Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog186 ItEARBORN & MOSS P.L.L.C~ Attorneys at Law 1RE(~En~n October 31, 2006 NOV 0 1 lOne JEfffRSIlN ':OIlNTV HI~rl Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. Jefferson County Hearing Examiner c/o Barbara Nightingale, Lead Planner Jefferson County Community Development Department 621 Sheridan Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: Amendment No. 1 to Port Ludlow Development Agreement Dear Mr. Casseaux: As I indicated in my letter of July 14, 2006 (Log Item 56), we represent Lewis Hale, a property owner in Port Ludlow resort and party to the proceedings relating to the Ludlow Cove Division 2. I understand that the hearing on the above referenced application has been continued until November 3, 2006. Unfortunately, I will be out of town. Therefore, I am submitting written comments on behalf of Mr. Hale in response to a number of issues which have arisen since my earlier letter. I also address the applicant's response to my letter -- which Mr. Hale was able to obtain by reviewing the County's files. 1. The Board of Commissioners Has Referred the PLDA Amendment to the Examiner for Recommendation under LUPO ~7 .A. The applicant contends that you have no authority to review the amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement ("PLDA"). Log Item 129, p. 2. It is incorrect. Review of proposed development applications within Port Ludlow is conducted under the Land Use Procedures Ordinance ("LUPO"), Appendix E to the PLDA.l PLDA ~3.12.1. The application is a consolidated application2 including both a Type Bland use application (the shoreline permit) and a Type C land use application (the amendment to the PLDA). Staff Report, , 7, p. 10. Consolidated applications are required to be processed under the highest procedure required for any permit included 1 In my July 14, 2006 letter, I inC()rrectly stated that the consolidated application was being processed under TItle 18 JCe. 2 See, the Minutes of the 6119106 Board of County Commissioners meeting. 2183 Sunset Ave. SW Seattle, Washington 98116 Phone: (206) 923-0816 Fax: (206) 923-0814 l.O~TEM # /1 f1:- Page -I-- 01 - e Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. October 31, 2006 Page 2 e in the application. LUPO ~7.A; Staff Report, ~ 7, p. 10. Here, the highest level is a Type C, a decision by the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC"). The BOCC may -- and has chosen to -- refer the amendment to the Hearing Examiner for hearing and recommendation. LUPO ~16.B.1; Staff Report, p. 10; Minutes of 6/19/06 BOCC meeting, Enclosure 1. 2. A Development Agreement May Not Modify Applicable GMA Development Regulations. The applicant asserts that RCW 36. 70B.170 provides the authority for the County to modify development standards through development agreements. Under the facts of this case, we disagree. RCW 36. 70B.170 provides: A development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations adopted by a local government planning under chapter 36.70A RCW. (Emphasis added). Here the PWA itself specifies that the applicable regulations include the MPR Zoning Chapter of the Jefferson County Code. PLDA ~~2.2, 3.1, 3.12.1, 3.13. Thus, while it may be appropriate for a development agreement to "fill in the gaps" or even to specify which development regulations do not apply, where, as here, the County has identified the applicable regulations, the development agreement and any amendment to it must be consistent with those regulations. As discussed below, the amendment is inconsistent with both the uses and density permitted in the MPR Zoning Code. Therefore, the County must deny the requested amendment. Alternatively, the applicant could seek a rezone or an amendment to the MPR Zoning Code to permit the use and density it desires. A rezone would also require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. JCC 17.50.060(1). The applicant also suggests that UDC 18.40.860(5) (now UDC 18.40.830(5)) provides authority for the development agreement to be inconsistent with applicable GMA regulations. Log Item 129, p. 2. However, as explained above, LUPO not the UDC, governs the amendment. Even if the UDC were applicable, we fail to see how it supports the applicant's position. UDC 18.40.860(3) bars the application of a development standard adopted after the affective date of a development agreement to the development which is subject to the development agreement unless the development agreement provides otherwise. The PLDA does not permit the application of a new development standard. In fact, with exceptions which are not pertinent, ~3.13 prohibits the application of any new or different development standards adopted by the County during the term of the PLDA. The applicant also cites to the codes of jurisdictions which expressly allow development agreements to modify development standards. Log Item 129, pp. 3-4. Those codes, of course, neither override state law nor apply to the application before the Examiner. Moreover, 4 of the 6 other jurisdictions referenced do not allow a development IR~\TEM ~~e 7 ./:- 01 - e Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. October 