HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog277
..
Page 1 of 1
Michelle Farfan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
LewisHale@aol.com
Thursday, November 03,200512:15 PM
AI Scalf
Michelle Farfan
Subject: Port Ludlow Resort Build Out and Marina Expansion Comments
Regards,
AI, attached are my comments on PLA's application for the captioned.
Lewis
11/3/2005
LOG ITENI
# d-t7 ~
Page_L_ot~.
Lewis J. Hale
10552 15th Avenue Northwest
Seattle, Washington 989177
206-365-1072
November 3, 2005
Mr. Al Scalf, Director
Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Re: Port Ludlow Resort Build-out and Marina Expansion
Dear AI,
I am writing in opposition to the captioned, primarily on the basis that the proposal from
Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) requires the approval of all property owners in the
affected area as well as the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC). We own a town
home at 28 Heron Rd in Ludlow Bay Village and are members ofthe same Homeowners
Association and subject to the same CC&Rs as the 28 town home lots PLA is proposing
to re-plat into a condominium development.
LMC has vested architectural control over the 28 town home lots which are the subject of
the current PLA application. Article 11, Architectural Control, ofthe CC&Rs
governing the Ludlow Bay Village specifically provides certain authority to the LMC.
Section 11.1, Lots Subject To Ludlow Maintenance Commission Architectural
Review, states "At all times after conveyance from Pope Resources, the Owners of each
Town Home Lot and Single-Family Lot within Ludlow Bay Village shall be subject to
the LMC architectural control as provided in Article 17, in addition to the architectural
control by the Architectural Review Committee of the Master Association as set forth
below.. .". Clearly the conveyance ofthese lots occurred in 2001 at that time there was a
transfer ( conveyance) of ownership from Pope Resources to PLA as evidenced by deed.
Further, and as noted below, PLA's application, to be valid, is required to contain the
agreement of all property owners in Ludlow Bay Village. Even Greg McCarry, President
ofPLA acknowledged this in an interview in the July 2,2003 Leader which stated, "PLA
can't change any ofthe lot lines without consent of 100 percent of the property owners,
said PLA CEO Greg McCarry".
Since a valid application does not exist, I have to question why we are even having a
hearing and encourage you postpone the pending hearing until such time as PLA
LOG ITEM
# d-3. 7
Page~_~ _.of .~_
1
"
produces a valid and complete application signed by all property owners. In support of
this I note the following:
PLA has applied for a boundary line adjustment (BLA) as the basis for converting the
remaining 28 platted town home lots into a fewer number of larger lots on which they
propose to build over 60 condominiums thus more than doubling the residential density.
This is clearly a maneuver on their part to avoid the requirements ofRCW 58.17.215
which reads in part as follows:
RCW 58.17.215
Alteration of subdivision -- Procedure.
When any person is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering
of any portion thereof, except as provided in RCW 58.17.040(6), that person shall
submit an application to request the alteration to the legislative authority of the
city, town, or county where the subdivision is located. The application shall
contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership
interest of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions in the subject subdivision or
portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which
were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for
alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain
an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the
parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the
purpose of the alteration of the subdivision or portion thereof.
PLA seeks to circumvent RCW 58.17.215 based on the exception of RCW
58.17.040(6) which reads as follows:
RCW 58.17.040
Chapter inapplicable, when.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(6) A division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting boundary lines,
between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional
lot, tract, parcel, site, or division nor create any lot, tract, parcel, site, or division
which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements
for width and area for a building site
PLA presupposes that since they are creating fewer not "additional" lots they are
exempt from the provisions of RCW 58.17.215. One must look carefully at the
wording of the exception to test for validity. What PLA is proposing is far more
than an "alteration" and they are going way beyond merely "adjusting boundary
lines". Furthermore, the proposed stacked condominiums definitely create
additional parcels based on the provisions of RCW 64.34 i.e. each condominium
unit occupies a parcel and thus their proposal is subject to RCW 58.17.215 since
LOG ITEM
#~77
Page 3 of S
2
",P
they are going from 28 to 61 parcels. This is supported by the following RCW
definitions contained in the condominium law RCW 64.34. Since PLA is
proposing to build condominiums there can be no question these sections apply.
RCW 64.34.020
Definitions.
(9) "Condominium" means real property, portions of which are designated for
separate ownership and the remainder of which is designated for common
ownership solely by the owners of those portions. Real property is not a
condominium unless the undivided interests in the common elements are vested
in the unit owners, and unless a declaration and a survey map and plans have
been recorded pursuant to this chapter.
(27) "Real property" means any fee, leasehold or other estate or interest in,
over, or under land, including structures, fixtures, and other improvements
thereon and easements, rights and interests appurtenant thereto which by
custom, usage, or law pass with a conveyance of land although not described in
the contract of sale or instrument of conveyance. "Real property" includes
parcels, with or without upper or lower boundaries, and spaces that may be
filled with air or water.
Noting the clear and unambiguous language contained in the above definitions
(9) and (27), a condominium "means real property" and "real property" includes
parcels. (bold is added above for emphasis). The space occupied by each
condominium is by definition a parcel.
Now, since there are "restrictive covenants" that apply to both the Ludlow Bay
Village and Town Home Associations, numerous sections of which will be
violated by the PLA proposal, I reiterate that PLA's application must contain the
written agreement of all (100%) of the parties/lots subject to the restrictive
covenants in order to be considered valid.
While there are numerous sections of the CC&Rs that will be violated by PLA's
proposal, the easiest to understand is Section 7.12 "Declarant Subsidy", which
obligates PLA to subsidize the annual budget for the Town Home Association
until 40 Lots have been sold. Carving off the remaining 28 Lots means that the
threshold of 40 Lots becomes impossible to meet. Presumably Pope Resources
determined when the Town Home Association was established that the
community needed 40 of the 53 platted lots as paying members in order to
guarantee self sufficiency. This means the elimination of 28 lots from the Ludlow
Village Town Home Association and plat is a clear violation of the CC&Rs.
I understand in the past that DCD, at different times, has taken varying positions
regarding the applicability or non-applicability of the CC&Rs. However, based on
the above I hope you can see that the CC&Rs do apply and must be considered.
LOG ITEM
# .1. 77
Page~of S
3
This is both a requirement of the RCW and of the county application form for
BLA's, so either way PLA must address the CC&R issue as part of its application.
I encourage you to address with PLA the deficiencies in their application and
respectfully suggest that if they do not comply within a reasonable time period
that the pending public hearing be cancelled or postponed until they comply with
the State and Country application requirements.
Respectfully,
Lewis J. Hale
LOG ITEM
# :J-77
Page !J - ~,of C;
4