HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-443b
(,01 Pr w-{;\'
Michelle McConnell
l.-ff1 & (
Subject:
AI Scalf
Thursday, March 12,20095:34 PM
'Dennis Schultz'; jim hagen; ken shock
John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Michelle McConnell; Norman MacLeod; George
Sickel; Bud Schindler; ASM Inc; larry and karen; Kenn Brooks; Bob Lawhead; bill graham;
Mountain Coalition; robertc@harpub.com; ron ewart; Karen Martin; Judi Stewart; jim kennedy;
Jim and Donna Buck; Larry Carter; elk@dishmail.net; Pat Rodgers; Jack Venrick; wayne king;
Scott; Emily; Teren; waves@olympus.net; hoodcanal@windermere.com; Val Schindler; Mike
Martin; Brooks & Barbara; Kathleen Bradford; Bonnie Story; Dennis Schultz; Floyd Fuller;
Richard Hild; Jean; John W Mc Duff; Elmer Matson; Roger Short; brinnon@johnston-
realty.com; Katherine Baril
RE: SMP UPDATE
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Denny
The main issue for DCD is preparation of a SMP to meet the legislative requirements in view of local circumstances. The
75% rule has not been deliberated on by the PC, they will prepare their draft SMP by mid May and DCD anticipates the
PC will have a public hearing on their version on June 3.
AI
From: Dennis Schultz [mailto:dschultz@waypoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 3:30 PM
To: jim hagen; ken shock; AI Scalf
Cc: John Austin; Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; Michelle McConnell; Norman MacLeod; George Sickel; Bud Schindler; ASM
Inc; larry and karen; Kenn Brooks; Bob Lawhead; bill graham; Mountain Coalition; robertc@harpub.com; ron ewart;
Karen Martin; Judi Stewart; jim kennedy; Jim and Donna Buck; Larry Carter; elk@dishmail.net; Pat Rodgers; Jack
Venrick; wayne king; Scott; Emily; Teren; waves@olympus.net; hoodcanal@windermere.com; Val Schindler; Mike Martin;
Brooks & Barbara; Kathleen Bradford; Bonnie Story; Dennis Schultz; Floyd Fuller; Richard Hild; Jean; John W Me Duff;
Elmer Matson; Roger Short; brinnon@johnston-realty.com; Katherine Baril
Subject: Re: PT Leader article - Your statement to the media
DCD talks about total replacement of the structure outside the buffer area if 75% is destroyed. They do not point out that
insurance coverage will only pay for the damaged portion of the building. If the structure has to be relocated, the owner
will have to pay for new foundations, utility hookups, septic hookup or relocation, relocated driveways, his share (%) of the
building that was not destroyed, and the removal of the old foundation, etc. These costs may be more than the insurance
settlement.
The most likely homes to be lost are the oldest and smallest. The people owning these homes are the ones who can
least afford this kind of loss.
This is why I am against forced relocation of homes that are over 75% destroyed.
Dennis Schultz
1