HomeMy WebLinkAbout76- Roa CommentsPomona Woods Project, MLA21-00066 – Objections
1-Project review should be addressed by County staff with more experience. County Planning reviewwas performed by staff with limited experience for such a large, difficult, and multifaceted developmentproposal.
2-The proposed project will be setting a precedent. It is impossible that it would not be setting aprecedent.
3-This PRECEDENT is a critical step that will open the door to future speculation and be detrimental tothe area’s rural, quiet and peaceful natural character.
4-The proposed facility will increase traffic volume and safety concerns of the Oak Bay Road corridorbetween Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow – an 8.5 mile stretch of County Road that is dangerous speedingzone. It is especially dangerous especially in the 2 miles where the proposed entrance to the proposedhotel is located because it is a long stretch of straight road in a 50 mph zone.
5-The proposed development lots are classified as: 1 Unit RR1-5 and 1-20 RR:RR20.
Below is a quote definition from JCC Title 18 - Unified Development Code (UDC) , Ch.18.15 Land Use Districts
(c)Rural Residential 1 Unit/20 Acres (RR 1:20). The purpose of this district is to provide a
buffer in areas adjacent to UGAs and designated forest and agricultural lands of long-term
commercial significance, as well as protecting areas identified as possessing area-wide
environmental features which constrain development such as shoreline areas or areas of
steep and unstable slopes. The district also protects land from premature conversion to
higher residential densities prior to an established need.
This Section of the UDC is clear in purpose and intent: Protection from premature and unnecessary
development unless a need has been studied, determined and therefore, established, as a high priority
in the County housing market - and If there is an established housing need - it will be for single family
dwellings rather than for “Boutique Hotels” or “retreats”.
In my opinion, approval of the CUP for this development in a residential area will set a precedent
favoring wealthy speculative developers. In addition, I believe it stretches the boundaries of CUP, and
really should be considered for a ZONING VARIANCE. There are so many “best practices” associated
with the CUP that are fairly unenforceable (are actually wishful thing, i.e. visitors will carpool in, and not
go out of property), and Jefferson County certainly does not have the resources to enforce light, noise
infractions, etc.
These comments do not address other impact to the area and its residents. These include reduced
quality of life, safety and financial loss, environmental and ecological impact and destruction of the wild
life and forest, possibility of contamination to the shore line and its environs and marine life.
Exhibit 76
Exhibit 76 Page 1030