HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog101
.
e
July 21, 2006
Mr. David W. Sullivan
Mr. Patrick M. Rodgers
Mr. Phil Johnson
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Port Townsend, Washington
Re: Proposed Amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement
Dear Commissioners:
I would ordinarily not have sent my response directly to you because it conflicts the
protocol for review of the proposed amendment to the Development Agreement.
However, because PLA and Trend West have sent fliers encouraging various persons
directly to contact you, I am providing you with a copy of the response I have filed with
DCD. I find the proposal embodies violations of land use law and property rights. It
ignores the statutory protocol applicable to amending zoning through the Comprehensive
Plan.
It ignores the vested rights of the residents of Port Ludlow to rely on land use law under
the MPR Code. Those rights were specifically approved by Jefferson County and the
developer. Their reach was confirmed by a further grant by the developer of covenants
conditions and restrictions that vest control of those rights in the PL VC for the benefit of
the residents. The residents paid the developer, including PLA millions of dollars for
property protected by those vested land uses. Now, when the developer decides to pursue
another use, it proposes to amend or suspend those rights for which it accepted residents'
money. It further proposes that Jefferson County be involved in depriving the residents
of those rights.
It ignores the property rights of the residents, derivatively, under the covenants,
conditions, and restrictions that were recognized as such by the Washington Supreme
Court in the Viking Properties case that I cite in my response. Those rights may be taken
by Jefferson County only for a public purpose and only with compensation. Otherwise,
the Court indicates the GMA and inferentially constitutionally protected property rights
of the residents will be violated.
It ignores the rights of the residents under the Development Agreement as successors in
title and assigns. Where is the written consent of the residents to the abridgement of their
rights in their property and under the covenants, conditions and restrictions.
This proposal was rejected by Appellate Hearing Examiner Galt because it was a hotel
masking as a time share. It was rejected by the DOE because it represented a different
more intense use than that applicable to the property. It was questioned by the Sheriff
who recognized the inadequacy of staff to protect the area. It conflicts the whole notion
LOG ITEM
# It) /
,:>age / of )2..
.
.
of a master planned resort that is based on an integrated public resort with public
facilities, not a private hotel embedded in a public resort. It ignores the impact on public
services and facilities.
The economic justification for this proposal is more than optimistic. Other than the golf
course and two restaurants that the developer admits all lose money, there are no public
amenities. There are almost no beaches. There is no sail boat rental of the scope that Mr.
Helm discussed. There are no public trails. There is in short, little or nothing for the non
golfers to do. It is questionable that the golf course will be supported significantly by this
proposal. The golf course needs members. Trend West golfers are not members. They
pay green fees. Presently, as Mr. Verrue has admitted, there are about two hundred
members and a need for six hundred members to break even. Why then would anyone
invest another $4,000,000 or more in golf club amenities in a golf club that is now losing
money?
I ask that the legal issues covered by my letter be carefully considered. They will be the
basis for administrative appeals and litigation for some time to come at great cost to
Jefferson County and to those who will participate. Rather than permit an end run around
a position adopted as the final action of Jefferson County on this project, this project
should be rejected as to its present location or the location should be subject to full
vetting and analysis under a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
I appreciate your review of this matter.
Sincerely,
c:i!e<lhe --4. power<l
Leslie A. Powers