HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-531
Cr.\ f;\;
w\V-.IJ
(;10 lV\ J; -,
Jeanie Orr
Page I of2
?-q&1
From: Michelle McConnell
Sent: Monday, June 15, 20098:22 AM
To: tjmead@cablespeed.com
Cc: Jeanie Orr; swilson@ptleader.com
Subject: RE: JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PLAN
We do not respond to public comment, but please review the Planninq Commission Revised Draft SMP online or
in hard-copy format here at our DCD office, or County libraries in Port Hadlock and Forks.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Project Manager
Direct: 360.379.4484
Web: http://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ShorelinePlanning.htm
NEW OFFICE HOURS: 9 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed on Friday
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
NOTE: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42. 56 RCW and as such may
be viewed by parties other than the intended recipient.
From: TJ Mead [mailto:tjmead@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 7:37 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Cc: swilson@ptleader.com
Subject: JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PLAN
Dear Sirs,
I would like to address what seems to be a disparity in the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan.
I understand that the latest version of the Shoreline Master Plan permits gravel mining conveyors, piers,
and barge loading on the conservancy shoreline.
Recently I heard from a county resident, a friend, who was concerned about the proposed shoreline set
back proposal for residential properties. It sounded a little restrictive, and yet it didn't seem to be based
on any scientific findings, but rather an opinion about what the shoreline should look like. My
understanding is that there would be substantial restriction on piers, boat houses, and any structure
visible from the water.
It is possible that I've gotten erroneous information, but if these two divergent portions of the Master
Plan are roughly accurate, it appears that the quiet, residential use of land, blending with nature is not to
be allowed, yet a large, noisy, dirty, industrial process, with piers, and an affront on the ecological
balance, with no effective deterrent to the introduction of foreign species is something that we'd consider
for our relatively quiet and pristine Hood Canal.
I say again, maybe I have something amiss here, but unless I'm way off track, I think that the authors of
6/1512009
Page 2 of2
the Shoreline Master Plan have some explaining to do to reconcile these obviously divergent
viewpoints. One is potentially devastating to the small property owners' property values, and the other
is probably an environmental catastrophe.
I assume that as time goes on, and more areas are developed some greater restriction on residential use
can be expected, and although I believe the planned residential setbacks, as I understand them, seem
excessive, some movement seems appropriate.
I absolutely do not understand the potential for industrialization of the Hood Canal, with the attendant
bridge traffic disruptions, environmental risk, and complete destruction of the current balance in the
canal.
Could you please respond to this e-mail to set me straight if I'm wrong, and explain the scientific or
logical basis for these decisions if I have accurately represented them?
Thank you.
TJ Mead
1466 Cedar St.
Port Townsend, W A. 98368
360-301-0426
6/15/2009