HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-620
C;/,11.:t
L<; n'l n... l',t
Page 1 of 1
Jeanie Orr
2c'1 &,~, J
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:49 AM
To: Michelle McConnell
Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: Jefferson County Shoreline management
From: judithwalls@q.com [mailto:judithwalls@q.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:29 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Jefferson County Shoreline management
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am a Jefferson County shoreline owner on Oak Bay and I personally worked on the management
plan over 10 years ago. I am most eager for you to include protection for property owners AND the
environment in your new regulations.
Please be aware that I do appreciate the Planning Commission's work to review the SMP based on
citizen comments.
· However, the Planning Commission has eliminated important safeguards that would protect
shoreline habitat and water quality as new growth occurs
· Please don't roll back the environmental safeguards proposed in the citizen committee's draft.
Please reinstate the science-based buffers for all of Jefferson County shorelines. These buffers
are sized to reduce erosion and flooding of our homes, prevent chemicals from poisoning shellfish
beds, keep our beaches clean enough to swim in, and our salmon streams cool.
· I support the Planning Commission's revision to make it easy for homes to be rebuilt after a
fire. But please do not forbid me to rebuild my home in it's present location if more than 75% of it
burns. I want to replace it on the same foundation even if 100% of it is lost. The rest of my
property's development forbids me to build anywhere else. I already lost my dock & ability to
repair/rebuild due to regulations after it was destroyed in a winter storm & I could not finance the
replacement within your short time window. However, rolling back science-based buffers to address
undersized lots is like throwing the baby out with the bath. Instead of reducing environmental
safeguards on 60 miles of shoreline, the County needs to come up with a cheap and easy process
that allows development on nonconforming lots while protecting water quality and habitat.
· I support the previous drafts, which require geoduck aquaculture to obtain a conditional permit.
There are too many unanswered questions about the modern way of farming geoduck, and the
science on the issue is due in within a few years. We can modify that later, if it proves there's no
harm to the near shore habitat.
· I support the previous draft which banned the use of pens to raise fish on the shore. Canada
has experienced many problems with pen fish, and until such time that the science is clear, we
need to keep this practice off our shores. Atlantic salmon have escaped pens & have bred
with/contaminated Canadian native runs. Sea lice and pollution also are pen problems.
· The draft removes important safeguards to protect sensitive habitats from mining. Mining
should not be allowed in the Conservancy environment, and additional protections are needed.
Yours truly, Judith Walls
6/1712009