Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog245 <L~ ~7 ~I~\ 10'-/ · p ftJ Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Port Townsend, Washington ii,,'")"")" I~,r,:::,' 1-- ,- UI "~i') ~::., ~ ~ , d DEe 2 0 2004 ;" \-"',' !' \ i; iI 1\/ f U \~l <~ December 17, 2004 jEFFERSOf\j COUt\~T\: BOARD OF CQf;,1rvtiSSICiNEHS Re: December 20, 2004 Agenda; Community Development Decision on Ludlow Bay Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement . Dear Sirs: I have been informed that Community Development has placed three items on the agenda for the December 20th Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, numbers eight, nine, and ten. They provide: 8. t Agreement, Amendment No. 1 re: Professional Consulting Services for ttttttt the Review of Permitting and Plat Issues of Ludlow Bay Village in ttttttt Port Ludlow; Jefferson County Department of Community Development; ttttttt The Latimore Company, LLC ttt 9. t Agreement re: Professional Consulting Services for 2004 for the ttttttt Review of Permitting and Plat Issues of Ludlow Bay Village in Port ttttttt Ludlow; Jefferson County Department of Community Development; ttttttt Lumsden International, Inc. ttt 10. Agreement, re: Professional Consulting Services for 2005 for the ttttttt Review of Permitting and Plat Issues of Ludlow Bay Village in Port ttttttt Ludlow; Jefferson County Department of Community Development; ttttttt Lumsden International, Inc. I want to raise my objection to the consideration of these items. Community Development is presently under a performance audit. Although it has an extensive payroll including persons that have expertise in land development and the law applicable thereto andhas access to Mr. Alvarez, the Jefferson County Attorney with responsibility for advising Jefferson County officials on legal matters, it chooses to retain expensive experts to "advise" it as to its area of expertise and competence. I also note that Community Developm~nt is asking the Board of County Commissioners to approve a contract for Ms. Lumsden after Community Development retained her services. This must be true as to the 2004 portion of the contract unless her work will be performed in the last ten days of2004. I have checked with the Port Ludlow Village Council. It has not been consulted as to the identity of a proper "consultant" with respect to planned revisions to the Plat urged by the developer. I would think that the persons most affected would be consulted before retaining an advisor such as Ms. Lumsden. l[ff f!EM "'~<<""'-_..,,'-, f~Q.,:,.Lof ~5 . .' I am not aware of the qualifications or need to retain the Latimore Company, LLC or the identity of its ownership and personnel. Before approving Latimore Company, LLC, I would think it appropriate to provide information on its expertise, contacts, and need. As I noted, Community Development is under a performance audit. While I do not understand that audit addresses such matters, I would think it should address the approval by Community Development's building inspectors of buildings 400 and 700 iIi1:he Plat as compliant with the conditions to the building permit and the requirements oflaw. The building pennits require a twenty foot setback from Heron Rd. The setback, as Mr. Scalf, head of Community Development knows from personal inspection is in fact in some instances such as my unit less than three feet from Heron Rd. The building permits, again as Mr. Scalf knows because I personally informed him, reflects the requirements of the 1999 Jefferson County Ordinance approving the Master Planned Resort at Ludlow Bay (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance is incorporated by reference as an exhibit and is an integral part of the development agreement (the ''Development Agreement") between the 2000 Jefferson County and Port Ludlow Associates, the developer ("PLA"). The Ordinance's requirement for a twenty (20) foot setback from roadways applies to all single-family residences, both attached and detached, that are built in the Master Planned Resort. Townhouses are expressly defined in the Ordinance as single family attached residences. The language in the Ordinance is absolutely clear. Community Development identified the requirement as a special condition to the building permits issued to PLA. PLA ignored the road setback requirement and violated the Ordinance and conditions to the building permits when it designed and built the townhouses in buildings 400 and 700. Community Development's building inspectors then consistently certified that the setback condition to the building permit and requirement of compliance with land use laws had been met when visual inspection shows and would have shown that this was not the case. There is a big difference between three (3) feet and twenty (20) feet. There was no confusion. The action by the building inspectors, all employees of Community Developmentwas intentional or reflected a failure by the building inspectors to visit the sites. This is not a harmless violation. The setback as Mr. Scalfhas confirmed to me reflects safety concerns. The seriousness of those concerns is evident from comments made in response to PLA's ''new plan" in the meeting of December 15th, Mr. Scalfwas present and heard those comments :first hand. Moreover, in part as a result of the ordinance violations, First American Title has informed my surveyor that it will no longer issue standard title insurance policies on the units in building 700, rendering title to the units for sale and finance defective. Because ofPLA's violation of the road setback conditions of the Ordinance, the Development Agreement, and the building permits, my neighbors ~ and I are left with dangerous conditions affecting the use of our garages and defective title. Community Development was either knowing complicit in these violations or negligent in permitting them to go unaddressed when the buildings were initially permitted and later approved. " 0' 'G.' .il-E-ro'li L., ~ '.' ,\it #~'15___ PagEL,,-2-of~S-__ Now Community Development in the face of shortfalls in available tax revenues wants to spend more money to hire more "consultants" to help it or PLA obtain relief from conditions to the Plat, Ordinance and Development Agreement which bind both. This is unconscionable. Jefferson County has better things to do with its money than spend it on consultants to give cover to Community Development personnel that have not been doing their jobs and appear to want to continue not to do so. The chief concern of Community Development should be the safety and health of Jefferson County's residents and residential property owners and the preservation of the environment, not the profitability of development projects to developers such as PLA. I call upon the County Commissioners to reject this brazen attempt by Community Development, probably at the instance ofPLA to retain personnel that view development as more important than