HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog113
e
e
Page 1 of2
y
Barbara Nightingale
From: Barbara Nightingale
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:27 AM
To: 'LewisHale@aol.com'
Cc: AI Scalf
Subject: RE: Ludlow Cove II Dev Agg Amendment
Lewis,
PLA has it wrong on the zoning. It is currently zoned Single Family Resident 4: 1. However, in Jefferson County,
this does not necessarily preclude timeshare or transient use. Jefferson County Code does allow transient use of
Single Family Residences, JCC 18.20.210 identifies hospitality establishments (bed and breakfasts and the like- a
use for single family residents). Time-share is not spelled out however in Jefferson County. For Port Ludlow,
development standards are controlled by the Port Ludlow Development Agreement and the only way that can be
amended is through consent by the parties of the agreement (i.e. PLA and the County). I think that PLA could
have more correctly stated that Tract E is currently zoned as Single Family Resident 4:1 but that the amendment
proposes to change the development standards (controlled by the Development Agreement) for Tract E.
My two cents.
Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS.
Associate Planner
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
Jefferson County
Dept. of Community Development
(360) 379-4472
bnig htingale@co.jefferson.wa.us
From: LewisHale@aol.com [mailto:LewisHale@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:03 PM
To: Barbara Nightingale
Subject: Ludlow Cove II Dev Agg Amendment
Hi Barbara,
I've got a quick question. I just down loaded the latest issue of the Port Ludlow Voice. PLA has in their
"Developer's Report" comments on why they are doing an amendment to the development agreement and not an
amendment to the comprehensive plan. They make the point they are not requesting a zoning change and that
Tract E is zoned multi-family (MPR-SF). I thought this area was zoned single family??
Further, my lay understanding is that zoning really controls "use" and certainly time share is not an approved use
i.e. it is not allowed in the zoning. To me this is what conditional use approvals are for, but then they have
already been down that road.
They make comments or arguments that make no sense to me:
"Under a Development Agreement, development regulations (like the MPR zoning code) may be modified by the
development standards that are described in the agreement. A Development Agreement does not actually
amend the zoning code or other development regulations. Instead, it changes how those regulations are applied
to specific property. In PLA's proposed amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement, PLA is aking the
county to authorize timeshare use within Tract E. "
This sounds like convoluted nonsense to me, but I'm not a land use person, so ca
position. :#
Page
I
of ).
8/7/2006
e
e
Page 20f2
.
/
1. It seems they are saying the MPR zoning is a "development regulation" and therefore can be changed by
amending the development agreement, but yet my understanding is this requires a comp plan amendment. It's
like they are trying to argue a cat is just an animal and since a dog is also an animal they can have a dog in their
apartment (I know, bad analogy:-)
2. To the extent my assumption that zoning controls use, how can the county authorize "time share use" without
amending the zoning. It seems to me Galt beat this issue to death for good reason and it's pretty clear.
As AI will tell you, I often get confused and show up for education, so I'd appreciate some help understanding
what PLA is saying and how it fits with reality.
If you want I can fax you a copy or you can go to the following site, then the August Voice. This is on page 31.
http://pJYJ:~'lQj~e.htm
Thanks,
Lewis
8/7/2006