The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-59 (; V1;tA \/Vulp Michelle Mccon)fern~ M&I From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: MARGO DEVRIES [crowbaby@embarqmail.com] Tuesday, January 20,20099:12 PM Michelle McConnell Re: Postcard mailer online Letter re Public Comment to SMPs.doc Hi Michelle, Thank you for that postcard mailer and all other direct mail and email updates. I have been working on this response and will be sending by mail to the DCD as-well. I hope that it is relevant and contains enough expression of appreciation. It's just amazing what everyone has done. Best regards, Margo DeVries ----- Original Message ----- To: Michelle McConnell Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 20094:21 PM Subject: SMP: Postcard mailer online Hello Interested Parties, In our continued effort to inform and engage the public, we sent another direct mail postcard last week to more than 3,000 shoreline property owners to alert them to the SMP Update effort, availability of the Preliminary Draft SMP proposal, tomorrow night's Public Hearing, and the open public comment period that ends January 30. This postcard is now online with the other Direct Mailings at http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelinePublicOutreach.htm#Direct Ma i1ings All for now, Michelle You have received this message as a member of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Interested Parties Email Distribution List. If you do not wish to receive further project notices, reply to this message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Anyone who wants to be added to the list may send an email with "SUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Please note: Recipient names and email addresses are not shown to keep that information private. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager Direct: 360.379.4484 Web: www.co.iefferson.wa.us!commdevelopment!ShorelinePlanning.htm Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long Range Planning Division 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, W A 98368 Front Desk: 360.379.4450 Fax: 360.379.4473 1 January 20, 2009 To: DCD-SMP Comments Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attn: Michelle McConnell, SMP Update Project Manager From: Margo DeVries Subject: Public Comment: PDSMP Thank you for your dedication to this epic update and revision project to Jefferson County Code. This reviewer may be too unacquainted with the exhaustive process that developed these SMPs (and unaware of .policies and provisions") to make any interpretation of these Policies and Regulations; however, one will be attempted: Initially, the "side-by-side review seemed to present a contradiction; as explained below. After reviewing the PDSMP; and, reading thoroughly, Article 7: #2. "Boating Facilities: ...... from page 7-1 through 7-12 a better understanding has been reached; however, some questions still remain. Comment to part of the Review - Key Similarities and Differences between SMP& PDSMP Page 5 Boating Facilities (Docks, piers, floats and lifts) Main Similarities: Mooring buoys are preferred over docks, piers, and floats. Joint-use facilities are preferred over single-user docks, piers and floats. Subdivisions must make provisions for joint use dock facilities. Main Differences: Maximum allowances per residence is one of each: lift, dock and float. This "Maximum allowances per residence" & PDSMP: Boating Facilities...: F. Regulations - Docks, Piers, Floats and Lifts - Accessory to Residential Development; # 2. "If allowed under this program, no more than one (1) dock/pier and one (1) float and one (1) boat/ski lift may be permitted on a single lot owned for residential use or private recreational use." ("or... recreational use. is assumed to mean without a residence.) "official description.; "regulation. statement still seems to supplant the previous "policies. statement regarding "shared" as preferred to "single-user" by presenting an opportunity for continuing further development where prior SMPs applied: where as, development could be extended to accommodate additional neighboring end-to-end pier projects. However, this does seem to be mitigated by the "cumulative effects" stipulation. (SMP example: why didn't the "Project area" apply to the review of one or both of these cases? ) Currently, this harbor area's two separate, "joint-use" pier projects, each of which, is connected to two, same-owner parcels, (one project with a residence, one project without a residence) has requested it's maximum of one-of-everything and more; one is approved, one is awaiting approval. It seems that this new, [residence standard] will allow for a new owner of a once former, "joinf' parcel to demand a new consideration for the "allowances per residence"; thus establishing, duplication of neighboring pier projects: Creating a conversion from "joint-use" to "residential" as parcels are resold, and which, would not be subject to the "subdivisions....provisions" standard. Nor as described in #9. "Residential developments with more than four (4) lots or dwellings units.... ." Could this category translation result in the single-user effect, increasing impact to the environment from creating additional pier projects? Hopefully, the "Project area" and "Cumulative effects of dock proliferation must be considered" will be given serious