The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog137 Re: MLA~6-000221(Trendwest. FYI --- Bert e Page 1 of 4 Barbara Nightingale From: Sent: To: Bert Loomis [bertl@cablespeed.com] Wednesday, September 06,20064:56 PM Barbara Nightingale; Rick Rozzell; AI Scalf; John Fischbach; David Alvarez; Pat Rodgers; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Bill; Randall Shelley; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Jim Brannaman; Larry Nobles; Tom Stone; Suzanne Graber; Tom McCay; Ralph Stroy; Don Clark; Tony Durham; Douglas Barber; Bill Cooke; ROBERT SKODIS; Hana Buresova Subject: Re: MLA06-000221 (Trendwest) --- FYI -- Bert Cc: Barbara, Thank you. Regards, Bert Bert, The HE does not amend the Development Agreement. He reviews legal issues for the BoCC. Only the BoCC and PLA can amend the agreement. Barbara Nightingale M.M.A., M.A.S. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnig htingale@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Bert Loomis [mgUtQ.;J;'-ertl@~gQles-Reed,~QmJ Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:31 PM To: Barbara Nightingale; Rick Rozzell; AI Scalf; John Fischbach; David Alvarez; Pat Rodgers; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson Cc: Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Bill; Randall Shelley; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Jim Brannaman; Larry Nobles; Tom Stone; Suzanne Graber; Tom McCay; Ralph Strey; Don Clark; Tony Durham; Douglas Barber; Bill Cooke; ROBERT SKODIS; Hana Buresova Subject: Re: MLA06-000221(Trendwest) --- FYI --- Bert Barbara, Thank you for your response. Unfortunately you have failed to answer my second question. I repeat my second question: 9/13/2006 "Also, site the legal authority that gives the HE iurisdiction to review, modify, recommend # I L~~ ITEM Page ( of q Re: MLAO,6-000221 (Trendwestw FYI --- Bert e Page 2 of 4 or amend the (a) development agreement." Regards, Bert Bert, The proposed amendment and the shoreline substantial development permit come before the HE, as a consolidated application, on September 22nd. The HE will not be making a decision or ruling he will be making a recommendation(s) to the BoCC on this application. The Port Ludlow Development Agreement vested in Land Use Procedures Ordinance (LUPO) #04-0828-98 Section 7 requires that: as a consolidated application, the amendment and shoreline permit together, as one application is required to go to the highest level for decision, which is Type C, decision by BoCC. As a Type C pursuant to LUPO Section 16. "B. Decision Procedures. 1. Hearing Examiner Recommendation. The BoCC may refer a Type C application to the Hearing Examiner for an open record hearing. The HE shall follow the procedures set forth in this Chapter and in the Rules of Procedure adopted in accordance with this Chapter. The HE's written recommendation shall be transmitted to the BocCC." (Note: The BoCC did select to have the HE hear this consolidated application). See LUPO Section 16. "C. BoCC Decision. Elements to be Considered. The BoCC shall consider the following in deciding upon an application: a. The contents of the application; b. The record of the open record hearing on the application including any testimony and any written material submitted as part of the hearing process; c. The recommendations of the HE, if applicable; and, d. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans, decision criteria listed in each section of the Jefferson County Code under which the application was made, and any other applicable law. 2. Decision The BoCC may approve, approve with modification, or deny the application. If a decision has been referred to the HE for a recommendation and the BoCC determines that the HE's record has been insufficiently developed, the Board may remand the application to the HE with specific instructions for further proceedings." proceedings." Hope that is helpful. Barbara Nightingale M.M.A., M.A.S. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bn ig htingale@co.jefferson.wa.us From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertl(Ci)cablespeed.com] .:-::;mailto: bertl@g:Jl1J!=speed.com%5d>. Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 20064:07 PM LOG ITEM # 117 Page -1::::_ ~-- 9/13/2006 Re: MLA~6-000221(Trendwest. FYI --- Bert e Page 3 of 4 To: Barbara Nightingale; Rick Rozzell; AI Scalf Cc: Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Bill; Randall Shelley; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Jim Brannaman; Larry Nobles; Tom Stone; Suzanne Graber; Tom McCay; Ralph Stroy; Don Clark; Tony Durham; Douglas Barber; Bill Cooke; ROBERT SKODIS Subject: Re: MLA06-000221(Trendwest) --- FYI --- Bert Importance: High Barbara, Please clarify exactly what is before the HE on 9/22. Also, site the legal authority that gives the HE jurisdiction to "review", "recommend or "amend" the development agreement. Regards, Bert Rick and all, We realize this is what the response is but it is not what we see happening. We see the HE, 9/22/06 hearing, reviewing and recommending on both the amendment and the shoreline permit. Thanks, Barbara Nightingale M.M.A., M.A.S. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us From: RR2DP@aol.com (mailto: RR2DP@aol.com] <mailto: RR2DP@aol.com%5d> <mailto: RR2DP@aol.com%5d> Sent: Friday, September 01, 20068:33 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Cc: powers_therrien@yvn.com; LewisHale@aol.com; bertl@cablespeed.com; bill@msinw.com; r&kshelley@waypt.com Subject: MLA06-000221(Trendwest) 9/13/2006 Log Item # 56 in the response section states "It is the understanding of the applicants that the Hearing Examiner will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners whether or not and under what conditions to approve the application of th applicants for a shoreline substantial development permit but will not make any recommendation or hear arguments or take testimony regarding the application for an amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement (because whether or not to approve the LOG ITEM # I~ 7 . page:S of Re: MLA~6-000221(Trendwest. FYI --- Bert e Page 4 of 4 amendment is a legislative decision, rather than a quasi-judicial decision). The comment does not address the shoreline permit application, and it therefore is irrelevant to the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner". Does this mean that the Hearing Examiner will hear no testimony as to the proposed Development Agreement changes at all? What exactly will the Hearing Examiner be hearing? Since AHE Galt's decision still stands and no modifications to the Development Agreement have been approved, how can anything be heard as to issuance of a Shoreline permit? Rick Rozzell . lOG \\€.~ 1t~ ~age ~ 9/13/2006 .Re: MLA06-000221(Trendwe.- FYI --- Bert. . Page 1 of2 Barbara Nightingale Sent: To: Cc: From: Barbara Nightingale Tuesday, September 05, 20064:28 PM 'Bert Loomis'; Rick Rozzell; AI Scalf Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Bill; Randall Shelley; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Jim Brannaman; Larry Nobles; Tom Stone; Suzanne Graber; Tom McCay; Ralph Stroy; Don Clark; Tony Durham; Douglas Barber; Bill Cooke; ROBERT SKODIS Subject: RE: MLA06-000221 (Trendwest) --- FYI -- Bert Bert, The proposed amendment and the shoreline substantial development permit come before the HE, as a consolidated application, on September 22nd. The HE will not be making a decision or ruling he will be making a recommendation(s) to the BoCC on this application. The Port Ludlow Development Agreement vested in Land Use Procedures Ordinance (LUPO) #04-0828-98 Section 7 requires that: as a consolidated application, the amendment and shoreline permit together, as one application is required to go to the highest level for decision, which is Type C, decision by BoCC. As a Type C pursuant to LUPO Section 16 . "B. Decision Procedures. 1. Hearing Examiner Recommendation. The BoCC may refer a Type C application to the Hearing Examiner for an open record hearing. The HE shall follow the procedures set forth in this Chapter and in the Rules of Procedure adopted in accordance with this Chapter. The HE's written recommendation shall be transmitted to the BocCC." (Note: The BoCC did select to have the HE hear this consolidated application). See LUPO Section 16. "C. BoCC Decision. Elements to be Considered. The BoCC shall consider the following in deciding upon an application: a. The contents of the application; b. The record of the open record hearing on the application including any testimony and any written material submitted as part of the hearing process; c. The recommendations of the HE, if applicable; and, d. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans, decision criteria listed in each section of the Jefferson County Code under which the application was made, and any other applicable law. 2. Decision The BoCC may approve, approve with modification, or deny the application. If a decision has been referred to the HE for a recommendation and the BoCC determines that the HE's record has been insufficiently developed, the Board may remand the application to the HE with specific instructions for further proceedings." proceedings." Hope that is helpful. Barbara Nightingale M.MA, MAS. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bnig htingale@co.iefferson.wa.us From: Bert Loomis [mailto:bertl@cablespeed.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:07 PM To: Barbara Nightingale; Rick Rozzell; AI Scalf Cc: Les Powers; Lewis Hale; Bill; Randall Shelley; Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; Jim Brannaman; Larry Nobles; Tom Stone; Suzanne Graber; Tom McCay; Ralph Stroy; Don Clark; Tony Durham; Douglas Barber; Bill Cooke; ROBERT SKODIS Subject: Re: MLA06-000221(Trendwest) --- FYI --- Bert Importance: High Barbara, LOG ITEM #...L77 P j-- <''r age _",..~_,.." 'v: 9/13/2006 iRe: MLA06-000221(Trendwe.- FYI --- Bert. . Page 2 of2 # Please clarify exactly what is before the HE on 9/22. Also, site the legal authority that gives the HE jurisdiction to "review", "recommend or "amend" the development agreement. Regards, Bert Rick and all, We realize this is what the response is but it is not what we see happening. We see the HE, 9/22/06 hearing, reviewing and recommending on both the amendment and the shoreline permit. Thanks, Barbara Nightingale M.M.A., M.A.S. Associate Planner Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development (360) 379-4472 bn ig htingale@co.jefferson.wa.us From: RR2DP@aol.com [mailto:RR2DP@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 01, 20068:33 PM To: Barbara Nightingale Cc: powers_therrien@yvn.com; LewisHale@aol.com; bertl@cablespeed.com; bill@msinw.com; r&kshelley@waypt.com Subject: MLA06-000221(Trendwest) Log Item # 56 in the response section states "It is the understanding of the applicants that the Hearing Examiner will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners whether or not and under what conditions to approve the application of th applicants for a shoreline substantial development permit but will not make any recommendation or hear arguments or take testimony regarding the application for an amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement (because whether or not to approve the amendment is a legislative decision, rather than a quasi-judicial decision). The comment does not address the shoreline permit application, and it therefore is irrelevant to the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner". Does this mean that the Hearing Examiner will hear no testimony as to the proposed Development Agreement changes at all? What exactly will the Hearing Examiner be hearing? Since AHE Galt's decision still stands and no modifications to the Development Agreement have been approved, how can anything be heard as to issuance of a Shoreline permit? Rick Rozzell LOG ITEM # ..J.....1.7"" Page C:. 'JI 9/13/2006 Re: Legal is~ue - Port Ludlow d.lopment agreeme~t modi.fication /Tre.est --- FYI --... Page 1 of 2 Barbara Nightingale From: Bert Loomis [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 {rrendwest --- FYI --- Bert John, LOG ITEM # (37 Page '1 of 9/13/2006 Re: Legal is~ue - Port Ludlow d"lopment agreeme~t modi~cation /Tre.est --- FYI --... Page 2 of2 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 LOG ITEM # If" Page t of 9/13/2006 Legal issue - Port Ludlow dev~*ent agreeme~t.m?d.~~ca~ion / Trend~--- FYI --- B... Page 1 of 1 Barbara Nightingale From: Sent: To: John Fischbach Monday, August 14, 2006 9:06 AM 'Bert Loomis'; 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; John Fischbach Subject: RE: Legal issue - Port Ludlow development agreement modification /Trendwest -- FYI --- 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 Strey Subject: Legal issue - Port Ludlow development agreement modification /Trendwest --- 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 LOG ITEM II /37 Page ~ of-!f-- 9/13/2006