HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog136
Page 1 of 1
Michelle Farfan
From: David W. Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 8:12 AM
To: AI Scalf; Michelle Farfan
Subject: FW: Comments re DSEIS/Port Ludlow Resort Plan revision
From: Rosalie Barber [mailto:barbers@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 4:43 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Subject: Comments re DSEIS/Port Ludlow Resort Plan revision
On May 24, 2004 we attended a Port Ludlow town meeting regarding revisions that Port Ludlow
Associates (PLA) is requesting to their original resort plan. At that meeting we received a document
that we construed to indicate that we, as residents of Port Ludlow, had until June 14 to comment on the
proposed revisions. In reading the June issue of the Port Ludlow Voice (which we received this
afternoon), it appears that today is the deadline for those comments. Due to the late hour, our comments
will be briefer, and not as well organized, as we would have liked.
We, like most of the residents of this community purchased our homes with the understanding that the
resort plan was already decided. To find that it may now be possible for the developer to increase the
population density of the resort area is appalling to us. Since our first visit to Port Ludlow several years
ago, we have noticed a dramatic decline in the number and variety of water birds that visit the area. We
believe that the development that has taken place during that time is at least partly to blame for this loss.
One of the things we were told before we purchased our home was that residents would have access to
the beach in the resort area. The fact is that since extended development has taken place, it is very
difficult for us to have access to the beach unless it is low tide. Ifpeople can't easily access these areas,
it isn't hard to believe that the native waterfowl may find them, ifnot inaccessible, at least much less
appealing a place to visit than they once did.
Just one more comment (since we are out of time for the 5/28 deadline): We live on Rainier Lane. It is
our understanding that not one, but two, sewer lines were installed in this area by PLA (or its
predecessor). When we purchased our home no one mentioned that it could not be built to easily access
either ofthese sewer lines.. .at least not untillater, after we had sold our existing home (our purchase of
the Port Ludlow home necessitated the sale of our previous residence). In other words, at a point when
it would have been difficult for us to back out, we were told that "by the way" our new home would
have to have a "grinder pump" installed in order to pump our waste up to the sewer line. Of course we
signed the agreement. We've now been in our home less than 2 years and this grinder pump has already
failed once. The point of this comment is that PLA was the builder of our home, and it makes us very
uneasy that something as important to the environment as sewage (and drainage.. .another story that I
don't have time to relay now, but will do so before June 14) has been so poorly dealt with. It seems like
we would be courting disaster to allow development at an increased population density when these
important issues haven'treally been properly addressed for the current residents.
Wayne and Rosalie Barber
6/1/2004
LOG ITEM
# ,~~
Page-L-otL