Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Liberty Lake developer fined for cutting down trees
Department of Ecology News Release - December 29, 2010
10-336
Liberty Lake developer fined for cutting down trees in shoreline buffer
SPOKANE - The Greenstone Development Co. and owner Jim Frank have been fined $15,000 by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) for cutting down a large number of mature cottonwood trees on the shorelands of Liberty Lake in violation of the Spokane County Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Frank is developing property on Liberty Lake at 1310 MacKenzie Ln.
The unauthorized removal of trees took place within Liberty Lake’s 50-foot protective buffer. The Spokane SMP prohibits the removal of vegetation within 50 feet of the highest place the lake water naturally reaches.
Greenstone was issued a Notice of Correction for unauthorized tree removal on this same property in 2007. Negotiations to resolve that violation resulted in an agreement with Ecology that no further vegetation would be removed without review and authorization from both Ecology and Spokane County.
In addition to the fine, Ecology ordered Greenstone and Jim Frank to stop all clearing, grading and excavating within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Liberty Lake until the current violation is resolved with Ecology. Each day of non-compliance with the requirements of the order may incur additional penalties of up to $1,000 per day.
Frank also will need to submit a site restoration plan to Ecology by Feb. 28, 2011. The plan must be prepared by a qualified consultant experienced in designing restoration plans in this setting.
The shoreline area from the ordinary high water mark to the 50 foot setback line must also be planted with native shrubs and grasses. Ecology will review and issue written approval of a final restoration plan.
Shoreline master programs are the cornerstone of the state Shoreline Management Act passed by voters in 1972. The programs help minimize environmental damage to shoreline areas, reserve appropriate areas for water-oriented uses and reduce interference with the public’s access to public waters and shorelines.
The act requires that local jurisdictions develop shoreline master programs to manage uses of their shorelines. Ecology approved the Spokane County Master Program in January 1975.
Shoreline master programs are important because they:
•Help protect the water quality of our marine waters, lakes and stream systems from pollution.
•Reduce how often floods and landslides occur, and how much damage is caused by them.
•Protect the overall health and functions of shorelines and public waters for our use.
•Protect critical habitat for fish and wildlife.
•Restore unhealthy shorelines.
“It’s important that we enforce local shoreline master programs to help reduce unsustainable development and provide shoreline property owners with a clearer set of standards,” said Sara Hunt who manages Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program in Eastern Washington.
Frank may appeal this penalty and order to the Shorelines Hearings Board within 30 days.
10-336
Liberty Lake developer fined for cutting down trees in shoreline buffer
SPOKANE - The Greenstone Development Co. and owner Jim Frank have been fined $15,000 by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) for cutting down a large number of mature cottonwood trees on the shorelands of Liberty Lake in violation of the Spokane County Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Frank is developing property on Liberty Lake at 1310 MacKenzie Ln.
The unauthorized removal of trees took place within Liberty Lake’s 50-foot protective buffer. The Spokane SMP prohibits the removal of vegetation within 50 feet of the highest place the lake water naturally reaches.
Greenstone was issued a Notice of Correction for unauthorized tree removal on this same property in 2007. Negotiations to resolve that violation resulted in an agreement with Ecology that no further vegetation would be removed without review and authorization from both Ecology and Spokane County.
In addition to the fine, Ecology ordered Greenstone and Jim Frank to stop all clearing, grading and excavating within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Liberty Lake until the current violation is resolved with Ecology. Each day of non-compliance with the requirements of the order may incur additional penalties of up to $1,000 per day.
Frank also will need to submit a site restoration plan to Ecology by Feb. 28, 2011. The plan must be prepared by a qualified consultant experienced in designing restoration plans in this setting.
The shoreline area from the ordinary high water mark to the 50 foot setback line must also be planted with native shrubs and grasses. Ecology will review and issue written approval of a final restoration plan.
Shoreline master programs are the cornerstone of the state Shoreline Management Act passed by voters in 1972. The programs help minimize environmental damage to shoreline areas, reserve appropriate areas for water-oriented uses and reduce interference with the public’s access to public waters and shorelines.
The act requires that local jurisdictions develop shoreline master programs to manage uses of their shorelines. Ecology approved the Spokane County Master Program in January 1975.
Shoreline master programs are important because they:
•Help protect the water quality of our marine waters, lakes and stream systems from pollution.
•Reduce how often floods and landslides occur, and how much damage is caused by them.
•Protect the overall health and functions of shorelines and public waters for our use.
•Protect critical habitat for fish and wildlife.
•Restore unhealthy shorelines.
“It’s important that we enforce local shoreline master programs to help reduce unsustainable development and provide shoreline property owners with a clearer set of standards,” said Sara Hunt who manages Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program in Eastern Washington.
Frank may appeal this penalty and order to the Shorelines Hearings Board within 30 days.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Belenski Letter to Morley
November 15, 2010
Mr. Morley...
First, I want to comment that I find it ironic that you and Jefferson County fail to respond to e-mails that citizen's like myself, Jim Tracy, Tom T. etc, submit to the County looking for answers to our concerns and questions, yet you request "detailed information" from me. Are you going to provide "detailed information" as to why citizen's are not being provided the records they are requesting ?
Jefferson County's concerns have nothing to do with providing the records that a citizen requests or that you would "like to follow up", it has to do with figuring out how a citizen discovered that the County is silently withholding records, so that the "leak" can be fixed and the County can then continue business as usual.
The records in question were supposed to be provided to Joe D. Joe advised me that DCD had silently withheld records from him. Joe has brought this issue up in the past and the County does nothing that I am aware of. I advised Joe that the tactic the County used on him was the same tactic the County has used on me in the past.
Mr. Scalf is well aware of the content of the conversation and where it took place. You can get the details from him. Many months ago I advised Joe that I will provide a Declaration as to what Mr. Scalf told me involving these silently withheld records.
Mike Belenski
Mr. Morley...
First, I want to comment that I find it ironic that you and Jefferson County fail to respond to e-mails that citizen's like myself, Jim Tracy, Tom T. etc, submit to the County looking for answers to our concerns and questions, yet you request "detailed information" from me. Are you going to provide "detailed information" as to why citizen's are not being provided the records they are requesting ?
Jefferson County's concerns have nothing to do with providing the records that a citizen requests or that you would "like to follow up", it has to do with figuring out how a citizen discovered that the County is silently withholding records, so that the "leak" can be fixed and the County can then continue business as usual.
The records in question were supposed to be provided to Joe D. Joe advised me that DCD had silently withheld records from him. Joe has brought this issue up in the past and the County does nothing that I am aware of. I advised Joe that the tactic the County used on him was the same tactic the County has used on me in the past.
Mr. Scalf is well aware of the content of the conversation and where it took place. You can get the details from him. Many months ago I advised Joe that I will provide a Declaration as to what Mr. Scalf told me involving these silently withheld records.
Mike Belenski
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Letter to the Editor
November 4, 2010
Editor, The Leader,
Scot is dead on with his analysis of South County. District 3 Voters, particularity in the shoreline and agricultural communities have been politically disenfranchised. These are the voters who have been severely impacted. Shoreline setbacks, critical area designations and water restrictions in Chimacum Valley led to a very angry electorate in the primary campaigns. These issues let to a historic vote supporting the candidacies of Jim Boyer and Diane Johnson in the primary elections.. This was an election on issues, not partisan social divides.
The current BoCC is responsible for the political divide in rural Jefferson County.
They have become the foot soldiers for environmental extremism. This has created the divide. Property Rights advocates, rural landowners and shoreline property owners are frustrated.
