HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog121
-
e
Page 1 of3
Barbara Nightingale
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Powers & Therrien [powers_therrien@yvn.com]
;'<"
Wednesday, A..1e.~009.9:38 PM
Barbara Nightingale
Powers & Therrien; bert loomis; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Rick Rozzell; LewisHale@aol.com; Tom
Stone; Terry and Shelley o'brien; AI Scalf
Subject: Second Response to Your Response to Mr. Loomis
Barbara:
Let me respectfully direct you to the applicable authority. If as AHE Galt found, vesting occurred in
January, 1995, the Zoning Ordinance controls. As to the specific property, the IUGA controls.
Thereunder, the map provides that the property is multifamily. It is zoned general. To grant a variance
under the Zoning Code that is applicable under the vesting, the following rules apply:
17.20 VARIANCES-REVIEW CRITERIA. The Hearing Examiner shall not authorize
any variance to the provisions of this ordinance unless all of the following facts and circumstances
exist:
1. The specific effect of the zoning regulation construed literally as to the specific
property is unreasonable due to unique conditions relating to the specific property relating to the
specific property such as size, shape topography, location, proximity to a critical area, or character
of the surrounding uses, or that strict compliance of the regulation would be unreasonable in view of
the purpose to be served by the regulation;
2. The hardship relates to the application of the standard to the land,
than the personal circumstances of the applicant;
rather
3. The granting of the variance will not serve to erode the purpose of this
ordinance;
4. The variance so granted would allow the reasonable use of the
and would not affect the use of the neighboring properties;
property ,
5.
in this Ordinance;
The variance does not allow deviation from the specific use restriction contained
6. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental or contrary
to the Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect th e character of the character of the
neighborhood and the rights of neighboring adjacent property owners;
7. The granting of the variance does not cause a significant
to the public interest.
detrimental effect
17.30 LIMITATIONS ON THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE. The Hearing Examiner
and the Board shall not recommend approval of any variance from this ordinance that would:
1.
Change the structure of the land or the boundartl5eI ~g
# f).... (
Page I of y
district;
8/1 7/2006
e
e
Page 2 of3
2. Change the zoning requirements regulating the use of land.
I quote the provision in its entirety. I ask you how a variance procedure permits a commercial resort on
the property, as found by AHE Galt in light of the requirements of Zoning Code Subsections 17 .20( 1),
(2), (3), (4), (6), and (7). I emphasize (6). The proposal clearly violates and conflicts the land use
approved in the Comprehensive Plan. It violatles the MPR Code, the development regulation adopted
under the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the property. Finally, there is no showing that any of the
conditions of (1) through (7) have been met, a condition of granting a variance. I further question
whether the proposal does not violate Zoning Ordinance 17.30(2) because it clearly changes the zoning
requirements regulating the use of Ludlow Cove II.
I provide this guidance because I think that you are being misled by PLA, Trend West and those that put
theoretical economic benefits over the legality of the proposition. PLA clearly does not care whether its
activities destroy the basic structure and predictability of land use planning, that those that have
purchased property in the MPR will have their expectations sacrificed to the supposed needs of the
developer or economic development. Keep in mind that our Attorney General promised that we were
not like New London, that public purpose discouraged the sacrifice of the landowners rights to
economic benefit or its perception. I remain suspicious, particularly where I see that you have made a
volte face and now appear to support economic development or its promise over the legal rights of land
owners. I make reference here to Viking Properties and RCW 36.70A.020(6) which I have previously
cited that recognize the GMA's support for private property rights. I realize that various persons have
differing views of the propriety of the proposal. I understand that Mr. Fischbach's views place the
proposals thast he has approved over legal protocol. That is clear fdrom various email exchanges with
which I have been copied.
Please understand, I am deeply committed to the procedure. Where, as here, I view property rights and
protocol violated for quick profits, I intend to voice my objections and pursue my legal rights. As
should be apparent from the last two years, my objection is not to be dismissed as non meritorious or
less meritorious than the position of the developer. Here, my objection is not just that the property
should enjoy greater protection than that which would obtain under a Trend West Resort, but also that
the proposal violates those basic land use laws and vesting rights that should protect the successors to
Pope and PLA. The rights of the successors seem to have been dismissed by your office without
meaningful consideration. We are necessary parties to the amendment and our rights to vest are violated
by this proposal. These rights cannot lightly be dismissed. I believe they have been.
I ask you to reconsider the position you have articulated to Mr. Loomis and consider the law that applies
rather than the economic imperative that has been loosely, and, I believe, erroneously, promised by
PLA and Trend West.
Les
Les Powers
Powers & Therrien, P.S.
3502 Tieton Drive
Yakima, WA 98902
Phone: 509-453-8906
Fax: 509-453-0745
This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally
privileged. This message and any attachments hereto is intended only for the use of the person named above. If
you are not that person, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email
8/17/2006
e
e
Page 3 of3
message other than to the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete this email from your computer.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another person any tax-related matter.
8/1 7/2006