HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-356
&~f\
V\J~\p
Jeanie Orr c..orn~-t
2Yiu'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nik Worden [nworden@olympus.net]
Friday, January 30, 2009 10:23 AM
#Long-Range Planning
Comments on Shoreline Master Program Update
Jefferson County Planning Commis
Dear Jefferson County Planning Commission,
AS a long time advocate of sensible land-use planning, I am embarrassed to say that I have
not given the current revision of the SMP as much attention as it deserves. I did,
however, attempt to review the current draft in the week preceding the January 21 public
hearing. I was dismayed at the ferocity and vitriol in opposition to the draft expressed
at the hearing.
I have to say that the document is very difficult to read and to interpret, as was
evidenced by the common misunderstandings displayed at the meeting. I also find the
comparison table between the present SMP and the proposed draft, available on the Dept of
Community Development's web site, to be not helpful, since it glosses over the magnitude
of the changes between the two documents. I support Al Bergstein's recommendation
(http://albergstein.com/blog/?p=1239) that an Executive Summary be prepared to explain the
differences between the documents in plain speak. The Executive Summary should be as
brief as possible, and should at minimum respond to the issues raised in public comment
and at the public hearing.
The much-misunderstood buffer regulations are well-founded and critical to maintaining the
natural functioning of the shoreline and marine ecosystems. However, they can create
unexpected limitations on owners of small shoreline (and streamside) parcels. I support
provisions that allow averaging of existing building setbacks, that permit regulated
repair and replacement (but not expansion) of existing structures, and that allow
variances for situations where new buffer requirements prohibit any development of parcels
that previously were buildable. In situations where condemnation of property for public
road construction leaves uneconomic remnants of a parcel, the public entity is legally-
required to purchase the remnants, and I see no reason the same principal should not apply
to shorelines.
prohibition of beach-access structures seems draconian to waterfront owners, but I
understand the reasoning behind it. However, there are situations where properly-designed
access stairs/ramps/paths can be constructed without serious threat to the beach (not all
waterfront s high-bank or bare-bluff), and I did not find in the draft any gesture to
establish standards that would permit this above MHHW. An even better provision would
allow construction of shared beach access structures, within engineering guidelines, at
platted road-ends or private commons.
The County should not shy away from regulation of commercial fish and shellfish
operations. These valuable businesses can often be conducted without degrading the
natural functions of the marine ecosystem and should be allowed to. However, some have no
financial interest-in maintaining natural marine functions, and without regulations abuses
can be expected. I urge you to follow best available (disinterested) science in
evaluating necessary regulation.
Thanks for the prodigeous efforts and time you have put into this process, and for your
civil handling of the abuse that frequently comes your way.
Nik Worden
440 Scott Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
1