The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-505 / '1\'1 f'- C;- l l n liAN\ AS Sit 240/ Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Comprehensive Update SMP Comment Form Which required SMP components interest you most? Beach Stairs Code Enforcement Conservation Docks & Piers Mooring Buoys Permit Process Residential Uses Vegetation Conservation My Comments: Allen & Pearl Charkow 431 S Bay Way Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Email: acharkow({i)aol.com X Add me to listfor periodic project notices Are you a shoreline property owner X yes water body: My wife and I are retired. We purchased our two acre waterfront property in 1994 which had a house on the property as well as a 60ft dock (non-deepwater) and secured a permit for a mooring buoy when I purchased the home. We purchased the property as a second home for ourselves and our family to use for many years, but always planned on one day selling the property when we needed to supplement our retirement income. The house has a terrific view of Oak Bay and has access via beach stairs to the dock and stairs to the beach from the dock. We are aghast at receiving notice about the County's plans to force setbacks up to 160 feet! Had this been in place when we first looked at the property, we would have never bought it and neither will others with the conditions proposed. The view due to the higher terrain on either side would be severely restricted and the proposed vegetation restrictions would further reduce what's left of the view, eventually. Furthermore, we have not been able to find a clarification of whether the set back starts from the property line which in our case is out in the water or from the high water mark. In either case, should we want to construct a replacement home or if we were to sell, the restrictions in the proposed SMP have a severe negative impact. Given the 160 foot setback and given septic location restrictions, there may not be enough room to build a replacement home even though we have a two acre parcel. We as the present owners face not being able to sell our property or face a severe reduction of our present property value due to the restricted view that would result from the SMP setbacks and vegetation rules. We purchased the property without any such rule changes or even a hint of such rule changes. While sympathetic to wildlife, these changes more severe than even Port Townsend rules, are theories at best. It is hard to fathom how where houses are located would have any significance to preserving fisheries, etc. We also believe that the County is ignoring the impact to its citizen's economic welfare.. It is one thing to buy a piece of property with conditions that you know going in and quite another to be impacted by such damaging conditions economically imposed after the fact. We have paid higher taxes for many years because we have waterfront property and that has all been well and good with the County. Page 1 of2 The same body now wants to make changes via the SMP that devastates the economic value of our property and is about to say that's ok? Jefferson County must decide whether it believes that a fish's or wildlife's rights are more important than its citizen property owner's rights to the economic value of their property. To implement the proposed new restrictions on waterfront property and force that on owners in Jefferson County who purchased their properties without any inkling that they would be restricted in their use to where it would severely impact it's value, is unfair, callous and a mis-use of government power if it is done without compensation.. If it is so important to the County that a citizen waterfront property owner's land must be restricted as proposed to save fish or wildlife, then it is the County's obligation to purchase the properties or at a minimum reimburse waterfront property owners for the loss in value at the time of enactment of such restrictions (certainly we should be able to determine the monetary impact to property owners if we can figure out how these changes impact fish in the long term). The impact is no different than if the County needed a citizen's property or portion of property to build a road. The changes amount to classic inverse condemnation! If the County deems it so important to maintaining fish and wildlife to economically harm it's citizen waterfront property owners, then it must pay the damages incurred for certainly it is unfair to penalize just those owners of waterfront lots for what the County believes will benefit all of the County's citizens? The cumulative loss in property value will most certainly force us and others to join in a lawsuit to recover the losses in value from the proposed SMP restrictions if they are adopted as severe as proposed. Jefferson County already has a reputation of being unfriendly to business. This now spreads the concern to any property owner or would be property owner who will ask what's next? That will certainly hurt the County's reputation and impact it economically in the future.. .of course...it is questionable if the elected representatives really care? If you do care, you will scrap these severe changes or make plans to reimburse those waterfront property owners who will suffer inverse condemnation. At ~ Allen & Pearl Charkow June 7, 2009 v~