Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog337 Page 1 of2 , AI Scalf From: AI Scalf Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 8:52 AM To: 'Bruce Schmitz' Subject: RE: Port Ludlow Conference Center Bruce Things that would effect a decision include: 1. this is a existing structure, the permit requirements start with a change of use under the building code 2. what are the requirements for building, occupancy, access, parking, septic, water, landscaping, etc? 3. what are the zoning requirements, is the proposal consistent with the zoning-this has been our current discussion 4. what are the impacts to the community and to the environment, is SEPA required, a shoreline review? 5. are there other pertinent laws, local, state or federal. Federal law is very concerned about the treatment of Churches 6. Would this warrant a public hearing? 7. How would public opinion influence a land use decision? so, those are some of the things we would keep in mind in reviewing a permit. Of course, once a staff person(s) were assigned they would come up with additional questions. anyway, thanks for your insights have a good weekend AI -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Schmitz [mailto:bruce.s@olypen.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:42 PM To: AI Scalf Subject: Re: Port Ludlow Conference Center AI, Thanks for your quick reply. My belief is that you are constrained by Section 3.901 of the MPR Code. It does not give DCD any options. If states that any uses other than that contained in Section 3.901 require a major revision to the code. Clearly, a church is not a use currently specified in Section 3.901. I am on the Board of Directors in the Port Ludlow Community Church and I do not believe under any circumstances that you would consider a church to be a part of a recreational program. I agree with you that the code does not say that you cannot have a new use within the resort but it does say clearly that if there is a new use it must be approved through a major revision to the code. I appreciate any further thoughts you may have. Bruce Schmitz 12/5/2005 ----- Original Message ---- From: AI Scalf To: Bruce Schmitz Sent: Thursday, December 01,20054:31 PM Subject: RE: Port Ludlow Conference Center LOG ITEM # ~37 Page__~J_.~.~~of_5:"_ Page 2 of2 Bruce See my response within the text below: AI -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Schmitz [mailto:bruce.s@olypen.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 2:44 PM To: AI Scalf Subject: Port Ludlow Conference Center AI, Thank you for taking a few minutes after the Tuesday hearing to discuss the possible sale of the Port Ludlow Conference Center to Door of Grace Ministries. You had indicated in that conversation that you believed that you had the right to determine whether the church use on the resort site required a major or minor revision to the code. I would like to refer you to Section 3.901 of the MPR Code which states "The resort plan for future development of properties in the MPR- RC/CF zone shall be limited and shall not exceed the scope of development set forth below and shall include no uses except those set forth below, unless a major revision is approved (seee section 3.905)."[AI Scalf] agreed I think this is a very specific statement that does not allow for a determination about whether the new use may require a major or minor revision. I assume that you may believe that you have the authority to make a decision on the level of the change from Section 3.905, item 3 which says in part "Proposed revisions to the Resort Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and the DCD Director will determine whether the proposal constitutes a major or minor revision." [AI Scalf] agreed However, I would refer you to Section 3.907 of the code under item 1 D. This item states that "Minor revisions are those that do not result in a substantial change to the intent or purpose of the Resort Plan in effect and which (D) Do not propose new uses or uses that modify the recreational nature and intent of the Resort." [AI Scalf] yes, in order for it to be minor, I would have to enter a affirmative finding for this criteria It is clear to me from these sections of the MPR Code that the siting of a church within the Resort area requires a major revision to the code.[AI Scalf] we may not agree on this clarity It is clear that it is a new use[AI Scalf] I don't think the code says you can't have a new use and that modifies the recreational nature and intent of the Resort.[AI Scalf] this needs further study I would request your feedback on whether you agree with that conclusion. I personally believe that the use of the conference center as a church may be a good use[AI Scalf] would a Church support the resort, is it part of the recreational program? but I also believe that the regulations in the MPR Code must be followed if such a change is made.[AI Scalf] yes, we all agree to follow the law I would respectfully request that you reply on whether you agree with my conclusions or not.[AI Scalf] the key issue under D is whether a Church is consistent with the "recreational nature and intent of the Resort" . Your observations would be welcome. Best regards, Bruce Schmitz President, LMC Board of Trustees 12/5/2005 LOG rrEIV! #. 33 Z=~-_.-,._.. Pag~~..~_of..2..