HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-39
(vM'~
r~j~v~b,
Mic~'ffGMt~onnell
2-'1 (, r
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michelle McConnell
Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:27 PM
'Teren MacLeod'
RE: Letter - with questions on the SMP draft
..r--"
~
Hi Teren,
Comments received - thank you.
As we are now in an open public comment period (12/3/08 - 1/30/09) on our Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master
PraQram proposal for Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation amendments, your comments will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration.
In regards to your attached letter, please find our responses to your questions below:
1) We understand there was a comprehensive look at shoreline parcels. As it pertains to the changes being proposed, a)
what percentage of undeveloped land is there in the various "designations" and, b) what percentage of all parcels affected
will have an increase or change in development restriction?
A Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA) is being prepared to assess the potential effect of the Preliminary Draft SMP
(PDSMP) on future development. The CIA is intended to satisfy the requirements of WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(iii) and the
WA Dept. of Ecology grant contract, and will help answer these questions about undeveloped lots. This document is
pending completion, will not be proposed for adoption as code, and will be made available to the public.
2) Criteria has been established for lakes and streams - what criteria has been established for when and how wetlands will
be recognized as coming under the SMP jurisdiction? How will that be determined? Will this trigger landowners having to
have wetland delineations performed, and if so, what would be the circumstances requiring that? Will the current wetlands
mapping be used in any way?
PDSMP Article 1.2 Applicability, and Article 6.1 Critical Areas, Shoreline Buffers & Ecological Protection: The PDSMP
does not change or affect the number or extent of wetlands under shoreline jurisdiction. Associated wetlands have been
regulated by the state Shoreline Management Act since its inception. The treatment of wetlands described in Article 1 is
no different than under the existing SMP. Some wetlands are included in SMP jurisdiction as Shorelands because they
are 'associated features' as per WAC 173-22-030(1) and are proposed for regulation as consistent with WAC 173-26-
221(2)(c)(i). As described in the Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Report: "These typically include wetlands that
physically extend into the shoreline jurisdiction, and wetlands that are functionally related to the shoreline through a
hydrologic connection or other factors." All provisions of the SMP would apply within the jurisdictional area as defined
in the program, including wetland buffers described in the Critical Areas Regulations (JCC 18.22.270). However, as
described in PDSMP Article 6.D, buffers would not be applied additively, but rather the landward most edge of all
buffers/setbacks would apply. Current wetland mapping may be considered during permit review, but additional on-site
data such as delineations may be required on a case-by-case basis.
3) How was the 50' distance between homes determined as a requirement for the common line prescriptive option? What
is the purpose of this or the impact the SMP is trying to divert? How many waterfront subdivisions have been approved
since Oct. 1998?
PDSMP Article 6.7: The 50' lateral separation distance between homes described as part of the Common Line Setback
prescriptive buffer option is similar to other jurisdictions that have fully-adopted, updated SMPs, including City of Port
Townsend. Because the buffer adjustment is allowed only for single family residential development and for the purpose
of not having the standard buffer substantially impairing neighboring views. Because the standard buffers/setbacks and
1
other provisions are intended to collectively meet the State requirement for "no net loss of ecological function" and
because there is no mandate or guarantee for an unobstructed view of the shoreline, the purpose is to allow some
accommodation for site-specific conditions when they meet the given criteria. The current SMP uses 300' lateral
separation distance for such a buffer option. The number of waterfront subdivisions since 1998 is not known without
further research. Please note that subdivisions approved after Oct '98 should be vested to the code at that time and
show the setback lines on the plat.
4) You indicated that most of the shoreline is in very good shape, and that the purpose ofthe SMP changes are to achieve
no net loss. What is the 110 or 160 foot setback meant to accomplish, and what is the science to show the added degree of
impact to the shorelines with the setbacks as they are in the current SMP ?
Overall, part of the purpose of the SMP Update is to reflect current conditions, make use of new available data and
comply with the State SMP Guidelines, which include the requirement of "no net loss of ecological functions" (WAC 173-
26-186(8)(b). No Net Loss is identified as a Governing Principle in Article 1 of the PDSMP. The Shoreline Inventory &
Characterization Report addresses preliminary buffer recommendations in Chapter 5 and cites numerous sources.
Chapter 6 is a bibliography of several hundred technical/scientific references consulted in preparation of this document.
The inventory report is not anticipated for adoption as code. Also, the State requires the SMP to provide protection of
shoreline resources that is equal to (or exceeds) that provided by the Critical Areas Regulations (JCC 18.22). Standard
buffers of 150' for streams, 100' for lakes over 20 acres, and 150' for fish & wildlife habitat along marine shores are
currently in effect (JCC 18.22). Standardized buffers allow development without requiring a detailed, site-specific
environmental analysis at the permit level.
5) Ag lands are exempt as we understand it, if they are zoned as ag land and active. The trend in new ag is niche fanning
and much of this is being done on rural residential parcels. There is also likely to be a need for people to grow food in the
future - for themselves and to support community food cooperatives. Please define the ag exemption, how is it applied,
where and what are the criteria if RR zoning is included?
PDSMP Article 9: Agricultural activities as defined in Article 2 are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit - as described in Article 9.2 and 9.3 - as per RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(iv) and in compliance with WAC 173-26-
241(3)(a).
6) What active uses are allowed in the 20% of the buffer that is not required to be "well vegetated and predominately
natural condition." Are kitchen gardens an allowable use?
