HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-293
CoM14-
\/VvV.l_
MmvY~,,1r-n
Michelle McConnell
'LYi tv f
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leslie Locke
Thursday, January 29,200912:22 PM
Michelle McConnell; Jeanie Orr
FW: Proposed Shoreline Management Regulations
e
From: David Sullivan
sent: Thursday, January 29,200912:15 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Proposed Shoreline Management Regulations
From: Vince ZodiacofSMTP:VPZ4@MSN.COMl
Sent: Thursday, January 29,200912:10:38 PM
To: John Austin; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson
Subject: Proposed Shoreline Management Regulations
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Gentlemenr
We know that you have a lot on your plate and we are reluctant to pile more on, but this regulatory
business is getting way too far out of hand and we need some common sense and your help.
The following is the text from a letter that we sent to the Planning Commission. We also sent it to our
state legislative representatives, since much of this originates there.
We are for shoreline management, but we are not for the uncompensated taking of our property. If you
want and need buffer we would consider a saler but we are not going to be taxed and then deprived of the
use of our property.
There must be some way to achieve the desired result without imposing gestapo style regulations.
Here is our letter sent today:
Dear Sirs:
We live on tf.1arrowstone Island on a modest waterfront property overlooking Mystery Bay. As most
others we were attracted to this property by the setting and the prospect of waterfront living. Since
purchasing this and the adjacent undeveloped property in 2001 we have been subject to a series of
new regulations which threaten our rights and do little to improve our lives.
First it was growth management, then watershed planning, then critical areas, then storm water
runoff, and now it is shoreline management. Along with existing health and building codes these
represent overlapping regulatory minefields for the property owner.
As shoreline property owners we are certainly in favor of protection of our waters and shoreline, but
this regulation is unreasonable and over-reaching.
Here are a few of our issues with this regulatory program.
· Imposition of after the fact regulation on parcels that have been platted, improved, taxed and
otherwise prepared for development (water system installation and LUD assessment) is unfair
and may be illegal. It is at least challengeable.
1
· Requiring a setback of 160 feet from the shoreline for a lot that in our case extends less than
200 feet from top of bank renders that property unbuildable. The setback of 150 feet and the
redundant additional buffer of ten feet are over-reaching as are the restrictions on what can
be done in the setback area. It is an unconstitutional taking without compensation.
· Replacement of a damaged or destroyed structure on a developed property that otherwise
conforms to local codes and regulations should not be precluded by the SMP regulations. This
is an even more egregious and heartless taking by an over-intrusive government.
· We have been paying property taxes on our developed and undeveloped parcels at the
pren'iium rate applied to such property for several years. The county was certainly happy to
cash our checks. Now you are making one property worthless and crippling the other.
Adoption of this regulation would clearly require a change to the countyrs property assessment
methodology.
The county planning commission would do well to send this regulation back to the drawing board.
The county commissioners should think twice about approving such an invasive and over-reaching
regulatory program. Our legislators should strive to bring reason and compassion to the state's
regulatory structure.
At a time when the county needs infrastructure, sewers, decent schools and jobs, our government
gives us endless meetings, paper and regulations. It would be great if the state and county would do
something to address real problems or enforce existing regulations rather than waste everyone's time
to create bigger and more complex regulatory schemes which take property from tax payers.
This state is over-regulated by several redundant agencies that are competing for our tax dollars with
each attempting to erect an empire of over-lapping regulation. (How many state employees does it
take to change a light bulb?) We the citizens do not want and can ill afford more economic pain. We
earn our money, pay our taxes and have the right to quiet enjoyment of our property.
Very truly yours,
Vince and Joyce Zodiaco
2