HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-455
G fV'k
V\J-t \r;1
Jeanie Orr
20 Ii (
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Steve [steveh@olypen.com]
Monday, April 13, 20092:10 PM
Michelle McConnell
jeffbocc; #Long-Range Planning
Comments on Potential SMP Revisions
April 13, 2009
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner/LRP Lead and Peter Downey, Chairman Jefferson County Planning Commission
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: PDSMP comments, Shoreline buffers and Climate change
Dear Ms. McConnell and Mr. Downey,
It's my understanding that the general mission of th.e Planning Commission
(PC) is to make recommendations regarding the permitting process along with assessing land use and development
issues. Involved with those areas of responsibility, there are numerous Federal and State legal requirements, as well as,
financial, ethical and environmental considerations that affect the Planning Commission's decision-making process to
standardize and equitably administer these rules.
As you well know, after a number of years of researching, writing, re-writing, holding extensive meetings and public
hearings, compromise recommendations to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) were made. These compromise
recommendations arose between Ecology, along with local shoreline stakeholders, experts & Tribal Councils, whose long
term interests are to protect and preserve natural resources, and concerned property rights proponents, whose interests
are much more self-concerned. The compromise plan set the buffer zone at 150 feet on new development while allowing
for exceptions - when those exceptions can be proven that there wouldn't likely be any additional disruption or negative
impacts to shoreline habitat.
Given that the latest considerations on this 150' buffer are apparently to reduce it to 50', it seems that there may have been
some other agreements being made between the PC and opponents of this compromise SMP plan. Should these buffers
be reduced beyond the expert recommended limits, I'd like to highlight one area that may need to be considered. I'd like to
present this consideration in the light of County fiduciary responsibilities, using a hypothetical example.
Let's say the PC recommends reducing the buffers to 50' down from the currently expert- recommended 150' and the
County Commissioners accept that proposal and manage to get it past Ecology and any other relevant agency tasked with
making sure environmental regulations are adequate to addressing the goal of no-net-Ioss of function. Then, at some near
term future point, one or more property owners, who took advantage of these reduced buffers, and ignorant of the effects
of their development's impact on their immediate property, winds up losing their home or significant amounts of their
property due to a serious storm, earthquake or naturally occurring phenomenon like rising sea levels due to climate
change.
In the process of trying to discover what they can do about it, they find out that the BOCC, under the advisement of the PC,
reduced the buffers, ignoring expert opinion and recommended best practices. At that point they might easily decide to sue
the County based on their understanding that better choices were recommended by those who have the background to
understand the effects of shoreline development but those recommendations were overruled by non-expert volunteer
Planning Commission members. The grounds for such a suit would of course be negligence.
It doesn't matter whether or not the case is won or lost. What matters is the expense county taxpayers will have to bear
because decision makers failed to adhere to expert recommended best management practices regarding those buffers.
Preemptively, from a fiduciary point of view, it seems much better to have property owners pay the upfront costs to exempt
their land from such buffer rulings than to have the taxpayer bear those costs after the damage has been done.
One other fiduciary consideration should be noted, State law governing these issues may require even more revisions past
the deadline if this 50' buffer is accepted, since it could be determined by any of those agencies, that such a reduction fails
to adequately protect habitat. This will result in additional cost to the taxpayers because of the need to involve paid County
staff in further revising the SMP.
1