HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-657
f ,'i..A
\...."'H.Lv \
.Fj''\''VM"".,;f
',,-,,.,,' .,/t I
Jeanie Orr
From: Jeanie Orr
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:01 AM
To: Michelle McConnell
Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: Revised SMP
Attachments: June 172009 Comment SMP.doc
From: John & Sharon Lynch [mailto:jflynch@olyridge.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 20094:26 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Revised SMP
6/18/2009
Page 1 of 1
&/
June 17,2009
To the SMP Planning Committee
Re: Comments on the Revised SMP
I am a property owner in Jefferson County, owning both improved and
unimproved waterfront lots just to the north of White Rock on Paradise Bay in an area
designated as "conservancy" in the Revised SMP.
. As an overall defect, there are many locations on the shoreline in Jefferson
County where homes have been legally constructed but which will be within within the
newly established buffer. There should be s clear indication of the kind of restraints that
those homeowners will confront if they seek to undertake any modification of the
residence structure. From whom must permits or variances be obtained and what will be
the criteria for the grant of such permits. It is my impression that the permitting for any
expansion of these now legal residences will not be controlled by the county but by the
State.
Other matters:
1. The "Liberal Construction" provisions of Article 1.8 exceed by great measure the
liberality advanced in RCW 90.58.900 which is cited as its precedent. Moreover,
whereas in that empowering legislation the notion of liberal construction may be
justified, in legislation where the rights of property owners are being seriously restricted,
ordinary legal principles would prescribe strict construction. The provisions of Article
1.8 takes liberal construction to an excessive level of vagueness when it provides that
"interpretation. . . shall not only be based on the actual words or phrases used in it, but
also by taking its deemed. . . purpose into account." That provision is a bureaucratic
license to do anything, and is seriously at odds with the assurances of Article 1.3.D that
forbids an unconstitutional taking of private property.
2. The provisions of Article 6.4 on Vegetation Conservation are somewhat troubling as
providing a bureaucratic invasion into landowner use of property. It is utterly
understandable for the county to exercise control of shoreline stability and demonstrable
ecological function with rules about shoreline vegetation. But the provisions of the PD
SMP contain no such rules but rather give bureaucrats license to permit or refuse permits
on any type of shoreline landscaping - virtually on a tree-by-tree basis. Can a landowner
remove a dead tree threatening to topple over a shoreline bluff? The "natural unaltered
shorelines" of the state are frequently identified by fallen trees obstructing the beach and
eroding bluffs. Is this the objective of shoreline management to encourage such a
shoreline scenario because it is "natural?" It may be difficult to draft comprehensive
rules about how to address shoreline preservation in high-bank, medium-bank and low
bank areas, but that is no excuse for the vagueness in the SMP's vegetation control
provisions. If there are to be prohibitions on property owners, the reasons for the
prohibitions should be explicit and the ability to rebut those reasons should be afforded to
the shoreline property owner.
3. In a huge departure from the restraints on landowners who may desire to build on or
landscape shoreline property, landowners who would seek engage in the ecologically
invasive activity of mining seem to get somewhat of a free pass (Article 8.6). Note that
the "benefits" of mining are acknowledged to potentially outweigh the "adverse impacts"
and that a mining proponent can provide evidence that certain damage will not occur - a
privilege not afforded homeowners. The constraints on mining activity are full of
permissive provisions permitting "mitigation" and the permitting the mine owner to do
what is "feasible" to protect the environment. Also noted is that map PDSMP No.4 of
the Northern Hood Canal designates much of the western shore of the Canal as a Priority
Aquatic Marine area in which mining is absolutely forbidden. The Priority Aquatic
Marine area, however, terminates a short distance north of Thorndyke Bay at almost
exactly the place of the 1100 foot pier proposed by Fred Hill Materials in its Pit-to-Pier
project and resumes again further to the north. Inspection ofthat shoreline reveals
absolutely no rationale for leaving that "hole" in the Primary Aquatic Marine area except
to permit the Pit-to-Pier to remain alive. I believe the Commission should inquire into
how the designations of the Primary Aquatic Marine areas on PDSMP Map No.4 were
determined. Finally, I am perplexed that nowhere in the provisions about mining do
terms like "ecological function" appear. It seems that property constraints based on those
vague terms are being imposed upon shoreline homeowners and would-be homeowners,
but not upon the mining interests.
5. The Revised SMP is an enormous document. There is still no summary in the nature
of an "executive summary" that would advise homeowners succinctly about the
implications of the proposed regulations on the use of their waterfront property
John F. Lynch
4123 Paradise Bay Road
Port Ludlow, W A 98365