PDSMP Article 6: Requirements for buffer condition are found in Article 6.1 and the policies and regulations that apply
to vegetation conservation are found in Article 6.4, including a list of activities exempt from the requirements such as
agriculture, buffer enhancement, 3" stems, landscaping, non-motorized trails, berry picking, and hazard tree removal.
7) With DeD staff cut back and many of the program changes requiring more of staff, pennitting authority and action,
what can we expect will be the time frames needed for a buyer to work through the development approval options under a
Feasibility contingency? Will we need 18 months in the future to detennine if and how a parcel can be developed, and
what tests/professional assessments may be required in that process?
Permit issuance timelines vary on a case-by-case basis depending on many factors, including complexity of the proposal
and when an application is deemed 'complete'. The State Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) requires 120 days, although that
'clock' may stop and start based on requests for an applicant to provide additional information.
8) Please explain when an improvement to an existing structure would be subject to the new restrictions? What about in
the event of fire or natural damage?
PDSMP Article 9 and 10: It depends on what the existing structure is. Existing structures may be 'grandfathered' as a
non-conforming development if it was legal prior to the adoption of the new SMP. Replacement due to fire/flood
damage, and enlargement and/or expansion of a non-conforming development is addressed in Article 10.6 with criteria
2
for when a permit may be required. New use/development of that existing structure must comply with all provisions of
the new SMP, regardless of the need for a permit. Exemptions from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are
listed in Article 9 including fair market value, normal maintenance & repair, etc.
Further discussion ofthese and other issues is best left to the Planning Commission's deliberation of the PDSMP
proposal. Additional comments can be provided at the Public Hearing on Jan 21, or in writing until Spm on Jan 30.
Have a great weekend,
Michelle
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager
Direct: 360.379.4484
Web: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdeve1opmentlShorelinePlanning.htm
NEW OFFICE HOURS: 9 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed on Friday
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
NOTE: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and are subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW.
-----Original Message-----
From: Teren Macleod [mailto:teren@ptproperty.com]
Sent: Friday~ January e9~ 2ee9 3:12 PM
To: Michelle McConnell
Subject: letter - with questions on the SMP draft
Michelle - attached is a pdf file with a letter and a list of questions for you regarding the
SMP draft.
We are asking for your response by the end of day on the 14th. Feel free to send responses
bye-mail so that I can share with our committee.
Thanks very much~
Teren Macleod
3
1J ,
1'-,
Jefferson County Association of REALTORS<!l)
219W Patlson Street
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
(360) 385-6041
jeffrlty@olypen.com
www.jcarwa.com
January 9, 2009
Michelle McConnell
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Shoreline Master Plan draft
Dear Michelle:
Please accept sincere thanks for the recent informational meeting hosted by our
government affairs committee at WSU. Thank you as well for your willingness to extend
the meeting time to our Realtors@ and the members of the public there to learn. It was
an excellent meeting.
While the proposed changes in the SMP are under review by the county, we need to
understand the impacts and opportunities, and be able to respond to specific questions
with information that may not be readily reflected in the written draft.
The questions listed on the attached page were compiled from various notes taken from
our meeting with you, and from a follow-up meeting of our committee. Please do not
hesitate to call if you need clarification on the questions. My office line is 344-3944. As
Realtors, we are often the point of reference for landowners, and in that capacity, seek
to have clarity and understanding of this draft now under consideration.
We ask that you respond to us by the 14th of this month to allow us time to share the
information with our members in advance of the PC hearing on the 21st? We look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
r-~~
T eren Macleod
Interim Government Affairs Chair, JCAR
Use A REALTOR@!
,W"
.-"
SMP DRAFT QUESTIONS - GAC of JCAR
1) We understand there was a comprehensive look at shoreUne parcels. As it pertains to
the changes being proposed, a) what percentage of undeveloped land is there in the
various "designations" and, b) what percentage of all parcels affected will have an
increase or change in development restriction?
2) Criteria has been established for lakes and streams - what criteria has been
established for when and how wetlands will be recognized as coming under the SMP
jurisdiction? How will that be determined? Will this trigger landowners having to
have wetland delineations performed, and if so, what would be the circumstances
requiring that? Will the current wetlands mapping be used in any way?
3) How was the 50' distance between homes determined as a requirement for the
common line prescriptive option? What is the purpose of this or the impact the SMP
is trying to divert? How many waterfront subdivisions have been approved since Oct.
1998?
4) You indicated that most of the shoreline is in very good shape, and that the purpose of
the SMP changes are to achieve no net loss. What is the 110 or 160 foot setback
meant to accomplish, and what is the science to show the added degree of impact to
the shorelines with the setbacks as they are in the current SMP ?
5) Ag lands are exempt as we understand it, if they are zoned as ag land and active. The
trend in new ag is niche farming and much of this is being done on rural residential
parcels. There is also likely to be a need for people to grow food in the future - for
themselves and to support community food cooperatives. Please define the ag
exemption, how is it applied, where and what are the criteria if RR zoning is
included?
6) What active uses are allowed in the 20% of the buffer that is not required to be "well-
vegetated and predominately natural condition." Are kitchen gardens an allowable
use?
7) With DCD staff cut back and many of the program changes requiring more of staff,
permitting authority and action, what can we expect will be the time frames needed
tor a buyer to work through the development approval options under aFeasibility
contingency? Will we need 18 months in the future to determine if and how a parcel
can be developed, and what tests/professional assessments may be required in that
process?
8) Please explain when an improvement to an existing structure would be subject to the
new restrictions? What about in the event of fire or natural damage?
Use A REAL TOR@I