----- Original Message -----From: ken shockTo: E SCc: DENNIS SCHULTZ ; NORM MCCLOUD ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; JIM BOYER GOP ; Jim Hagen ; DENNIS SCHULTZ ; email@example.com ; Mike Belinski ; JIM FRITZ ; ASM Inc ; Bud Schindler ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; CRAIG DURGAN ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; SOKOL BOB ; SICKEL GEORGE ; RICHARD HILD ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.comSent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:27 PMSubject: Re: State review continuesThis should be done in the form of a legal demand letter from the attorneys of either OSF, or CAPR - or both - and delivered to the each of the BOCC, personally !
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, E S <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
If Michelle is making substantive comments as an employee facilitator of the county/DOE then the process is obviously flawed. It also is blatantly obvious that Michelle's job is to skew the process into whatever the county commissioners and DOE thinks it should be.
For a public employee this is highly unethical if not also illegal.
Since we still live in the USA and "We the People" takes precedent and not -"we the bureaucrats" or "we the politicians" all comments must be made public ASAP!
RCW 90.58.090 among others that Jim Hagen found obviously will have legal ramification?
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; MBelenski@aol.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; RichHild@olypen.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.comSubject: Re: FW: State review continuesDate: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:27:57 -0700
Ken, you are right. The County must make Michelle's comments available and allow comment on them. State agencies allow comments to be submitted, but do not make their replies available until it is too late to respond back. Kind of a parent-child relationship, "I don't want to hear your excuses, we're doing it because 'I said so' "----- Original Message -----From: ken shockCc: Scott ; Jim Boyer ; jim hagen ; Dennis Schultz ; Joe D'Amico ; MIKE BELENSKI ; Jim Fritz ; ASM INC ; Bud Schindler ; Larry Carter ; Craig Durgan ; ron ewart ; Jack Venrick ; Bob Sokol ; George Sickel ; Richard Hild ; Suzanne Martin ; ellen grus ; Edel Sokel ; Bob LawheadSent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:41 PMSubject: Re: FW: State review continues"1. The County is currently working to provide Ecology some feedback on the issues raised by the 300+ comment letters received during the state-wide public comment period. "OK, why was the comment period state wide ??? Oh, I know, everyone on the planet has an interest in MY PROPERTY !Why can our 'County' (who else but - Michelle?) provide DOE with 'some feedback' after the comment period ended ??The County is US, WE THE PEOPLE - not Michelle. We have spoken and she has no right to clarify or 'feedback' - ANYTHING. (we should demand copies of everything she fed back)This is especially true because she is paid from a state DOE grant - a very incestuous situation !! Why is a defacto state employee representing the property owners of Jefferson County who pay the property taxes and who are being hurt by this SMP ?? (essentially DOE represents the county in DOE decision making)As far as I am concerned Michelle's actions reopen the comment process and roll back the timeline, otherwise we are denied equal protection as guaranteed by the 14th amendment! Our comments have not been protected from her SPIN !Ken
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Norman MacLeod <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
From: Michelle McConnell [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:15 PM
To: Michelle McConnell
Subject: SMP: State review continues
Greetings & Happy Summer Interested Parties!
The State’s review of our Locally Approved SMP (LA-SMP) continues with WA Department of Ecology:
1. The County is currently working to provide Ecology some feedback on the issues raised by the 300+ comment letters received during the state-wide public comment period.
2. After our Response to Comments is submitted to Ecology (within the next month or so), Ecology will prepare their Findings and Conclusions along with their decision to A) approve; B) approve with required changes; or C) deny the SMP. If changes are required, some dialogue may be required to find complete agreement between the State and the County.
3. After Ecology approval, the final step is for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the new SMP by ordinance as new components of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.
So while the process is moving forward, we still have a few months to go before final adoption and the new SMP takes effect. Stay tuned… this email list will continue to receive project updates.
You may have seen the recent articles in last week’s Leader newspaper – a few points of clarification are needed:
· Buffers & Setbacks – While it may seem a finer point, there is a difference between the terms buffers and setbacks as proposed by the LA-SMP. The 150-foot distance proposed is a standard shoreline buffer for stream/river and marine shorelines that fall under SMP jurisdiction. There are separate 5-foot side-yard and 10-foot building setbacks proposed as well. Far from a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, the LA-SMP also proposes 6 options to adjust the standard shoreline buffer when specific situations arise.
The current SMP has only requires setbacks: 30 to 100-feet for residential and a minimum of 15-feet for commercial and urban development. The County’s Critical Areas Ordinance has included a 150-foot buffer for fish & wildlife habitat conservation areas since early-2008, and has successfully withstood legal challenge. The City of Port Townsend SMP requires buffers that range from 50 to 200-feet. Other jurisdictions around Puget Sound also have 150-foot buffers in place (e.g. Whatcom County).
· SMP jurisdiction – Not all shoreline areas in the county meet the statutory definition for ‘Shoreline of the State’. The SMP will apply to all shorelines that meet the criteria for SMP jurisdiction. Lakes less than 20 acres in size, rivers/streams with less than 20 cubic feet per second mean annual flow, and lands under federal or tribal ownership do not qualify.
Thanks for your continued interest,
No reply to this message is required. You have received this message as a member of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Interested Parties Email Distribution List. If you do not wish to receive further project notices, reply to this message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Anyone who wants to be added to the list may send an email with "SUBSCRIBE" as the subject and body text. Please note: Recipient names and email addresses are not shown to keep that information private.
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner - LRP Lead
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Long Range Planning Division
621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368
MAIN 360.379.4450 DIRECT 360.379.4484 FAX 360.379.4473
OFFICE OPEN: 9:00 a - 4:30 p Monday - Thursday; Closed Friday
All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW and as such may be viewed by parties other than the intended recipient.
P SAVE PAPER - Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started.