HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-510
GIll i\
Page 1 of 1
Jeanie Orr
t/&11
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:53 AM
To: Michelle McConnell
Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: Revised Draft SMP Comments
From: William Conklin [mailto:conklin@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:03 AM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Revised Draft SMP Comments
Planning Commission:
I am a member ofthe Kala Point Bluff Management Advisory Committee.
I am concerned about Article 6, Section 4, B, 3 (Vegetation Conservation Regulations. I have no quarrel with up
to 25% ofthe limbs of any single tree being removed, but 25% of what? What is the baseline? Is it 25% of the
tree's current status or 25% of the way the tree looked when the Kala Point development began? If it is 25% of
the tree's current status, what if the tree has already been severely limbed upward over the years by nature or
man, and now it looks like a lollypop, as so many of our surviving evergreen trees along the bluff look today?
What if nature by storm or lightning removed the top portion of a tree years ago. Should that be taken into
consideration in determining 25%? What if 25% removal is approved today and then 5 years hence a new
homeowner requests another 25% be removed to improve his view corridor? Is 25% finite, and if so, what is the
baseline we measure 25% against?
In this same paragraph, how is "canopy" defined? My Webster's defines canopy as, "the cover formed by the
leafy upper branches ofthe trees in the forest." Ifthis is your definition, you are suggesting topping trees, and I
don't think this is your intent. A better choice of word might be "foliage."
Bill Conklin
210 Kala Heights Dr
Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-385-3176
6/1112009