Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog242 r: ~C'~ 1)CU~ J PC id.I~\ oy PA December 19, 2004 DEe 2 a 2004 Mr. Dan Titterness, Mr. Glen Huntingford Mr. Pat Rodgers Jefferson County Commissioners Port Townsend, Washington ,~FFI~:Fr:':"~'1-'.;\i ~'i>r'l Iii. i1"\: .__, '-"--. l-~\"""V!'" t...U....d"\: "f ,'n.K''''''', r~ ''>-," 'III' , !)'J'""I," J" , '11')\' ;:;;''''0'''-''''''', ~..'''' . '!. il..o. I v"", ~.t'- ~~y-'::;l r\ic:t.~:::, Re: Agenda for Meeting of December 20, 2004; Community Development Actions Dear Messrs Titterness, Huntingford, and Rodgers: As a concerned resident of Jefferson County and Port Ludlow, I am addressing this open letter to you as Jefferson County Commissioners because of my concern with proposals by Jefferson County Community Development to retain certain consultants, to permit the draft supplemental environmental impact statement urged by Port Ludlow Associates ("PLA") to proceed without regard to the views of the Port Ludlow community, violations of law, failures to perform contract conditions, and violations of safety and environmental concerns, and to retain certain elected public officials as employees after the end of their offices. Except for the employment of elected officials, all of the matters to which the preceding sentence avers relate to the 1994 Townhouse Plat at Ludlow Bay and PLA's proposal to modify or develop same. The 2004 election results strongly suggest that all of these matters should be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners as constituted by the voters and not by the outgoing Board of County Commissioners, two of whose members were rejected by the voters. I draw your attention to the following matters: 1. There is no conceivable justification to spend limited Jefferson County resources to retain the consultants identified in items eight through ten of the Agenda when their duties are clearly duties that should be performed by the staff of Community Development itself with the advice of the Jefferson County Attorney. 2. Community Development, currently under internal audit, by seeking outside consultants is admitting that its costly personnel are not able to handle issues relating to plats, a matter directly within its historical aegis. If Community Development lack competent personnel, perhaps the existing costly personnel should be replaced with personnel that understand land use law and land use planning as a substitute to adding consultants that have had long term relationships with Community Development and the various developers at Port Ludlow. 3. Before retaining the auditor of Community Development for another year, Jefferson County should spend the time to evaluate the results of the initial audit to see if the cost is justified and to see if the auditor is accomplishing its assigned tasks. 4. Before accepting Community Development's proposal to retain consultants, there should be an independent investigation of Community Development's continuing pattern of (a) unlawfully approving construction proposed by the developer at Port Ludlow under lapsed Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, (b) unlawfully continuing approval of actions on building permits that violate the 1999 Master Planned Resort Ordinance (the "Ordinance") as to setbacks from Heron Rd., the 2000 Development Agreement (the "Development Agreement") between Jefferson County and the developer incorporating same, and the building permits containing such conditions as special conditions to the building permits, (c) unlawfully accepting the developer's construction of a roadway of substandard width at Heron Rd. and between the Ludlow Bay marina and the hotel at Ludlow Bay, and, (d) unlawfully failing to enforce the conditions of the 1993 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit against the developers for failing to perform the landscape plan and conditions and to maintain the lagoon in accordance therewith. lOG ITEM # () U~ ~~~-~~- Page_~ 1 ~,of~,., "~ 5. To the extent there is any justification for contracts between Community Development and any consultants, such contracts should be fully and publicly reviewed to determine if the contracting parties have any prior relationship with the developer whose proposals they are asked to review giving rise to conflicts of interest. 6. Since the consulting contracts identified in items nine and ten in the Agenda involve exclusively the Port Ludlow community, that community should be consulted before retaining any such consultants. 7. Before accepting Community Development's decision to permit the developer's draft supplemental environmental impact statement of April, 2004, as modified, there should be an independent investigation of the nearly two hundred complaints of the Port Ludlow community including complaints relating to the safety of the project and of development along Heron Rd., the preservation of fish and wildlife habitat as required by the 1999 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, violations of legal requirements respecting the project, and failure by the proponent of the project to identify and provide bonding to assure the construction of amenities promised under the Ordinance and the Development Agreement. 8. Before accepting Jefferson County Community Development's ("Community Development") decision to permit further building permits to issue to the developer, there should be an investigation of the liability of Jefferson County for Community Development's unlawful approval of single family attached residences along Heron Rd. that violate the twenty (20) foot setback requirement of the Ordinance, a requirement that Community Development admits has safety implications involving ordinary traffIC and emergency and fire vehicles. 