HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-306
G VtlV\
V\I~
Jeanie Orr CrVm~
Page 1 of2
.vlttr
From: Dick Bergeron [mountaincoalition@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 8:56 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: SMP Comments
To: Jefferson County Planning Commission
Re: SMP Comments
I fully endorse the detailed comments provided to you by Attorney Dennis Reynolds on behalf of the
Olympic Stewardship Foundation. In addition, I wish to emphasize the following concerns:
· The proposed SMP revisions seems to exceed the statutory requirements on several components. For a
county entity, or the Department of Ecology, to usurp state law may be possible, yet I find it highly
distasteful. There will likely be a legal challenge to any wording that does exceed the intent of state law.
This is neither an appropriate means of government nor in the best interest of the citizens of Jefferson
County, especially given today's economic climate. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend
adoption of an SMP that fits the intent of state law with a balance between the needs of people and the
needs of ecosystems.
· Aquaculture does not need additional regulation under the SMP.
· Documentation can be found to justify virtually any size of buffer. Current buffers, or setbacks, have
proven to be adequate for living responsibly near aquatic ecosystems.
· Even if the Planning Commission opts to include more expansive buffers for shoreline development,
existing structures need to be grandfathered rather than made non-conforming. Establishing onerous
requirements for improvements to existing properties, excluding an allowance for expanded footprints
where an older building would be replaced or improved, could actually result in eventual damage to the
ecosystems the shoreline program is trying to protect.
· Where is the demonstration of harm when the condition of Jefferson County shorelines is described as
good?
· I would urge to Planning Commission to give more weight to public comment from Jefferson County
landowners who have been paying taxes on the affected lands.
· The final product needs to be much easier to read than is the proposed draft. Regardless of how
complex the language is, there will always be ambiguity.
· It appears that much of the proposed new regulation is based on assumptions of unknown future human
impacts. The past will not repeat itself in any part of the near future. Assumptions such as these are not
consistent with the comprehensive planning'processes of the Growth Management Act.
· The very fact that the shoreline is currently in good condition lends itself to the fact that shoreline
property owners have been good stewards of their land and related ecosystems.
2/2/2009
Page 2 of2
· I am a community owner of several shoreline parcels that are managed by the Olympic Canal
Maintenance Company.
Sincerely,
Dick Bergeron
240 Elk Dr.
Brinnon W A 98320
2/2/2009