When decisions were being argued during the debate on the county’s Growth Management Plan the GOP commissioners worked to find a plan that represented property rights, environmental concerns and jobs. The Republican Party has not veered from its mission, smaller government, recognition of property right and a county that encourages business growth and jobs.
Scot has offered two alternatives for breaking the chains of the left controlled Democrat Party and it’s political lackeys. This discussion is about to take place. The
Jefferson County Republican Party will partner in with sincere alternatives to cross the political divide.
Ron Gregory, Chair
Jefferson County Republican Central Committee
Editor, The Leader,
Scot is dead on with his analysis of South County. District 3 Voters, particularity in the shoreline and agricultural communities have been politically disenfranchised. These are the voters who have been severely impacted. Shoreline setbacks, critical area designations and water restrictions in Chimacum Valley led to a very angry electorate in the primary campaigns. These issues let to a historic vote supporting the candidacies of Jim Boyer and Diane Johnson in the primary elections.. This was an election on issues, not partisan social divides.
The current BoCC is responsible for the political divide in rural Jefferson County.
They have become the foot soldiers for environmental extremism. This has created the divide. Property Rights advocates, rural landowners and shoreline property owners are frustrated.
When decisions were being argued during the debate on the county’s Growth Management Plan the GOP commissioners worked to find a plan that represented property rights, environmental concerns and jobs. The Republican Party has not veered from its mission, smaller government, recognition of property right and a county that encourages business growth and jobs.
Scot has offered two alternatives for breaking the chains of the left controlled Democrat Party and it’s political lackeys. This discussion is about to take place. The
Jefferson County Republican Party will partner in with sincere alternatives to cross the political divide.
Ron Gregory, Chair
Jefferson County Republican Central Committee
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center
Mr. Richard Parkin, Acting Director
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
I trust that in the final review of Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center you will pay close attention to the accountability of the detailed budget narrative. There appears to be no quantification of how the County arrived at the totals for personnel. And while I haven't had the opportunity to review what was actually submitted to EPA, there is a discrepancy between one version of personnel costs listed on the Standard Form 424A ($349,669.24) and a later version dated 4-20-2010 totaling $466,077.00. This increase significantly raises the fringe benefits. I have not been able to determine the rationale behind this revision, which is notable in that $617,554 out of the total grant proposal of $800,646 is directed toward personnel and benefits.
At a time when so many local jurisdictions are facing all-time budget challenges, it is remarkable this grant is proposing $70,000 rain gardens, $140,000 Stormwater Parks, and $40,000 for plants! Has the world of civic planning populated by agencies, work groups, action networks, stakeholders, consultants, and non-profit partners become so detached from mainstream reality that they fail to recognize the public outrage this generates? The undercurrent running through the purpose for the WSRC is building trust and acceptance in a proposal that seeks to "navigate the dirty waters of regulation." DCD is already a department in financial crisis; to turn around and indulge in this kind of spending shows no respect for taxpayer money. You reap what you sow.
And whether intended or not, word of these figures incites fears that sustainable building practices will substantially raise the cost of single family homes. Most future development in Jefferson will occur on large rural parcels similar in size to the demonstration garden. The demonstration garden is designed to "inspire" homeowners to incorporate LID practices but the prohibitive cost is more deflating. People who spend their own money tend to have a different view of the value of a dollar.
You have already received numerous comments on offers to build rain gardens and the like at a fraction of the cost. Hopefully all aspects of the WSRC will be subject to competitive bidding for services, including open advertising for personnel hires. As the recent embarrassing audit of the Puget Sound Partnership confirms, public funds must be spent in an accountable manner. Contracting of all services and purchases for supplies and equipment should be conducted in a manner that maximizes taxpayer investment.
The number one concern of Jefferson citizens is undoubtedly the general budget. On December 14, 2009, County Administrator Philip Morley advised that "the difficult public service cuts we are recommending in 2010 will position Jefferson County for budget stability in 2010 and 2011 if revenues hold at today's levels. However, by 2012 further program and service cuts will likely be necessary unless the State Legislature or our citizens are willing to provide additional funding to maintain services even at 2010's reduced levels...In 2010 we will need to continue to carefully track actual revenues and expenditures, and adjust our operations to live within our means." Since then it is apparent even modest revenue projections are not holding. Meanwhile, Jefferson County proposes additional expenditures such as $30,000/yr. for a Resource Conservation Manager, $10,000/yr. for an Economist, and at least $30,000/yr. for the WSRC. In the case of the WSRC, DCD is hoping to leverage its match for what amounts to a $530,000 fund transfer to sustain the financial health of the department. Expenditures are self-propagating, and what happens in 2012? The WSRC budget contains no structural changes to the current DCD model that are truly sustainable.
Simple as we are perceived to be, the public understands this in a second. The Logic Model is based on the premise that environmentally-minded (obsessed?) DCD staff will, through an elaborate social marketing program and an inspirational demonstration garden, be able to convince people to "change their behavior." In going through the WSRC files it is obvious to a blind man that the regulatory mentality behind the WSRC utterly fails to relate to the typical citizen applying for a permit in any meaningful way. It speaks volumes for just how out of touch this proposal is that I believe its authors fully do not understand how condescending they are coming across. Particularly offensive is the objective "Watershed Center staff is trained to understand how to position desired behavior against competing unwanted behavior." Mr. Parkin, people do not want to live inside the heads of policy wonkers!
Please explain the logic predicated upon a 50% success rate during a roughly 200% decline in permit activity (from 2006 highs), and how this correlates to the need for an $800,000 advisory program with $70k rain gardens and $40k for plants - installed - during a recession! Hello? I can assure you that the citizens of Jefferson County will engage in their own social marketing program in opposition to the WSRC. It will be extensive, grassroots, will relate to regular people, and best of all the cost is $ZERO.
Returning to the repeating theme of building trust with the public, which DCD acknowledges as a problem or it wouldn't be such a focus of attention, recent actions have demonstrated that rather than an inspiring experience, a visit to DCD ends more likely in visible frustration and even a decision to look outside Jefferson County for future residence. Amongst the County files on the WSRC is the rhetorical question, "Why a Watershed Stewardship Center?" The answer is "DCD proactive response and structural rebuilt for" followed a a series of environment-based bullet points. This sentence indicates DCD is shifting its mission to an enviro-centric model of permit processing - a dramatic shift from traditional objective evaluation of building permits. Our state laws and codes are based on the principles of the balancing of the 14 Growth Management Act planning goals. It is the single-minded pursuit of environmental protection, which ironically further complicates rather than simplifies permit administration, that is what has built public distrust to begin with. The WSRC will turn existing distrust into a bonfire. To quote a County observation from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Our distrust is very expensive." You can't build trust from a negative, which the WSRC assumes from people simply wanting a home.
Finally, I have to ask what is meant in the same document by the prediction "The next ten years will see: The Puget Sound initiative will have failed and the environmental impacts of urbanization will have affected water and air quality. Nature will adjust and heal in a different biological and botanical pattern." Is the necessity for the WSRC and its innovative coaching model, which is driven by the Puget Sound Partnership, based proactively upon the anticipated failure of the PSP?
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
I trust that in the final review of Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center you will pay close attention to the accountability of the detailed budget narrative. There appears to be no quantification of how the County arrived at the totals for personnel. And while I haven't had the opportunity to review what was actually submitted to EPA, there is a discrepancy between one version of personnel costs listed on the Standard Form 424A ($349,669.24) and a later version dated 4-20-2010 totaling $466,077.00. This increase significantly raises the fringe benefits. I have not been able to determine the rationale behind this revision, which is notable in that $617,554 out of the total grant proposal of $800,646 is directed toward personnel and benefits.
