Bainbridge Island SMP Hearing Tuesday 10:00 AM – at City Hall

The hearing before the Growth Management Hearing Board on Bainbridge’s SMP will be help at City Hall on Tuesday 24th at 10:00.

The petitioners, Preserve Responsible Shoreline Management, are asking the GMHB to invalidate Bainbridge’s SMP.

See the BI SMP Petitioners’ Reply Brief for summary of the arguments.

THIS SMP IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED, CONFUSING, CONTRADICTORY AND VAGUE

  • The Claim that the Phrase “Existing Development” is Code for “Nonconforming” is Contrary to Rules of Construction and is Confusing at Best
  • City Approval for Every Human Activity is Overbroad, Vague and Inconsistent with the Priority and Exemption from Permits recognized in the SMA
  • Vague Provisions of the SMP are not Sufficient in Scope and Detail.
  • The Scope of Policies for Shorelines of Statewide Significance (SSWS) is Now Even More Confusing
  • The Scope of Critical Areas is Confusing

THE SMP IS THE RESULT OF SERIOUS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FAILURES

  • The City’s Provision of Notice and Information was Flawed fusing Best.
  • The City Failed to Provide Meaningful Response to Public Comment
  • The City Ignored Conflicting Scientific Information

THIS SMP IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED

  • The SMP Violates the Priority and Permit Exemption for Single Family Residential Uses
  • The Vegetation Standards Impermissibly Apply to Existing Residential Uses
  • This SMP Includes Improper Shoreline Designations.
  • The Board has Jurisdiction to Review the SMP for Consistency and the SMP as it Now Stands is Inconsistent.

Copies of all the case documents can be found at   http://prsm-bi.org

Advertisements

One response to “Bainbridge Island SMP Hearing Tuesday 10:00 AM – at City Hall

  1. PRSM’s attorney Dick Stephens made several major points in his presentation to the GMHB on Tuesday
    1. The City does not have the power to make new “criminal” violations of the SMP, because the SMA is state law and only the state a can create criminal code for SMA.

    2. SMP is inconsistent with Bainbridge’s Comp Plan

    3. SMP cannot retroactively regulate landscaping of existing houses

    4. The Science (feed lots and commercial farming) used was not evaluated in relationship to residential uses.

    5. City can’t define all existing development (houses and yards) as nonconforming, because that would be retroactive application of new buffers

    6. City failed to give proper notice for all but the last public hearing.

    7. City does not have authority to ban docks over 95% of the outside of the Island.

    We should have a ruling in 30 to 60 days.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s