The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-439g G, rvW\, ~\p Michelle McConnell 'VqvJ From: Sent: To: Subject: Michelle McConnell Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:27 PM 'Bert Bennett' RE: web edits & myth busters Hello Bert, Please see my responses below: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager Direct: 360.379.4484 Web: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelinePl~nQing.htm NEW OFFICE HOURS: 9 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed on Friday <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> NOTE: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and are subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. From: Bert Bennett [mailto:bertgh@waypt.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:57 AM To: Michelle McConnell Subject: RE: web edits & myth busters Michelle McConnell I have questions for you to answer in your myth busters regarding safe access stairways for abutting property owners. Q1, Why is the 300' rule there with regards to building stairs to your beach? [MLM] The 300' separation is intended to minimize the proliferation of individual structures by encouraging the use of shared/joint use private structures or public structures. The issue at hand is the cumulative effects of all structures allowed. This is due to the state requirements in the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26), including the general principles for all shoreline modifications. As I read it a property owner owning less than 300' of frontage is not allowed to build safe stairway to his beach if his neighbor has access stairways. Neighbors should not have to feel obligated to their neighbors for beach access. [MLM] Policy A.3. of PDSMP Article 7.1 encourages neighbors to share, but does not require it. If the neighbor will not grant access then the provision of Regulation C.5.;;; is met since no access would be available. The intent is that an applicant should at least ask if the neighbor is willing to share. Q2, Why the 5' width requirement for beach step landings at the beach level? [MLM] We believe 5' is an adequate width for stairs to allow safe passage with minimal clearing of shoreline vegetation. This is the protective nature of the program in trying ta meeting the state requirement for 'no net loss of ecological funcitons'. This is hardly adequate for sturdy safe beach access stairway landing. [MLM] A landing of 5' x 5' allows an area of 25 square feet for a landing which we believe is adequate. The intent is to not allow a defacto deck under the guise of a landing for a structure, especially when located in-water or over- water as identified in Regulation 7. Q2, As I read further I have questions regarding the stair casing height from the beach to the top of bank is limited to 12', is this true? If so Why? [MLM] The intent is to not have structures protruding excessively from the slope and negatively affect the views/aesthetics, which are valued by the state law as part of 'public access', as indicated in Policy A. 6. 1 Thank you Bert Bennett bertgh@waypt.com From: Michelle McConnell [mailto:mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:58 PM To: Michelle McConnell Subject: SMP: web edits & myth busters Hi all, WEB EDITS Also want to let you know additional edits have been made to the webpage. The Formal Public Review Process section (including public comments) has been made into a separate subpage to the Shoreline Update page since it continues to grow with weekly Planning Commission meetings. The SMP Formal Review page is online at http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelineSMPformaIReview.htm . In addition, materials from last week's PC meeting and Monday's briefing to the County Commissioners have been posted at http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelineSMPformaIReview.htm#Formal Public Review Process MYTH BUSTERS Also, the Peninsula Daily News ran a story yesterday about Monday's BoCC briefing (http://www.peninsuladailvnews.com/article/20090224/news/302249989) that does a good job of providing information about the project, but begs a few points of clarification: 1. Consultants - We have worked long and hard WITH our consultants and for public involvement. Our lead consultant from ESA Adolfson was present and helped us brief the BoCC on Monday. Involvement of our consultants (ESA Adolfson and Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory) has been critical to the project. 2. Non-conforming Development - Single family residential non-conforming development can rebuild in same location/configuration after fire/flood damage when damage is less than 75%. as well as those with more than 75% damage. The differences are that other types of non-conforming development (Le. commercial, industrial, etc) must relocate a rebuild when damage is over 75%, unless they get a Shoreline Variance to rebuild to previously existing location/configuration. See page 10-6 of PDSMP Article 10. 3. Natural Shoreline Designation - The 4th 'Myth Buster' was overly generalized in the PDN article. My point was that the Natural shoreline environment designation (SED) is not applied too broadly since it's applied as defined by the purpose statement and designation criteria described in PDSMP Article 4; based on the findings of our Shoreline Inventory scientific review, and as consistent with State requirements (WAC 173-26-211) The other point I made on Monday is that while the existing Natural SED applies to "'10% of shorelines today, and the PDSMP proposes to designate "'41% as Natural, an important difference to note is that the existing SMP prohibits single family residential development along Natural shorelines, while the PDSMP proposes allowinR it with a Conditional Use Permit. See page 26 of PDSMP Article 8. We are working on more extensive informational materials (i.e. FAQ sheet) and will distribute to this list when ready. ONLINE POLL Finally, this week's Leader online poll is regarding the mining related marine transport facility legislation mentioned in my previous message (HB 1970 & SB 5836). Take the poll online at http://www.ptleader.com/ All for now, 2 Michelle You have received this message as a member of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Interested Parties Email Distribution List. If you do not wish to receive further project notices, reply to this message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Anyone who wants to be added to the list may send an email with "SUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Please note: Recipient names and email addresses are not shown to keep that information private. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager Direct: 360.379.4484 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelinePlanning.htm Jefferson County Department of Community Development Long Range Planning Division 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Front Desk: 360.379.4450 Fax: 360.379.4473 NEW OFFICE HOURS: 9 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed on Friday <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> NOTE: All &-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County &-mail system and is subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW. 3