At a time when so many local jurisdictions are facing all-time budget challenges, it is remarkable this grant is proposing $70,000 rain gardens, $140,000 Stormwater Parks, and $40,000 for plants! Has the world of civic planning populated by agencies, work groups, action networks, stakeholders, consultants, and non-profit partners become so detached from mainstream reality that they fail to recognize the public outrage this generates? The undercurrent running through the purpose for the WSRC is building trust and acceptance in a proposal that seeks to "navigate the dirty waters of regulation." DCD is already a department in financial crisis; to turn around and indulge in this kind of spending shows no respect for taxpayer money. You reap what you sow.
And whether intended or not, word of these figures incites fears that sustainable building practices will substantially raise the cost of single family homes. Most future development in Jefferson will occur on large rural parcels similar in size to the demonstration garden. The demonstration garden is designed to "inspire" homeowners to incorporate LID practices but the prohibitive cost is more deflating. People who spend their own money tend to have a different view of the value of a dollar.
You have already received numerous comments on offers to build rain gardens and the like at a fraction of the cost. Hopefully all aspects of the WSRC will be subject to competitive bidding for services, including open advertising for personnel hires. As the recent embarrassing audit of the Puget Sound Partnership confirms, public funds must be spent in an accountable manner. Contracting of all services and purchases for supplies and equipment should be conducted in a manner that maximizes taxpayer investment.
The number one concern of Jefferson citizens is undoubtedly the general budget. On December 14, 2009, County Administrator Philip Morley advised that "the difficult public service cuts we are recommending in 2010 will position Jefferson County for budget stability in 2010 and 2011 if revenues hold at today's levels. However, by 2012 further program and service cuts will likely be necessary unless the State Legislature or our citizens are willing to provide additional funding to maintain services even at 2010's reduced levels...In 2010 we will need to continue to carefully track actual revenues and expenditures, and adjust our operations to live within our means." Since then it is apparent even modest revenue projections are not holding. Meanwhile, Jefferson County proposes additional expenditures such as $30,000/yr. for a Resource Conservation Manager, $10,000/yr. for an Economist, and at least $30,000/yr. for the WSRC. In the case of the WSRC, DCD is hoping to leverage its match for what amounts to a $530,000 fund transfer to sustain the financial health of the department. Expenditures are self-propagating, and what happens in 2012? The WSRC budget contains no structural changes to the current DCD model that are truly sustainable.
Simple as we are perceived to be, the public understands this in a second. The Logic Model is based on the premise that environmentally-minded (obsessed?) DCD staff will, through an elaborate social marketing program and an inspirational demonstration garden, be able to convince people to "change their behavior." In going through the WSRC files it is obvious to a blind man that the regulatory mentality behind the WSRC utterly fails to relate to the typical citizen applying for a permit in any meaningful way. It speaks volumes for just how out of touch this proposal is that I believe its authors fully do not understand how condescending they are coming across. Particularly offensive is the objective "Watershed Center staff is trained to understand how to position desired behavior against competing unwanted behavior." Mr. Parkin, people do not want to live inside the heads of policy wonkers!
Please explain the logic predicated upon a 50% success rate during a roughly 200% decline in permit activity (from 2006 highs), and how this correlates to the need for an $800,000 advisory program with $70k rain gardens and $40k for plants - installed - during a recession! Hello? I can assure you that the citizens of Jefferson County will engage in their own social marketing program in opposition to the WSRC. It will be extensive, grassroots, will relate to regular people, and best of all the cost is $ZERO.
Returning to the repeating theme of building trust with the public, which DCD acknowledges as a problem or it wouldn't be such a focus of attention, recent actions have demonstrated that rather than an inspiring experience, a visit to DCD ends more likely in visible frustration and even a decision to look outside Jefferson County for future residence. Amongst the County files on the WSRC is the rhetorical question, "Why a Watershed Stewardship Center?" The answer is "DCD proactive response and structural rebuilt for" followed a a series of environment-based bullet points. This sentence indicates DCD is shifting its mission to an enviro-centric model of permit processing - a dramatic shift from traditional objective evaluation of building permits. Our state laws and codes are based on the principles of the balancing of the 14 Growth Management Act planning goals. It is the single-minded pursuit of environmental protection, which ironically further complicates rather than simplifies permit administration, that is what has built public distrust to begin with. The WSRC will turn existing distrust into a bonfire. To quote a County observation from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Our distrust is very expensive." You can't build trust from a negative, which the WSRC assumes from people simply wanting a home.
Finally, I have to ask what is meant in the same document by the prediction "The next ten years will see: The Puget Sound initiative will have failed and the environmental impacts of urbanization will have affected water and air quality. Nature will adjust and heal in a different biological and botanical pattern." Is the necessity for the WSRC and its innovative coaching model, which is driven by the Puget Sound Partnership, based proactively upon the anticipated failure of the PSP?
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Open Letter to the Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Commissioners,
~ We are writing to voice concern over the proposed JEA / Jefferson County Horse Park. As the majority neighbors to the 80 acre county parcel along our NE property boundaries, our family is very concerned with the impact the proposed horse park will have on our property, home, business and peace of mind here on Cape George Road. In 2009 we completed a deal with the county by trading a portion of our property to allow county access into the parcel from the road. Over the years we have maintained a good relationship with the Dept. of Public Works but now have serious concerns with JEA's recent plans for development of the land and proposed horse park. While we would welcome low impact and limited development on the neighboring parcel -- ( ie. sm. parking area and non-motorized bike, hiking and horse trails ) the current JEA proposal calls for expansive bulldozing, grading and major "improvements" to a timber parcel that is naturally contoured ( very far from level ) and has already been re-planted with flourishing and growing timber. Although a very small user group, JEA's development plans are clear and as proposed this is not merely a small recreational project but a major commercial venture expanding into a rural residential area.
~ Our family is familiar with the county acreage as its neighbor for some time and be assured that this parcel is far from a logged out wasteland. We have observed deer, elk, coyotes, bobcats, cougar, bear, eagles, owls and other animals that live, nest and breed on this county land including the 80 acre parcel in question. The development of the parcel into public parking lots, stables, trails and horse arenas will surely alter this habitat forever. Our community is well known for its environmental conscious and all should be aware that the development of this project as proposed will exploit and destroy a vibrant and growing forest ecosystem. The proposed plans for the JEA horse park development will certainly impact our own property, home and business as well. We are concerned about the increase of people and vehicle traffic adjacent to our property as a result of the parks development, access and events. Consequential noise, security, trespass and maintenance will result from this newly developed neighboring park. Is JEA and the County prepared for the time and expense to manage this park during and after hours ? As the sole neighbors to the western side of the park we do not want the burden of overseeing its impact to that part of our our property. Security issues and trespass have always been a concern from the surrounding county land and these issues will certainly increase for us with this new park. The current site plans also allows for stables and the boarding of a substantial number of horses directly along our eastern property border and we certainly do not want the noise or smell the result of 60 or more large horses directly outside our front door !
~ As stewards of the county you should uphold being good neighbors to both the environment and the community and not allow the JEA Horse Park development as currently planned . Unlike the recent press on the issue this is not simply a win/ win situation for all those involved. The horse park is a large commercial venture proposed by a very small user group for their own benefit. This project will impact the county, taxpayer, environment and neighbors at great expense.
