Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog112 e e Page lof3 Barbara Nightingale From: Powers & Therrien [powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:55 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Cc: Powers & Therrien Subject: Re: FW: PLA response to Trendwest or another example of creative writing? Barbara: Thank you for the clarification. I would like to understand your analysis of a time share. Let me explain my reasoning. Under the Time Share Act, the definition for which is incorporated in the proposed amendment, the language appears to require the right to use specific units for a specific amount of time during a three year period. Right of use may be real or personal property but right to use must be dedicated. I think this analysis is consistent with AHE Galt's finding of fact respecting the commercial exchange underlying the use of the units. He concluded that the purchase of the points whether or not coupled with additional cash was the same as an exchange of consideration for the transient use of the premises. At Conclusion 18 he stated: The preponderance of the evidence shows that Trendwest members buy vacation points so that they may vacatoin anywheree within the Trendwest system, that they use these points to "rent" the accommodation they desire (paying more points for a larger, more desireable unit or during "high" season), and that they can supplement points with cash. The evidence also shows that the units are available to non-Trendwest members when not reserved by Trendwest members. No matter what the legal nuances of a Trendwest member's ownership are, the reality is that Trendwest members pay compensation (points and/or cash) to use units within the Trendwest system for vacation stays. Therefore, a a Trendwest resort is, under the applicable definitions, a transient accommodation, not multifamily residential development. Therefore, the proposed Trendwest resort is not permitted under either the 1995 G-1 zoning or the current single family residential zoning. I think Mr. Galt's conclusion is inconsistent with the notion of a time share which emphasizes a right of use of one or more units rather than an exchange of consideration for the scheduled use of a unit if available. I think the important underlying distinction is that a time share is conceptually a residential vacation unit while a resort or hotel is a commercial venture selling short term vacation occupancy. This analysis is consistent with the definition offered in the proposed amendment and RCW 64.36.010(11). They correctly provide that a timeshare "means a right to occupy a unit or any of several units during three or more separate periods over a period of at least three years..." A review of the definition of "timeshare expenses" indicates that the notion is that specific units are shared. It states such expenses means expenditures, fees, charges, or liabiilities incurred with respect to the time shares by or on behalf of all timeshare owners in one timeshare property..." See RCW 64.38.010(12). A timeshare owner is a person who is the owner or coowner of a time share. See RCW 64.38.010(14). A unit is unit is "the real or personal property, or portion thereof, inwhich the timeshare exists and which is designated for separate use. See RCW 64.38.010(16). Read together, there is a nexus between a time share, one or more specific units, and the owner. Mr. Galt concluded that such nexus is absent in Trendwest resorts. His conclusion is part of the final action of Jefferson County on the issue. Based thereon, I would conclude that the Trendwest proposal is not a time share and for reasons made clear by Mr. Galt is not a condominium. I would like to hear your analysis of how it qualifies as either. I concluded that the 1995 IUGA zoned Ludlow Cove II for multifamily use. I based the conclusion on the descriptions contained in Attachment C and D1 of the IUGA, Ordinance 01-0117-95. That may be the same as a G-1 zone. I have not reviewed the zoning code on this issue. Les tOG ,,.EtA II )- ,- {.-o17- Page - - 8/7/2006 e e Page 2 of3 ----- Original Message ----- From: Barbara Nightingale To: P9w.ers & Therd~n ; AI Scalf Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 20069:01 AM Subject: RE: FW: PLA response to Trendwest or another example of creative writing? Les, Rick and AI, I for one, do not agree that Trendwest does not qualify as a timeshare from any of the definitions you have provided, However, the document you forwarded as the PLA Developer News is not all together correct. Under the new application, Tract E is zoned as Single-Family not Multi-Family, as it doesn't have the vesting of the earlier application. I have already discussed that with PLA. Thanks, Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnightingale@co. iefferson. wa. us From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:29 AM To: Barbara Nightingale; AI Scalf Subject: Fw: FW: PLA response to Trendwest or another example of creative writing? ----- Original Message ----- From: RR2DP@aol.com To: bertl@cablespeed.com ; powers therrien@yvn.com; mardou1 @cablespeed.com ; JiOlbr:@cablespeed,J~Qm ;bbuIKe@ptleaQ.eL_CQm ;hhCIQJJtJer@primaJ:~Jfa,cQm ; grant.colby@sodexhousa.com ; wgfunke@cablespeed.com ; golden@olympus.net ; LewisHale@aol.com ; Gary.Hashbarger@pcg.com ; Del3sail@aol.com ; gregg.iordshaugen@mossadams.com ; iiadv@olympus.net; edandJan@cablespeed.com ; mattlyons@cablespeed.com ; kmadson@olypen.com ; michaeI6@0IYR-e!1~Qm ; bnightinga1e@g.QjeffeIsQJ).wa.us ; rnuIl38@yahQQ-,-com ; Sailwhi~~[@hotmai-'-&Qm ; pedersen@olypen.com ; S14526@aol.com ; carolsaber@olympus.net; r&kshelley@waypt.com ; RTSLG@MSN,COM ; zing@olympus.net Sent: Tuesday, July 25,2006 10:20 PM Subject: Re: FW: PLA response to Trendwest or another example of creative writing? Is anyone ever going to correct Ms. Smeland that Trendwest is not nor ever will be a "Time Share" development. Someone should read the definition under Washington State Law of what a "Time Share" is. Trendwest does not meet any of these definitions. RCW64.36.10 (11) "Timeshare" means a right to occupy a unit or any of several units during three or more separate time periods over a period of at least three years, including renewal options, whether or not coupled with an estate in land". 14) "Timeshare owner" means a person who is an owner or co-owner of a timeshare. Iftitle to a timeshare is held in trust, "timeshare owner" means the beneficiary of the trust" . Port Ludlow Master Plan Resort (MPR) "defines time share to require the right to use one or more units some specific times during a three year period, a right that does not obtain under the Trend West vacation point program". 8/7/2006