Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-458f b ~I\ 11 ~~J Michelle McConnell Lq{p I From: Sent: To: Subject: GABRIELLE LAROCHE [SEABRIES@OLYPEN.COM] Monday, April 20, 2009 1 :08 PM Michelle McConnell; 'Margaret Clancy' FW: Jefferson County Proposed Draft Shoreline Master Program @ FYI c;abrieLLe 6. LaRoche LaRoche+Associates Marine Resource Policy Shoreline + Watershed Planning 360.385.2559 (office/fax) 360.531.2458 (cell) Begin forwarded message: From: "L. Katherine Baril" <kbaril@wsu.edu> Date: April 20,20098:12:30 AM PDT To: Pat Pearson <pearsonp@iefferson.wsu.edu>, Darcy McNamara <darcymai>.jefferson.wsu.edu>, Linda Kay Smith <Ikwisesmith@yahoo.com> Cc: Shelby Smith <shelbyai>.iefferson.wsu.edu>, William Wise <whwiseai>.yahoo.com> Subject: Fwd: Jefferson County Proposed Draft Shoreline Master Program Begin forwarded message: From: "Larry Carter" <Iwc@cablespeed.com> Date: April 20, 2009 8:10:00 AM PDT (CA) To: <Iwc@cablespeed.com> Subject: Jefferson County Proposed Draft Shoreline Master Program Sorry about the short notification. I just found out that we have lots of room in the church for this presentation. It will be well worth the effort if you can make it. larry I am emailing you regarding the Proposed Draft Shoreline Master Program. Below is an Executive Summary of the thing. After a quick review, hopefully you will understand why I am sending the email. We are coordinating our efforts to oppose the changes through the Olympic Stewardship Foundation, Kitsap Alliance for Property Owners, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, and Pacific Legal Foundation. We need all the help we can get and I am asking for yours. On Monday 4/20/09 we have scheduled a meeting for folks that have a dog in this hunt at 2:00 PM at the Eagle HarborChurch and Fellowship Hall in Bainbridge on the corner of Madison and Winslow Rd. At this meeting we will receive a presentation by Bob Thorpe of R. W. Thorpe and Associates. Bob has been very successful at stopping the D.O. Ecology in several WA Counties. His bio is included below the Executive Summary. 1 What he will do is... take the proposed draft and apply the proposal to a few developable sites in the county and work the sites as if the owner was proposing a building project. Bob will cite specific problems with the PDSMP IRT these lots and, hopefully, build a bullet proof case for why the generic 150" butters around the county will not work. We will then submit Bob's findings to the Planning Commission. Bob's work will significantly improve our legal standing should we need to go to court, and we probably will, after passage of the new SMP. I beg of you to contact me if you would like additional information or if you can attend the meeting on Monday. Respectfully, Larry Carter SMP Executive Summary The proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update, as currently drafted, is a huge expansion of the shoreline regulatory system. It unnecessarily limits future construction of single-family homes, a preferred use under the Shoreline Management Act , and reduces existing uses to a disfavored status. If you are a shoreline or riverfront property owner or a taxpayer in Jefferson County you should be .!!!!l!.concerned about these proposed changes to shoreline use!!! Durina a severe financial crisis, the SMP will have neaative economic conseQuences with no correslJonding environmental benefit. The Olympic Stewardship Foundation (OSF) retained attorney Dennis Reynolds, an expert in environmental and land use law, to conduct a thorough review of the December 3, 2008 SMP draft. His conclusions, summarized as follows, were submitted to the County for consideration. · The draft SMP does not reflect the SMA intent to balance protection and use of the shoreline. · Many policies and regulations in the proposed changes exceed the legal requirements of the SMA. · The new SMP delegates too much local control to DOE. · By incorporating the Growth Management Act (GMA)-based Critical Areas Ordinance into the SMP, the draft clashes with a state Supreme Court decision that shorelines are to be regulated exclusively under the SMA. · The draft SMP designates every inch of shoreline as a critical area, an action which is over- inclusive and not supported by the record. · The shoreline protection standards are basically unsupported presumptions offered under the guise of "science." · There is no evidence the current protection standards aren't working, and the draft ignores Jefferson County's unique local circumstances. OSF has asked if the County has performed or requested a similar legal appraisal of the draft SMP, but they have not responded. 