As concerned neighbors,
David and Tiffany Drewry and Family
1280 Cape George Road
Port Townsend
~ We are writing to voice concern over the proposed JEA / Jefferson County Horse Park. As the majority neighbors to the 80 acre county parcel along our NE property boundaries, our family is very concerned with the impact the proposed horse park will have on our property, home, business and peace of mind here on Cape George Road. In 2009 we completed a deal with the county by trading a portion of our property to allow county access into the parcel from the road. Over the years we have maintained a good relationship with the Dept. of Public Works but now have serious concerns with JEA's recent plans for development of the land and proposed horse park. While we would welcome low impact and limited development on the neighboring parcel -- ( ie. sm. parking area and non-motorized bike, hiking and horse trails ) the current JEA proposal calls for expansive bulldozing, grading and major "improvements" to a timber parcel that is naturally contoured ( very far from level ) and has already been re-planted with flourishing and growing timber. Although a very small user group, JEA's development plans are clear and as proposed this is not merely a small recreational project but a major commercial venture expanding into a rural residential area.
~ Our family is familiar with the county acreage as its neighbor for some time and be assured that this parcel is far from a logged out wasteland. We have observed deer, elk, coyotes, bobcats, cougar, bear, eagles, owls and other animals that live, nest and breed on this county land including the 80 acre parcel in question. The development of the parcel into public parking lots, stables, trails and horse arenas will surely alter this habitat forever. Our community is well known for its environmental conscious and all should be aware that the development of this project as proposed will exploit and destroy a vibrant and growing forest ecosystem. The proposed plans for the JEA horse park development will certainly impact our own property, home and business as well. We are concerned about the increase of people and vehicle traffic adjacent to our property as a result of the parks development, access and events. Consequential noise, security, trespass and maintenance will result from this newly developed neighboring park. Is JEA and the County prepared for the time and expense to manage this park during and after hours ? As the sole neighbors to the western side of the park we do not want the burden of overseeing its impact to that part of our our property. Security issues and trespass have always been a concern from the surrounding county land and these issues will certainly increase for us with this new park. The current site plans also allows for stables and the boarding of a substantial number of horses directly along our eastern property border and we certainly do not want the noise or smell the result of 60 or more large horses directly outside our front door !
~ As stewards of the county you should uphold being good neighbors to both the environment and the community and not allow the JEA Horse Park development as currently planned . Unlike the recent press on the issue this is not simply a win/ win situation for all those involved. The horse park is a large commercial venture proposed by a very small user group for their own benefit. This project will impact the county, taxpayer, environment and neighbors at great expense.
As concerned neighbors,
David and Tiffany Drewry and Family
1280 Cape George Road
Port Townsend
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Jefferson County Attorney Blasts SSNW Nonconforming Status During Oral Arguments
Jefferson County Attorney Blasts SSNW Nonconforming Status During Oral Arguments
Fort Discovery, WA - On Monday, May 10, Security Services NW (SSNW) and Jefferson County met nose to nose in Kitsap County Superior Court before the Honorable Judge Roof. In what was a once highly publicized case (backed by Commissioner David Sullivan's political mo-jo and Prosecutor Julie Dalzell; combined with political pressure by the now debunked Discovery Bay Alliance (DBA)), is now not even a blip on the radar. The former gangs of the DBA (who complained about noise, even though there's no noise ordinance in Jefferson County) who had previously cheered on their man Mark Johnsen ( Jefferson County's hired gun) are now silent. The only person sitting in the entire courtroom was a single SSNW employee, hopeful that he would remain employed with SSNW.
Much of the arguments surrounded SSNW’s nonconforming use as it existed prior to the adoption of the Jan. 6, 1992 Code. Attorney Johnsen, on behalf of Jefferson County, argued that nonconforming uses in Washington State are disfavored because they don't conform to current land use regulations. Attorney Reynolds argued for SSNW that Jefferson County didn't regulate the intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses until as late as 2001 or even 2005. Additionally, the 1992 code was never noticed to the public and expired by rule of law in 1992 after eight months. There was even a second 1992 Ordinance passed Jan 27, 1992 (#2-0127-92), which had a more liberal interruption of nonconforming uses. Did I forget to mention the 1992 ordinance, which expired, was also repealed and replaced by the 1994 ordinance? Nevertheless, Johnsen argued that SSNW should be frozen in time and not allowed to grow its business, nor should the Hearing Examiner who heard the SSNW case be allowed to review any codes after 1992. Johnsen's argument was based on the fact that SSNW had three employees in 1992 and SSNW now has forty (before the lawsuit started, SSNW had 150 employees). Therefore, that's all the employees SSNW should only be allowed today. In a twenty year period, its Jefferson County’s legal position that your employees in nonconforming uses shouldn't be allowed to grow or expand. Does anyone hear the words "Insane". Only in Jefferson County. There is not one reported case in the State of Washington, which limits the number of employees a business is allowed to have unless you apply for a conditional use permit (CUP). SSNW did not have to apply for a conditional use permit because SSNW is a legal nonconforming business. What's even more disturbing is Jefferson County is holding only SSNW to this standard therefore discriminating against our employees, SSNW, and fair trade. Not to mention fair treatment under the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution.
Another most interesting fact of the case is that Jefferson County’s position relies on a phantom Administrative Rule, which was never adopted by the BOCC. Here Attorney Johnsen on behalf of Jefferson County misrepresented to the Court of Appeals that it was an Ordinance supposedly adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. Johnsen briefed the Court that, “Similar regulations were applicable as far back as 1992. As the Examiner noted, after enactment of the Zoning Code in 1992, a property owner or tenant wishing to expand or alter a nonconforming use was required to submit an application for review by the Hearing Examiner. 1992 Administrative Rule IX, Ordinance 2-0127-92. (CP 36, CP 333- 337).”
Because Jefferson County didn't follow their own codes, regulations, ordinances, moral responsibly, and the law of the land, what was once a simple case of nonconforming use has morphed into a case filled with ex-parte communications, hidden and destroyed records at DCD and the County, and misrepresentations to the courts. One can only hope that the truth will prevail and those responsible for this mess are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that SSNW is compensated for all its damages and lost business.
Fort Discovery, WA - On Monday, May 10, Security Services NW (SSNW) and Jefferson County met nose to nose in Kitsap County Superior Court before the Honorable Judge Roof. In what was a once highly publicized case (backed by Commissioner David Sullivan's political mo-jo and Prosecutor Julie Dalzell; combined with political pressure by the now debunked Discovery Bay Alliance (DBA)), is now not even a blip on the radar. The former gangs of the DBA (who complained about noise, even though there's no noise ordinance in Jefferson County) who had previously cheered on their man Mark Johnsen ( Jefferson County's hired gun) are now silent. The only person sitting in the entire courtroom was a single SSNW employee, hopeful that he would remain employed with SSNW.