evaluation. Thank you for this new "cumulative effects" standard. Hopefully, #15. "No single-user or shared dock/pier/float may be constructed to within two hundred (200) feet of OHWM on the opposite shoreline of any lake or semi-enclosed water such as a bay, cove or natural channel."; includes harbors, as-well-as, being included for consideration of all policies and regulations applicable to these identification as "marine" or "water bodies", etc. (Recognizing that harbors are well-represented in the PDSMP Introduction Slideshow presentation.) Shoreline Inventory Maps: DRAFT Official Shoreline MaD: December 2008 Thank you for (proposed) designations of "conservancy" "natural" and "priority aquatic" (marine) in areas of the South Toandos Peninsula. ProDosed Shoreline Environment Desianations - Southeast Jefferson County (Map 29) Thank you for the proposed portion of Fisherman Harbor as "Conservancy" (Hoping this creates consideration of a "good candidate for ecological restoration. ") Critical Shoreline Habitat - Southeast Jefferson County (Map 17) Please consider the status of "Spawning" designated to a portion of Fisherman Harbor and to Fisherman Harbor Creek as is verified by photo evidence presented in public comment to MLA 08-00187. Please consider the status of "Forage Fish" designation to Fisherman Harbor as indicated in state agency documentation as evidence presented in public comment to MLA 08-00187. Thank you for the Intent to Amend statements: Unified Development Code; for the "Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents": "Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements"; which "examine the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan" and for the conclusion that "The current proposal is more protective than existing regulations." As well as, thanks for the expansion of consideration for public comment. A direct reference to this situation could not be isolated in the current SMP. Is there reason for concern?: Article 7 - Shoreline Modifications Policies and Regulations: 1. Beach Access Structures: B. Shoreline Environment Regulations The following comment is the first that comes from a personal response to a private property issue being address at this time concerning the changes to the Shoreline Master Plan. Even as I support the proposed designation of "Priority Aquatic", to the immediate shoreline, a concern for personal safety seems more "at ris/(: The use of a tram has been a consideration as an actual, integral part of an alternative escape-route from being cut-off to the only available road connection out of Township 25N, Range 1W in Section 3, Ort. Sec. NW 1/4 from fire; and, it comes from the perspective of the lone, permanently occupied residence on Smith Lane. Two such fires have occurred on adjacent properties with separate owners during burns of slash and for brush-clearing. Fortunately, neither was hazardous and each fire was put-out, either by the burning crew's water tank or thankfully, by our fire and first-responders volunteers. Since there is the possibility of being cut-off, at a point this close to home, it seems unfeasible to proceed toward the fire to attempt an escape on the only beach access on one of those neighboring properties (which far-exceeds a 300 foot distance in this case.) The alternative to this event and non-access leaves only one direction left to escape that fire; literally, over the bank; which is an 80-foot drop. It is hoped that a consideration for "Private beach access structures accessory to single-family residential development may be permitted as a conditional use when they are allowed in the adjoining upland designation."; as in the "Aquatic" designation. Or, that real safety issues, of this type and potential consequence, are given consideration during the development of this decisive SMP document; as other issues of safety have already been addressed (and may be addressed or imbedded in "conditional use".) This is presented with the knowledge that a neighbor has recently revealed a previously requested tram, which was discussed with DCD and, which was denied; this as we watch a pier project in the harbor including a tram and two staircases for recreational use, which is expected to be approved - not-with-standing unstable slopes. Respect for similar slope conditions have deterred a similar request here, to this point. Some situations seem unique or complex; it appears that the new PDSMP is considering these currently complicated issues for future resolution with a more, clearly understandable formula. Thank you sincerely, for this opportunity to review and comment on this impressive body-of-work; and, for encouraging public comment, engaging every citizen on matters that affect us all. Respectfully, Margo DeVries Referenced specifically, these materials related to this tremendous scope of work: Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program Portions of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapters: 1; 4; 8 Shoreline Environment Designations; Requirements and Changes Final Shoreline Inventory & Characterization Analysis - Related Maps and Proposed Revisions Notice of Intent to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code Notice of Adoption of Existing Environmental Documentation Supporting GMA and SMA RCWs and WACs MLA08-00475 Informal Public Comment Attempts to navigate the current SMP