31, 2006 Page 3 e agreement to do what the applicant here seeks -- to authorize more intense uses or densities? Finally, the applicant observes that PUDs and variances can modify height, bulk, scale, etc. Those standards are not at issue. The applicant seeks to alter the use and density. In summary, none of the arguments the applicant puts forward support the contention that the PLDA can be amended in a way which conflicts with the very GMA regulations the applicant and the County chose to apply to the project through the PLDA. 3. Timeshare Units Require an Amendment to the MPR Code or a Rezone Which Eliminates Vesting. The proposed amendment seeks to permit timeshare units within Tract E. As discussed in my July 14, 2006 letter, an amendment to the PLDA standing alone cannot and will not accomplish this purpose. Permitted Uses are defined in the MPR Zoning Chapter of the Jefferson County Code, not the PLDA. PLDA 992.2, 3.1, 3.12.1, 3.13. The applicable zone, MPR-SF, does not allow timeshare units or other transient accommodations. Further, it allows a density of 4 units/acre, not the 9-16 units/acre applicant intends. Thus, to permit timeshare units and a density of greater than 4 units/acre to be permitted, the County must either amend the MPR-SF Zone to allow transient accommodations and a density that is 2-4 times greater than that currently allowed or rezone the property to a zone which allows this use and density. In either event, vesting is lost and the proposal must await the code amendment or rezone and comply with all regulations in effect at the time a complete application is made. Alternatively, the amendment could be reviewed under the regulations to which Staff' believes the application is vested (the regulations identified in the PLDA and attached thereto as Appendices) or the regulations to which Trendwest/PLA contend the application is vested (the 1994 Code). See, Staff Report, discussion of Date of Application, p. 1, and proposed Amendment, Recital M. If either of those courses is followed, the amendment must be denied. The use and density are not permitted by the 3 The Issaquah Municipal Code provides: "However, density and permitted uses cannot differ from the underlying zoning standards." IMC 18.07.420.C.3. Similarly, City of Mercer Island allows a development agreement to modify design and development standards which are intended to "enhance the Town Center for the pedestrian and develop a sense of place. " MIMC 19.11.010.C.4. The standards address building orientation, placement ofpatking, mass, scale and modulation, pedestrian mid-block connections, and the like. The standards which may be modified do not address the basic permitted uses and densities. MIMC 19.11.010.C.le. Woodinville authorizes the city to increase development standaIds or limit uses on specific properties beyond the general requirements of the code through property-specific development standards and to carty out comprehensive plan policies through special overlay districts. WMC 21.38.020(1). Yakima allows administrative adjustment to development standaIds addressing site design improvement, pmking, screening, and signs. YMC 15.10.020. L~fTEM # / V Pag~"'3 of e Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. October 31, 2006 Page 4 e current MPR-SF Zone. The County, through the Appellate Hearing Examiner ("AHE"), has rendered a final decision that the use is not permitted by the rights that vested to PLA with its January, 1995 application: PLA has a vested right to develop a multifamily residential development on Tract E; the extent of that right is limited by the representations made in the original 1995 Applications; that right requires demonstration of compliance with CUP criteria which was deferred in 2002; the use presently proposed by Trendwest is not a multifamily residential development; and Trendwest's proposed use cannot be established under PLA's vested right. The Appellate Examiner concludes that the Examiner's 2005 Decision contains erroneous interpretations of the law, resulting in a clearly erroneous application of those laws to the facts which were before him. AHE Decision in Ludlow Cove Division 2, File SUB05-00004 ("Galt Decision"), Conclusion 1, p. 16. 4. Timeshare Units Require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Comprehensive Plan Map, LU Map, p. 3-45, designates Tact E as Single Family (MPR-SF). Thus, this designation must also be changed. See also, JCC 17.50.060(1). 5. Section 1.3.5 of the PLDA, Defining Transient Accommodations as a Nonresidential Use, Must Also be Amended. The amendment seeks to treat timeshare units as a residential use. Amendment gg2. a.i and 3. The amendment conflicts with PLDA g 1.3.5 which provides: The County has allocated and reserved from its population forecast.. . 