Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:dlhenny@comcast.net <br />Sent:Friday, May 07, 2010 4:22 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Waterfront Regulations Comment <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Mr. Stewart, <br /> <br />My wife Linda and I are current residents of Enumclaw, King County. We appreciate the opportunity <br />to offer our feedback on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Plan (SMP). We'd like to share with <br />you our personal perspective on this proposal and how it affects us. <br /> <br />I am a retired high school teacher who put in 33 years of service in Washington public schools. Linda <br />is still teaching elementary school in Enumclaw and is looking forward to retirement in the near future. <br />Needless to say, our careers as public school teachers have not offered us financial prosperity. <br />Nonetheless, we managed to put away some money to invest in our future dream of retiring to a <br />waterfront home. <br /> <br />In December of 2005, we invested our "nest egg" in a beautiful lot north of the Hood Canal Bridge, <br />just south of Port Ludlow. Our intention was to build a modest home on this property and enjoy the <br />scenic view of Hood Canal and Admiralty Inlet from this home in our retirement. The lot, which has <br />120 feet of medium bank waterfront, is just over 200 feet deep. This size, at the time we purchased <br />the property, was an assurance that we had plenty of room to build a comfortable home there. <br /> <br />The SMP has since reduced the reality of our dream to nothing. The 150 foot buffer zone, plus the <br />added 10 foot development setback from that, gives us about 50 feet from Paradise Bay Road to <br />"build our dream home." In other words, it is impossible. A logical course of action for us would, <br />seemingly, be to sell our property and look for a home already established on the Jefferson County <br />waterfront. Nice idea, but what do you suppose the market is for waterfront property that cannot be <br />used? What we have left, in essence, is a VERY expensive tent site. <br /> <br />In good faith we unwittingly invested our savings in 2005 in waterfront property that the Department of <br />Ecology and Jefferson County now suddenly tell us we cannot use. We have no recourse to recover <br />our $250,000 loss. We feel that our property and our retirement money have been taken from us, and <br />we are powerless to do anything about it. We certainly don't have the money to take this loss and <br />start over again. <br /> <br />Linda and I are very environmentally conscious people. We wholeheartedly support programs that <br />protect our wildlife and enhance our natural resources. We want our grandchildren and their children <br />to enjoy the natural beauty of our state as much as we have. However, we feel that this 150 foot <br />buffer proposal is well beyond reasonable for a single-family dwelling. It is not justifiable, and it has <br />essentially stolen from us the money that we worked very hard to save for years as our retirement <br />investment. <br /> <br />We are certain that our situation is not unique. How many others share a similar story? I hope that the <br />State of Washington/Jefferson County would consider this before taking our property from us. And if <br />this SMP is implemented as proposed, don't you think waterfront property owners are entitled to <br />1 <br /> <br />