HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog206
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
August 10,2004
AI Scalf, Director
Carol Higley Saber, President
Port Ludlow Village Council
P.O. Box 65012
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
Re: Response to PL VC Letter dated July 8, 2004 Regarding Resort Development in
Port Ludlow
Dear Mrs. Saber:
This letter is responding to your letter of July 8, 2004 requesting this department comply
with guidance from the Department of Ecology regarding a proposed building that would
be situated over the artificial pond located within the plat of Ludlow Bay Village. Firstly,
the building 600 building permit and associated shoreline permit have been withdrawn as
requested by Port Ludlow Associates on August 5, 2004. This application was based
upon the approved and recorded Ludlow Bay Village plat, not, as stated in your July 8
letter, the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Secondly, Jefferson
County will seek additional consultation with the Department of Ecology to review the
issues surrounding the town home construction as proposed in the recorded plat of
Ludlow Bay Village. Thirdly, any future applications submitted to Jefferson County by
Port Ludlow Associates will be processed in accordance with the applicable codes and
terms of the 1999 Development Agreement and the Master Planned Resort zoning code.
Those codes set up appeal processes that should be followed if any citizen or group feels
aggrieved by any County decision.
After consultation with our attorney, if the PL VC matched the written request Port
Ludlow Associates ("PLA") made to the County asking the County to delay filing any
Declaratory Judgment lawsuit, then the County Commissioners would, according to the
direction they have provided me, probably delay filing such a lawsuit.
The County's attorney advises me that there are numerous reasons why it would be
advantageous for the PL VC to formally request a delay in the filing of the Declaratory
Judgment lawsuit. Initially, note the County would be required to name in the lawsuit as
Defendants every person (including spouses) who resides on Heron Road, the PL VC, the
Building Permits/ Inspections L nt Review Division
(360) 379-4450 # ~ 0((> _.
Page__L_o( ~__
Long Range Planning
FAX: (360) 379-4451
~
... j .... ~
Carol Higley Saber
August 10,2004
Page 2
unincorporated association formed by Mr. Loomis, Mr. Loomis and others. This lawsuit
would involve persons and families that have no grudge with PLA. To be named in a
lawsuit brings with it legal costs, a possible besmirching of one's good name and perhaps
years of frustration.
Secondly, and unfortunately, the lawsuit would not necessarily resolve the issue of
whether construction of Building 600 as now proposed would violate the local shoreline
regulations. Any decision reached by a Judge on that issue would only be binding on
those persons named as Defendants. If a new family moved to Heron Road or if a new
unincorporated association was created, that family or association could re-start litigation
over the same issue at any time.
Thirdly, once this department issued (or denied) a permit for construction of Building 600
at some point in the future that would be subject to a separate appeal process that would
only serve to rehash these same issues again.
Fourthly, the lawsuit would probably never be a straightforward resolution of the
shoreline issue regarding Building 600 since any person or association named as a
Defendant would always have the ability to file counterclaims for any or all of the other
issues regarding Ludlow Bay Village that have been the subject ofletlers and e-mails in
recent months. The lawsuit could dissolve into endless amounts of document requests,
providing oral testimony under oath and other tactics that would delay the resolution of
the legal issues involved and raise the costs for all involved.
Finally, the County, PLA and the persons who are represented by the PL VC all bear the
risk of a litigation outcome that they do not like. The legal issues surrounding Building
600 are complex and reasonable arguments exist for all positions taken so far, regardless
of assertions made to the PL VC that this is an "open and shut" case that makes
construction of Building 600 (as once proposed, although now withdrawn) illegal.
Recall that PLA would undoubtedly strongly defend the legality of Building 600 as once
proposed in light of the overall yield of the vested plat of Ludlow Bay Village with
commitment of 53 town homes and 5 single family residences which are accounted for in
the overall 2,250 equivalent residential units allocated to the Master Planned Resort.
In light of the above and the conciliatory letter from PLA, I have been directed to
respectfully request that the PL VC write to the County Commissioners to ask that the
Commission delay filing any Declaratory Judgment lawsuit so that other less disruptive
methods can be used to achieve a resolution that is satisfactory to all parties.
LOG ITEM
# ~O<?>
Page__~.._.of3=:~"..
.:,.
~ .. '
. ,
Carol Higley Saber
August 10,2004
Page 3
~l Scalf
Director of Communit Development
C: Glen Huntingford, Chairman BOCC
Dan Titterness, Member BOCC
Pat Rogers, Member BOCC
John Fischbach, County Administrator
David Alvarez, Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Marco de Sa e Silva, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Greg McCarry, PLA
Mark Dorsey, PLA
Bert Loomis
Les Powers
LOG iTEM
# 800,..
Page3.~_ of3___