Much of the arguments surrounded SSNW’s nonconforming use as it existed prior to the adoption of the Jan. 6, 1992 Code. Attorney Johnsen, on behalf of Jefferson County, argued that nonconforming uses in Washington State are disfavored because they don't conform to current land use regulations. Attorney Reynolds argued for SSNW that Jefferson County didn't regulate the intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses until as late as 2001 or even 2005. Additionally, the 1992 code was never noticed to the public and expired by rule of law in 1992 after eight months. There was even a second 1992 Ordinance passed Jan 27, 1992 (#2-0127-92), which had a more liberal interruption of nonconforming uses. Did I forget to mention the 1992 ordinance, which expired, was also repealed and replaced by the 1994 ordinance? Nevertheless, Johnsen argued that SSNW should be frozen in time and not allowed to grow its business, nor should the Hearing Examiner who heard the SSNW case be allowed to review any codes after 1992. Johnsen's argument was based on the fact that SSNW had three employees in 1992 and SSNW now has forty (before the lawsuit started, SSNW had 150 employees). Therefore, that's all the employees SSNW should only be allowed today. In a twenty year period, its Jefferson County’s legal position that your employees in nonconforming uses shouldn't be allowed to grow or expand. Does anyone hear the words "Insane". Only in Jefferson County. There is not one reported case in the State of Washington, which limits the number of employees a business is allowed to have unless you apply for a conditional use permit (CUP). SSNW did not have to apply for a conditional use permit because SSNW is a legal nonconforming business. What's even more disturbing is Jefferson County is holding only SSNW to this standard therefore discriminating against our employees, SSNW, and fair trade. Not to mention fair treatment under the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution.
Another most interesting fact of the case is that Jefferson County’s position relies on a phantom Administrative Rule, which was never adopted by the BOCC. Here Attorney Johnsen on behalf of Jefferson County misrepresented to the Court of Appeals that it was an Ordinance supposedly adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. Johnsen briefed the Court that, “Similar regulations were applicable as far back as 1992. As the Examiner noted, after enactment of the Zoning Code in 1992, a property owner or tenant wishing to expand or alter a nonconforming use was required to submit an application for review by the Hearing Examiner. 1992 Administrative Rule IX, Ordinance 2-0127-92. (CP 36, CP 333- 337).”
Because Jefferson County didn't follow their own codes, regulations, ordinances, moral responsibly, and the law of the land, what was once a simple case of nonconforming use has morphed into a case filled with ex-parte communications, hidden and destroyed records at DCD and the County, and misrepresentations to the courts. One can only hope that the truth will prevail and those responsible for this mess are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that SSNW is compensated for all its damages and lost business.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Letter to the EPA
Mr. Richard Parkin, Acting Director
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
The application and approval process for Funding Opportunity Number EPA-R10-PS-1001 (Watershed Stewardship Resource Center) has included numerous theoretical project plans, estimates, projections, and assumptions addressing how the Center might function in practical application. Three recent episodes during the past couple weeks might provide some insight into how accurately the WSRC project plan assumptions actually hold up when tested under real life circumstances.
On April 19th a local community association hosted a panel discussion on the Shoreline Master Program. Jill Silver, one of the main proponents behind the WRSC concept since 2006, was the primary speaker and her presentation was instructional on how the WRSC might resonate with the typical permit applicant the Center is designed to serve. I say typical because the audience consisted not of policy activists who have followed the SMP but who are just now, as the message below states, just "tuning in for the first time in this nearly 5-year process."
Ms. Silver's presentation consisted of a nearly one-hour treatise on the value and processes of shoreline ecological functions, described in numbing techno jargon-speak that went way over the audience's head. There is an art to communicating complicated, Greek-to-me concepts into terms the layperson can understand but this was pure "inside baseball." During questioning on the consequences of the new regulations it became apparent Ms. Silver was surprisingly uninformed on the actual content of the SMP, repeatedly saying she didn't have that information right in front of her. This is a common response for activists driven by environmental ideals rather than jurisdiction-specific public policy tailored for particular conditions, but hardly an asset for a public position that has been promoted as assisting applicants through the permit "maze." As the Q & A further progressed it was clear Ms. Silver's single-minded passion for ecological protection wasn't relating to the overwhelming concerns expressed by the group, especially on the impact of buffers on their property. (She called the 150 foot buffers "too small" but "politically feasible."). Ms. Silver several times used the phrase "this is what I think" as opposed to "I can understand your concerns," a distinction not lost on the group. If the raised eyebrows in the room acted as a barometer for how the WSRC might enable acceptance of increasingly comprehensive land-use regulation and improved relations between the citizen and regulator, this trial run was a failure.
On April 20th the Department of Ecology hosted a public hearing on the Locally Approved SMP that is now under their review for final approval. Roughly 200 citizens attended, and by a show of hands nearly 90% were against the LASMP. Of the approximately 90 people who spoke, I counted 11 who were in support of the LASMP and 10 of them were from within the Port Townsend city limits, where their own SMP rules. Again the support was characterized not in relation to specific needs but through invocation of general environmental ideals and anecdotal references to apocalyptic scenarios. Was the voice of the majority acknowledged? No, they were marginalized by the minority as misinformed. How often can so many be so wrong? The populace of rural Jefferson County is at their wits end with their voice being ignored or even subverted by Port Townsend interests. How those interests, exemplified by Jill Silver and Sam Gibboney and the WRSC, can be expected to represent and gain the trust of rural folks who will be the ones actually using the center (PT has their own Planning Department) has yet to be qualified in the grant application submittals.
Finally, I refer you to the message below. For a county employee to use a public information listserve as a bully pulpit to address "a mix of facts and rumors circulating through our community" is totally inappropriate and counter to the spirit if not he law of state public participation statutes. Mind you, the DOE is presently soliciting the public for their input so they may evaluate all available information in support of a final decision. For the lead DCD SMP planner to insinuate that there are "rumors" (translation: objections/dissent) circulating about sends a chilling message and discourages citizens who are already shy about expressing their views from doing so now. What this really amounts to is an attempt to influence and control the flow of information during a public process. Jefferson County is not a state-run information agency, nor is Michelle McConnell the arbiter of what is fact and what is fiction. There is an important distinction between rumors, which have a negative connotation, and a difference in interpretation. The SMP is a complex undertaking that has lasted four years. Both the Courts and the Legislature have had difficulty clarifying fundamental aspects of how protection of our shoreline is to be undertaken. For Ms. McConnell and DCD to characterize interpretations of the SMP they don't agree with as rumors only reveals their advocacy-driven slant and disregard for the public they are intended to serve. Very simply,the formal public comment period is the time for the people to speak and policy and decision-makers to LISTEN.
All through the so-called SMP "public process" citizen dissent has been labeled as rumor, misinformed, or myths. What is clear is that when DCD states it wants citizens to be informed it really means it wants them to conform. Every source listed below for "information" is from a government agency. To this day the County has refused to answer the real Frequently Asked Questions as they have been posed by the citizens. The 200 page SMP comes with fineprint and unforeseen consequenses. The rubber meets the road in the real world. This is a one-dimensional debate that hardly facilitates meaningful public involvement that might result in acceptance of a legitimate final product. But such is the insular culture in DCD. This would normally be of little interest to you at EPA, except you are now in the middle of a hefty funding allocation to promote concepts and ideas that have been sold to you on paper but hardly in practice, as these three incidents readily expose. Actions speak louder than words, and in that context the WRSC project narrative is not education but indoctrination. Lacking authoritarian military rule, indoctrination has an historically poor success rate. The County and the State seem to be gambling that eventually the people will "come around." That too has predictably failed time after time. It is so much easier, and less expensive, to LISTEN before you leap.
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
The application and approval process for Funding Opportunity Number EPA-R10-PS-1001 (Watershed Stewardship Resource Center) has included numerous theoretical project plans, estimates, projections, and assumptions addressing how the Center might function in practical application. Three recent episodes during the past couple weeks might provide some insight into how accurately the WSRC project plan assumptions actually hold up when tested under real life circumstances.
