The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-443e (p m ~~..~ Michelle McConnell Subject: Dennis Schultz [dschultz@waypoint.com] Thursday, March 12, 20093:30 PM jim hagen; ken shock; AI Scalf 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: PT Leader article - Your statement to the media 2.-q Ce, ~ From: Sent: To: Cc: 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 To: ken shock; Cc: ; piohnson@co.,efferson.wa.us ; dsullivan(Q>.co.iefferson.wa.us ; ; Norman MacLeod; Georqe Sickel; Bud Schindler; ASM Inc ; larrv and karen ; Kenn , , ; Mountain Coalition; robertc@harpub.com ; ron ewart; Karen Martin; Judi Stewart ; jim kennedy ; Jim and Donna Buck; Larrv Carter; elk@dishmail.net ; Pat Rodqers ; Jack Venrick ; wavne kinq ; Scott; Emily; Teren ; waves@olvmpus.net; hoodcanal@windermere.com ; Val Schindler; Mike Martin; Brooks & Barbara; Kathleen Bradford; Bonnie Storv ; Dennis Schultz ; Flovd Fuller; Richard Hild ; Jean; John W Mc Duff ; Elmer Matson; Roqer Short ; brinnon@johnston-realtv.com ; kbaril@wsu.edu Sent: Thursday, March 12, 20098:14 AM 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 Jim To: Cc: iaustin@co.iefferson.wa.us ; piohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us ; dsullivan@co.iefferson.wa.us ; mmcconnell@co.iefferson.wa.us ; Norman MacLeod; George Sickel; Bud Schindler; ASM lnc; larry and karen ; Kenn Brooks; Bob Lawhead; bill Clraham ; Mountain Coalition; robertc@harpub.com ; ron ewart ; Karen Martin; iim hagen ; Judi Stewart ; iim kennedy ; Jim and Donna Buck; Larry Carter; elk@dishmail.net ; Pat RodQers ; Jack Vertrick ; wayne kina; Scott ; Emily; Teren ; waves@olvmpus.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; Roaer Short ; brinnon@iohnston-realtv.com ; kbaril@wsu.edu Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:02 PM Subject: Re : PT Leader article - Your statement to the media Mr AI Scalf, Dept Head, Department of Community Development ( DCD ) Jefferson County, Washington AI, This is a truely extraordinary development. You know that the County DCD made the construction of our Brinnon home on the Dosewallips River an extraordinarily difficult process back in 2001. In fact you told Eileen and I that we had been 'victims of extortion' by your department. That apology stopped us taking legal action then.... Now a situation is being created where that very same house could not be rebuilt if we have a fire. You would know that we spent thousands of extra $$ to get this permitted in the first place because of actions by your department, that you termed 'extortion'. Your planner Mr. Pokorny attempted to force our house back from the high bank edge, even though we had done the geotec engineering and the full daylight basement design, per an earlier meeting with a different DCD planner. This house design cannot possibly be rebuilt further back on level land - due to it's daylight basement. What about the full concrete basement, in the ground and permitted by the County. which cost us over $30,000 in 2001 dollars? You certainly know that we cannot obtain insurance that would pay to demolish a massive concrete work in event of fire, and haul in fill to replace what has been carted away previously, at great expense. I would like to have answers to the following questions: 1. Is the State demanding this ridiculous 750/0 rule? 2. Who makes the judgement as to what constitutes 750/0 ? 2 3. Do you understand that if this becomes law, an IMMEDIATE cloud comes over our title and the property is summilarily devalued without any compensation to us ? What sort of a way is this to deal with the law abiding tax payer/citizens who pay the salaries for you and your staff? You personally oversaw the permitting of our house after taking over the case due to DCD injustices, so how can you now tell us that we could not rebuild it. if it burned down. Is't it enought to live in a tinderbox created by envronmentalists who prevent any cutting in the national forest surrounding our valley - now the same clowns are trying to force everyone out !! Do you have any idea the psychology of this matter. My wife and I are now retired, we both have cancer to deal with. the leading cause of cancer is stress. DCD causes alot of stress for Jefferson County property owners. and you know this, AI!! WHY IS THIS, whose interests do you represent? I confronted John Austin on this matter before he was elected as County Commissioner for our area, and he plainly stated that existing homes would be 'grandfathered' . this proposed clause, and the proposed conversion of a multitude of fully and legally permitted existing homes to 'conditional use' - is not 'grandfathering' - it is TAKING. You know that, I know that. and many property owners in your County know that. We are sick of the uncompensated takings in this County!!! My last