9. Before Community Development enters any commitments or contracts, employment or consulting, with former elected officials whose services the voters have terminated, it would a good idea to review the Chapter 42.23, RCW governing the ethical requirements applicable to municipal officials, including county offICerS. Jefferson County is not a rich county. It does not have funding to permit its agencies, such as Community Development to engage consultants that are clearly for the purpose of advancing the agenda of the developer by finding ways to modify the Ludlow Bay Townhouse Plat to fit the developer's plans or, through the same consultants, urging the Washington Department of Ecology to permit that same developer to build over the lagoon in violation of the Jefferson County Master Shoreline Program. It cannot afford to fail to force the developer to cure violations of the Ordinance and setback requirements in the building permits even though Jefferson County is indemnified by the developer and its knowing approval of the deficiencies exposes it to substantial liability if anyone is injured as a result of the violation of the Ordinance and the underlying safety concerns that support it. It cannot afford to permit the developer to continue to construct residential improvements at Port Ludlow without identifying and bonding the completion of the supporting amenities promised under the Ordinance and the Development Agreement, amenities, the construction of which would increase employment and the value of which would increase Jefferson County's tax base. What we have here is an obvious attempt by Community Development to continue to evade its legal duties for the benefit of the developer to the detriment of the Port Ludlow community and to the detriment and substantial risk of Jefferson County. I call on the Board of County Commissioners to put the health and safety of its people over the short term profits of developers such as PLA, to hold Community Development accountable to further health, safety and . environmental interests of its residents, and for its long term failure to do so. Community Development should not be permitted to hire additional expensive personnel, particularly those who are former elected public officials, or consultants with cozy historical relations with the very developers that are the subject matter of their advice. Nor should it be permitted to pass on the developer's flawed draft supplemental environmental impact statement in its present form until it JI ... addresses all of the concerns of the affected Port Ludlow community and until the developer has brought itself into compliance with the legal requirements, conditions and promises, of the 1993 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, the Ordinance, and the Development Agreement. The derelictions of which this letter avers are not simply innocent mistakes or lapses in judgment. The Agenda contains yet more evidence that Community Development intends to conduct business as usual for the benefit of its friends, the developers. My townhouse is located less than three feet, not twenty feet from Heron Rd as required by the Ordinance. It is built on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit that lapsed in 1998. Building without a valid Shorelil)_e Substantial Development Permit is civilly and criminally actionable against both the developer and the personnel of Community Development that knowingly or recklessly permitted the developer to do so. My neighbors and I have defective title in our units as a result of the developer's decision to ignore setback, plat and Shoreline Management Act requirements. We cannot sell our units or even refinance them. Community Development approved the location of the improvements in violation of the building permits, Ordinance and safety concerns and the building of the residences without a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Twelve units, all of those built by PLA are affected. Am I to believe that the inspectors were blinded to the difference between three (3) to six (6) feet and twenty (20) feet ten (10) times and to the absence of a legally required Shoreline Substantial Development Permit twelve times. Even the developer has openly represented that Community Development knew of the violations and approved them to my detriment, that of my neighbors, and that of Jefferson County. The fire in the condominium units should have been a wake up call. The 911 procedure failed from human error and the fire units had trouble deploying. How do you think they will deploy around the hotel or the lower townhouse units in like circumstance? I hope none of you seriously thinks that Jefferson County will not be presented with a huge bill should there be such an event. There has been enough winking of eyes for the benefrt of development at the expenses of safety, health, contract rights, and environment under the oversight of this Board of County Commissioners. ,It is time that they forsake "development at any cost" and look to the interest of the residents as the voters have so obviously directed them to do. I call upon this Board of County Commissioners to do the right thing, for the County residents and not for the developer. If this Board of County Commissioners is not willing to take stands on these matters, all of the issues identified herein, including items eight through ten of the Agenda, should be tabled until the new Board of County Commissioners is able to review them. I am sending this to Mr. Loomis who will be present at the above referenced meeting. He has my instructions to introduce this letter into the record of the meeting and to publish it. Sincerely, Leslie A. Powers, Resident, Port Ludlow, Washington I i) G' '"T" l"""M" '-'." ::J" t: ,I #~~ Page" .a;~Of~ - ....1"-..,.-"""",'"''''',.,,. .,_.,....~.