HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-443d
G Il'rA
-.r....~.A,~
Michelle McConnell
'~lt fp I
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
AI Scalf
Thursday, March 12,20095:24 PM
'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
.----.....
~
Subject:
Jim
You raise good points. I will keep researching this issue on the non conforming section and replacement policies. This
particular policy, the 75% rule is of interest to a lot of parties as well as the common line setback issue. The entire subject
of non conformity and conformity to code when they change is very important if regulations are to accomplish anything.
Non conforming uses are disfavored by case law.
DCD ca review any permit to the new SMP. We will hire if permit volumes increase. I will not propose a DCD fee
schedule increase to implement the new SMP.
DCD will have a final staff recommendation to the BOCC upon conclusion of the PC revisions and preparations of their
draft SMP.
AI
From: jim hagen [mailto:jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 20098:14 AM
To: 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 Mc Duff;
Elmer Matson; Roger Short; brinnon@johnston-realty.com; Katherine Baril
Subject: Re: PT Leader article - Your statement to the media
AI,
WAC 173-27-080 appears silent on replacement of structures damaged in excess of 75%. Are you assuming the statute
is enforced by implication to mean in those circumstances the structure must be rebuilt in compliance with the new 150'
standards, as required in the draft SMP (provided there is ability to do so)? How do we know any intention of this omission
by the statute doesn't assume it may be rebuilt in kind? this has always seemed to me one of the most punitive features of
the proposed new rules. As Commissioner Sullivan has often reasoned during deliberation of land-use issues, people
want predictability when it comes to their homes - a major life investment, and a major personal trauma like a fire shouldn't
be multiplied because they are now "non-conforming."
Also, has your department conducted an analysis on the capability of DCD, under its existing human and financial
resource pressures, to administer these substantial new rules? It seems one can hardly pick up the paper these
days without reading about layoffs, increased permit fees, and further budget constraints. Will administration of this SMP
require any new hires and with it further fee increases, or can current staffing levels handle it without sacrificing permit
efficiency in general? There are many ways to streamline this while still meeting the guidelines of the law. Eliminating
Priority Aquatic, a designation not required by 173-26-211, would be a good start. I know you say the draft is currently
under review by the Planning Commission, but it is your department, and certainly you have influence of the direction of
staff guidance.
Thanks,
1