question to you is: 4. Why have you not represented our interest in this matter? You have been paid out of my family's tax money the entire time you have been in that office - why are the interests of my family and our neighbors on the Dosewallips River not represented by you ?? It would have been in your interest since you supervised the permitting of many of these existing homes. Your statement to the press is causing us stress. We heartily recommend that you retract that statement with apology, and that you fully answer the questions I have asked herein. If you fail to do this we will consider all possible means of recourse available to us, not excluding a class action civil case by all damaged property owners such as ourselves. and yes, for pain and suffering as well . you have already damaged us by publicly casting aspersions on our quiet 3 enjoyment of our own property and on our properly permitted retirement home, and we are mad as hell about that I Sincerely, Ken Shock Brinnon, Washington 98320 http://brinnonprosperity.org ps: I see the State is not going to give you more $$ . maybe we should all boycott paying our property taxes, I think we can organize that. I really do ! Another idea we are considering is an organized boycott of all Port Townsend businesses. that would make DeD and the Baee very popular, 11m sure .............. Just FYI cc: Jeffco Baee and interested parties 1) People are saying the new rules would ban them from rebuilding their waterfront homes if their house burns down. "As long as they were legally built to begin with," that's not true, she said. If the home were more than 75 percent burned and there's enough room to relocate outside the new buffer, then the home would need to be constructed outside the new buffer. If there.s not enough land to relocate the house outside the buffer, then it could be rebuilt inside the new buffer on the same location, she said. DCD Director AI Scalf noted that property owners might need to get a demolition permit in order to remove old foundations inside the new buffer zone. On Thu, Mar 5,2009 at 2:33 PM, Norman MacLeod <gaelwolf@waypt.com>wrote: The following article appeared in the March 4, 2009 edition of the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader. Shoreline plan work speeds toward deadline By Allison Arthur of The Leader Work updating Jefferson County's Shoreline Master Program is speeding up, as money from the state is drying up. And in response to upcoming new rules, at least one real estate agent is filing dozens of permits to vest in the existing rules. The Jefferson County Planning Commission has scheduled eight meetings in March and April to continue its work slogging through the proposed guidelines. 4 The planning commission meetings continue tonight, Wednesday, March 4 at 6:30 p.m. at the Shold Business Park in Port Hadlock. The board will continue to discuss boating facilities and may also dive into aquaculture. Controversial are proposed new rules that would require shoreline property owners to build farther back on shoreline bluffs - from the current 3-foot setbacks to 160-foot setbacks on saltwater shorelines. The rules also apply to lakefront property. Although the county and a sub-committee of the planning commission have been working for two years on the update, the proposed new rules that could impact some 6,200 shoreline parcels and an estimated 3,200 property owners are only now becoming controversial, as a deadline nears for the county to submit the proposal to the state Department of Ecology. Ecology is requiring all counties with shorelines to update their shoreline laws by 2011, and Jefferson County is one of the first to go through the process. Ecology gave the county a $670,000 grant to help complete the update, but the deadline to use up that grant is June 30. Technically, "one of the deliverables is a draft master plan," said Ecology shoreline specialist Jefree Stewart. Once the county submits its draft, Ecology will evaluate it to see whether it is consistent with state guidelines, Stewart said. Stewart said he has advised the county it wought to try to get the draft done on time. "1 understand they would like more time. However, the state has not more funds to provide support services," Stewart said. Stewart said Jefferson County has 250 miles of shoreline and a population of28,000, for an estimated 112 residents per mile. By comparison, he said, Snohomish County has 6,920 residents per mile and Pierce County has 3,253 residents per mile. "You are attracting people who are buying second homes in areas that are remote, like Fisherman's Harbor. It's a pristine area. It's attracting quite a lot of development," Stewart said. Stewart said advisory group meetings did not attract a lot of controversy, but recent planning commission meetings have generated a lot of complaints, including from people who he said admitted they hadn't read the proposal. Department of Community Development (DCD) Associate Planner Michelle McConnell told commissioners Feb. 23 that more than 472 written and oral comments had been received by a Jan. 30 deadline, and 62 percent of them were submitted during the final week. Jefferson County Administrator Phillip Morley told county commissioners that work and public dialogue also would continue. Morley recommended not setting a timetable for the planning commission because he wanted to ensure a "thoughtful conclusion." While some people have suggested existing laws be kept, Morley said, "Legally, flat out, we don't have that option." 