The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog076 II LAWYERS 1m Davis Wright Tremaine LLP ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.C. MARCO DE SA E SILVA Direct (206) 628-7766 marcodes aesilva@dwt.com TEL (206) 622-3150 FAX (206) 628-7699 www.dwt.com 2600 CENTURY SQUARE 1501 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688 February 24,2004 FE8 25 200+ JEfFERS.ON COUNTY DCD Via Facsimile No. 360379-4451 and First Class Mail Al Scalf Michelle Farfan Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 LOG ITEM #/l:: Page I _of 3.. Re: Port Ludlow Associates; Plat of Ludlow Bay Village; Impact of Compliance with 1993 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditions on 2004 Applications for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Plat Alteration, and Resort Plan Revision Dear Mr. Scalf and Ms. Farfan: As you know, I represent Port Ludlow Associates, the current owner of the Heron Beach Inn, Port Ludlow Marina, Harbormaster Restaurant, and the vacant lots and parcels within the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village, which is referred to in this letter as the "Resort. I' The Resort was platted and permitted in 1993 and partly developed in 1994. Port Ludlow Associates purchased the Resort in August 2001 and intends to complete the Resort development within the next few years under new permits. I understand that a few individuals within the Port Ludlow community recently have claimed that (1) The current or former owners ofthe Resort have not complied with some ofthe 51 conditions of approval imposed by Jefferson County on May 11, 1993, under Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. SDP91-017, and (2) Jefferson County should not consider any new shoreline substantial development permit application regarding the Resort until the 1993 conditions are satisfied. I am writing to address both claims. SEA 1468735v1 65364-2 Seattle '- 1m . Al Scalf Michelle Farfan February 24,2004 Page 2 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 that the shoreline conditions, which had been incorporated into the preliminary plat conditions, had been fully satisfied (see RCW 58.17.150 and 58.17.170); (2) The individuals did not challenge the County's determination that the shoreline and other conditions were not satisfied within the time limits required (see RCW 58.17.180 and 90.58.180(1)), and their claims therefore are barred 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 staff reports and other records containing determinations that the shoreline conditions were satisfied; (5) To my knowledge, the individuals 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 of noncompliance. Even if there had been unsatisfied conditions 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 noncompliance is a process of notices, hearings, potential fines, potential permit rescission, and potential liability for attorney fees, all as described under RCW 90.58.140(8),90.58.210,90.58.220, 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 under an expired shoreline permit obtained by a prior owner for the same property; (3) The individuals have had ten years to submit formal complaints to the County that the shoreline conditions were not satisfied, to demand that the County prosecute their claims, and to commence litigation to compel the County to prosecute their claims, and their failure to do so in a timely fashion bars their claims under the equitable doctrine oflaches; and (4) The alleged actions or inactions of Pope Resources and Olympic Resorts LLC, which owned the Resort until August 2001, cannot be used to prejudice the rights of Port Ludlow Associates, which did not acquire the Resort until August 2001. The individuals who assert 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. If these 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 about compliance with permit conditions. Under the doctrine of laches, courts have ruled that citizens may not delay interminably bringing complaints about local government land use decisions. See Clark County PUD No.1 v. Wilkinson, 139 Wn.2d 840, 848-849, 991 P.2d 1161 (2000); Buell v. Bremerton, 80 Wn.2d 518, 522-23,495 P.2d 1358 (1972). SEA 1468735v1 65364-2 Seattle 1 . 1m . Al Scalf Michelle Farfan February 24,2004 Page 3 If a single unsatisfied shoreline condition can be identified by these individuals, and if they can persuade the County that additional steps should have been taken to satisfy or to monitor that condition, then the County, the community, and Port Ludlow Associates should learn from that experience in the creation of new conditions of approval of upcoming permit applications for the completion of the Resort. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~J;.=~LL; ~ Marco de Sa e Silva MD:vh cc: County Commissioners David Alvarez Greg McCarry Mark Dorsey SEA 1468735v1 65364-2 Sealtle