The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-404 GVVl;A vveh .,I.- Wf'llt)~'1 JAN 3 0 2009 V1L"' 8 J COMMENTS ON DRAFT SMP 30 JANUARY 2009 from RICHARD BRODERS These issues need fixing: 1. Buffer redudions(up to 25%) and buffer averaging (where the buffer is reduced up to 25% in one area and expanded for no net change in buffer area) as adopted in the CAO, are useful tools that will allow more Rexibiliiy and better siting of development, which can benefit the proper1y owner and the environment. The OCD Director may allow these on a case by case basis subied to a number of conditions. The draft SMP allows these in Section 6 0-9 (page 6-5), and in part, says: "shall not require a shoreline variance if all the approval criteria in Chapter 18.22270 (the CAO) (6) and (7) are met" The problem is that 98% to 99% of all shorelines could not meet conditions (6)-c or (7)-e., depending upon the interpretation from the permit office. In two. cases I have information on, it has been interpreted two different ways. (6)-c is one of the conditions for buffer reduction and (7)-e is one of the conditions for buffer averaging, both say the same thing: "The slopes ac:/iacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and the gradient does not exceed thirty percent (30%). " Does that mean inside the remaining buffer, or in the buffer area to be reduced? And since it refers to FWHCA (fish and wildlife habitat) and not specifically shoreline buffers, is it even applicable? What exactly is meant by Rslopes adiacentR? Does this apply to everywhere on the parcel no matter how far removed from the proposed buffer modification area ? Approximately 98% to 99% of all marine shorelines have some sort of a "marine bluff" exceeding a 30% gradient (which is 16.7 degrees, see diagram, page 2) near the high tide Jine --from a few feet high to much higher in some cases. Does the marine bluff count when figuring out the "gradientR of the property ? Many shoreline properties are well below the 30% gradient except for the "marine bluff" area. If the buffer area to be reduced is not on or near this smaller, steeper area, and no geological hazardous areas are compromised, why should a buffer redudion or averaging not be allowed' (see diagram below) While the language in the CAD really needs clarification, the SMP should have the following clarification added as part of (6)0-9 (page 6-5): JCC 18.22.270(6)-c and (7)-e, for shoreline purposes, shall be interpreted to mean that the slope gradient outside of the remaining buffer area after the proposed alteration, shall not exceed ~, and that the resulting reduction shall not create a geological hazardous situation. The goo-hazard criteria in the CAD will, in any case, be applied to all proposals. Buffer averaging will not change that or supersede that: from SMP, page 6-5: Multiple Buffers: In the event that shoreline buffers and/or critical areas are contiguous or overlapping, the landward-most edge of all such buffers and setbacks shall apply. ,., A." M AR\NG BL-UFt=: 0\1&12. '"30'10 GR.t\o~ ct-lT po fJ.eA Or PP55iBLE Ir , [3 u FFG/l. Rf3,l>UC7/0/\; 0/'<. AII~lN6 . / /./.' '.' / .~/.._ ,:> /" //.-/' 'l ./ / / /,.-. '1../ '. ,// /' / ,.' /' - . / / -4-{-PiCAL SfIOAE-i-lNc c. flOSS- S EC'TloAl 1..fJO' ~ ~"'5' 2. NON-CONFORMING LOTS SMP 6.1-E-l (page 6-6) says: ---.. .-.-... -,.~--,...- -- -- ,.,', -....- .~ .~- - 1. ~Lo1s-Da~AIIowed.... a Vmiance: NewsiDgle- family 011 any Iega1lot in sImm1ine juriscJidiOll1hatis ~orming wi1h ~cd buff'er dRndards may be allowed without ashoIeline - . of the lot (dist.a.or.e frmn 1he ordimuy high water mad:. to the edgeofthefmotagc sett-!lr-) is equal to or less dum the standatd . buIfer as incIic:a1aI in 6.1.0.6; and The bm1diqg amalying Iandwarcl of1heshoIeline butler and interior to :requiJed sideyanl ~:ks is notmmedum l~ fhehmutred (2,500) square feet and the driyeway is not:morethan eleven Jmndmd ~lOO) square feet.. 