HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog120
Re: Legal iss~e - Port Ludlow dttlopment agreement modification /Tre*est --- FYI --... Page 1 of 3
Barbara Nightingale
From:
Sent:
To:
Powers & Therrien [powers_therrien@yvn.com]
Wednesday, AwtJat16....i,1$P.,
,jJ
Barbara Nightingale; Bert Loomis; John Fischbach; AI Scalf; David Alvarez; Pat Rodgers; David
Sullivan; Phil Johnson
Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Tom Stone; Larry Nobles; Bruce Pyles; Bruce Schmitz; Allen Panasuk;
Tony Durham; Don Clark; Suzanne Graber; Jim Brannaman; Richard Shattuck; Mickey Gendler;
Lewis Hale; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; Peter Joseph; Ed Knodle; Douglas Barber; Hana Buresova;
Rick Rozzell; Bill Cooke; Ralph Stroy
Subject: Re: Legal issue - Port Ludlow development agreement modificationiTrendwest --- FYI --- Bert
Cc:
Barbara:
I respectfully dissent your conclusion. The modifications permitted by the development agreement are required to
remain consistent with the MPR Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Both are violated by the proposed use.
Accordingly, as a legal proposition, the development agreement cannot be modified as you suggest. AHE Galt
found as a matter of fact that the use was a commercial use. All of the legerdemain contained in the proposed
amendment cannot change that finding. That use is specifically prohibited both by the MPR Code and by the
Zoning Code. It is not a permitted use under a CUP. Neither for obvious reasons is it permitted as a variance. A
variance cannot make legal what is not legal in a particular zone. Because the use is not a legal use and
because it conflicts legal uses defined in the MPR Code and the Comprehensive Plan, I cannot see how you can
take the position that the change can be affected by this slight of hand. The County may well put perceived
economic development, economic benefit or tax base over the law, but ultimately, a court will resolve this matter.
For reasons I have stated in my submissions and for reasons that Lewis Hale stated in the submission prepared
by his counsel, I think your position is not legally sustainable and will merely put the County through a good deal
of legal expense in resolving. I further think you should carefully consider the slippery slope you create when you
make land use and the vested rights of the owners thereunder subject to a shortcut benefitting a few rent seekers
and damaging the many constituents that have spent millions of dollars buying property from them in reliance
upon the permance of land use laws and Jefferson County's willingness to enforce same.
Les
---- Original Message ----
From: Barbara Nightingale
To: Bert Loomis; John Fischbach; AI Scalf; David Alvarez; Pat Rodgers; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson
Cc: 1;lizj3beth VaILZOnn~yelg; Tom StQne; ]",9[!Y_NQRJes ;6[Yc~J~yJes; Bru<;;~_SGJlml~; AllerLPanasuk; IQny
Durham; Tom Stone; Don Clark; Suzanne Graber; Jim Brannaman ; Richard Shattuck; Mickey Gendler; Les
Powers; Lewis Hale; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen ; Peter Joseph; Ed Knodle; Douglas Barber; Hana
Buresova ; Rick Rozzell ; Bill Cooke; Ralph Stroy
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 20065:05 PM
Subject: RE: Legal issue - Port Ludlow development agreement modificationiTrendwest --- FYI --- Bert
Bert,
I refer you to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement Section 3 Development Standards. Section 3.11
specifically provides this site-specific flexibility. Generally speaking, the County also grants similar variances for
other areas and parties.
The development agreement is a legal agreement between the BoCC and PLA. Like it or not both parties have
agreed to this flexibility.
Respectfully,
Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS.
Associate Planner
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
LOG ITEM
# I;L(J
Page .' of ~
8/17/2006
Re: Legal is~ue - Port Ludlow wlopment agreement modification ITre.est --- FYI --... Page 2 of 3
Jefferson County
Dept. of Community Development
(360) 379-4472
bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us
From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertl@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 20063:48 PM
To: John Fischbach; AI Scalf; Barbara Nightingale; David Alvarez; Pat Rodgers; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson
Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Tom Stone; Larry Nobles; Bruce Pyles; Bruce Schmitz; Allen Panasuk; Tony
Durham; Tom Stone; Don Clark; Suzanne Graber; Jim Brannaman; Richard Shattuck; Mickey Gendler; Les
Powers; Lewis Hale; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; Peter Joseph; Ed Knodle; Douglas Barber; Hana Buresova; Rick
Rozzell; Bill Cooke; Ralph Stroy
Subject: Re: Legal issue - Port Ludlow development agreement modification[Trendwest --- FYI --- Bert
John,
Thank you for your prompt response. However, you have misstated my question. I am not
asking for a "predetermination" of a public hearing that has not yet occurred.
What I have repeatedly asking you for was to site the legal authority that allows a zone
change by modification of the development agreement.
I am curious as to why the County is working so diligently to facilitate the circumvention of the
Galt decision on Trendwest?
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Bert
Bert, thank you for your comments. You are referring to the application for an amendment to
the development agreement currently being reviewed by DCD. The decision is pending an
hearing examiner recommendation to the BOCC and eventually a final decision of the BOCC.
You are Asking for a predetermination which is not proper within the process of application
review. The HE public hearing will be September 22nd.
John
From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertl@cablespeed.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 20068:58 AM
To: John Fischbach; AI Scalf; Barbara Nightingale; David Alvarez; Pat Rodgers; David
Sullivan; Phil Johnson
Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Tom Stone; Larry Nobles; Bruce Pyles; Bruce Schmitz; Allen
Panasuk; Tony Durham; Tom Stone; Don Clark; Suzanne Graber; Jim Brannaman; Richard
Shattuck; Mickey Gendler; Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Gregg & Pat Jordshaugen; Peter Joseph;
Ed Knodle; Douglas Barber; Hana Buresova; Rick Rozzell; Bill Cooke; Ralph Stroy
Subject: Legal issue - Port Ludlow development agreement modification [Trendwest --- FYI -
-- Bert
John,
8/1 7/2006
Re: Legal issue - Port Ludlow .lopment agreement modification ITr.est --- FYI --... Page 3 of3
I
AHE Galt has ruled that Trend West is a commercial resort and its use is not a legally permitted
use on Ludlow Cove II under any applicable county zoning laws. What is the legal basis for the
conclusion of Jefferson County that a Trend West use may be permitted through an
amendment of its private development agreement (the "Development Agreement") with PLA in
light of Mr. Galt's ruling?
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Bert
8/1 7/2006