HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog092
--
'. jli\~:-
~\ p \'
~ ~ (~ ,. \,\\J
t'j<:( . C~J .'
U, William D. Weir
87 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
LOG \lEM
# q~ .-
"aoe-L-of~
Telephone 360.437.4154
Cell 818.292.5111
trellis@ix.netcom.com
May 2, 2004
Mr. Al Scalf, Director
Jefferson County Community Development Department
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 93368
Dear Mr. Scalf,
RAY --4 2004
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
I am writing, as a homeowner and full-time resident of Port Ludlow, to protest the plan to extend
the existing docks of the Port Ludlow marina in a westerly direction along the shoreline. My
objection points not to issues of water quality or preservation of marine wildlife, but rather to
common-law issues of view, personal rights to enjoyment of one's residence, and preservation of
property values in the Port Ludlow community. In addition, I will raise issues of marine safety
and need for the expansion project.
I recently purchased the property at 87 Scott Court, the furthest from the marina of the four
developed properties in the Great Scott and Oak Bay Short Plat sections. My property, at the
west end of this group of four waterfront properties, on Lot 1 of the Oak Bay Short Plat, is
approximately twice the distance from the existing docks as the property at the east end of this
group of properties, which is owned by Grant and Lori Colby. It is their property which includes
the private dock labeled "Scott Dock" on the drawings for the proposed marina extension, and
which bears the greatest impact of the proposed project, however I feel that my property interest
will also be negatively impacted.
The Scott Court properties are attractive as residences, not because they include a tidal zone, but
because of their dominant and unobstructed water views. Having just purchased my property in
January, I can attest that my choice of it, and my willingness to pay a price for it which
substantially exceeds the value that such a home would have in a non-view situation, depended
entirely on its unobstructed water-view. Had the view been obstructed as is threatened by the
proposed extension to the marina, I would certainly not have purchased this property, except at a
much lower price, and I probably would not have purchased it at all. And please note that my
property is the least affected of the four properties of Scott Court.
I think it should be very clear to everyone that the view obstruction, increased noise, and water-
quality degradation which would be produced by the proposed marina buildout will substantially
reduce the value of these properties. And it seems unreasonable to me that a developer should be
permitted to pursue a project with this effect without compensating property owners for the
losses which they will certainly suffer. There simply has been no legal process here, and we
must see this plan as an attempt to seize a revenue and profit advantage for the marina at the
expense of area homeowners' property values and these homeowners' enj oyment of their
property. Furthermore, this proposed buildout, in front of residential property, seems to violate
the planning goal of separation of commercial and residential areas of the community.
,.#.
1~ ~
Second, it should be understood that the proposed extension of the existing docks toward the
Scott Dock owned by the Colbys poses significant marine-safety issues. Over the past three
months, I have frequently observed vessels moving into and out of the marina to closely
approach the Colby's dock. While the 120-foot "fairway" distance to which EIS reports refer is
appropriate for access along the lanes of a marina, it is not a sufficient corridor for access to the
primary waterway in my opinion. I hope the Commission will reconsider the practicality of
westward extension of the docks as provided in this buildout plan, in the interest of marine
safety.
Finally, there is a question to be raised about the need for 100 additional slips at the marina.
While it may be that 100 slips could be filled, over time, it is not clear that the recreational values
afforded the larger community by this extension would be significant. As anyone in the boating
community of Port Ludlow knows very well, the levels of use ofthe boats in leased slips in this
marina is very low, much lower than in other Puget Sound marinas. This reflects Port Ludlow's
demographics, its affluent and aging population which tends to retain boats which are used less
and less by their owners as years pass. The Port Ludlow population can afford more slips than
Port Ludlow Bay could ever accommodate, and it makes sense to limit marina growth to a level
commensurate with active boat usage. Arguably, the marina is at, and may even at present
exceed, a reasonable scale, by this standard. It might be that perceived pressures for additional
slips could be relieved by an active brokerage to enable sale of resident boats, which are inactive,
by their owners.
On the other hand, it may be that some marina growth is inevitable as the community's
population increases with further development. In my view the alternative to extend the marina
outward into Ludlow Bay, rather than along the shoreline as proposed, would not have the
negative consequences which I have expressed above. Residential noise pollution, degradation
of water quality, and view occlusion would all be far less with this alternative than with the
proposed shoreline extension. Even with this preferred alternative, the residents of the Scott
Court properties, and many of the residents of the North Bay Condominiums as well, would
suffer slight obstruction of our views, but this impact would be much less than with the proposed
plan, and these burdens would be shared more equitably among all residents of the north shore of
Port Ludlow Bay.
I hope the Community Development Department will carefully consider these concerns, and that
it will schedule public hearings after May 25, when it will be possible for me to attend.
Sincerely,
~W~
William D. Weir
Copy: Mr. Larry Nobles, Chair, Community Development Committee
Port Ludlow Village Council
81 Harms Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
I1AY -4 20M
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD