The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog075 02/24/2004 12: 16 FAX:~~~372f22 ~ ,.CC'. 'DCD ~<.Jl~ PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES IaI 0011006 FAX COVER SHEET , Number of pages including cover sheet Date: Fe 24,2004 > . . ~~~~rj~t.;~~~~ TO: JetTerson County Board of County Commissioners .FROM: Greg McCarry . Port Ludlow Associates LLC Phone Fax Phone: 385-9382 cc: I REMARKS: D Urgent 70 Breaker Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 Phone 360.437.2101 Fax 360.437.2522 o For your review D Reply ASAP 0 Please Connnent LOG ITEM # I~) }aQe~' ,of 3 ~ lE~IEfIW/IEIDi FE8 2 4 2004 '--' JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS , 1;.0 F; rr\~ ----,->--->- ,. I ;! ~f l ,."1 <..::,~) !IUlI \,n,! j U U: FEB 2 5 2004 I.... . ..-.J ! rlr~'" L~~.:....:." ",.~_~"__,~,y,__~__".____.,__~".._.___,~.._~,~_;.~..,,, Jefferson County Board of County Commissionel'S Jefferson County Courihouse PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Febmary 23. 2004 r~ fE (C, IE << \VI rE 10' FEB 2 4 2004 Dea:c Honmable County Comnrissioners: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A vocal minority within the Port Ludlow Cmmmmity has raised the claim that the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) has been lax in. enforcement of development regula.ti.~ including conditions of permit approval. I bave been a developer within uninCOIpOIated Jefferson County since 1987 and have had a great deal of experience with the DCD. I also have had a similar amount of experience with.the pJa:nning departments in Kitsap and Pierce Counties. ArJ.y planning depatbnent bas a tough job. It is caught between competing and conflicting inkrcsts. It is asked to serve the interests of hmd developers, the :interests ofloca1 residents, and the interests of County government, while its real purpose is to serve the larger interest of the public goocl It is required to enforce and interpret a complex web of regulations - the comprehensive plan, the zoning code, the subdivision code, the SEP A environmental code, the shoreline code, the sensitive area regulations, GMA, and more. That is a tall order in any jurisdiction. But in Jefferson County, the job is tougher. Because the County has a low population and low tax base but a large geogmphic area, the DC!) has scarce Hnancial resources with which to do a great deal of work:. In my opinion, the Den is as strict in enforcement of its development regulations as any similar jurisdiction. In fact, I have many times taken the view that the DCD was too strict or too cautious in either the enforcement or interpretation of the code. For example, within the past two weeks the County decided a procedural issue (involving the decision-making process for a particular type of land use approval) against Port Ludlow Associates. over my objections, even without community input, in what I felt was a strict interpretation of the development regulations. You will not hear me complain about that decision because I know that the DCD is caught in the middle and must serve other constituents than me. Much attention bas been focused recently on a residential lot owner in Port Ludlow who put a boat with a sign on his lot. Also "in the news" is the Wedgewood tree-cutting issue, the mooring buoys and the "S 1 conditions" ;ssued for Pope's shoreline permit. It is my understanding that some oftbese issues may represent mistakes, non-violations or violations that have been com:cted or sunsetted. I assume that the DCD will resolve the issues in due course subject to the priorities of the Department There is a process for resolving land use code violations. The DCD is a group of conscientious, courteous, hard-working professionals. 'They work hard for the COlDlty. I hope that you will stand behind them and give them the credit and tcSpCct that they deserve. 70 BREAKER LANE PoRT LUOLOW. WA 953156 (360)431.2101. FAl((3ISOl437-2522 1 02/24/2004 12:18 FAX 3604372522 .. ,02/24'12004 11: 05 FAX 206 828 7699 PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES DAVIS WRIGHT TREHAlNE ~ 004/006 ~002/004 LA'Ilt'yli!I\.S II Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ANCHouaa BELuvU" LOS ANGeLU Haw YOU rOll,TI-AMD SAN PUNCJSCO SEATtU: SHANGHAI WASHtNOTON, tl.C. KAB.CO DE SA E SU_VA tHreel: (ZD6) 62'-7766 Q1ar~od...eliilTa. dWI-c am ~,oo CENTU"Y SQUAIt.. 1501 l'OU'Jl.TH AV1!NUa SBATTL8. 'WA 98101-Un TBL (.206) 622-3150 FA]l, (206) us-un www.dwl.~Qom February 24" 2004 Jlia Facsimile No. 360379-4451 a1Id F"rrst Ckw M4il AI Scalf Michelle Far18n Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: Port Ludlow Associates; Plat of Ludlow Bay VJllage; IDlpact of Compliance with 1993 Shoreline SubsfaDtial Development Pcmnit Conditions on 2004 Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development Pemrlt, Plat Alteration, and Resort Plan Revision Dear Mr. Scalf and :Ms. Farfan: As }'OU know) I rep.cesent Port Ludlow .Associates, the current owner of the HeI'On Beach Inn, Port Ludlow Marina, Harbormaster R~ IUld the \r8caD.t lots and parcels within the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village, which is referred to in this letter as the "Resort. n The Resort was platted and pennitted in 1993 and partIy developed in 1994. Port Ludlow Associates purchased the Resort in August 2001 aud intends to complete the Resort development within the next few years ~DCW pemrlts. I u.nde.mand that a few individuals within the Port Ludlow community recently have claimed that (1) The CUIIeD.t or former OWX1eJS of the Resort have not complied with SOJllC of the 51 conditions of appIOval imposed by Jefferson County on May 11, 1993~ under