HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog317
. ,
..,
....
87 Scott Court
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
1fB1.. ~ (C r:Tw lE'~.'~.......Phone 360.437.4154
I n1 I :, II Cell 360.531.0906
!,nr-NOV - 4 2005 I ~~IIiS@jx.netcom.com
I
William D. Weir
November 4,2005
Mr. Al Scalf, Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development Department
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 93368
Dear Mr. Scalf,
I am writing, as a homeowner and full-time resident of Port Ludlow, to request that DCD
recommend non-approval of Port Ludlow Associate's (PLA's) application for a permit to extend
the existing docks of the Port Ludlow marina in a westerly direction along the shoreline. This
project is described as Alternative 1, "Proposed Project", in the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement of December 31, 2002 (FSEIS).
I will raise three issues concerning this proposed expansion:
(a) There exists a discrepancy between the project as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the project being proposed to Jefferson County.
The FSEIS described five alternative plans for the project. The Reid Middleton drawing
numbered 24-99-014 "Port Ludlow Marina Expansion Layout", which was distributed by
Jefferson County with the October 5, 2005 Public Notice of the review process,
corresponds to Alternative 1, "Proposed Project" in the FEIS, which is Figure 3 of the
FEIS. This alternative is unique among the five alternatives in including dock-extensions
which extend westward to overlap the privately-owned dock which is identified on the
drawing as "Scott Dock".
Department of the Army Permit No. 2001-1-01151 which was granted to PLA in April of
2003 includes a Reid Middleton drawing of the project from the permit application,
which clearly corresponds to Alternative 5, "Response to DSEIS Comments" in the FEIS,
which is Figure 7 ofthe FEIS. This alternative includes dock-extensions which extend
westward to a point in-line with the "Scott Dock", but which do not overlap it.
Thus it is clear that the plan being presented to Jefferson County for permit approval is
not the same plan which was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lacking
approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the County has no alternative, as I see
it, but to disapprove PLA's County permit application.
William Weir to DCD
LOG ITEM
#.3l'7
Page_ ( ~_of -3 -
-
Page 1 of3
--
..
(b) The project being proposed to Jefferson County was declared unacceptable by the State
of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department's objections have
not been satisfactorily answered by PLA.
In response to the DSEIS, the Department of Fish and Wildlife wrote an advisory letter of
August 4,2002, which appears in Section 4.2 of the FEIS. It states in part, "WDFW
supports either Alternative 4: No Action or Alternative 2: Deep Water Expansion with
additional mitigation.". It is clearly implied by this statement, and other statements in
WDFW's advisory letter, that the other alternatives of the DSEIS, corresponding to
Alternatives 1 and 3 of the FEIS, were not acceptable to WDFW. Although a PLA
response is reprinted in the FSEIS following the WDFW letter, there is no evidence in
DCD's case files of subsequent review of these comments by WDFW.
It seems reasonable to suppose that WDFW would not provide Hydraulic Project
Approval for a project alternative which was strongly rejected by its review process, and
it seems clear that there has been inadequate review and mitigation planning, subsequent
to the FSEIS. In the County's role of protecting the review responsibilities of other
public agencies in the EIS review process, it should therefore reject the current PLA
application.
(c) The project as proposed disregards the clear and adverse effect which it will have on
views and liveability of the four homes, located adjacent to the marina on Scott Court,
which are occupied by my neighbors and myself.
The FEIS document itself, in Section 1.8, identifies "Impacts of the expansion on views
from adjacent properties, adjacent property values, and ingress and egress to the adjacent
dock" as the first of four "Significant Issues for Consideration". The proposed project,
by including extensions of"E' and "F" docks westward to overlap the Scott Dock owned
by Grant and Lori Colby, clearly occludes the view from their property, as well as
restricting access to their dock. Just as clearly, this project adversely effects views and
liveability for neighbors in the three other homes located west of the Colby residence on
Scott Court. We believe this adverse effect on our views will adversely affect the value of
our properties, and no mitigation has been offered.
It seems clear that Jefferson County has an obligation to deny a permit application which,
by over-reaching, interferes with the rights and well-being of others. In addition, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers permit states as a "limit of this authorization" item 2c: "This
permit does not permit any injury to the property or rights of others."
My neighbors and I will, at the public hearing on this matter, describe shortcomings of
the studies and arguments which PLA has advanced to justify its choice of the proposed
project alternative over others. But at this point we respectfully request that DCD
recommend non-approval ofPLA's requested permit for marina expansion based on the
proposal's intrusion on our rights to enjoy our prop ....:. ....8 'N~ll(l&-$e.~ s
discussed above. f[.'.).~.. [; (C; ic: U W
1.,.9 rm--.---- II
I !,'\\! I
I, i !ll NOV - 4 2005 I
I
Page 2 of 3
William Weir to DCD
LOG ITEM
# .3f7
Page-.~ of. . 3--.
..
"
Another ofthe alternative plans presented in the FEIS responds to these objections, and I would
view it as altogether preferable to the project as proposed. This alternative plan is described as
Alternative 2, "Deep Water Expansion", in the Final Environmental Impact Statement of
December 31, 2002 (FSEIS). My hope is that DCD will recommend that PLA revise its
applications to all required Federal and Washington State agencies, and its County permit
application, to correspond to the specifications of Alternative 2.
I hope the Department of Community Development will carefully consider these concerns, and
that it will recommend non-approval of the permit application for marina expansion as the result
of its staff review.
,Si?cerelY, .\":') \0-
L~~
William D. Weir
{~D f2 j: l ~ 'W ~ rRln,
In I -----,:\ II
I ! I . .'
1 i 'I NOV - 4 2005 ! ,jj
! ""
i
f
William Weir to DCD
LOG ITEM
#3(7
Page_ -3 __of_3__
Page 3 00