The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-397 GVVtA Vv",,-1J ~~~"\ Page 1 of3 24&{ Jeanie Orr From: Lynch Uflynch@olyridge.net] Sent: Friday, January 30, 200912:25 PM To: #Long-Range Planning Subject: Comments on the PD SMP C3cn' ~ To the SMP Planning Committee Re: Comments on the PD SMP I am a property owner in Jefferson County, owning both improved and unimproved waterfront lots just to the north of White Rock on Paradise Bay in an area designated as "conservancy" in the PD SMP. I share many of the concerns that were voiced at the January 21, 2009 meeting. The following observations, however, address some matters that I spoke to and some additional matters that were not brought up at that meeting: 1. The PD SMP is an enormous document. I spoke at the January 21, 2009 public meeting in Port Hadlock and suggested that any future drafts of a proposal such as this be accompanied by a summary in the nature of an "executive summary" that would advise homeowners succinctly about the implications of the proposed regulations on the use of their waterfront property. For example: . What are the proposed buffers or setbacks for building on waterfront property and what role will lot size play in determining the allowances with respect to those setbacks? · What role will lesser setbacks on adjacent properties play in the determination of the required setback or buffer? . What will be the opportunity for homeowners with preexisting structures within the prescribed setback to rebuild in the event a home is destroyed by "fIre or other calamity?" (The way that JCC Chapter 18.22.080 was exempted from shoreline within the PD SMP would hardly be obvious to the ordinary homeowner. If the county intends to change the rules for shoreline property, it should be up front about it.) . Likewise, what will be the opportunity for homeowners with preexisting structures within the newly prescribed setback to remodel either within the existing footprint or outside the existing footprint of the existing structure? · What role if any will actual hard evidence of shoreline stability have in determining setback? (In other words, if shoreline stability in a given area is clearly not a problem, will favorable consideration be given to smaller setbacks? For example, there is a home that is within my view that is constructed on a prominent rock extending somewhat into Paradise Bay with probably less than 20 feet of setback from mean high tide levels. If such construction were to be planned now, would such a site be reasonably considered for a variance because shoreline damage would be highly unlikely or is the 30 foot provision of Article 6.1.E.l absolute?) The public should be made aware of the absolutes prescribed in the SMP so that the impact on land value and on existing structures can be understood. 2. The "Liberal Construction" provisions of Article 1.8 exceed by great measure the liberality advanced in RCW 90.58.900. Moreover, whereas in that empowering legislation the notion of liberal construction may be justified, in legislation where the rights of property owners are being seriously 2/2/2009 Page 2 of3 restricted, ordinary legal principles would prescribe strict construction. The provisions of Article 1.8 takes liberal construction to an excessive level of vagueness when it provides that "interpretation. . . shall not only be based on the actual words or phrases used in it, but also by taking its deemed . . . purpose into account." That provision is a bureaucratic license to do anything, and is seriously at odds. with the assurances of Article l.3.D that forbids an unconstitutional taking of private property. 3. The defmitions section is excessively long, impenetrable, and although it indicates that definition of other legislation has been adopted, the definitions seem new and perhaps embellished. There has not been time to check the consistency of all PD SMP defmitions with those in other cited legislation, but, for example, an attempt to find the basis of the defmition of "ecological function" (chosen because it appears frequently as something to be preserved in restrictive provisions of the PD SMP) which definition is indicated to be based on WAC was unavailing. "Ecological function" is defmed much more sparingly in WAC 173-26-020. 4. The provisions of Article 6.4 on Vegetation Conservation are somewhat troubling as providing a bureaucratic invasion into landowner use of property. It is utterly understandable for the county to exercise control of shoreline stability and demonstrable ecological function with rules about shoreline vegetation. But the provisions of the PD SMP contain no such rules but rather give bureaucrats license to permit or refuse permits on any type of shoreline landscaping - virtually on a tree- by-tree basis. Can a landowner remove a dead tree threatening to topple over a shoreline bluff? The "natural unaltered shorelines" of the state are frequently identified by fallen trees obstructing the beach and eroding bluffs. Is this the objective of shoreline management to encourage such a shoreline scenario because it is "natural?" It may be difficult to draft comprehensive rules about how to address shoreline preservation in high-bank, medium-bank and low bank areas, but that is no excuse for the vagueness in the PD SMP's vegetation control provisions. Ifthere are to be prohibitions on property owners, the reasons for the prohibitions should be explicit and the ability to rebut those reasons should be afforded to the shoreline property owner. 5. In a huge departure from the restraints on landowners who may desire to build on or landscape shoreline property, landowners who would seek engage in the ecologically invasive activity of mining seem to get somewhat of a free pass (Article 8.6). Note that the "benefits" of mining are acknowledged to potentially outweigh the "adverse impacts" and that a mining proponent can provide evidence that certain damage will not occur - a privilege not afforded homeowners. The constraints on mining activity are full of permissive provisions permitting "mitigation" and the permitting the mine owner to do what is "feasible" to protect the environment. Also noted is that map PDSMP No.4 of the Northern Hood Canal designates much of the western shore of the Canal as a Priority Aquatic Marine area in which mining is absolutely forbidden. The Priority Aquatic Marine area, however, terminates a short distance north of Thorndyke Bay at almost exactly the place of the 1100 foot pier proposed by Fred Hill Materials in its Pit-to-Pier project and resumes again further to the north. Inspection of that shoreline reveals absolutely no rationale for leaving that "hole" in the Primary Aquatic Marine area except to permit the Pit-to-Pier to remain alive. I believe the Commission should inquire into how the designations of the Primary Aquatic Marine areas on PDSMP Map No.4 were determined. Finally, I am perplexed that nowhere in the provisions about mining do terms like "ecological function" appear. It seems that property constraints based on those vague terms are being imposed upon shoreline homeowners and would-be homeowners, but not upon the mining interests. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. John Lynch 4123 Paradise Bay Road Port Ludlow, W A 98365 2/2/2009