HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-598
~
l1\ l'J\.(".'\5'
7 (;/# (
L-...1v
Jeanie Orr
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jeanie Orr
Tuesday, June 16, 20098:27 AM
Michelle McConnell
AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
FW: PC RDSMP
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Seavoy [mailto:tseavoy@olympus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 20097:49 AM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: PC RDSMP
June 16, 2009
DCD - SMP Comments
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Gentlemen:
I have reviewed the draft SMP, albeit very quickly, as time is short.
Rather than comment on specifics of the SMP, I would like to limit my comments to a more general nature.
This is not an update to the previously approved SMP. This is an entirely new SMP. Differences between the existing
SMP and the newly written SMP are not stated. The requirement of RCW 90.58 is that the SMP shall be updated every 7
years to show continued compliance with the RCW. An entirely new SMP runs contrary to this requirement.
This is a very long document filled with ambiguous definitions and term usage, such as "aesthetics" and "ecological
function". Interpretation of these terms can vary over the entire spectrum.
Two weeks to review such an extensive and complicated document is much too short. It gives the appearance of quickly
trying to push a new and extensive set of regulations without the public knowledge.
Incorporation of the Critical Areas Regulations should not be done. The document should stand by itself. Indeed it may be
in conflict with the requirements of RCW 90.58 and RCW36.70A, the Growth Management Act.
There is an amazingly lack of balance between the interests of the affected property owners and the proposed regulations.
The bias against affected property owners is all too evident. In this regard, there is no evidence that affected property
owners, i.e., owners of property abutting water were consulted or that there was any representation on the Planning
Commission.
There is no analysis or consideration given to the economic impact of these regulations. This may also be in conflict with
RCW 90.58. The better part of $1 M was spent on developing this draft regulation and nothing was spent on economic
considerations.
The regulations in this draft SMP goes far beyond the intent of the legislation that mandates it.
It is my belief that if this SMP becomes incorporated into the county code, there will be extensive litigation initiated by
affected and concerned people.
Sincerely,
Tom Seavoy
634 Schwartz Rd
Nordland, WA 98358
1