2250 residential dwelling units (at buildout) to the entire Port Ludlow MPR, including Pope Property. Residential dwelling units do not include transient resort units. or commercial properties. (Emphasis added). This section of the PLDA obviously must be amended. In addition to the conflict with the proposed amendment, g 1.3.5 presents two significant issues. First, at the time of the Galt Decision, the Code defined transient accommodations as those providing lodging for periods less than 30 days. Galt Decision, Discussion of Multifamily vs. Transient. The current code also defines transient accommodations as those providing lodging for periods less than 30 days, but consistent with the Galt decision, makes clear that transient accommodations involving # r~G~TEM Page + of e Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. October 31, 2006 Page 5 e the rental of any structure for lodging is a commercial use. UDC 18.20.200. The Staff Report seems to try to distinguish this proposal from UDC 18.20.200 by characterizing it as follows: As the development proposes to operate through ownership interest, rather than directly [sic] outlay of money for each stay, and the membership interest is a personal property interest through ownership in an association holding fee ownership interest, the resulting property interest is different from the contractual interest one acquires when renting a room for a night in a hotel. Staff Report, p. 6. There are two problems with this explanation. First, the UDC definitions do not apply, the MPR Code does. As interpreted by the AHE, the MPR Code does not permit this use. Even if the UDC definitions did apply, the interpretation now put forth in the Staff Report was expressly rejected by the AHE. See, Section 6 of this letter. Second, it undermines the applicant's continuing claim that it believes timeshare uses are a residential use. See, e.g., March 3, 2006 letter to the Board of Commissioners initiating the PLDA amendment in which PLA asserts that "PLA and Trendwest believe that timeshare structure and uses are multi-family residential structures." 6. Proposal Does Not Come Within the "Flexibility Objectives." The applicant and Staff place great weight on PLDA ~3 .11. The Staff Report characterizes this section as providing flexibility to the initial development standards. Staff Report, p. 9. However, this section nowhere mentions changing the development standards. Rather, it provides: The development of Pope Property described in this Agreement, including the Exhibits and Appendices, provides the desired initial definition and certainty of the Pope Property buildout. However, the parties acknowledge that modifications to the proposed development will occur during the buildout period in order to achieve a variety of purposes, including: incorporation of new information; responding to changing community and market needs; encouraging reasonably priced housing; and encouraging modifications that provide comparable benefit or functional equivalent with no significant reduction of public benefits or increased cost to the development (collectively, "Flexibility Objectives"). (Emphasis added). LOG ITEM # lor. Page s-= of Stephen K. Casseaux, , October 31, 2006 Page 6 . The italicized language raises three significant issues: (1) Is the scope of the proposed revision a "modification" to the proposed development? (2) If it is a modification, does it provide comparable benefit to or is it the functional equivalent of the uses permitted in Tract E by the PLDA, i.e. the uses permitted in the MPR-SF zone? (3) If the benefit is comparable or the function equivalent, is there a reduction in public benefits? If the answer to anyone of the questions is affirmative, then the proposal simply does not come within the Flexibility Objectives. The County Code does not define "modification," so we turn to common usage of the term. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English (3m College Ed. 1988) defines a modification as "a partial or slight change in form," "product of such change," "a slight reduction or modification," or "a qualification or limitation of meaning." What is being proposed, the substitution of 120 transient timeshare units for the 59 single family residential units which could be permitted under the MPR-SF zone4 is not a modification, but rather a wholesale change. Nor is it a mere "clarification" as contended in Recitals I and L of the proposed revision. The change is material both in terms of use and density. Thus, the answer to the first question is "no." Are 120 transient timeshare units comparable to or the functional equivalent of up to 59 single family residential units? Again, the answer is "no." The Trendwest model is described at some length in the Galt Decision, Findings 16-18, from which I provide below a few excerpts: · A single corporation will own all the units in this particular project. Club Members buy only the right of use among 4500 or so other units in other locations and for short periods of time. · Club Members are not owners of the real property. · The number of employees claimed to be needed for operations is 40-50. · Trendwest's basic business is to acquire or develop facilities, to sell the facilities to timeshare owners on weekly timeshare time slots, to bring the owners as part of the package into a vacation club and to operate the facilities. 4 The current zoning (MPR-SF) would allow 4 units per acre. Tract E is 14.66 acres. 