'MYTHS' OF PROPOSAL Planner McConnell also told commissioners that there are a number of "myths" about what the provisions entail. "Some of what we're hearing seems to be based on a misunderstanding," McConnell said. McConnell outlined concerns that she's hearing consistently: 1) People are saying the new rules would ban them from rebuilding their waterfront homes if their house bums down. "As long as they were legally built to begin with," that's not true, she said.lfthe home were more than 75 percent burned and there's enough room to relocate outside the new buffer, then the home would need to be constructed outside the new buffer. If there's not enough land to relocate the house outside the buffer, then it could be rebuilt inside the new buffer on the same location, she said. '" DCD Director Al Scalf noted that property owners might need to get a demolition permit in order to remove old foundations inside the new buffer zone. 2) People are saying the new buffers could be retroactive. McConnell said that's not true. People wouldn't be required to "pick up" an existing house and move it back to comply with the new buffers, nor is the proposal aimed at making existing lots unbuildable. She also said officials believe there are about 750 lots 5 - about 12 percent of the shoreline parcels - that would become nonconfonning lots and couldn't meet the proposed new shoreline rules. 3) Another "myth," according to McConnell, is that the buffers aren't based on science. "We argue that's not true," she said, adding that the county did a shoreline inventory report and used aerial maps to evaluate shoreline properties. 4) Still another "myth" is that natural shoreline designation is being applied too broadly. Currently, single-family development is prohibited in the "natural" designation. Of all the shoreline properties in Jefferson County, 41 percent of East Jefferson County is proposed to be designated as "natural," up from the current 10 percent. "Even though we are proposing to increase the amount of shoreline designated natural, we're also proposing to allow single- family dwellings with a conditional use penn it, as per the state's guidelines," she said. "This is not a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter program," McConnell said, adding a final "myth" is that the new shoreline rules will allow mining along Hood Canal. Mining is allowed in Jefferson County - in the uplands, not on the shoreline. Extraction is prohibited on the marine shoreline. REAL EST ATE AGENTS While officials question whether people have read the proposed new rules that are aimed at protecting shorelines and allowing appropriate shoreline use and development, real estate agent Barbara Blowers spent hours last week filing Site Plan Advance Approval Detennination (SPAAD) pennits. The SP AAD permit is a document that is good for five years and vests property owners with existing shoreline laws. Blowers filed 10 SPAAD penn its for other property owners and estimated each one saved approximately $222. DCD's fees went up 27 percent effective March 1. But the reason she filed the SPAADs was because of the proposed changes to shoreline regulations, she said. "Anyone who owns a vacant lot or has a cabin on a vacant lot, or if you have a trailer on a vacant lot and you want to build a home, it's very likely you won't be able to do that close to the water," she said of proposed new setbacks on shorelines. "Waterfront is my specialty. Nonnally 1 only do SPAADs for clients who were putting their property on the market. Now I'm trying to get as many people as possible to do SPAADs to protect their property," she said ofthe penn its vesting the property in existing shoreline rules. As an example, Blowers said there are lots on Marrowstone Island, valued now at $350,000 or more, where building a house back 50 feet from the shoreline would offer a homeowner a panoramic view of the water. Under the new proposed rules that would force the property owner to build back 150 feet plus another 10 feet, "you can't even see a ribbon of the water." Blowers said she is hoping to do 100 SPAADs for people. 6