Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog233 ~, , , . JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 AI Scalf, Director Mr. Greg Jordshaugen 17435 S.E. 4ih Bellevue, WN, 98006 May 23, 2005 Dear Greg: In response to your letter received at Community Development on May 9, please consider the following. The master declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions, assessments, charges, liens, reservations and easements for Ludlow Bay Village executed on May 25,1994 is a contractual relationship between the declarant Pope Resources and owners, residents and occupants of Ludlow Bay Village. Jefferson County doesn't enforce the CC &R's. This obligation is a civil issue between the parties now consisting of Port Ludlow Associates and the owners of the lots within Ludlow Bay Village. Any alteration, replatting or boundary line adjustments of Ludlow Bay Village will be subject to local zoning and state laws in effect at the time of a complete application. Sinc~);cly', '~;I ~. l _.~ /' ~ ~.,......" - ""'-- ~k, ~ ? @..}t 'Y--.J'--- L-\ Al Scalf Director of Community Development J3?; J 1 Building Permits/ Inspections (360) 379-4450 Development Review Division Long Rang~ Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 ,,,'ii'f May 1, 2005 coPY ~lE(c;lEnWE fRl U U MAY iUII IIYJ . '.' .~ AI Scalf, Director Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 JEffERSON COUNTY DEfT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Subdivision of Ludlow Bay Village, Port Ludlow Dear Mr. Scalf: I recently received a copy ofa letter you wrote on January 21,2004 to Jeffrey B. Taraday of Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC, where you stated ".. . I met with legal counsel and reviewed the Ludlow Bay Vtllage restrictive covenants. . _" and ".. . the county cannot conclude that any restrictive covenants have been violated, therefore Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) does not need the signatures of all parties subject to the covenants." I have been reviewing the restrictive covenants in great detail over the past few months and do not understand how you or your legal counsel could possibly come to that conclusion if you were reading the same restrictive covenants that I am. Not only has PLA actually violated the restrictive covenants of Ludlow Bay Village over the past year or so, but the proposed condominium development that your department has reviewed and is drafting an environmental impact statement for also blatantly violates the restrictive covenants. I would expect the public interest of Port Ludlow town home owners would be better protected by someone in your position. You and the county should protect my property interests with as much energy as you advocate and support the development plans ofPLA. In the paragraphs that follow I will detail for you the violations, potential violations, and the specific sections of the restrictive covenants being violated. You do not need to go any further than the first page of the e x-o uses u ow ay I age, InCt! ga restaurant, marina, 36 room "Inn at' Ludlow Bay," 53 residential town homes and 5 single family residences;" The emphasis regarding town homes is mine. It is clear that Ludlow Bay Village is to include 53 town homes, not 25 town homes and 56 condominiums. There is a restriction that was clearly intended to limit density in Ludlow Bay Village to 53 residential town home units, not to 53 town home lots on which the Declarant could pack as many condominium units as possible to increase the building density beyond one (1) dwelling unit for each lot that was approved in the plat by Jefferson County. To violate this stated intent at the beginning of the restrictive covenants should require the affirmative approval of all lot owners in Ludlow Bay Village. You should also review Section 4.12, Restriction On Further Lot Subdivision, Property Restrictions And Rezoning, which states "No Lot within Ludlow Bay Village shall be further subdivided. No portion less than all of any such Lot, nor any easement or other interest therein, shall be conveyed or transferred by an Owner; provided, however, that undivided joint ownership is pennitted." That is about as clear and unambiguous a statement as I think you will find anywhere in the restrictive covenants, yet it has been violated by Port Ludlow Associates twice in the last 1-2 years, with what appears to be approval by the county, and they are attempting to avoid the intent of this restrictive covenant in their planned condominium development, again with what appears to be the assistance and approval of the county. What is the point of having a tion to what is written in them I O-G-' rn:::nr. - . , <-!vl # d3~ PageC"~ .e:-_ot_~_ " and you assist Port Ludlow Associates in their efforts and do not protect the property rights of the town home owners in Ludlow Bay Village. To fully understand the violations that have already been allowed to occur and the violations that will occur if the proposed condominium development is allowed to be built without the affirmative approval of all property owners within Ludlow Bay Village, I need to provide some detailed explanation,. although I would hope in your position as Director of the Department of Community Development, you should already know tbis infonnation. The Plat of Ludlow Bay Vdlage was approved in 1994 with 53 town home lots. Eight (8) of the town home lots consisted of . . . ed ~an~fu ~ 