HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-351
,..
U W1Ji1
w-et, l....-
Uvi"Yl~1T
Jeanie Orr
Page 1 of"Z i
pq 1- MAAk"-
2AlP {
From: Andrea Mitchell [andrea88@embarqmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30,200910:45 AM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Jefferson County Draft SMP
I'm writing to comment on the draft Shoreline Master Plan. As background, I have attended a number of Planning
Commission meetings over the past years in which members of the Shoreline Master Plan committee have
reported on their work. Each time, there has been the question of if the public has attended the meetings. In every
case, public interest and attendance has been very low. The County has made additional attempts to accomplish
public outreach through meetings in most communities, posters, notices on the County website, etc. The County
has also mailed notices to affected property owners. I believe the last effort was in direct response to criticism in
other planning efforts. It's easy for residents to criticize our County for shortcomings in outreach and I'm sure
there are still imperfections to be ironed out, however I see the current efforts as true and honest attempts to do
what residents have asked for.
The volume of information that property owners are expected to assimilate as well as the level of understanding
one needs to analyze that information is unfortunate and not easily accomplished for many. I support
simplification of documents that are produced by the County. Documents should by easily understood by the
average resident without a supporting attorney. The more complicated the document, the less equally accessible
the benefits or restrictions it represents are to the average person. This prejudices the process.
I believe it's easy for those who live here to take our relatively lightly developed shorelines for granted. I'm mindful
of a statement made by Marty Ereth recently, saying you have no idea how lucky you are. He was referring to
those of us here, on Hood Canal or in Jefferson and comparing our shorelines to ones in Pierce County which are
intensely developed. As reluctant as most of us are for regulation, there is a basis for its need. As our population
grows, every small act of development is just one in many. The cumulative impact of our individual actions must
be considered. For the same reasons, the acts of each county must be considered in relation to actions of
neighboring counties.
It's my belief that the plan is well put together and overall, is protective of the shoreline. While there are some
issues for concern, no document is going to be the answer to everyone's wishes. I support the plan with the
following exceptions/concerns.
Allowing mining and mineral extraction or industrial activities on shorelines designated as conservancy and those
deemed by the State to be shores of state-wide significance should be prohibited. It would seem that those
activities are in direct conflict with the designations given.
There has been an issue raised in regard to single family homes under 2500 square feet in size. If I understand
the issue correctly, these homes will be exempt from shoreline review. If this is done to encourage smaller homes
on the shore, or to decrease the costs for those choosing or only financially able to build a smaller home, these
are goals I would support. It raises the question though, are these appropriate goals for the SMP? Will this
accomplish the goals of the plan, or does it circumvent those goals? I would like clarification on the issue.
I am not sure that views from the water to the shore are being protected. In that views from the shore to the water
are protected, it would seem that views from the water should be protected as well. The
impact of seeing structures on the shore for those on the water or neighboring shores and to wildlife is
considerable.
In summary, I support the plan as written with the exception of the three concerns mentioned. The plan
particularly supports my feelings in respect to commercial use/development, marinas and public access.
Andrea Mitchell
Brinnon
2/2/2009