Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog195 Page 1 of 4 ~ . .-c.- Michelle Farfan To: AI Scalf; MDorsey@portludlowassociates.com; Ikeenan@reidmidd.com Subject: FW: Construction Activities FYI Michelle -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 9:53 AM To: Michelle Farfan Cc: SchmitzSr@aol.com; Laurence Nobles; Jeanne & Peter Joseph; Kaysins@wellsfargo.com; carolsaber@olympus.net Subject: Re: Construction Activities Dear Ms. Farfan: Thanks for providing Mr. Scalf with the information. I was able to fmd his email address last night and emailed information to him. There may be some duplication. My concern is that construction activities are proceeding on the property prior to the review of the revised building plans. I believe that Mr. Scalf has discussed building 600 with Mr. Schmitz. In the discussion compliance with Jefferson County's Shoreline Management Master Program was discussed. I would add this to the list of codes with which the revised plan should comply. I would like to know more about the plans examiner. Is there an opportunity to submit comment? Will the plans examiner be provided the comments to the draft SEIS, some of which are applicable to building 600? Among those I have in mind are the engineering report that accompanies my comments and deals with safety issues and pedestrian access along Heron Dr. Would it be possible for you to give me contact information on the plans examiner? I also question whether PLA should be pursuing building plans that conflict with the draft SEIS that is currently under review. PLA urged the modifications thereto. It urged that such modifications were necessary to provide for the development fmancially. If this is the case, how can PLA return to the plat, a design that is conflicted by the draft SEIS? Shouldn't the building permit modification which modifies the plan set forth in the draft SEIS require a modification of the draft SEIS and a resubmission thereof for comments? I do not want PLA to proceed with construction and make an equitable arguement that it should receive waivers because it relied upon Jefferson County's inactivity or it relied upon a noncompliant building plan to justify its construction. I further think it improper to pursue any plan revision that conflicts with the general development plan proposed by PLA and under review with the draft SEIS. To whom should I make these concerns known. It is not that I necessarily oppose further development of Port Ludlow or some configuration of the plan advocated by PLA. I oppose a piecemeal approach that permits PLA to select which of the development plans it will follow without being required to obtain full review and comment of any of them. Your assistance is appreciated in this matter. Les Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: Michelle Farfan To: Powers & Therrien Cc: AI Scalf Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:24 AM LOG ITEM #.JQ5 Page-!-ot~L 6/1512004 Page 2 of 4 Subject: RE: Construction Activities Mr.. Powers: AI Scalf, Director is also the building official. He is well aware of all emails and correspondence regarding the Draft SEIS and other permits that PLA has applied for that are pending. As far as the 6 unit condo being revised to a 4 unit town home, revised building plans will be submitted for review and compliance with the USC, UFC, UPC, UMC, and any other regulations by a plans examiner. I am forwarding this email to AI Scalf as you requested. Michelle Farfan Associate Planner, DRD Lead, PL Lead DCD 621 Sheridan Port Townsend WA 98368 mfarfan@co.iefferson.wa.us -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Monday, June 14,20049:50 PM To: Michelle Farfan Cc: Powers & Therrien Subject: Fw: Construction Activities Dear Ms. Farfan: I cover Mr. McCarry's response to my Saturday email requesting PLA to conform its development to the draft SEIS and my reply thereto. I think it is pretty clear that PLA does not see the "default plan" identified in the draft SEIS as applicable to it or even any necessity to follow the "preferred plan" through the approval process. I object to this treatment of the draft SEIS. I have spent a good deal of time studying the draft SEIS and researching the authority with respect thereto. I think it is reasonable that PLA follow the course it has set out in the draft SEIS. It needs to consider the comments and modify its plan accordingly, resubmitting same for comment or withdraw the plan altogether. In any case, the residents need to be advised what plan PLA intends to follow. They have residual rights to the amenities not in conflict with the plat and CC & Rs that were promised in the 99 Ordinance and Development Agreement. These are recorded and are representations to each purchaser of residences in the Port Ludlow Bay area even if the residents are not third party beneficiaries. Currently PLA breaches those representations by continuing to develop under the 94 plat where a lack of development would not violate the plat and where such lack of development is incorporated in the default plan. I take umbrage with PLA's apparent view that it can take whatever action it wishes without regard to its commitments and to plans that it has advocated to the residents through the draft SEIS. I further have problems with the notion that a permit that describes a sixplex condominium can be modified to a fourplex townhouse complex with about the same footprint without having the permit reissued. Please provide a copy of this email to the person in charge of building permits for further action. Your assistance is appreciated. Sincerely, Leslie A. Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: Powers & Therrien To: Greg McCarry Cc: Powers & Therrien Sent: Monday, June 14,20049:32 PM LOG ITEM #-.1:1<; Page a.... ofi 6/15/2004 Page 3 of 4 " Subject: Re: Construction Activities Greg: That may seem logical to you but conflicts with the draft SEIS that PLA has proposed. The draft SEIS proposes to construct a six plex condominium on the site. I do not think PLA can have a moving plan. If the plan is to permit PLA to build whatever seems appropriate at the time, then there is no plan and draft SEIS should be rejected. Moreover, while the fourplex may be consistent with the plat, it may not be consistent with applicable law changes that have taken place since the plat. Bear in mind, a major change to the development was approved by Jefferson County in 1999. An agreement was entered between Pope and Jefferson County to implement the plan, contingent, where necessary, on approval under RCW 58.17.215. PLA assumed the obligation of developing in accordance with the plan subject to such conditions. It also assumed the obligation of complying with law as of such Agreement. I do not believe that PLA can comply with SMA requirements with respect to the building footprint it proposes. I also add that PLA represented in the draft SEIS that the default plan was the 99 Ordinance and resulting Agreement. It attached a diagram of that plan to the draft SEIS. It did not attach the 94 plat. PLA's attempt to substitute an unattached plat for the plan identified in the draft SEIS is misleading. It calls to question what plan PLA intends to develop or is legally compelled to develop. Does PLA intend to rely upon the 99 Ordinance as the default plan or return to the plat? I think: prior to developing under the plat, it must cause the draft SEIS to be withdrawn and reissued consistent with its actual biusiness plan. PLA cannot reasonably expect either the residents or Jefferson County to guess at either the preferred plan that PLA proposes to modify by developing building 600 inconsistent therewith, and, I might add, inconsistent with the permit application, or to develop consistent with the 99 Ordinance as modified by the plat and consents required thereby. I want a confirmation from PLA that it will desist further construction until it conforms its activities with the pending permit application and the draft SEIS. If these are approved and not judicially contested, PLA is free to proceed in any manner that conforms with applicable law. I will view anything other than a confirmation of my request by 5:00 P.M., June 17,2004, as PLA's rejection of my request. In such event, I reserve the right to an appropriate legal response. I want to emphasize, I have no objection to PLA's development of its project to the extent it may be done in a manner that addresses concerns voiced by the various associations and residents to the draft SEIS and to the extent it is consistent with law. It is my view that such development is imminently possible with changes to the configuration of the units and their location as proposed in the draft SEIS. I think: that PLA needs to take seriously the criticisms offered to its draft SEIS rather than to attempt to develop the project on three conflicting paths, the plat, the 99 default plan, and the preferred plan. I have a serious problem with this approach. Your response to this email is incumbent. Leslie A. Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg McCarry To: Powers & Therrien Cc: Mark Dorsey Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:46 PM Subject: RE: Construction Activities I am traveling in San Francisco so I did not see your email until today. PLA is authorized to build 28 additional units under the 1994 development permit. The new plan being reviewed proposes to increase that density. Whether the proposed change is approved on not there is a building planned for the site that was staked recently. Since delays impact the financial results of our work we have decided to move forward with what is already allowed under the earlier permit. Please contact me by email if you have any questions. LOG ITEN! #-1qc;- Pag€_.~ ."of:~ 6/1512004 6/1512004 Page 4 of 4 -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 12:55 PM To: Greg McCarry Cc: Powers & Therrien Subject: Construction Activities Greg: I must be confused. I have been led to believe that the current status of the PLA proposal is that it has been embodied in a draft SEIS that has been circulated for comments and that comments are due by the end of business Monday. I also understand that PLA has made a permit application consonant with the proposed plan but that such permit application as a material modification to the 99 Ordinance must be approved after a public hearing before a hearings examiner. I am told that PLA's surveyors are staking the property across from the unit in which my townhouse is located. Staking is part of the construction process. How did PLA obtain approval to start construction before receipt of all of the comments to the draft SEIS and the public hearing before the hearings examiner? Be advised, while I have not taken a position as to the adviseablility of plan proposed by PLA, I will not stand idly by and let PLA execute the plan without approval and then claim that economic injury would result if it is required to remove its improvements. I would appreciate a report from you about the construction activities that appear to be ongoing across from my unit and the authority under which they are undertaken. Your immediate response to this email is incumbent. Les Powers Powers & Therrien, P.S. 3502 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Phone: 509-453-8906 Fax: 509-453-0745 This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510- 2521 and is legally privileged. This message and any attachments hereto may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer. LOG ITEM #_1 qc;; Page~.__of.-L