'l'he ....1diQg aieaDBmS the euIire area that wiD be . distWIed toCOD$kuclthel1ome.. normal iIpjJUl~ (except dminfields), and l~pi.'lt. and INTENT: To allow parcels ("lots") that are left unusable for residential use because of the set-back requirements to have some utility without c~mplex variance requests to DOE or expensive litigation. The wording of this section changed numerous times in the various drafts but the current wording still has several glitches PROBLEM: First of all, a "lot" cannot by itself be "nonconforming", as implied by item (1.) above. Development on a parcel can be nonconforming, so a more accurate title for this section could be: 1 . hlonconformill9-Development-May bLaIIoweclwithout a variance: New proposed single family development on any legal lot in shoreline iurisdiction that would be nonconforming with respect to the required buffer standards may be allowed without a shoreline variance when: Also (i) is extremely unclear and seems to re-define "lot depth", which already has a well understood meaning which is the distance from the shoreline to the most landward boundary of the property. In addition, it would appear that parcels (oIotsO) must be enti~ within the buffer area to comply with the statement. Some parcels may, for example, be 170 feet deep with a road setback of 20 feet and a buffer setback of 10 feet, yielding no possible building site but it would not qualify for this administrative relief. To avoid this problem, 6.1-E-i. should be re-written as follows: i. The depth of the lot precludes having a legal non- conforming building site of up to 2500** square feet after application of shoreline buffers as indicated in 6.1 D-6, setbacks to buffers as indicated in 6.6 B-1, and, if applicable, buffer reductions and/or buffer averaging as indicated in 6.1- 09. Note that I suggest referencing buffer reduction and/or averaging (which was not originally mentioned here) because, in many cases, if reduction/averaging was used, the proposed development would not actually be nonconforming and thus administrative relief pursuant to this section would not be necessary. ** This number is what is specified in the draft document. I am specifically hIOI recommending or endorsing this number. 2500 square feet, when using the 10 foot setback required by 6.6 8-1, would allow the consfrudio~ of an 860 square foot DcabinD of rectangular shape at a 2: 1 aspect ratio Qr a square structure of 900 square feet. (see diagram, page 6.). Many people would feel that being limited to this on their waterfront parcel would not be a reasonable economic usel I agree. Item iv. under this section says; iv. The nonconlbrming lot was created prior to August 27; 1976. This means, parcels DcreatedD after that date (the adoption of the first SMP) would not be eligible for administrative relief under this section. Why???? Any parcel HaeatedD after that date would have had to comply with all applicable rules and regulations at the time of "creationH. Not giving these parcels the same option as other parcels makes no sense at all, and actually it would make more sense to grandfather them for uses contemplated when they were first Hcreated". But, in any case, I would at least suggest removing this statement (iv.) entirely and treating these like other parcels. Another change needed to this section: (ix.) states: The lot is not subiecf to geologic hazards; and Does this imply aDJ of the "lotD' All of the lot? If the proposed building site is outside of the gea-hazard area, wouldn't that be fine? So, it should be changed to read: ix. The proposed building envelope is not subiect to geologic hazards. Paragraph 2. says: 2. Neaadf'........