2A). Although each of these lots const 0 two parts, each group clearly constituted a s e 0 to treat them otherwise would result in 61 town home lots (8 of which would be unbuildable) and each group was treated as a single tax parcel by the Jefferson County Assessor. In January 2003 Port Ludlow Associates sold the tEon l~ames & Linda Brown, but did not include the portion oflot TH16 designated as e l~./transferred to the Browns. They retained the portion oflot TH16 designated as 16A for themselves and with the assistance of Jefferson County created a new lot owned by Port Ludlow Associates wbich is now identified by the Assessor as a separate tax parcel. This act is a clear violation of the Ludlow Bay Village restrictive covenants contained in Section 4.12 in that it illegally "subdivided" lot TH 16 and it further violated the same restrictive covenant in that". . . less than all... " oflot TH16 was transferred by Port Ludlow Associates to the Browns. In addition, after completing the illegal subdivision ofTH16A from TH16, the Plat of Ludlow Bay VIllage now contains 54 town home lots (although it would be impossible to build anything on TH16A, except a garage, wbich is what it was intended for in the first place). In the fall of2003 Port LUdl;M!!W es sold thi!!to e on lot TH28 to Teresa Smith, and again did not include the portion oft 'gnated as e land that was transferred to Ms. Smith. As with the Browns, Port Ludlo ociates retained portion oflot TH28 designated as TH28A for themselves, again creating a new lot owned by them and now identified by the Assessor as a separate tax parcel. I don't need to repeat the violations noted in the previous paragraph, because it is obvious Port Ludlow Associates, with the counties assistance once again clearly violated the same restrictive covenants. The result being there are now 55 toWn home lots (2 ofwbich can not be built on) in Ludlow Bay Village where only 53 town lots were approved for the plat. Article 4.12, probibiting the subdivision of any of the 53 town home lots (or 5 single family residence lots) was included in the Ludlow Bay Village Master Declaration restrictive covenants for a specific purpose, wbich was to prevent the residential building density from being increased beyond the 53 town homes and 5 single family residences approved in the original plat. At the time Pope Resources was attempting to get approval for the Plat of Ludlow Bay Village, they wanted a density of approximately 90 residences but were denied and compromised with Jefferson County on the 53 town home lots and 5 single family residence lots. Article 4.12 was included in the Master Declaration so Pope Resources (and now their successor Port Ludlow Associates) could not later subdivide the approved lots and increase the density. Port Ludlow Associates apparently believes that by grouping town home lots into "parcels" and then building condominiums on the "parcels" they are cleverly avoiding the restriction on subdividing lots. It is my opinion that no matter what they are calling it, they are effectively "subdividing" the town home lots because they are proposing the construction of more than one dwelling unit on each existing and approved town home lot. This constitutes a violation of the Ludlow Bay Village restrictive covenants and requires the signatures of all parties subject to the covenants before it can be allowed to proceed. As a taxpayer in Jefferson County and a town home owner in Ludlow Bay Village I am requesting that you LOG ITEfVi # ;;?- 33 ...' Page._~~.__of_~_. t , restrictive covenants and why you ". It is your job to represent the interests of all residents an prope m efferson County, not just to approve whatever the developers want regardless of whether it is allowed either by Jefferson County laws or the restrictive covenants of plats approved by Jefferson County. Please mail your response by Friday, May 20,2005, to Gregg D. Jordshaugen, 17435 S.E. 41", Bellevue, Washington 98006. Very truly yours, Gr 34 Heron Road Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 Enclosures cc: Rand L. Koler LOG iTElVl # ;?-33 -Lf------ Page~__.__.~.oC/__._. , ' " ':' ,,-r--, .,. t/; /",'1' JEFFERSON CL ,uNTV ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT j ~ ~, ' 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 AI Scalf, Director January 21, 2004 ~..,.j. t5t"'" C - -... --.... - Jeffrey B. Taraday Foster Pepper & Shefehnan PLLC ' 1111 Third Avenue Suite 3400 Seattle WA 98101-3299 .RECEIVED Mi~:'-( (; ;"5 ~~: :~}~ Re: S~vision Alteration of Ludlow Bay Village, POrt Ludlow JEFFERSON COUNlY Den Dear Mr. Taraday: On January 14, 2004 I met with legal counsel and reviewed the Ludlow Bay Village restrictive covenants and RCW 58.17.215, entitled "Alteration of subdivision." RCW 58.17.215 requires signatures ofthe majority of those persons having an ownership interest in the lots proposed to be altered. Hthe subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants, and the alteration would result in a violation of said covenants, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants. "* After consultation with legal counsel and review of the applicable covenants, the county cannot conclude that any restrictive covenants have been violated. therefore Port Ludlow Associates (pLA) does not need the signatures of all parties subject to the covenants. cc: David Alvarez, Prosecutor's Office Greg McCany, PLA Made Dorsey, PLA <f(p {fit . 