HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog172
w.-
~
CDf {'-f (oLf
June 12, 2004
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
To whom it may concern,
I have been a resident of Port Ludlow for most all of the last 24 years. I currently live at
100 Fairway Lane, Port Ludlow.
I write to you to comment on Port Ludlow Associates LLC (PLA) Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DSEIS) submitted in April 2004 relating to the Port Ludlow Resort
Plan Revision.
I endorse your acceptance ofPLA's DSEIS as submitted. It has addressed the appropriate
issues brought forward through the public comment period, as extended and has also
properly built upon all previous environmental reports as required by the numerous
governmental agencies involved with development regulations for this property.
In particular PLA has addressed what is required in the current county zoning regulations
relating to a supplemental environmental review and the agreed upon process for
revisions to specifically approved land use designations. I understand these zoning
regulations, as well as other regulations appropriate to Port Ludlow's future development,
are secured at least in part by a Development Agreement executed between the
landowner, now PLA and the County.
My question, my concern is, when is enough, enough? When can a developer depend
upon a process to move forward with an agreed upon plan, one secured after years of
deliberations, compromises and after spending over $1,000,000 in planning costs.
PLA's predecessor invested this time and money to help create a unanimously supported
Comprehensive Plan Designation, Zoning Ordinance and Development Agreement. All
involved; including regional and state-wide environmental groups, local owner
associations and other community groups within the MPR boundary'helped create and
supported these regulations, Please refer to the July 15, 1999 letter to the Board of
County Commissioners from the Mediation Stakeholders regarding this topic.
When is enough, enough for County Tax payers? Jefferson County has expended
significant taxpayer dollars, possibly a hundred thousand dollars or more over recent
years, in addition to thousands of staff hours deliberating Port Ludlow's development.
LOG ITEM
# l7~
Page-L-of~_
f
"',
Jefferson County officials endorsed executing a Development Agreement, in part, to
secure some sense of assuredness that the investment of taxpayer' s money and staff time
would not be wasted. This particular objective was one of the driving forces for
developing specific language in the Zoning Ordinance that addressed the supplemental
Environmental Review processes (Section 3.904) and the process for Revisions to the
Resort Plan (Section 3.906 & 3.907.)
It is my hope, as it is of many others, that enough is enough as it relates to honoring years
of work by both the public and private stakeholders. The significant investments of funds
and time can only be recovered through sensible and timely development and the
resulting property taxes.
Professional companies and individuals prepared the DSEIS. It is, as was agreed to, a
supplement to the other environmental work that has been previously accepted by all the
appropriate regulatory agencies and must be viewed on the merits it is addressing.
PLA has seemingly followed the contractually agreed upon procedures for the
development of their land. Will the County?
Sincerely,
Michael Derrig
100 A Fairway Lane
Port Ludlow, W A. 98365
Cc. Board of County Commissioners
David Goldsmith
LOG ITEM
#.J 7::2..
Page d- ~of_~