator to require monitoring reports be prepared by a qualified professional if the submittal is inadequate, but does not allow the department to require a professional prepare a planting plan if that submittal is not adequate. This should be added, because many applicants do not know how to prepare planting plans and it should be expected that DCD will receive many that are inadequate. Change made to allow a professional planting plan if not adequate. Agree parity in approach between overall planting plan and monitoring after the fact is appropriate. DRAFT October 7, 2021 Jefferson County | SMP Periodic Review: Comments and Responses Matrix 15 Commenter & Date SMP Section Summary of Comment Proposed Changes Discussion / Rationale 12.21 660(11). 21. Change "...provisions of .660 apply" to "...provisions of this section apply" or "...provisions of JCC 18.25.660 apply". Full code cross reference provided. Typographical clarification. 12.22 660. 22. It should be clarified that landward, lateral, and waterward expansions are relative to OHWM, not the nonconforming structure. No change here. See definition change in 18.25.100. Waterward measured from structure towards water. 12.23 18.40.040 23. Is JCC 18.40.040 being revised to reflect SSDPs being a Type II now, no longer a Type Ill? Yes, that corresponding consistency change is proposed in revisions. Agree change should be made for consistency.