HomeMy WebLinkAbout76a- Roa Hearing Comments 092620221
Amanda Hunt
From:Amanda Hunt
Sent:Monday, September 26, 2022 3:37 PM
To:Barbara Ehrlichman; Laura Mikelson
Cc:Courtney Kaylor
Subject:FW: Pomona Woods Comments
Attachments:Pomona Woods Notes.docx
G. Roa comments.
Amanda Hunt
Assistant Planner
ahunt@co.jefferson.wa.us
From: G R <geroa177@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 3:33 PM
To: Amanda Hunt <AHunt@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>; sidles@bnd‐law.com
Subject: Pomona Woods Comments
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you
are not expecting them.
Re. MLA21‐00066, Pomona Woods, LLC, Applicant
As an Oak Bay Rd resident, less than 1/2 mile from the subject proposed development, please enter my
comments into the record for the Hearings Examiner. The Public Hearings were published to take place for 3
days with no associated schedule. It was my understanding that public comments on the CUP were limited to
only a few hours this morning.
Thank you for your attention,
G. Roa
Exhibit 76a
Exhibit 76a Page 0001
Pomona Woods Project, MLA21-00066 – Objections 1- Project review should be addressed by County staff with more experience. County Planning review was performed by staff with limited experience for such a large, difficult, and multifaceted development proposal. 2- The proposed project will be setting a precedent. It is impossible that it would not be setting a precedent. 3- This PRECEDENT is a critical step that will open the door to future speculation and be detrimental to the area’s rural, quiet and peaceful natural character. 4- The proposed facility will increase traffic volume and safety concerns of the Oak Bay Road corridor between Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow – an 8.5 mile stretch of County Road that is dangerous speeding zone. It is especially dangerous especially in the 2 miles where the proposed entrance to the proposed hotel 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 76a Page 0002