From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Kaufman, Cary S., M.D.
Council
Resend a different verswion of the Letter for Council Meeting May 17, 2016 regarding Chapter 9
Monday, May 16, 2016 11:29:29 PM
RRMA comments from Kaufman pdf.pdf
mg_info.txt
Hello County Council,
I appreciate your review of my letter regarding the RRMA discussion. I was told that some could not
open the attachment, so I include my letter as an attached pdf version and copied and paste as follows:
May 16, 2016
REGARDING: Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9, Recreation:
RECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS
Dear County Council,
We feel that the Squalicum Mountain properties should be excluded from the RRMA document.
The RRMA are defined as “large undeveloped parcels of land” which are the targets of this effort. Yet,
there is no clear definition of “large” or “undeveloped” or “parcels of land” in the document. I submit
that Squalicum Mountain does not fit this target of this RRMA and should be excluded. These are the
reasons I would submit:
NO DEFINITION OF “LARGE”. How do you define “large”? Most of Squalicum Mountain is 5 or 10 acre
sites with a few 20 acre sites for sale at the top of the mountain. None of these parcels would be
considered large by any park standards. Yet it seems as though the County wishes to define swaths of
land that cross many parcels of privately owned property to “create” large parcels of land. We have
definite private borders between all these parcels and arbitrarily adding parcels together is not the
intention of the RRMA concept. Most of the sites that are considered have forestry land adjacent to the
proposed RRMA’s. Not so with Squalicum Mountain. There is no adjacent forestry land, only population
and houses. The other mountain areas are much closer to forestry land which blends the RRMA’s to
forests. We feel there are no “large” parcels of land on Squalicum Mountain and thus we should not be
included in this RRMA.
NO DEFINITION OF “UNDEVELOPED”. How do you define “undeveloped”? Since all the land of
Squalicum Mountain is owned by private citizens, each parcel is or has been developed in the fashion
desired by the owners. If we have developed the land as a series of trails and paths for personal use, is
that undeveloped? You discount this development with the comment that some of these parcels will
contain extensive trail systems. If we mow grass and trim trees and move trees that have fallen and
create trails for personal use, is that undeveloped? Isnt’ the term “extensive trail systems” a synonym
for “developed” not “undeveloped”? If we have spent thousands of dollars to purchase land that we
wish to serve as scenic areas near our homes, is that undeveloped or is it garden? For Squalicum
Mountain, there is no significant land that is undeveloped but it is all purchased with existing plans for
personal use. Because there is no “undeveloped” land according to our definition, we do not feel
Squalicum Mountain falls into this guideline.
LACK OF RECOGNITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. We are concerned
with the minimal comments to private property. Early you mention that the property may or may not
be in public ownership. Yet you don’t state AT THAT POINT that the rights of the private citizen who
owns the property has the ultimate decision making authority as to whether the land participates in the
RRMA or not. That should be added at the same time when you imply “access” for the county to public
or private land.
LACK OF DEFINITION OF “CONTINUED MONITORING”. The RRMA is suggested to “continue to monitor
existing trail systems . . . and when designing future trails, consider compatibility of a wide range of
uses.” This may mean that private land owners will have to get permits to create paths and trials on
their own property or other permissions beyond the existing permits and guidelines. This creates
another layer beyond the existing restrictions for the environment which limit many options as it is. We
would want a statement that private property owners will maintain authority of their own property and
nothing in this document should limit or impede development by private owners on their own property. We are concerned that interpretation of this statement might mean that ongoing development of private
land will need to comply with some RRMA requirement which is contrary to the private land owners plan
for the property. Where is the safeguards to unreasonable restrictions to development beyond existing
restrictions in the code.
PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS MINIMALLY STATED. We are concerned that the LAST item in
the RRMA is a comment to state that this is voluntary for privately owned property. We believe that
individuals who have spent great amount of financial and personal effort to obtain property should have
existing property rights that supersede any County intrusion into personal property, especially on
Squalicum Mountain.
In summary, Squalicum Mountain is not the type of property which would fall into the RRMA’s as
intended or written. We feel this document takes private property owners rights away and can be
interpreted in its current form. We wish to exclude Squalicum Mountain from this document.
Sincerely yours,
Cary S. Kaufman
Cary S. Kaufman, MD, FACS
Associate Clinical Professor of Surgery
Bellingham Regional Breast Center
2940 Squalicum Parkway, Suite 101
Bellingham, WA 98225
Phone: (360) 671-9877
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Web: www.carykaufman.com<http://www.carykaufman.com>
________________________________
From: Kaufman, Cary S., M.D.