On April 19th a local community association hosted a panel discussion on the Shoreline Master Program. Jill Silver, one of the main proponents behind the WRSC concept since 2006, was the primary speaker and her presentation was instructional on how the WRSC might resonate with the typical permit applicant the Center is designed to serve. I say typical because the audience consisted not of policy activists who have followed the SMP but who are just now, as the message below states, just "tuning in for the first time in this nearly 5-year process."
Ms. Silver's presentation consisted of a nearly one-hour treatise on the value and processes of shoreline ecological functions, described in numbing techno jargon-speak that went way over the audience's head. There is an art to communicating complicated, Greek-to-me concepts into terms the layperson can understand but this was pure "inside baseball." During questioning on the consequences of the new regulations it became apparent Ms. Silver was surprisingly uninformed on the actual content of the SMP, repeatedly saying she didn't have that information right in front of her. This is a common response for activists driven by environmental ideals rather than jurisdiction-specific public policy tailored for particular conditions, but hardly an asset for a public position that has been promoted as assisting applicants through the permit "maze." As the Q & A further progressed it was clear Ms. Silver's single-minded passion for ecological protection wasn't relating to the overwhelming concerns expressed by the group, especially on the impact of buffers on their property. (She called the 150 foot buffers "too small" but "politically feasible."). Ms. Silver several times used the phrase "this is what I think" as opposed to "I can understand your concerns," a distinction not lost on the group. If the raised eyebrows in the room acted as a barometer for how the WSRC might enable acceptance of increasingly comprehensive land-use regulation and improved relations between the citizen and regulator, this trial run was a failure.
On April 20th the Department of Ecology hosted a public hearing on the Locally Approved SMP that is now under their review for final approval. Roughly 200 citizens attended, and by a show of hands nearly 90% were against the LASMP. Of the approximately 90 people who spoke, I counted 11 who were in support of the LASMP and 10 of them were from within the Port Townsend city limits, where their own SMP rules. Again the support was characterized not in relation to specific needs but through invocation of general environmental ideals and anecdotal references to apocalyptic scenarios. Was the voice of the majority acknowledged? No, they were marginalized by the minority as misinformed. How often can so many be so wrong? The populace of rural Jefferson County is at their wits end with their voice being ignored or even subverted by Port Townsend interests. How those interests, exemplified by Jill Silver and Sam Gibboney and the WRSC, can be expected to represent and gain the trust of rural folks who will be the ones actually using the center (PT has their own Planning Department) has yet to be qualified in the grant application submittals.
Finally, I refer you to the message below. For a county employee to use a public information listserve as a bully pulpit to address "a mix of facts and rumors circulating through our community" is totally inappropriate and counter to the spirit if not he law of state public participation statutes. Mind you, the DOE is presently soliciting the public for their input so they may evaluate all available information in support of a final decision. For the lead DCD SMP planner to insinuate that there are "rumors" (translation: objections/dissent) circulating about sends a chilling message and discourages citizens who are already shy about expressing their views from doing so now. What this really amounts to is an attempt to influence and control the flow of information during a public process. Jefferson County is not a state-run information agency, nor is Michelle McConnell the arbiter of what is fact and what is fiction. There is an important distinction between rumors, which have a negative connotation, and a difference in interpretation. The SMP is a complex undertaking that has lasted four years. Both the Courts and the Legislature have had difficulty clarifying fundamental aspects of how protection of our shoreline is to be undertaken. For Ms. McConnell and DCD to characterize interpretations of the SMP they don't agree with as rumors only reveals their advocacy-driven slant and disregard for the public they are intended to serve. Very simply,the formal public comment period is the time for the people to speak and policy and decision-makers to LISTEN.
All through the so-called SMP "public process" citizen dissent has been labeled as rumor, misinformed, or myths. What is clear is that when DCD states it wants citizens to be informed it really means it wants them to conform. Every source listed below for "information" is from a government agency. To this day the County has refused to answer the real Frequently Asked Questions as they have been posed by the citizens. The 200 page SMP comes with fineprint and unforeseen consequenses. The rubber meets the road in the real world. This is a one-dimensional debate that hardly facilitates meaningful public involvement that might result in acceptance of a legitimate final product. But such is the insular culture in DCD. This would normally be of little interest to you at EPA, except you are now in the middle of a hefty funding allocation to promote concepts and ideas that have been sold to you on paper but hardly in practice, as these three incidents readily expose. Actions speak louder than words, and in that context the WRSC project narrative is not education but indoctrination. Lacking authoritarian military rule, indoctrination has an historically poor success rate. The County and the State seem to be gambling that eventually the people will "come around." That too has predictably failed time after time. It is so much easier, and less expensive, to LISTEN before you leap.
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Monday, May 3, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Appeals Court to Rule Again on Shorelines in Case That Involves Kitsap Group
Appeals Court to Rule Again on Shorelines in Case That Involves Kitsap Group By Christopher Dunagan Wednesday, April 28, 2010
OLYMPIA — An ongoing dispute about which of two local laws govern shoreline buffers will go back to the Washington State Court of Appeals.The central case in the dispute, Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Kitsap County, was remanded Wednesday by the Washington State Supreme Court, which is asking the Court of Appeals to take another look at the case in light of a new state law.The Legislature attempted to resolve the dispute in March, when it passed a law <http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/mar/05/bill-would-allow-shoreline-buffers-spelled-out/%20> saying that local governments should use their “critical areas ordinances” until shoreline plans are updated. The law was made retroactive for counties already using their critical areas ordinances, as Kitsap County was doing. After the law was passed, attorneys for Kitsap County asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the KAPO case, saying it was made moot by the legislation. But attorneys for KAPO countered that the Legislature had overstepped its constitutional authority by attempting to reverse the outcome of a court ruling.“Of course, the Legislature can change the law going forward,” said KAPO’s attorney, Brian Hodges of the Pacific Legal Foundation. “But the idea that lawmakers can go back and overturn past court decisions that were based on the law as it then existed is nothing short of surreal — even Kafkaesque.”The dispute started five years ago, when Kitsap County updated its Critical Areas Ordinance. The ordinance contained larger no-build buffers for shorelines than were required under the older Shorelines Master Program. KAPO filed suit over several provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance. When the case reached the Court of Appeals in September, <http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/sep/09/court-overturns-kitsaps-shoreline-buffers/%20> the court ruled against the county, citing a previous Supreme Court ruling, called Futurewise v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. In the Futurewise case, which involved the city of Anacortes, the Supreme Court ruled that local shorelines plans — not critical areas ordinances — govern properties along the shoreline.Because the ruling failed to garner a majority vote of the Supreme Court justices, some local officials, as well as staff with the Washington Department of Ecology, contend that the ruling is not binding on other jurisdictions.Ruling in the KAPO case, the appeals court made note of the conflict within the Supreme Court’s ruling.“The problem may be alleviated somewhat if our Supreme Court can muster a clear majority on the topic,” the court said. “Ultimately, however, the Legislature must clarify how, if at all, the GMA (Growth Management Act) provisions ... apply to critical areas that also happen to fall within the SMA (Shorelines Management Act) shore land jurisdiction.”The appeals court now will get the opportunity to determine whether the Legislature fixed the problem or just added more confusion.