health, safety, and the environment I note that Mr. Scalfhas given the Ludlow Bay Village Council written notice that he will permit PLA's draft supplemental environmental impact statement ("SEIS") originally submitted in April, 2004, to go forward even in the face of nearly two hundred (200) adverse comments and a generally hostile reception as to its revised form in the meeting; of December 15th, 2004 called by PLA. The SEIS is fatally flawed and conflicts with the requirements of the Development Agreement that it consider both the marina expansion and the buildout of the Plat and associated commercial facilities simultaneously. The SEIS now appears to proceed on two or three tracks. It is required to propose a single development plan. The SEIS proposes a modification to the Plat that requires joinder of a majority of the owners of the Plat. The SEIS does not demonstrate that it has support from a majority of the persons owning an interest in lots in the Plat Please note, PLA has but one vote, not one vote per platted lot Please have Mr. Alvarez review RCW 58.17.215 and advise you of its terms. PLA does not propose a lot line adjustment or its like here. The changes are fundamental to the ownership in the plat Condominimn owners do not own lots; townhouse owners do. The SEIS fails to cure all of the deficiencies in the 1991 Substantial Development Permit (the "SDP") applicableto the lagoon and to the plat as a whole. PLA's agreement not to build over the lagoon after receipt by Community Development of an opinion of the Washington Department of Ecology (the "DOE") that Community Development could not approve such construction, does not represent much progress toward curing patent deficiencies to the lagoon or the Master Planned Resort. Neither the landscaping plan has been followed nor has the condition of the lagoon been maintained in accordance with the SDP. These deficiencies, if cured, would surely restore the lagoon to a wetland and not just a tidal arm of Ludlow Bay as noted by the DOE. Not only did Community Development spend its own time and treasure pursuing an opinion from the DOE that the lagoon is not a wetland and that PLA should be permitted to construct residences over it but Community Development, obviously without approval of the Board of County Commissioners hired Ms. Lumsden to assist it to obtain the relief it sought for the benefit ofPLA. Community Development took these actions notwithstanding the consistent response of the community at Ludlow Bay in opposition LOG ITEM J:"7~s.- of s V ;l,Q~,~.~ thereto. The proper response was obvious. IfPLA wanted to pursue the right to build over water and there was a questio~ its application should have been rejected. PLA would then have had the opportunity to pursue an appeal through the hearings examiner at its cost The community at Ludlow Bay could have intervened in opposition to the proposal at its cost. The DOE would have had the right to intervene at its cost. In other words, Community Development squandered public funds to advance the interestS of a develoPer rather than have the developer pursue its own remedies at its own costs. Apparently, it is permitted to spend Jefferson County funds, obviously in short Supply, to help favored developers such as PLA_ The SEIS does not identify and secure the construction of the amenities promised in the Development Agreement and implicit in the Ordinance. Moving and shrinking the restaurant and providing an amenity restricted to the hotel is not a substitute for the amenities that should have been built. Neither is it permissible for PLA to ask the community at Ludlow Bay or Jefferson County to rely upon its reinvestment of profits from sale of residences to finance the amenities. The amenities are at least a condition of PLA's rights to develop residences and commercial improvements under the Development Agreement. What are the amenities? When will they be constructed? For the benefit of the community at Ludlow Bay, Community Development must cease to give a free pass to PLA on the amenities. PLA has had a number of years to identify and complete them. Further development in the Master Planned Resort should cease until the amenities are identified, approved by the community at Ludlow Bay and their completion bonded. The SEIS does not address this very critical issue. IfPLA is permitted to complete residential and commercial undertakings without providing assurance Qf amenities that support them, the community at Ludlow Bay and Jefferson County will financially suffer. We are at another crossroads in PLA's ill considered proposal to dense pack condominiums along Heron Rd. There is no reason for Community Development to decide to permit PLA's proposal, whatever it may be, to go forward. PLA has not cured any of the problems with the SEIS. Its second proposal does not do so. It has not brought itself into compliance with the Ordinance, the Development Agreement or the SDP. In fact it is out of compliance with the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and the Jefferson County Substantial Development Program because it has built twelve (12) townhouse units in the Plat after the lapse of its rights to build under the SDP in 1998. Construction of improvements valued at more than $5,000 is civilly and criminally actionable. What has Mr. Alvarez been doing about this matter? How does Community Development explain issuing building permits and approving construction of twelve (12) townhouses on a lapsed SDP? These questions need to be answered before permitting the SEIS to go forward. The County Commissioner need to investigate these derelictions of Community Development and the County Attorney before permitting the ~ ~ approval of additional construction in the Master Planned Resort. There will be two new County Commissioners in January 2005. Their election represents a radical shift in the position of the voters about the actions of the County Commissioners in approving development at the expense of safety, health, and environmental concerns. "'\F'C iT!""" M' LtH,j! C l H ~ <{S ff,...QL__,_~_ ~~ P,age~,,~__,of~ The new County Commissioners should be permitted to review the audit of Community Development before approving any more contracts for "consultantsn or permitting Community Development to continue its pro developer stance by giving a pass to PLA's SEIS. I call upon you to table items eight, nine, and ten on the agenda and to send Mr. Scalf instruction not to proceed with the approval ofPLA's SEIS in its present state. PLA must not be permitted to go forward on its plans until it has brought the projectils a whole into compliance with law, and with safety, health, and environmental concerns affecting Jefferson County. I appreciate your attention to this letter in your consideration of the December 20th, 2004 Agenda. Sincerely, Raydean H. Patterson Heron Road Port Ludlow, Washington &1 W~dr~~. PL. q g bl.PS;- -~ LOG ITEM # :J.~5 ~~ PaOf.! --~f · 6'