The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-41 G J:1lft i {) t~/;V x.l? '. t~Q 01l21t40vH> Michelle McConnell 2c(hf From: Sent: To: Subject: Teren Macleod [teren@ptproperty.com] Friday, January 16, 20099:58 AM Michelle McConnell RE: Letter - with questions on the SMP draft @ Thank you, Michelle -I will forward on to our members. I see some areas where the answers have created more questions. I will respond to you next week with any follow-up on this or other questions. Thank you for your response. T eren Macleod From: Michelle McConnell [mailto:mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:27 PM To: Teren Macleod Subject: RE: Letter - with questions on the SMP draft Hi Teren, Comments received - thank you. As we are now in an open public comment period (12/3/08 -1/30/09) on our Preliminarv Draft Shoreline Master Proaram 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 (JeC 18.22.270). However, as described in PDSMP Article 6.D, 1 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 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 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 ? 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 ofthe 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 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? 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 90.5S.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. 2 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 for a buyer to work through the development approval options under a Feasibility 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? 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 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 of these 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 5pm 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.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelinePlanning.htrn 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 09, 2009 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