HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-54
( I ~ .".
'. ' '~f-l-
J/! V':'\
VC;) L\l~1 ,
(A:;1)'1 rn eft'! t;
Shoreline Master Plan Comments
, )
2A t:)
rQ\
o
The comments that I present are my own, but I would like standing for
the organizations I am a member of, specifically the Farm Bureau,
Washington State Grange, and the Olympic Stewardship Foundation.
1. The proponents of the proposed Shoreline Master Plan have
presented no evidence that the current 30 foot buffer zone is not
working and they have not presented any evidence to quantify how a
150 foot buffer would better protect the shoreline. It appears that the
proponents feel that bigger is better and that should be adequate. The
proponents of the plan are negligent in not presenting evidence of the
need for wider buffers and the economic effects on the economy of
Jefferson Co.
2. The proponents estimates of future growth in the area affected by the
shoreline management area are wildly off base. There are very few lots
available in Jefferson Co. and fewer yet in the shoreline management
area. The plan is fatally flawed because, instead of rapid growth as the
plan estimates for the future, there would be relatively stable population
density along waterfront property.
3. There has been no serious attempt to contact all the property owners
affected and people who have called in have been told that if they have a
house they won't be affected. The proponents are, at best, guilty of
unethical conduct and at worst guilty of fraud.
4. Hundreds of people affected by the Shoreline Master Plan live
outside the county and many live outside Washington State. Normally
the statutory time a person has to take legal action to right a wrong starts
when he or she finds out about the situation. Because no serious attempt
has been made to contact people affected, the statutory required time
period for legal action should be set aside and the time period for legal
action to protect property or seek damages should commence from the
time they become aware of the plan harming the individual landowner.
5. All changes in the Shoreline Master Plan must be based on science
and a cost benefit analysis run to justify the financial hardship it would
impose on affected landowners. We do not see any cost benefit analysis,
or any discussion of the economic effects on Jefferson Co.
6. The property along the shoreline will be less valuable and the rest of
the land will have to pay more taxes. Everyone will be affected. Under
the Lucas Taking precedent, property that can not be built on will have
to be purchased by the county.
7. The county is laying off people and the economy is deteriorating, the
Shoreline Management Master Plan will greatly increase paperwork and
because the money is not available to hire new people, everything will
grind to a halt. People who live in the affected area will be lift with the
choice of doing something illegally or waiting years to fmd out if they
can do something. Any changes in the plan must provide for timely
service to landowners.
8. It appears that political pressure outside of Jefferson Co. is the
motivating force behind the changes in the plan and the outside forces
want to use Jefferson Co. as a model for the rest of the state. Any
changes in the plan must be based on science and the situation in
Jefferson Co. and outside interference constitutes interfering in the
planning process.
Sincerely
~r~ /7-v/v7'
James Fritz, 271 Crutc~ Road, P.T. 98368
360 385 4876