2 The most consequential change in regulation of our shoreline is a five-fold increase in buffers, from 30 feet to 160 feet. This change means 80% of the shoreline jurisdiction is now a buffer zone. It also means: . Construction of new homes will be subject to the new buffers. Options to reduce the buffers to (112' maximum) are costly and time-consuming. . Despite assurances that existing uses are generally not affected, alterations to existing homes are subject to conditions, including compliance with critical area buffers. . Likely devaluation of shoreline properties will result in a county-wide shifting of the tax burden to include all property owners. . Roughly 70% of the shoreline will be made a non-conforming use. Some legal opinions advise these uses are meant to be restricted and eventually phased out. . Residential development on non-conforming lots is subject to eleven conditions, including size restrictions. . Replacement of a home destroyed by fire or other catastrophe may mean the landowner is not able to rebuild within the same footprint. The increased percentage of the shoreline designated "Natural" from 11 % to 41 % is another dramatic change. Most uses in the Natural designation are prohibited or require a conditional use permit that must be approved by DOE, including single-family residences. Permitting of common accessories to single-family residential use - beach access, docks, armoring, etc. - are made more difficult or even prohibited under the proposed changes. Lawfully allowed armoring to protect homes from erosion is discouraged or prohibited in the new SMP. The science used by the County and DOE to justify extreme buffers on modest development is selectively cherry-picked from preferred sources and ignores other reputable science that concludes much smaller buffers acheive the same purpose. For all the attention paid to protecting the shoreline environment, the draft SMP contains no corresponding evaluation of the extent of development which needs to be regulated. Predictions of future increased "development pressures" must be verified with the same scrutiny as the ecological science. Jefferson County shorelines have been preserved under the existing 30 foot buffers. The science is also arbitrarily applied. It allows 30 foot buffers for non-conforming lots and 50 foot buffers for exceptions called "common line setbacks," but insist 160 foot buffers are necessary for those parcels that don't fall into either category. The 160 foot buffers are either environmentally necessary or they aren't. While the SMP contains options for relief from standard buffers, the process can be expensive and time-consuming for the permit applicant. The administration a complex regulatory scheme like the SMP will cause further delays, making the feasibility of buffer options untenable for homeowners or prospective buyers. Allowances for variances and conditional use permits require DOE approval, creating more uncertainty. Finally, the burden of proof is placed on the applicant throughout the draft SMP to demonstrate no harm is occurring as a result of a proposed permit for development. This improperly contradicts the time- honored principle of presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. A foundational principle of the Olympic Stewardship Foundation is that it is the responsibility of the regulating agency to demonstrate a showing of harm before imposing restrictions. 3 Robert W. Thorpe R. W. Thorpe & Associates, Inc., Seattle Robert W. Thorpe, AICP, Principal/President, R W. Thorpe & Associates With over 30 years of experience in the planning field, Mr. Thorpe has been the Principal-in-Charge on a wide range of the firm's urban and regional planning projects and environmental studies. He is a certified planner and has served as Responsible Official for several communities. He was involved in the development of many unique and innovative planning programs while working at the City of Mercer Islandand two large engineering/planning consulting firms. This included the development of a number of implementation tools such as S.EPA Guidelines, Shorelines Management Program, Design Commission Guidelines, Zoning Codes, etc. Mr. Thorpe has extensive experience with citizen involvement and has been retained by a number of public agencies and private citizen groups as a consulting urban planner. He has served as a consulting planner to several Washington area cities, and is currently a college instructor in Urban Planning and the development process. His education includes a B.S. in Business Administration and Economics from the University of Nebraska and Masters degrees in Urban Planning and Urban Development Economics from the University of Washington. He has also been a candidate for the MAl (Appraisal) Designation, combining expertise in land economics with design and planning. Current management projects include: community and regional shopping centers, community master plans, mixed use developments, numerous rezones, and permit applications. He is a qualified expert witness in several jurisdictions and courts throughout Washington, Alaska,Colorado, Oregon, Nebraska, and Wyoming. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association, and an AlA - R/UDAT Team Member. He serves on the East King County Habitat for Humanity Board of Directors, as Chair of the BIAW Legal Trust Fund, and is President of the Puget Sound Chapter of the American Planning Association. EMCM, DSNRct. Olele Point Services, COPS) Providinn Professional ODerators and Technicians to the Power Generation IndustIV OPS 931 Ojala Point Rd, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 360-437-9224 Fax: 360-437-9224 Cell: 360-301-2264 L. Katherine Baril kbaril((Uwsu.edu Washington State University Extension engages people, organizations and communities to advance knowledge, economic well-being, and quality of life by fostering inquiry, learning, and the application of research. 4