Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-77 co t'\t'\J '" w--t ~_ ^ _ .t... tA> r{\;'Y NI""\ iJ Michelle McConnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dennis Schultz [dschultz@waypoint.com] Thursday, January 22, 2009 11 :46 AM Michelle McConnell SMP Comments SMP Comments 1-19-9.doc 'L-q/k' ( (!) Hi Michelle, Attached are my comments on the Shoreline Master Plan, Thank you, Dennis Schultz Greenwater Farm 250 N Jacob Miller RD Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMENTS Dennis Schultz 250 N Jacob Miller Rd Port Townsend, Wa 1/20/09 PROCEDURE: What is the legal status of this hearing and comment period? Is it premature? It includes Comp Plan changes, but the actual Comp Plan line-in/line-out is not included. And the 2009 Comp Plan Docket has not been passed. And the Planning Commission has not deliberated on these changes! Will the comments be a part of the official record for this rule change? Where are the Planning Commission's required findings. etc? Where is the SEP A Review? Will another public Hearing and Comment Period be added? BUFFERS: This plan changes land use and zoning regulations. It is a Comp Plan change as well as a Unified Development Code change. What is the justification for increasing the buffer size from 35' to 150'? There has been no study to determine if the present buffers are adequate or failing. If the current buffers are adequate, why change them. I suspect the main reason for change is the visual impact of homes near the shoreline. The supporting documentation discusses past construction projects like dikes, bulkheads, and fill. These are already covered under current code and should be regulated. It discusses possible potential impacts from various land uses, but never proves any harm from the current methods of development, particularly residential development. The size of the buffers has a great economic impact on land value and use. The documentation uses a number of 'scientific' papers to justify the buffer size recommended. In fact, papers can be found to justify buffers ranging from 20' to 1000'. There is almost no scientific study about buffer sizes or the impact of those buffers on the Olympic Peninsula. Most of these papers are from other parts of the country with different environments. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE: Prove that the proposed buffer sizes are really needed and that the current buffer sizes are failing. Justify increasing the areas classified as 'Natural' by 300%. This has a major impact on how owners can use their land. Prepare an economic impact on the effect this new rule will have on: property values, and on the assessed values of the properties. The lower tax assessments on shoreline properties by prohibiting their use and the loss of scenic views. The increase in property tax it will mpose on the rest of the tax parcels in the county and on the property tax rate. Should an economic use variance section be included? This may prevent some unconstitutional 'property taking' lawsuits. Do the new restrictive buffers also fall into this category? Is the county going to be liable to have to buy properties that it going to make worthless? Prepare a potential build out plan for the shoreline areas, including all the parcels that will be non-conforming or unbuildable under the rule. This should also include all the currently developed properties that will be non-conforming. This plan must show the effects in each type of shoreline zone. Prepare an outreach program that will reach, by mail and newspaper, to all property owners in the Shoreline. This program must include the main points of the new rule that will affect the owners. A simple mailing that a meeting will be held is inadequate. They must also be given an adequate time to respond and study the proposal. I recommend that the mailing include an order form for the recipients to order copies of the reports. If you have an 'early order' form that includes the printing and mailing costs, you can estimate the number of copies that will be needed and have the printing and binding done commercially at a much lower cost than the Counties $0.15 per page rate. This should make the printed reports affordable and satisfy many of the criticisms about how information is disseminated. Reschedule another public hearing and comment period after the Planning Commission deliberations and the Cumulative Impact analysis is released. Give the public enough time to study the releases. Rewrite the actual code sections into simple, plain code that the public and DCD staff can read and understand. A 200 page code section is impractical to use. The current Shoreline code is 33 pages long. Fix the areas that are out of compliance with existing RCW's and WAC's. Change the proposed code to comply with Growth Management Hearing Board and state court decisions.