HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-605
n~ 1\
t. ~, I' /\,\<>("I.r-
if\ t
Page 1 of2
-) c: J J
.t-.. -110
Jeanie Orr
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 20094:53 PM
To: Michelle McConnell
Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: Public Comment PDSMP June 3, 2009
From: JerCoburn@aol.com [mailto:JerCoburn@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:05 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Cc: JerCoburn@aol.com
Subject: Public Comment PDSMP June 3, 2009
Greetings Planning Commissioners,
First, let me thank you for your service, I saw first hand the effort you put into this document.
Almost all property owners were unaware the SMP was being updated and the effects it would have
on shoreline properties and homes. Thank you for being patient while many scared and upset folks directed
their displeasure with this document in your public comment periods. It was the first time the property owners
had an opportunity to be part of the process.
I have a few comments I would like you to consider.
Article 2 Definitions - Feeder Bluff
The definition is vague, it could be interpreted to be almost any bluff in Jefferson Co. that is not composed of
solid rock.
Article 2 Definitions - Ordinary High Water Mark
You could ask a hand full of environmental professionals to point to the mark and you would get a different
mark from each person. The Corps of Engineers uses Mean High, Mean High High, Mean Low, Mean Low
Low. They have a software program that will give you the tide levels you need for any given parcel. Using one
of these standards would take the guesswork out of a Dept. of Ecology determination of the OHWM.
Article 6 Buffers and setbacks
The conclusion that no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes would occur by reducing the
buffer in Shoreline Residential and High Intensity shoreline environment to 50 feet is sound and supported by
reliable documented science. There is an absence of evidence that even a 30 foot buffer would have any
negative effects on the shoreline.
Article 6 Increased buffers 6 D 10 iv
On steeply sloped (>25%) land adjacent to the ordinary high water mark. Is that 25% gradient or 25% slope in
degree's? 25 % gradient is only 14 degrees of slope. This angle can be easily walked up or down. It is not
steep.
Article 7 Beach Access Structures
Prohibiting beach access structures from marine feeder bluffs is overly restrictive. I have read Geotechnical
Engineering documents that outline it is possible to build bluff stairs that would be safe for the user and the
environment.
1. C. 5. i. The 5 foot limitation on width is restrictive and will not allow a stair tower to be constructed on a steep
bank regardless of height. I would think the tower would have to be 10+ feet wide to accommodate the 5 foot
walkways on each side.
6/16/2009
Page 2 of2
1. C. 5. ii. To clarify this I think you need to remove the word slope. I thought the 12 foot vertical limit above the
bluff was a view issue. The word slope could make it difficult to interpret the intent. The 12 foot limit on the
slope would prevent construction of most beach access stairs and towers.
1. C. 7. A pedestrian landing platform of 25 square feet or less will not allow for a let down with stairs to the
beach. This would also make it impossible to have a stair tower.
Article 10. 6. A. 4. Non Conforming Development
Allowing reconstruction of non-conforming development on its original site and to the configuration existing
immediately prior to damage was truly justified and eased many homeowners fears.
Thank You again for your service to our community,
Jerry & Diana Coburn
P.O. Box 1574
Port Hadlock
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
6/1612009