Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-443g GmA \fJ'-t, \0 Michelle McConnell From: Sent: To: Subject: AI Scalf Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:49 PM Michelle McConnell FW: SMP UPDATE 21cpl ~~ From: Craig Durgan [mailto:durgan@olympus.net] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:21 PM To: AI Scalf Cc: dschultz@waypoint.com; Iwc@cablespeed.com; jim hagen Subject: SMP UPDATE AI, Being able to rebuild even in a buffer has been a basic tenant of all Jefferson County codes. Even the Critical Areas Ordinance allows a person to rebuild in a buffer. Only in the SMP have you changed this. The proposed SMP specifically voids the provision of JCC 18.22.080 and supplants the proposed 750/0 rule. Even the Whatcom County SMP is not as restrictive as our proposed SMP in this regard. This along with the buffers are a blatant land grab. I find it interesting that commercial aquaculture is allowed in the critical areas but single family homes are basically being phased out of the buffer for the critical area. How is it that the fish and wildlife are not harmed by a commercial operation right in the critical area. Many of the species being farmed are not even native species and are therefore crowding out the native flora and fauna. The process of commercial aquaculture causes much more intense disruption of the critical area then single family homes could ever possibly do. Digging and mucking about in the critical area are much more intensive then someone having a single family home outside the critical area no matter how close that maybe. I look to see this being another indirect tax, fee or charge as per RCW 82.02.020. In fact the whole buffer concept is an indirect tax, fee or charge. Craig Durgan From: AI Scalf [mailto:ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:34 PM To: Dennis Schultz; jim hagen; ken shock 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: SMP UPDATE Denny The main issue for DeD 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 1 From: Dennis Schultz [mailto:dschultz@waypoint.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 20093:30 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 Mc 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 2