OLYMPIA — An ongoing dispute about which of two local laws govern shoreline buffers will go back to the Washington State Court of Appeals.The central case in the dispute, Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Kitsap County, was remanded Wednesday by the Washington State Supreme Court, which is asking the Court of Appeals to take another look at the case in light of a new state law.The Legislature attempted to resolve the dispute in March, when it passed a law <http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/mar/05/bill-would-allow-shoreline-buffers-spelled-out/%20> saying that local governments should use their “critical areas ordinances” until shoreline plans are updated. The law was made retroactive for counties already using their critical areas ordinances, as Kitsap County was doing. After the law was passed, attorneys for Kitsap County asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the KAPO case, saying it was made moot by the legislation. But attorneys for KAPO countered that the Legislature had overstepped its constitutional authority by attempting to reverse the outcome of a court ruling.“Of course, the Legislature can change the law going forward,” said KAPO’s attorney, Brian Hodges of the Pacific Legal Foundation. “But the idea that lawmakers can go back and overturn past court decisions that were based on the law as it then existed is nothing short of surreal — even Kafkaesque.”The dispute started five years ago, when Kitsap County updated its Critical Areas Ordinance. The ordinance contained larger no-build buffers for shorelines than were required under the older Shorelines Master Program. KAPO filed suit over several provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance. When the case reached the Court of Appeals in September, <http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/sep/09/court-overturns-kitsaps-shoreline-buffers/%20> the court ruled against the county, citing a previous Supreme Court ruling, called Futurewise v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. In the Futurewise case, which involved the city of Anacortes, the Supreme Court ruled that local shorelines plans — not critical areas ordinances — govern properties along the shoreline.Because the ruling failed to garner a majority vote of the Supreme Court justices, some local officials, as well as staff with the Washington Department of Ecology, contend that the ruling is not binding on other jurisdictions.Ruling in the KAPO case, the appeals court made note of the conflict within the Supreme Court’s ruling.“The problem may be alleviated somewhat if our Supreme Court can muster a clear majority on the topic,” the court said. “Ultimately, however, the Legislature must clarify how, if at all, the GMA (Growth Management Act) provisions ... apply to critical areas that also happen to fall within the SMA (Shorelines Management Act) shore land jurisdiction.”The appeals court now will get the opportunity to determine whether the Legislature fixed the problem or just added more confusion.
Sheriff's Office informs public of sex offender in East Jefferson County -- Port Angeles Port Townsend Sequim Forks Jefferson County Clallam County Olympic Peninsula Daily news
LEVEL III SEX OFFENDER IN EAST JEFFERSON COUNTY
Sheriff's Office informs public of sex offender in East Jefferson County -- Port Angeles Port Townsend Sequim Forks Jefferson County Clallam County Olympic Peninsula Daily news
Sheriff's Office informs public of sex offender in East Jefferson County -- Port Angeles Port Townsend Sequim Forks Jefferson County Clallam County Olympic Peninsula Daily news
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
News Blackout Regarding Shoreling Master Program Hearing...Why?
Editorial by Joe D'Amico
Port Townsend, WA - On April 20, 2010, the Washington State Department of Ecology held an Open House and Public Hearing regarding proposed changes to Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, which will likely result in the biggest land grab in Jefferson County history since the inception of the National Parks. Currently Jefferson County has a 35' setback and the Board of County Commissioners (Austin, Sullivan and Johnson) is proposing 150' setback. What was most noticeable was the lack of media coverage during the hearing. The hearing was held at the Fort Worden commons and it was standing room only. Jeffco101 was present and videotaped the entire meeting. There was an estimated crowd of 225 citizens, which eighty-eight (88) people gave testimony. Eighty (80) percent of the citizens attending were against the new proposed 150' shoreline buffers. "Shorelines" includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands. Some properties in Jefferson County will become unbuildable, crushing the dreams of families, who have lived in the community for decades and were holding their properties for their children and grandchildren, all the while paying taxes on their property at highest and best values.
What Jefferson County has failed to recognize is the number of non-conforming lots, businesses and uses that will be created and the economic impacts, which will likely bankrupt Jefferson County and many of its taxpayers. Today, if you ask Jefferson County the number of non-conforming homes/structures/business and uses, which will result from this proposed 150' setback, Jefferson County doesn't know the answer. This is a failure to conduct proper due diligence by the Board of County Commissioners prior to making this impulsive decision. The planning commission originally proposed, a 50' setback. The BOCC has made the decision themselves to change the standard to 150'. Three County Commissioners (Austin, Sullivan and Johnson) with significantly less knowledge and understanding of the issue supersede and decide to overrules the Planning Commission - the very group that has worked on and studied the issue in great detail. This is an insult to the planning process and the citizens of Jefferson County.
This will be financially catastrophic for Jefferson County and its employees. Here's why. What the board of County Commissioners has overlooked is that once the property owner/user becomes non-conforming and the property owner appeals any county enforcement action, a Hearing Examiner (HE) will hear the case. This will be the same for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The HE will be appointed at the cost to the county to the tune of $3 - $5K per case/hearing. In SSNW case, I would estimate that HE cost was $20-25K. After the hearing, the landowner/user will have the right to appeal to Superior Court. Again, Jefferson County will need to bear the cost of defending its decision in court adding additional burden to the Prosecutors office. The Risk Pool, which insures Jefferson County, will NOT pick up the cost of the hearing examiner or the appeal to Superior Court unless the land owner is seeking damages. In other words, don't file your damage claim until your land use action is final otherwise you will be fighting 28 combined counties (The Risk Pool) instead of one. Also, be mindful of your statute of limitation with regards to the timing of your damage claim.
The term non-conforming was used throughout the DOE hearing and no one knows the word better then Joe D'Amico, President of Security Services NW (SSNW). The dispute regarding SSNW on Discovery Bay is all about SSNW's non-conforming status. And has cost SSNW over $800K to defend its self. Anyone who becomes non-conforming through this proposed regulation can expect future litigation, physical and mental stress, and even be threatened with possible criminal action if you fail to comply under UDC 18.50, not to mention being dragged through the press. Even though all through the hearing DOE representatives said you can " carry on with what you got ", it's not what the county attorneys will use against you in court (see below).
The following was taken from a Jefferson County brief filed against SSNW on March 8, 2006
....Not surprisingly, the Hearing Examiner determined that SSNW had not established
itself as a lawful nonconforming use. In Washington, nonconforming uses are disfavored.
Rhod-A-Zalea v. Snohomish County, 136 Wn.2d 1, 959 P.2d 1024 (1998). Therefore, it is
the landowner's burden when confronted with an enforcement action to prove a lawful
nonconforming use which existed prior to the adoption of the land use regulation. State v.
County of Pierce, 65 Wn. App. 614, 623-24, 829 P.2d 217 (1992).
DATED this 8th day of March, 2006.
JEFFERSON COUNTY'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO STAY - 15
#572974 vI /30313-015
Mark R. Johnsen, W BA #11080
Of Karr Tuttle Campbell
Attorneys for Defendant
Jefferson County
l,ulI' ()ffices
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
...are you getting a warm and fuzzy feeling regarding non-conforming
Note: Kitsap Superior Court later found that SSNW did have a legal non-conforming use reversing the contracted Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Irv Berteig
Once the burden of legal non-conforming falls in your lap, it's up to you to prove your non-conforming use. In the eyes of Jefferson County this will mean written proof not verbal testimony, which they historically argue has no standing in an administrative proceeding. In other words you are proven guilty until YOU prove otherwise. Also, if you should abandon your use for more than two (2) years (UDC 18.20.260 sec. 1a), you lose your non-conforming status. This element the county needs to prove. Bottom line, becoming non-conforming adds risk to your property for the purpose of resale, use and enjoyment. It perked my ears when I heard Jeffree Stuart say " carry on with what you got ". What this means to me is not one change or increase in use, which is also in the Jefferson County code. In the eyes of Jefferson County an increase in the quality of a service is a change/increase, which means you would be legal. The citizens of Jefferson County should request in writing, from DCD, that their property/use is a "Lawful non-conforming use", if and when this proposed rule is adopted. What Jefferson County tried to do with SSNW was to say that SSNW was non-conforming but not a Lawful non-conforming use. Remember the Hearing Examiner that hears your case is contracted by Jefferson County.
