Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog332 C-C:1)cD ll/;l i) 10 5 Page 1 of 4 1.eslie Locke From: Phil Johnson Sent: Monday, November 28,20053:28 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: Hearing on Major Revision From: Powers & Therrien[SMTP:POWERS_ THERRIEN@YVN.COM] Sent: Monday, November 28,20053:27:25 PM To: Pat Rodgers; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Cc: Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Bruce Schmitz; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; Dwayne Wilcox Subject: Fw: Hearing on Major Revision Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Commissioners Roders, Sullivan an? Joh,n,son: I forward to you an email that I received from Mr. Scalf and my response. While the email and response may be self explanatory, I would like to make a couple of observations. I am a resident of Jefferson County. I vote here. I own property here and pay taxes to Jefferson County thereon. Port Ludlow Associates, the proponent, in the matter subject to the hearing to which the email exchange relates wants to change the resort plan by eliminating virtually all of the resort promised in the development agreement between Jefferson County and the proponent. . The expansion of the resort was the condition to 'consent given to the proponent to add an additional 459 housing units. The promised expansion added almost 500,000 square feet of resort amenities. The proposed resort plan modification shrinks the expansion to about 7,500 square feet of exercise facility dedicated principally to the Inn at Ludlow Bay and the Ludlow Bay Marina, the proponent's ventures. Without the resort expansion serious questions arise whether Ludlow Bay continues to qualify as a master planned resort or is rather required to qualify under the Growth Management Act as an urban growth are or a planned unit development. These issues are of critical interest to the community. The community needs to address whether it will be principally a resort or some other allowable urban development. It needs to consider the availability of public facities and services under the various alternatives. It needs to consider the effect of the alternatives on the quality of life of the residents and the future of the community considering its demographics. Eliminating the resort amenities is not only a "major revision", it completely recasts the nature of Ludlow Bay, its legal status, and its identity as a community. The local Ludlow Bay community will live with the decisions that are ultimately made, virtually in perpetuity. The public servants, the proponent and the hearing examiner will be long gone. To take the position that the convenience and scheduling of those persons with transient interests in the subject matter outweigh the interests and need of Jefferson County to protect the community at Ludlow Bay is insupportable. For a public servant, particularly a director of an agency to take that position casts serious doubt on the interest of Jefferson County in its residents. You have been elected to represent the interests of the residents of Jefferson County. The developer and public servants except in the capacity of residents are excluded from that classification. Protecting the residents of the second largest community in Jefferson County on a decision that immediately and for the future will affect their quality oflife and property values should be of prime importance. I do not see that interest conveyed in Mr. Scalfs email. Rather, I see a narrow interest of public servants, hearing examiner, and perhaps proponent trumping the interest of the community. I look to you to reverse this decision and ensure full disclosure to the community and full participation by it. Your attention to this email is appreciated. Les Powers 11/2812005 LOG iTEM #_ ~ 3~ Page---L-_ofL Page 2 of 4 .\' Resident ~ ---- Original Message ----- From: Powers & Therrien To: AI Scalf; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; Bruce Schmitz ; Greag & Pat Jordshaugen ; LewisHale@aol.com ; Dwayne Wilcox Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 1 :01 PM Subject: Re: Hearing on Major Revision AI: You make reference to "impossible" and "everyone's schedule". I have not received any notice of any final schedule of a hearing or making inquiry whether the hearing is convenient to my schedule. Hence, "everyone" must exclude me. Who else is excluded? Perhaps the Port Ludlow community? Did scheduling involve the proponent? If so, who was contacted? If so, is the proponent more important than the Ludlow Bay community? think you need to consider whose convenience is important, the public who is to be served by "public servants", the "public servants" themselves, or the proponent. Please give me a list of persons with telephone numbers and email addresses of each person whose schedule is adversely affected. I will undertake to correspond with each. Please understand, the purpose of the hearing is to involve public input. You appear to consider one or more unidentified persons' schedules more important than facilitating public input. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Les Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: AI Scalf To: Powers & Therrien; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; Bruce Schmitz ; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen ; LewisHale@aol.com ; Dwayne Wilcox Sent: Monday, November 28,200510:23 AM Subject: RE: Hearing on Major Revision Les It's impossible and won't work out trying to accomodate, or make exceptions for everyones's schedule. I reviewed the options with Irv, as we had a three day hearing at the Fort a couple of week's ago. He wants the Fort. AI -----Original Message----- From: Powers &Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:54 AM To: AI Scalf Cc: Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Vim Zonneveld; Bruce Schmitz; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; LewisHale@aol.com; Dwayne Wilcox Subject: Re: Hearing on Major Revision AI: I spoke with Mr. Jordshaugen yesterday. He said that he and Mr. Lewis will not be able to attend a meeting in January. Because of the importance of their participation, I ask that the meeting be rescheduled to a time when they are able to participate. Your assistance is appreciated. lOG ITEI\A P#~~~_.~.- 11/2812005, age_~."._OI~~._~= - Page 3 of4 As to the remaining issue, I do not believe Mr. Berteig's convenience trumps the needs of the community that is most affected by the proposed Major Revision. Mr. Berteig lives in Seattle. He is certainly able to attend a meeting at Port Ludlow as easily, if not more so, than at Fort Warden. Since the proponent has held meetings, including scoping meetings at Port Ludlow, to discuss the proposal in prior iterations, I think it is only reasonable that the hearing be held here also. I renew my request that the meeting be scheduled where the residents and property owners impacted by the proposal are located. I appreciate your consideration in these matters. Les Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: AI Scalf To: Powers & Therrien; Michelle Farfan Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; Dwayne Wilcox Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:20 AM Subject: RE: Hearing on Major Revision Les DCD is trying to confirm Jan 17 and 18. The location became difficult as the BOCe courthouse chambers has a occupancy limit of 28 and the courthouse first floor conference room holds the same. The Superior courtroom is not available for such long hearings, nor is District court. In talking with Irv 'be preferred Fort Worden over Port Ludlow. So that is where the hearing will be held. Notice will be provided once the site and time is confirmed. AI -----Original Message----- From:. Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Saturday, November 26,20058:42 AM To: AI Scalf Cc: Powers & Therrien; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Dwayne Wilcox Subject: Hearing on Major Revision AI: I was told by another resident at Ludlow Bay that the hearing on the Major Revision has been rescheduled for, I recall, January 17th, and that the hearing would be held at Fort Warden. I have not received notice of either. I would appreciate formal notice as an interested party. I also wish to suggest that the hearing be moved to one of the convention facilities at Ludlow Bay to encourage local participation. Our community is composed to a significant extent of retired persons. It would be much easier for them to attend and participate if they did not have to drive twenty extra miles each way. Ludlow Bay is the situs of the matter. It is closer for Mr. Berteig. It has been used by the proponent to hold meetings in the same issue at which it promoted the project. It seems fair, cost effective, and in keeping with the purpose of obtaining local involvement in land use decisions to hold the hearing at Ludlow Bay rather than at Fort Warden. Neither is officially the court house where the hearing should formally be held. I would appreciate consideration of this matter. Les Powers 11/2812005 Powers & Therrien, P.S. 3502 Tieton Drive Yakima, WA 98902 Phone: 509-453-8906 Fax: 509-453-0745 LOG ITEM # 3 30<. Page,'~ ,of.JL- 1112812005 Page 4 of 4 This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510- 2521 and is legally privileged. This message and any attachments hereto may contain confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer. lOG rrE~ ... #~~ Page_.Jf__~..Ot~!l..-. " ..,~-"""