- . ~~...;I'6101s . forasingle ~ or huffeIs ftom sh Program. ....... VIIlIi&ce.. DeveIopQlept on area of IIlOJe than 2,500 square feet av8Il8b1e ......,~ma.... and uwesli1c1ed by setbac*s ' ....- cal areas sIJaD. comply with the ,provisions of this The idea here is to say you get a 2500 sq. ft. building envelope, but tbafi all. My thought--2500 is too small--BUT if it is bWIdabI.e (even at 2500), why is it called "non-conforming" ???????????? This needs a re-write to say what is really meant I A note on why the septic system. and up to 1100 sq. ft. of driveway was excluded from the building site limit of 2500 sq .ft. This was discussed by the committee. If it was. included, the largest structure that could be accomodated would be a dog house I And then probably only one for a very small dog. * Septic systems, 10 confonn 10 current OOH and County standards, must be conslrvded such that any drainl1eld component must be at least 100 feet back from the high water mark. 141 "~ ~ . , ;:IS'". ,.,.. SI-f' so' ... .. ..,,,,,-/( , S.' . ,...... J!!.U. ~ -::a.- __ ti117"" ". ...., TS'" ......- Sp fJl.l $t#W..... 'I). ,,! s+,..,.... 3. Many of the NAlURAL designations on shorelines are inappropriate and do not meet the criteria for such designation in the SMA guidelines and the SMP draft. One such area is shown here. With all the previous and current uses, and the existing man-made features (see enclosed map for what and where, and see photographs keyed to this map), the designation of this piece definitely should be changed to CONSERVANCY, and I request that the change be made. Also note that this piece of shoreline, with all the uses and features shown, covers a distance of only one-half mile. Many other areas designated CONSERVANCY do not have anyWhere near the intensity of human distubance and use as this piece. I-~ .0 UtL t ", . I- c$ 0....1 Z&c ~~ I ... t r?r~ oGe.ct ~ pcJ~x/ ~ .. \\, .. ., o )..... u :r: ~ ~ Lij V) z 8 ... -- . ,4 rI: CIJ 1 , I MlIes __2lIG8:_CIlUdr_UIillIl,llllll8...-> ShoIelIne Map- Subject to FInal ApproV8I and Adoption DRAFTOIIIclaI ~" JeI'e\SOI1 CourlIV. WA llECElo1BER. 2Oll8 ----- ........ ......GHIfM; 'q' ~"- .- __ i,'!:':___ ;,-:., WI . M"rF -- - CJ~- ... --- CJ .... - -- --- -- --- ;-;C"""- Wd.... Oldaa1IT1bIR"1~ ::Nataae1 '-';-"ClIpqlIc-- ~'C-:"-_. __lloIlIilO'....'IlIId= _- ot':.._- ~ <"'>~;( ::;" ~ -+ '- ) ~ 'i' .~ u.. 'i;; ~,t \"-1 ~~ ~ .. ~ ..., \;) ----0 st ..... .....J ~ \\.. - a '-../ .s tI)~ \.' ~ j 0/ ,~ VI - ) -!... .. \~ \ .;;, < ('.:0 \\ ~ ~ t 3 ~ a... ci,,\ >-() ~ ~ -- .. - ~ '<f J~ ..... ....... ~ ~ tA ~ CD 3 ...... ~ h 'i.\"'- s:: l.. .... -- " 0clt q. -+ ) ~ ~ o 0/ <;; II rtI.. i.\ "T- ~ ~ '- :) -< ."..." <::l ~ -:-,_ ':t. ::> \)1-; .. CC-\ ~ jJ .~ Q..... - ~ ., 't v ~ ~ ~ ~ d :.. .. 0 X ~ ~ \J rl :::> ~ i / ~. ~ --....J.'-- ~ ~ ~ ~ -e 1.1 Q... ~Ci. -eJ ~S"- -:::::'1"""=' '\2'~ ~ ~ ..:- ~ -0 , } <,;. .... 0/ .- c ~ ~ ~ ~ s;. .'- ~ .:.J... \.....; "".. .-0 ~ v :> ~ ,..- J. to >- " 3 ,;) <:::2- ~ .\=. ..., -4-' ~ "? .:::> ~ ~ '-....; .! ! ~ :.. \/I" ~ 'It ...s ~ ~~ .~ ~ v~ '::'-'lij,.,V ~.),. ...:e I < ~ ~ -'" '_ . V 0- {.... ~ \....J ;J .1 --cJ ~ v\'\ v t: r- \.. V tI -5 'V?:. ~"'"i \) - '\I ~ r-. "io- ~ 'II ~ '- ~ tIJ " -d "-.,. ~ r \:: -- \) ~ -'1\ ~ . ~ \. \I\..s: (' \' ~ '\I...$) \\ <<:.....J ':':<~ -Q-- ~...::! ~ ~.s ~~ ......--..... cr '<a' '\ o ~ ~ ~ (L. '-...J ~, " CO Ii: " -, '$ Ii:' ..... -0 \J - \L ~ u <(" ./ I . I I k H ~ 4- <( ~ >- :t.. ~ H H ~ ~ ~~. \ ~ > ~, .. '" ~ ~ , iI!t -J -.J s; ~