HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog156
,..
..
,
.<
June 2, 2004
Peter & Jeanne Joseph
6 Heron Road
Port Ludlow, Wa. 98365
JUN - 4 200,
JEFFERSON COUNTY DeD
Michelle Farfan and AI Scalf
Jefferson County DCD
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Wa. 98368
Re: Comments Concerning the DSEIS for Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision.
As both of you are well aware of our position concerning the density issue pertaining
to the build out of the resort core, we will refresh your recollection with bullets rather
than extensive prose.
1. The county already rejected the same request in 1993. Unless there are over riding
reasons why they should be granted a larger number this time, they should be held to
the 58 residential units as a maximum, of which they have already built 26. Increasing
the density of residential development will overwhelm the traffic capacity, parking, and
ability to absorb that many people into such a small area. It will only degrade an
otherwise elegant community.
2. The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program applies. Section 5.160
specifically prohibits them from building: "Residential structures located on or over
marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons, tidelands, ecologically sensitive areas or water
areas subject to the master program." The pond is subject to the shoreline program as
it within 200' of the high water mark of the saltwater tidal basin. It certainly is an
ecologically sensitive area. There are a number of other paragraphs in the same
section that apply as well. Paragraphs 1., 4., and 10 under POLICIES, and paragraph
5. and 9. under PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. I have attached applicable excerpts
from my previous scoping comments for your review as needed.
3. It is intuitively obvious to us that the sixteen lots that extend out over the pond
cannot be built on. Even your tax assessor concurs with this opinion. You cannot tax
these lots as "unbuildable", and then turn around and build on them. The assessor
made that decision based on the fact that they could not be built out over water for the
same reasons as stated above, not because of any degree of difficulty with
construction. Keep in mind there was never any challenge from the developer when
his taxes were lowered due to this ruling. The remaining lots must be set back at least
30 feet from the edge of the pond.
4. Referring to Section 3.903 of Jefferson County Ordinance 08-1004-99, which I
quote in part: " For any subdivision that has been approved and recorded, but only
LOG ITEM
# IS'l.p
Page ---L- of 3
l
,
~
partially developed, a plat alteration shall be applied for and processed as set forth in
state law and in applicable county ordinances." We feel they cannot obtain a plat
alteration without the town home owner's permission.
5. We also wish to point out that the failure to complete the town home project as
projected when we purchased our home, will negatively impact us and is contrary to
the interests of all the lot owners. We feel that this is a breach of fiduciary duty by the
board of the association, as well as a violation of consumer protection laws. It is also a
violation of the county requirement to complete the project no later than June 14, 1998.
In 1993, PLA's predecessor signed a contract with Jefferson County to meet certain
conditions. They have breached that contract and should be sanctioned by being
held to a lesser number of units than was specified at that time.
6. If the Inn parking is to be expanded per the EIS the four parking spaces across the
south end of the existing island and the evergreens that buffer the town homes should
remain. The town homes will have no guest parking if the plan is instituted as drawn.
As one of the conditions calls for the town homes to be buffered by natural vegetation,
any substitution of vegetation as part of the new parking plan should require trees and
plants of equivalent height.
Sincerely,
'~~" ~
;'. ,"
\..~~- ' ,
" ". ". !.., -\.. l/~ ",..,.,. "
\~r'&(.. (~,..,.,J"~" .
\. ) ""
"-. '"
- .,~
.-, ..,......,...".".,... .^'"
JUN - 4 2IMK
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
LOG ITEIVl
# I S-Cp ..~. ~_
Page d-..- of 3
.... .~...t'
J( .,... '..; ~-
"
. "
r
Attachment to Joseph letter.
Referring back to the County Shoreline Master Program, specifically residential
development, section 5.160, Prohibited Use and Activities.
1. "Residential structures located on or over marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons,
tidelands, ecologically sensitive areas or water areas subject to this master program."
Under the subsection POLICIES
Para.. 1." Residential development should be designed at a level of density of site
coverage and occupancy compatible with the physical capabilities of the shoreline
area, and consistent with the density provisions of local plans, codes, and ordinances.
Para.. 4 "over water residential development, including floating homes, should not be
permitted"
Para. 10 "Sub divisions should maintain usable waterfront areas for the common use
of all property owners within the development."
Under Performance Standards,
Para.. 5 states" Developments containing marshes, swamps, lagoons, portions of a
flood plain, or similar wetlands shall use those areas only for the purpose of parks,
open space, or recreational facilities."
Para.. 9 states the standard setback shall be 30" as measured from the ordinary high
water mark. All setbacks shall be measured from the water ward most edge of the
structure excluding decks, eaves, etc..
JUN - 4 2DlJ4.
JEFFERSON COUN7Y DeD
LOG ITEM
#--' Slf
Jage _ ,? of 'S