The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog123 Re: Legal issue - Port Ludlow Wlopment agreement modification ITre.est --- FYI --... Page I of 3 , Barbara Nightingale From: Sent: To: Barbara Nightingale T~ur~gay. August 17,20068:21 AM 'Powers & Therrien'; 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: Les, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Thanks, Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnightingale@CQjefferson. wa.l,J~ From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 6:18 PM To: Barbara Nightingale; Bert Loomis; John Fischbach; AI Scalf; David Alvarez; Pat Rodgers; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Cc: 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 modification/Trendwest --- FYI --- Bert 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. LQG ITEM #('L"J Page I 01...7 8/1 7/2006 Re: Le~al issue - Port Ludlow wlopment agreement modification /Tre.est --- FYI --... Page 2 of 3 Les ---- Original Message ----- From: Barbara Nightingale To: Bert Loomis; John Fischbach; AI Scalf; David Alvarez; Pat Rodgers; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Cc: Elizabeth Van Zonneveld ; Tom Stone; Larry Nobles; Bruce Pyles; Bruce Schmitz ; Allen Panasuk ; Tony Durham; IQm Stone; DQnJ:;larls ; Su~~nn!3 Gra~~[ ; JimJ3J.anm~lmm ;Bichard_~!latlY~1s ; Mic~ey Gendler; L~s 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 Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnightingale@co.iefferson.wa.us From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertl@cablespeed.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:48 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 8/17/2006 Re: Legal issue - Port Ludlow wlopment agreement modification ITre.est --- FYI --... Page 3 of 3 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, 2006 8:58 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 rrrendwest --- FYI - -- Bert John, 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 8/17/2006