0 . G-"'~"c'" ~.' L ", I'! # ! I ,,=Vi #d-33 _'_. Page~$ _.0(.:1.." 7 Building Permits/Inspections (360) 379-4450 Development Review Division Long Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 ..... r ~ ~:r~~:~~.:~~~i.~:Zr1g;ml~~~~~; , , MASTER DECLARATIO. or COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, R,J!:STRl:CTIONS, ASSESSJID'l", CBARGES"Ll:ENS, RESERVATIONS AND E1SEKEHTS~. LUDLOW BAY VILLAGE THIS MASTER DECLARATION of Covenants" Conditions, Restrictions, Assessments, Charges,,' Liens, Reservations and' Ea'sements ~hereafter referred to as "the H!lster Declaration"} i. made this ~ day of ~, 1994, by POPE RESOURCES, A Delaware Limited Partnership (hereI11after referred to as "Declarant"). Wl:TNESSBTB: WliEREAS, Declarant is the Developer and OWner of certain raal property located in Jefferson County, ~dshington, consisting of 17.87 acres, legally described in E~~1bit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenca, which is located in the unincorporated community of Po~t Ludlow (hereafter referred to as "Ludlow Bay Village")" DE',~larant intends to incorporate a mix of uses within Ludlow Bay Village, including a restaurant, marir.a, 36 room "Inn at Ludlow Bay," 53 residential town home, a~d 5 single family residences; and ' ' WHEREAS, Declarant intends to dedicate portions of Ludlow Bay Village for limited public use and access; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to "form two non-profit corporations, Jl<llll<:';,y' a (1) Has\:er Association, thf! "Ludlow Bay Village Association" (hereafter referred to as "HasteI' ~Association"), which is intended to) provide for the management and caintenance of the overall Ludlow Bay Village, including all Co~on Areas; and (2) Town~ome Association, the "Town Homes At LudlolJ Bay Association" (hereaft~r referred to as ."Town Home Association"1, wh"ich is intended to provide for the management and !:l3,intenance of the 53 residential tC'JIl homes within Ludlow Bay Village (the Master Association and To~n Heme Association may be collectively referred to herein sometimes as "the Associations"); and WHEREAS, Declarant wishes to subject Ludlow Bay Village to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, assessments, charges, 1 iens, reservations and easements set forth in this Kaster Declaration (hereafter referred to as "Covenants"): and . I I l. WHEREAS, in order to roperty comprising Ludlow va;. 507 Ph:;' 192 vor-f}(-~ I C '~ll. ..... rlE'I'v'l -...-- - . # 33__----.-- page~~-'..of...=l. . MASTER DECLARATION - 1 , . (1\ ;. T, ,0 J'e- r _- - '~?'e'~~~ ;8tf~~ "~"""'" . - ~2i~~J.~~~-i"$'~~~~~~;>. ..,~= . - - ..~~~... ,. \ the Architectural Review CoDillittee: (iv) Signs of Declar~nt or signs a'uthorized by Declarant for placement on _ any property within Ludlow Bay Village. All such signs shall be removed by the Owner promptly upon completion of'their intended use. section . .12 Further Lot Subdi"iaioD, Property Restrict No' Lot within Ludlow Bay Village shall be further subdivided. No portion less than all of any such Lot, nor any easement or other interest therein; shall be conveyed or transferred by an Owner: provided, however, 'that undivided joint ownership is permitted. Notwith$tanding the above, this provision shall not, in any way, limit Declarant'trea subdividing or separating into Lots any property within Ludlow Bay Village at any time owned by Declarant or from subdividing the same,. NO further covenants, conditions, restrictions or easements shall be recorded by any Owner or other person against any Lot without the provisions thereof having been first approved in writing by the Master Association Board, and any covenants, conditions, restrictions or ensements recorded without such approval being evidenced thereon shall b~ null and void. No application for variances, or special or conditional use permits shall be filed with any governmental authority unless the proposed use of the Lot- has been approved -by the 'Kaster Association Board and the proposed use otherwise complies with this Master ~as .ay be a.ended fro. ti.a-to-ti... secti~ctions On Residential Rental. . .13.1 Except as otherwise provided in subsection 14.13.2, the entire Dwelling Unit may be let to a single family tenant from time-to-time by the Owner: provid<2d, such tenancy shall not be less than six (6) consecutive months to the same tenant. No subletting shall be allow~d. All leases and rental agree~ents shall be in writing and specifically shall state (1) that they are subject to each and evp.ry requirement, covenant, condition and restriction of this Master Declaration and other Governing Documents, (2) that any' failure by the tenant to comEly with the terms of the Governin::J Documents shall be'a default under the lease or rental agreement, and (3) that the Owner grants t6 the Master Association Board and its Managing Agent, it any, the authority to evict the tenant on tne Owner's behalf for such default, upon only such notice as iz required by law. If any lease or rental agreement does not contain the foregoing provisions, such provisions shall nevertheless be deemed to be a part of the lease and binding upon the Owner and the tenant by reason, of inclusion in this Master Declaration. Neither the Haster, Association Board, nor its Managing Agent, if applicable, shall be liable to the Owner or the tenant for any p.viction under MASTER DECLARATION - 11 VCi. 507 I'~~ 202 Vf 506~ I L_ , , ~ ] LOG ITE~Vl # l2 ~ ?> --'-' PageJ:7._.of.J-~