14.66 x 4 = 58.64. e LOG ITEM # j-6/J - p~e ~of -'-' e e Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. October 31, 2006 Page 7 e . The units, the use of which the owners acquire would only by accident be the units they own or the time slots to which they would be entitled as owners. . Currently about 250,000 members share ownership in such units. . The average stay of Trendwest Members at Trendwest resorts is less than 4 days. From this Finding, ARE Galt entered the following Conclusion: The preponderance of the evidence shows that Trendwest members buy vacation points so that they may vacation anywhere within the Trendwest system, that they use these points to "rent" the accommodation they desire (paying more points for a larger, more desirable unit or during "high" season), and that they can supplement points with cash. The evidence also shows that the units are available to non- Trendwest members when not reserved by Trendwest members. Galt Decision, Conclusion 18. Thus, unlike a single family home, each timeshare unit will be occupied by up to 50 different families or groups of individuals each year with no ownership interest in the specific unit (or even membership in Trendwest). Taking this fact to its logical (and perhaps absurd) conclusion, up to 6,000 (120 units x 50) families or groups of individuals could buy accommodations in the proposal each year. Even if one compares the proposal to the maximum use to which the 1995 applications were vested -- 64 multi-family residential units5 -- the use sought to be permitted by the PLDA amendment and its impacts are not comparable to or the functional equivalent of those vested rights. The nature of the occupancy tells us the answer to the third question: 50 different families or groups of individuals per unit each year with no ownership interest do not provide the same benefit to the community as 59 owners. There are reductions in public benefit, including: . What was to be the resort core which is now all residential. . What was to be a single family zone would become a private resort. 5 This number is based on Finding 4 and Conclusion 10 of the Galt Decision, which indicates that the 1995 applications stated that Tracts A & B (now Tract E) "may or may not be developed for an additional 64 residential units." lOG ITEM # /~~ Page7 of ----.. e Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. October 31, 2006 Page 8 e 7. Certainty Over Time with Respect to Permitted Uses and Densities Was Intended to Benefit Residents as Well as the Developer. As I explain in my earlier letter, the PLDA repeatedly emphasizes the importance of planning and predictability not only to the parties to development agreement, but also the residents of Port Ludlow. See, for example: ~ 1.3.1. Lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of public and private resources. ~ 1.3.9. The coordination ofland use decision-making.. providers] unique opportunities for the benefit of the County and the existing and future residents of the Port Ludlow MPR ~ 1.3.13. Buildout is expected to occur over the next ten to twenty years. Pope Jefferson County, Port Ludlow community groups and members of the public at large will invest considerable time in the County Permit and review process for the future buildout of the Pope Property. A development Agreement is an appropriate way of providing certainty over time with respect to permitted densities, uses, development standards and other aspects of the development review process. (Emphasis added). In short, the PLDA intended to provide certainty regarding permitted densities and uses -- the very factors the applicant seeks to change. Permitting transient accommodations in an area which has been designated for single family uses for more than six years hardly promotes certainty and predictability for those who have invested in Port Ludlow. Nor does permitting a density of 2 to 4 times the density permitted in the applicable zone. 8. SEP A Issues. a. County's Notice is Inaccurate. The Notice of Application, Log Item 39, states in the title that there is a "Pending Threshold Determination." It later states, under the description of the Proposal, that the County intents to adopt "the existing environmental documents," which it does not identify. Staff has advised me that neither event occurred. The County has not issued and does not intend to issue a threshold determination. Nor has it adopted the existing environmental documents. Thus, the Notice is materially inaccurate. These actions (or failures to act) present several additional concerns. LOG ITEM L''8 /J # - ~ Page ~ of e Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. October 31, 2006 Page 9 e b. The County Has Not Followed Applicable SEPA Procedures for Use of Existing Documents. Neither the PDLA nor the MPR Code specifies the SEP A regulations to be used. Therefore, presumably, the UDC applies. PLDA, ~ 3.13. The UDC adopts the state SEP A rules by reference. UDC 18.40.700(2). SEP A rules on use of existing environmental documents are found in WAC 197-11-600, et. seq. Jefferson County must employ one or more of the following methods in order to use existing environmental documents: adoption, incorporation