Shoreline Substautial Development Pexmit No. SDP91-017, and (2) Jefferson County should not consider any new shoreline substantial development permit application regarding the Resort until the 1993 conditiODS are satisfied. I am writing to address both claims. SEA 146173,Sv1 65364-2 Seattle However, I do wisb to state that, from the perspective of Port Ludlow Associates, the issue of the S 1 conditions that we have beard previously in public meetings is a dead issue. I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent to DCD on PLA's behalf for your information. In the case of the 'boat' sign, I do not see where the violation is. If it is a violation then many others are equally guilty. In the case of the mooring buoys, I Wlderstand the County made an enor and is in the process of . resolving it. For Wedgewood. I \Uldentand that the washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife will and/or has imposed a penalty. For Ludlow Bay Village, I see it as interesting history. Ifmistakes were made in the past then all parties can leam tram them. What all of us can do is resolve to pay more careful attention, but let's move on with all the work that is left to do. ~ - . 'dmdCEO ~ u.LLC y Co; Marco de Sa e Silva File 2 .92/24/2004 12:18 FAX 3604372522 , 02/!4~004 11:05 PAX 206 628 7899 '-' ,"' J PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES DAVIS WRIGHT TRmlAINB IaJ 005/006 tal 003 /004 AI Scalf Michelle Farfim February 24" 2004 Page 2 III The claim that any of the 1993 shoreline conditions were not .satisfied is without merit for several reasons: (1) Final plat approval of the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village was an official and binding determination thai the shoreline conditions, which had been incorporated into the preliminary plat conditi~ bad been 1blIy satisfied (see RCW 58.17.150 and 58.17.170); (2) The iDdividuals did not challenge the County's detennination that the shoreline and. other conditions WeJ:e not satisfied within thetiU1climits required (seeRCW 58.17.180 and 90.58.180(1)), and theirclaUns therefore are batrcd for their failure to exhaust their administrative remedies; (3) Port Ludlow Associates has no knowledge of any unsatisfied conditions; (4) County files for this project likely contain stafftepOlts and other records co1J(Jail'lil\g detenninations that the shoreline conditions were satisfied; (5) To my knowledge, the indiYiduals have not identified any specific conditions that they claim have not been satisfied; and (6) To my knowledge, the individuals have not submitted any evidence ofnoncompJiance. Even if there had been unsatisfied conditiOllS under the 1993 shoreline permit, it would not affect the consideration of subsequent shoreline permit applications for the following reasons: (1) The appropriate :remedy for shoreline non.compIiance is a ptOCeliS of notices, hearings, potential fines, potential permit rescission, and potentia1liability for attorney fees" all as described under RCW 90.58-140(8),9058.210. 90.58.220, and 90.58.230; (2) I am unaware of either code authority or legal precedent that would require or support a local government's refusal to accept and process a new shoreline application even if conditions were not satisfied nnder an expited shoreline permit obtained by a prior own~ for the same property; (3) The individuals have had ten years to submit fonnal complaints to the County that the shoreline conditions were not satisfied, to demand that the County prosecute their clabns" and to commence litigation to compel the County to prosecute their claims, and thek failure to do so in a timely f.ashion bars their olaims under the equitable docl1iDe oflaches; aod (4) The alleged actions or inactions of Pope Resources and Olympic Resorts LLC" which owned the Resort l1Dtil August 2001, cannot be used to prejudice the rights of Port Ludlow Associ~ which did not acquire the Resort until August 2oot. The individuals who 8S8ert these claims would have the County rely on unspecific and unsubstantiated. allegations of events or nonevents ten years ago by one land developer to undermine applications for new land use approvals by another land developer. ICthese individuals had a good faith basis to believe that their claims were valid, then for the sake of themselves and their community they should have taken action long ago rather than generating rumors ten years after the fact. Ten years is too long to wait to complain abont compliance with permit conditiODS. Under the doctrine oftaches, courts have ruled that citiuos may not delay interminably bringing complaints about local government land use decisions. See Clark County PUD No. 1 v. Wi.tkinson. 139 Wn.2d 840, 848-849" 991 P.2d 1161 (2000); Buell v. Bremerlon, 80 Wn.2d 518, 522.23, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972). SlilA 14681JSvl 6S364-2 Sea&tle 02/24/2004 12:18 FAX 3604372522 02/24/2004 11:06 FAX 208 628 7699 PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES DAVIS WRIGIlT TRDAINB .lgJ 006/006 III OO.vo,cr~: , . ~ AlSca1f Michello Fm:fan Febmuy 24,2004 Page 3 iii If a single unsatisfied shoreline condition can be identified by these individuals, and if they can persuade the County that additioual steps should have been taken to satisfy or to monitor that condition, then the County~ the commuoi1;y~ and Port Ludlow Associates should learn from that experience iIa the creation ofnew conditions of approval of upcoming per.mit applications for the completion oCthe Resort. Thank you for your ccmsideration. Sincerely, ~~J;iJ.U; ~ Marco de Sa e Silva MD:vh cc: County CommissioneQ David Alvarez Greg McCarty Mark Dorsey SSA 1'"873SvllSj3GW SeatIIe