Another mindful point regarding non-conforming uses. Once the masses are put to rest, it's easier to pick you off one non-conforming use at a time. Better to fight now with your neighbor or forever hold your peace.
These comments are not to be intended as legal advice and its worth what you paid for it.
Port Townsend, WA - On April 20, 2010, the Washington State Department of Ecology held an Open House and Public Hearing regarding proposed changes to Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, which will likely result in the biggest land grab in Jefferson County history since the inception of the National Parks. Currently Jefferson County has a 35' setback and the Board of County Commissioners (Austin, Sullivan and Johnson) is proposing 150' setback. What was most noticeable was the lack of media coverage during the hearing. The hearing was held at the Fort Worden commons and it was standing room only. Jeffco101 was present and videotaped the entire meeting. There was an estimated crowd of 225 citizens, which eighty-eight (88) people gave testimony. Eighty (80) percent of the citizens attending were against the new proposed 150' shoreline buffers. "Shorelines" includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands. Some properties in Jefferson County will become unbuildable, crushing the dreams of families, who have lived in the community for decades and were holding their properties for their children and grandchildren, all the while paying taxes on their property at highest and best values.
What Jefferson County has failed to recognize is the number of non-conforming lots, businesses and uses that will be created and the economic impacts, which will likely bankrupt Jefferson County and many of its taxpayers. Today, if you ask Jefferson County the number of non-conforming homes/structures/business and uses, which will result from this proposed 150' setback, Jefferson County doesn't know the answer. This is a failure to conduct proper due diligence by the Board of County Commissioners prior to making this impulsive decision. The planning commission originally proposed, a 50' setback. The BOCC has made the decision themselves to change the standard to 150'. Three County Commissioners (Austin, Sullivan and Johnson) with significantly less knowledge and understanding of the issue supersede and decide to overrules the Planning Commission - the very group that has worked on and studied the issue in great detail. This is an insult to the planning process and the citizens of Jefferson County.
This will be financially catastrophic for Jefferson County and its employees. Here's why. What the board of County Commissioners has overlooked is that once the property owner/user becomes non-conforming and the property owner appeals any county enforcement action, a Hearing Examiner (HE) will hear the case. This will be the same for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The HE will be appointed at the cost to the county to the tune of $3 - $5K per case/hearing. In SSNW case, I would estimate that HE cost was $20-25K. After the hearing, the landowner/user will have the right to appeal to Superior Court. Again, Jefferson County will need to bear the cost of defending its decision in court adding additional burden to the Prosecutors office. The Risk Pool, which insures Jefferson County, will NOT pick up the cost of the hearing examiner or the appeal to Superior Court unless the land owner is seeking damages. In other words, don't file your damage claim until your land use action is final otherwise you will be fighting 28 combined counties (The Risk Pool) instead of one. Also, be mindful of your statute of limitation with regards to the timing of your damage claim.
The term non-conforming was used throughout the DOE hearing and no one knows the word better then Joe D'Amico, President of Security Services NW (SSNW). The dispute regarding SSNW on Discovery Bay is all about SSNW's non-conforming status. And has cost SSNW over $800K to defend its self. Anyone who becomes non-conforming through this proposed regulation can expect future litigation, physical and mental stress, and even be threatened with possible criminal action if you fail to comply under UDC 18.50, not to mention being dragged through the press. Even though all through the hearing DOE representatives said you can " carry on with what you got ", it's not what the county attorneys will use against you in court (see below).
The following was taken from a Jefferson County brief filed against SSNW on March 8, 2006
....Not surprisingly, the Hearing Examiner determined that SSNW had not established
itself as a lawful nonconforming use. In Washington, nonconforming uses are disfavored.
Rhod-A-Zalea v. Snohomish County, 136 Wn.2d 1, 959 P.2d 1024 (1998). Therefore, it is
the landowner's burden when confronted with an enforcement action to prove a lawful
nonconforming use which existed prior to the adoption of the land use regulation. State v.
County of Pierce, 65 Wn. App. 614, 623-24, 829 P.2d 217 (1992).
DATED this 8th day of March, 2006.
JEFFERSON COUNTY'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO STAY - 15
#572974 vI /30313-015
Mark R. Johnsen, W BA #11080
Of Karr Tuttle Campbell
Attorneys for Defendant
Jefferson County
l,ulI' ()ffices
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
...are you getting a warm and fuzzy feeling regarding non-conforming
Note: Kitsap Superior Court later found that SSNW did have a legal non-conforming use reversing the contracted Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Irv Berteig
Once the burden of legal non-conforming falls in your lap, it's up to you to prove your non-conforming use. In the eyes of Jefferson County this will mean written proof not verbal testimony, which they historically argue has no standing in an administrative proceeding. In other words you are proven guilty until YOU prove otherwise. Also, if you should abandon your use for more than two (2) years (UDC 18.20.260 sec. 1a), you lose your non-conforming status. This element the county needs to prove. Bottom line, becoming non-conforming adds risk to your property for the purpose of resale, use and enjoyment. It perked my ears when I heard Jeffree Stuart say " carry on with what you got ". What this means to me is not one change or increase in use, which is also in the Jefferson County code. In the eyes of Jefferson County an increase in the quality of a service is a change/increase, which means you would be legal. The citizens of Jefferson County should request in writing, from DCD, that their property/use is a "Lawful non-conforming use", if and when this proposed rule is adopted. What Jefferson County tried to do with SSNW was to say that SSNW was non-conforming but not a Lawful non-conforming use. Remember the Hearing Examiner that hears your case is contracted by Jefferson County.
Another mindful point regarding non-conforming uses. Once the masses are put to rest, it's easier to pick you off one non-conforming use at a time. Better to fight now with your neighbor or forever hold your peace.
These comments are not to be intended as legal advice and its worth what you paid for it.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Letter to Philip Morley
Security Services NW
P.O. Box 660
Port Townsend WA 98368
1-800-859-3463
February 19, 2010
Mr. Philip Morley, Administrator
Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: Gun Range Licenses
Dear Mr. Morley,
During the past few weeks there has been discussion regarding the Jefferson County Sportsmen Club in Port Townsend. Much has been said regarding possible noise issues and how they are currently operating with a "Special License" granted by the Jefferson County Commissioners. I have spent plenty of time reviewing the UDC and other county materials over the past five years, regarding our own shooting range, and I have yet to see any special license provisions to operate a shooting facility.
SSNW would like to know how and where to apply for such a license. Please also advise me of any fees which might be associated with such a license. I would also like to know the hours of operation and zoning requirement for such a license and who oversees such activities for compliance matters and how these issues are measured.
SSNW resides in a less densely populated area and we are also a legal non-conforming shooting range like the Sportsmen Club, although we are entirely different geographically. For example, a one mile circle around SSNW gun ranges includes no structures other than our facility and immediate property owners. SSNW has analyzed the Jefferson County Sportsmen club and found 261 structures within one circular mile of their shooting range facility.
If anyone should be allowed to operate under a "Special License" it should be SSNW. Again, please let me know how to apply for this license.
Respectfully,
Joseph N. D'Amico, President
Security Services NW
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