by reference, preparation of an addendum, or preparation of an SEIS. WAC 197-11-600(4). To my knowledge, the County has not taken any of these actions. Recital J of the amendment purports to adopt the prior environmental review. However, that recital is not an effective adoption of existing environmental documents. In order to adopt prior environmental documents, the County must do all of the following: . Identify the document(s). . State why it is (they are) being adopted. . Use the adoption form substantially as shown in WAC 197-11-965. . Send copies of the adopted document(s) to agencies with jurisdiction that have not received the documents. . Provide the adopted document(s) to the decisionmaker. · Ifknown, disclose in its adoption notice when the adopted document(s) or proposal it addresses (they address) is the subject of a pending appeal or has been found inadequate on appeal. WAC 197 -11-630( 5). Here, the proposal was found inconsistent with the 1994 Code and the MPR Code by the AHE, i.e., it was found inadequate. Galt Decision. It is also the subject of a pending LUP A appeal. We ask the Examiner to remand the application to Community Development for compliance with SEP A. c. The Existing Documents Do Not Disclose and Analyze Adverse Land Use Impacts. As the Examiner is aware, SEP A divides the environment into the natural and built environments. It identifies land use as an element of the built environment. WAC 197- 11-444(2)(b).6 Land and shoreline use, in turn, include the relationship to existing land 6 See also, Question 8 of the standard fonn environmental checklist, WAC 197-11-960: ~02 \TEM ~;;te~q_of ~ e Stephen K. Casseaux, Jr. October 31, 2006 Page 10 e use plans. WAC 197-11-444(2)(b)(i). Given the fact that the AHE has determined that neither the 1994 Code nor the MPR Code allows the proposed use, there is an adverse impact on land use (and perhaps shoreline use, see Log Item 91). In addition, as discussed above, the amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the prior analysis ofland use (and perhaps shoreline use) must be supplemented. The simplest way to do this would be for the County to prepare an SEIS. An SEIS is required if new information indicates a proposal's significant adverse environmental impacts. WAC 197-11-600(4Xe). Alternatively, the County could adopt its prior environmental documents, but it would still have to supplement them with an analysis ofthe land use (and potentially shoreline) impacts. WAC 197-11-630(1), addressing adoption, requires the County to independently review the content of the previous documents and determine that they meet the adopting agency's environmental review standards and needs for the proposal. The previous review is simply not adequate in light the AHE's decision and the path Trendwest/PLA have chosen to address it -- amending the PLDA without corresponding and required amendments to the MPR Code and Comp Plan. For all of these reasons, we ask that the Hearing Examiner recommend denial of the PLDA amendment. IfPLA and Trendwest wish to build timeshare units, they should prosecute their LUP A case or seek the proper approvals - an amendment to the zoning code or a rezone and a Comp Plan amendment. ~ Enclosures 1. 6/19/06 BOCC Minutes 2. Public Notice, Log Item 39 cc: Lewis Hale Marco de Sa e Silva Don Marcy Land and Shoreline Use e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan classification of the site? 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:" # r?~ ITEM Page I2L of SefO 05 .~, .~ '12: 27p LeWeand Eli zabeth Hale 206:_ 0782 fO.24 Commissioners Meeting Minute" ~ .1. ~ ~ Discussion re: Po it Ludlow Development Agreement AmeJellment: AI Scalf explained that a consolldated application has been submitted by Port Ludlow Assoclates foflhe amendment to the Development Agreement and a Shoreline permit application. Under the land use procedures, the Board can choose to have a public hearing un the consolidated application or send it t:J the Hearing Examiner to be heard. The Hearing Examiner would then make a recommendation to the Board and the Board would make the final decision for both the amGtldment to the Development Agreement <itld the shoreline permit. Commissioner Roigers noted thQt the benefit of having the consolidated ~'~~'iJiicatjon heard by the Hearing Examiner is tlIat ii would separate the legal aspects from the political aSp-;:.,tts. He would prefer that process. Al Scalf noted thfi.'~ this is also the staff recommendation. The Deputy Pry:{ltcuting Attorney recommended that tl1e Board hal/e the application go to the Hearing Examiner because lie has expertise in legal land use issues and he can Create a docume.nt that is well-founded in points of law ')-Xl fact. Commissioner Suilivan moved to have the Hearing Examiner conduct a r1'G.{y}ic hearing on the consolidated application submi]lcd by Port Ludlow Associates. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The Chair signed a hearing notice for the ne\,Vspaper. Un~fied Delle/opment Code Omnihus Amendment PackagtJ Deliherations (Continued): The C01l1l1y Administrator suggested that the Board ncite what they are in agreet,'ientabout and then they can estimate how much time and work needs to be spent on the other items. navid Alvarez added that one ordinance vvill be drafted for the Board's final review with all the cbangesincIuded_ Commissioner SuHivan continued his question about the"following section:: Section 18.15.123, page 29, Allowable Uses: He noted that churchzsireligious assembly facilities aren't included in the list of meeting facilities in the Master Plan R_csort (MPR.) COmmissioner Rodgers s&id that he thinks staff needs to look at the impact of a regulation and in many cases there are distinctions that are unnecessary. Commissioner Sullivan askc"i if churches should be included as cultura13nd educational facilities? Commissioner Rodgers stak:;,~itat the size of the building and the occupancy rating should prevail. Conunissioner Sullivan said he would be inclined to include it. Page 34, }"lineral Resource Lands Nuisance and Noise Levels: Cortnnissioner Sullivan noted that this isn't just about Fred Hill Materials. He thinks it is a problem to measure noise at night and limiting hours i8n 't necessarily a bad way to go. He is not aware of atlY other nighttime mining operations in tbe County. Commissioner Rodgers stated that FI-IM produces a world class resource on a: different scale than most other operations. This resource is in demand and should be utilized. Commissioner Rodgers said that he agrees with the way it is written. Commissioner Sullivan noted that other counties have specific mining hours such as from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. A suggestion was made that staff and the Planning Conunission do a more indepth review on the whole mjning operation issue. Al Scalf asked for policy direction from the Board. The discussion contiuued regarding other Page 7 LOG ITeM # /1 f:; Page II of e e e e JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NonCE OF APPLICATION AND PENDING THRESHOLD DETERMINATION SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, PRIMARY USE CASE NO.: MLA06-G0221/S0P06-GOo19 AND SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO THE PORT LUDLOW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CASE NO.: MLA06..o0221/Z0N06..o024 PROPONENT(S,: PORT LUDLOW ASSOCIATES LLC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIvt:N that Jefferson County has received a consolidated application for a shoreline primary use penn/t in compliance With the Jefferson County Shoreline Mas~erprogram and a suggested amendment to the Port LUdlow Development Agreement to define and aJlow,fimeshare use at the Port _ Ludlow Master Planned Resort. Application ReceiVed Date: June 8, 2006 Application Complete Date: June 14, 2000 Application Notice Date: June 21 , 2006 · PROPOSAl: .,. The suggested amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement defines and allows timeshare in " ,Tract E of the Port Ludlow MasterPJanned Resort. The ShOreline Substantial Development Permit for a 120- unit residential development, Which includes six buildings, one reception/rec/"E!ation building, pools, roads, and trails, is the structure intended for timeshare use. This proposal is subject to envirpnmental review and threshold detenninatlon.'ur:tder the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)_ The County intends to adopt the existing environmental documents. PROJECT lOCATION: Po""" Number 968 800 102 in Soclion 17, township 28, Range 01 East WM, located on Paradise ROad at Breaker Lane, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 This consolid_1and use applicalion wlQ be decided by the Board of County Commlssloners following an open f"ei:XJrd hearing before a Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner Recciy~r;lendations will be """"- to the eoard of COUnlyCommissioners, who will make the finallarnl use decision. The Open Roc,,", healing Will be held -- after the 30.<Jay comment period fol""'1q~.this Notice of Application. All infell!sted persons are invitedro (a) comment on the apPlication; (b) receiv."otioe of healings: and (C) receive a copyot the decision by <""m"'ng such written comment( s )lrequ..~.)!~ the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, Development Review Division,621 Sheridan Street, Port T 0'NIlgend, WA 96368.(360)3794450. Comments conceming this application ~'imId be. submitted to the De_t of Community Development by 4:30 p.m. on July 21. 2006. Cono,..,iJa submitted after this date may not be "'!""idered in It1e "t;," repoit. Inroolt1atJon on Ihe Proposal is ."!Iie'ble althe Jefferson County Department of COmmunif'/ 8~ve/opment . if the las! day of It1e Comment peIia;l.""lts. on a _kend or holldey, !hen the ct.::.jOnt period shall be _nded 10 the fi~ "",",ing day ~""':!he _kend '" holiday. Appeals must ~1!'\'M Within fourteen (14) days following a d-.on. Only p,".... of,"""", have _ding 10 appeal. Reqw,"""",ts fct the co"",nt ot an appeal request can be obtained althe Department of Community Developn-K~ fL Project Planner: B NIGHTINGALE Signed this 19lh da}' of June 2006. JEFFERSON COUi'4TY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IS/Phil Johnson, Ch..lirman ~ i'~,*~~ P'0~~TEM # /1 Page / 2--01 ,/2-...