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 3:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Letter for Council Meeting May 17, 2016 regarding Chapter 9
Dear County Council,
Please see my letter regarding Chapter 9, RRMA comments.
Thank you,
Cary Kaufman
Cary S. Kaufman, MD, FACS
Associate Clinical Professor of Surgery
Bellingham Regional Breast Center
2940 Squalicum Parkway, Suite 101
Bellingham, WA 98225
Phone: (360) 671-9877
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Web: www.carykaufman.com<http://www.carykaufman.com>
Cary S. Kaufman
2065 Squalicum Mountain Road
Bellingham, Washington 98226
May 16, 2016
REGARDING: Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9, Recreation:
RECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS
Dear County Council,
We feel that the Squalicum Mountain properties should be excluded from the RRMA
document.
The RRMA are defined as “large undeveloped parcels of land” which are the targets of
this effort. Yet, there is no clear definition of “large” or “undeveloped” or “parcels of
land” in the document. I submit that Squalicum Mountain does not fit this target of this
RRMA and should be excluded. These are the reasons I would submit:
NO DEFINITION OF “LARGE”. How do you define “large”? Most of Squalicum
Mountain is 5 or 10 acre sites with a few 20 acre sites for sale at the top of the
mountain. None of these parcels would be considered large by any park standards. Yet
it seems as though the County wishes to define swaths of land that cross many parcels
of privately owned property to “create” large parcels of land. We have definite private
borders between all these parcels and arbitrarily adding parcels together is not the
intention of the RRMA concept. Most of the sites that are considered have forestry
land adjacent to the proposed RRMA’s. Not so with Squalicum Mountain. There is no
adjacent forestry land, only population and houses. The other mountain areas are much
closer to forestry land which blends the RRMA’s to forests. We feel there are no
“large” parcels of land on Squalicum Mountain and thus we should not be included in
this RRMA.
NO DEFINITION OF “UNDEVELOPED”. How do you define “undeveloped”?
Since all the land of Squalicum Mountain is owned by private citizens, each parcel is or
has been developed in the fashion desired by the owners. If we have developed the
land as a series of trails and paths for personal use, is that undeveloped? You discount
this development with the comment that some of these parcels will contain extensive
trail systems. If we mow grass and trim trees and move trees that have fallen and create
trails for personal use, is that undeveloped? Isnt’ the term “extensive trail systems” a
synonym for “developed” not “undeveloped”? If we have spent thousands of dollars to
purchase land that we wish to serve as scenic areas near our homes, is that undeveloped
or is it garden? For Squalicum Mountain, there is no significant land that is
undeveloped but it is all purchased with existing plans for personal use. Because there
is no “undeveloped” land according to our definition, we do not feel Squalicum
Mountain falls into this guideline.
LACK OF RECOGNITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THE
DOCUMENT. We are concerned with the minimal comments to private property.
Early you mention that the property may or may not be in public ownership. Yet you
don’t state AT THAT POINT that the rights of the private citizen who owns the
property has the ultimate decision making authority as to whether the land participates
in the RRMA or not. That should be added at the same time when you imply “access”
for the county to public or private land.
LACK OF DEFINITION OF “CONTINUED MONITORING”. The RRMA is
suggested to “continue to monitor existing trail systems . . . and when designing future
trails, consider compatibility of a wide range of uses.” This may mean that private land
owners will have to get permits to create paths and trials on their own property or other
permissions beyond the existing permits and guidelines. This creates another layer
beyond the existing restrictions for the environment which limit many options as it is.
We would want a statement that private property owners will maintain authority of their
own property and nothing in this document should limit or impede development by
private owners on their own property. We are concerned that interpretation of this
statement might mean that ongoing development of private land will need to comply
with some RRMA requirement which is contrary to the private land owners plan for the
property. Where is the safeguards to unreasonable restrictions to development beyond
existing restrictions in the code.
PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS MINIMALLY STATED. We are
concerned that the LAST item in the RRMA is a comment to state that this is voluntary
for privately owned property. We believe that individuals who have spent great amount
of financial and personal effort to obtain property should have existing property rights
that supersede any County intrusion into personal property, especially on Squalicum
Mountain.
In summary, Squalicum Mountain is not the type of property which would fall
into the RRMA’s as intended or written. We feel this document takes private
property owners rights away and can be interpreted in its current form. We wish
to exclude Squalicum Mountain from this document.
Sincerely yours,
Cary S. Kaufman
Page | 2