Are you increasing the set back to 50 feet? WHY?

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I submit this as my comment to the proposed SED

 

Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

George C. Rains Sr. Estate

Member SMP Advisory Committee

 

 

PROPOSED # 2  FRESHWATER RESIDENTIAL

Like Lake Sutherland

I thought the set back was 35 feet?

Are you increasing the set back to 50 feet? WHY?

Prohibited or discouraged use

Armoring, except when single family residence is in imminent danger.

BY Law there is NO mention of the words” imminent or danger or soft armoring”

IN FACT THE LAW STATES, SHALL PROVIDE FOR METHODS TO achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage.

 

Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

Read on if you are interested

 

PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

Protection of single family residences

2

RCW 90.58.100

(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as

construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection.

 

The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.

 

The standards shall provide a preference for permit

issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the

proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

Comments are closed.