The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-177a c c.: 'DCD I/~lD 101 CO(Vlf\ ~\? CO-M\fII'.Q.~ From: Thom Graham 9504 Phinney Avenue N. Seattle, W A 98103 JAN .26 20ng 2A '" I ~ January 2'6, 2009 J NCOUNTY Dearest COmmissioners: I was told of the pending change of"the shoreline rules and began to, read the document. I almost fell asleep under the influence of the words. So, I turned to the pictures, specifically page 6..26; and- immediately became wide awake. I wish to replace my cabin at 41 Hiller Drive on Oak Bay Beach, and I am in the midst of either a resubmission or a redesign fQI a permit issued last year. b1ordertQJ)ui1dahous~ large ellQugh.fOryeat round residency, I need to use the concept ofbeachfront setback averaging. This has been my goat for more than a .decade$ince I houghtthe property, and as an architect I have done numerous designs. I have a little bit of history with DCD and The County Health De~rtment~ I believe it wa.s in October ofl996 that I applied for a building permit, or at: least I tried to on the basisofa prior discussion with the County's Shorelines Planner. We had reviewed a prelimi,r.Jary~ite pbm ~ch he said,Wa$ r.ea$onable, a plan which used shoreline averaging. On that basis I preceded with work for a permit, only to be told ... Oh, he gQtf"n:edall,d we won'l honor what he said You have to move the house back from the shore, some 12'. feet, as I recall. The design was dead; there is not that much leeway.<;>n my little lot. I ap:l naw at the point where I am tryip.g to. use shoreline averaging again, which has become more important because of the pending rules that will require a minimum of30' .setbackfr9J11.:O.l:J>>f,xegardiessof adj~;r:rt Iwuse .P9SjtiQ~. The curreIJt rule I haven.ot read; I have just been tOld by eara at DCD a year ago that if the applicant has existing adja(;ent hauses, averaging is allowed and that a straight line is drawn to that carner most shoreward where there is a choice aftwa comers. In my case, that comer .of my neighh<>r"'s house is furthest from my property , nQt clo~e~,.a$Y9U Wll require in the future, if! read Article 6 of the Draft correctly. ' .. . . I haye requ~ed twice now far an .official interpretatian fr()m DCD, fiI:st from Zoo and mare recently from Colleen. I can't affard to show up an permit day with another dead project. The time Z<le. ()J,IertXi. has passed;/CQUeen ha$ sa.i.dshe win bring it up in meeting ori January 28th. And I continue to wait, before getting' the structural engineer involved in th.~ WI"()ng directian. What ought to be a simple and fair process oflooking up a written rule isanytbmg but. Over the years I have heard planners and building officials say they Jllustluwe f}e,qbjlityan a case-by..c~e ~is. I~y rule flexibility is ,emws, ll}..~g the job of designer much more difficult. . . . Also., I atntryingtQ sjte a farmho.use an property across Oak Bay Ro.ad. Originally, I bought this land far a septic tanks and drainfields so. that it wo.uld be possible far me to. .build' a proper house at 41 Hille.r Drive. lbuUttm"ee sy~e.ms; o.n.e Jor tJ;1eshore .pro.perty, . with legal easement; ano.ther far a future primary residence west o.fthe creek in the mi4dIe o.fthe property; aIlda tbird-furan a<;ces:mry dwelljugeasto.f the creek as a caretaker's co.ttage. Peo.ple steal things in Jefferso.n County. Just two. days ago., my neigbbor saw a white truck an my property; my neighbor fo.und the generator room door o.pen. I will find aut if anything is missing, but I have last tho.usands o.f do.llars o.f pr,Qpertyov.er the years. The only wf}.y I JQ:ww .to.,re~.qlye t1;lj~ pr.qblem is ~ live .qn the lai1d, which I am pursuing. . .' .. ..' The creek is labeled fish bearing, though I have never seen a fish in its waters. This creek flaws fro.m McMillan's Po.nds to. Oak Bay. When I read yo.ur draft, I tho.ught that my .cLeek applied; it9nlY.makes se.n.seW wet~lat.agy fish:-hef}.ring Water flowing i.t;W> Puget So.und sho.uld fall under the'SMP. But I am to.ld by DeD that this creek do.es and will no.t. HQwever, tlle situatio.n does require Iqq" o.fdistance fro.m edge o.fwaterto. a pro.posed structure. In 2002, I built a permitted structure as part o.f a water supply/well system prQtectedfrQm fro.st and theft. There is a lo.gical ho.use site right next to. it at a distance further fro.m the creek, same 115' away fro.m the water flaw. I am no.t allo.wed witho.ut Le.sorting to.. $O.IQ.e..collVoluted. ~ystemoftra4e~of;f~ with buffer aver~ng yet to be determined, if at all possible~No. o.nehas said thatmy property has an enviro.nmental probl~m;. there is. no. indicatio.n that whatever fish there may be in the creek are at risk I can o.nly deduce that these rules are no.t far current problems but rather far imagined future problems based':up.qn 11 ui:Qpian 'c.q>>.ceptof a IJ).Q.dernwil.deme~,s. The Sunday Newpapet today had a fro.nt page sto.ry abo.ut the eco.lo.gical importance o.f waIves returning to. the Olympic Pennins1Jla. In any majo.r way this is so.mebody's fantasy. Y o.ur no.tice o.f public hearing, which I received the day after the hearing, speaks o.f SMP regulations as necessary to. protect h:umaJlS$f.(ety. ijut,~~tletYQur.baby crawl 19,9 far fro.m camp, if there are waIves aro.Und. . .' .' . .. ... '. . . .' I believe youar,e telling me ~ 11J;1.appl.etr.e.e,wbich is ;o.qt 11 l#ltive~p.eciefl, huns humanity and the enviro.nment This concept, enfo.rced by fines and jail time, is abo.ut inhmnaJl use and is in fact land use zo.ning, tb..ecost o.fwhich is barn by fewpeople far the perceived benefit o.fthe many, tho.se who. may visit this future wilderness called the Olympic Peni,t).sula. Y.qur 'c.qncept,of YegetatiQ.n CQI)$eIY~tiQn i$ S,O drac.Qnian thatit )Yill be unenforceable, and yo.u will be seen as fo.o.ls by the very peo.ple who. have put yo.u in office. . ~) /.'7 -"'-.' ./ ... ~4 /.. // r........ ..' '__/" ~ />. '- iJ..~. ~/'/" -.. /+ ../'" , ...- ~.", .,