Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog211 e e TESTIMONY TO JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER ON MLA06-00221 By Bruce W. Schmitz 717 Rainier Lane Port Ludlow, W A 98365 November 3, 2006 Item E in the Recitals to the proposed Amendment I of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement (PLDA) states that there is significant controversy regarding the choice of development standards, the interpretation of the development standards and the scope of the vested rights doctrine with respect to the proposed Trendwyst development of Tract E. I would submit that the only confusion or controversy that exists is with PLA and Trendwest. Appellant Hearing Examiner John GaIt ruled on December 7, 2005 (File SUB05-00004) that Trendwest was not an allowable use in Tract E either under current County code or under the 1994 zoning code under which PLA currently has vesting rights for multi- family residences in Tract E. AHE Galt, inhis opinion, said that Trendw~st was clearly not a multi-family development but a transient accommodation resort, which is by definition commercial, and not allowed within Tract E. The Appellate Examiner is the County's highest authority to make determinations on land use permitted under the applicable development regulations. AHE Galt's decision on Trendwest is the current law by which Jefferson County is legally obligated to abide. Any decision that Jefferson County makes on land use requests for Tract E Jllust be in compliance with that ruling. PLA now seeks to circumvent AHE Galt's decision with an amendment to the PLDA. In their application for amendment they refer to Section 3.11 of the PLDA in which the parties (PLA and Jefferson County) acknowledge that modifications to the proposed c9 {/ I ,--- > e e development will occur during the build out period in order to achieve a variety of purposes. This appears to be the sole basis for requesting that the PLDA can be modified to allow the Trendwest development. However, nothing in Section 3.11 says that flexibility can be achieved by modification of the PLDA that puts it in conflict with other sections of the agreement or in conflict with County rules and regulations, the Comprehensive Plan or with zoning of the property. Item 1.0 of the resolutions by Jefferson County BOCC states "The adoption of the Port Ludlow Development Agreement covering approximately 1,200 acres of land owned by Pope Resources and located in Jefferson County furthers the public's health, safety and welfare by allowing development to take place in a predictable manner consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code, Ordinance No. 08- 10004-99." The Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort Code and the County's Comprehensive Plan are a part of the PLDA contained in Appendices A and B respectively. Allowing the proposed change to the PLDA will put itin conflict with these appendices of the PLDA. Tract E is zoned by the MPR Code as single family residential with a conditional use permit that allows multi-family. It does not allow a transient accommodation resort. Further, the construction of a transient accommodation resort in Port Ludlow after the area is approximately 80% build out is not consistent with development in a predictable manner. Paragraph 1.3 .11 of thePLDA states "the parties to this Agreement acknowledge that the Zoning Ordinance for the Port Ludlow MPR is in conformance with the standards set forth in the Countywide Planning Policies and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act. Approval of Amendment I to the PLDA will put the agreement in conflict with zoning for the property and in conflict with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.i n ({\1t1 fllfFh1; " ~TJ~,_~ ~~,,' " d:~~=_,_..~- e e Section 310.1 R -1, residential occupancies where occupants are primarily transient in nature including boarding houses, hotels and motels. Transience is the key factor of the R-1 occupancy. At the end of the letter Mr. Scalf wrote approved by AI Scalf: 12/21/2004. It would appear the County also agreed that the facility was transient in use. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173:'26-241 provides rules for the use of Washington State shorelines. Item (3)(d) of these chapter states that master programs should prohibit non- water-oriented commercial uses on the shoreline unless they meet the following criteria: (i) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses and provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration; or (ii) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site; and the commercial use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration. WAC 173-26-211 provides additional information regarding allowabJe uses of shorelines. Specifically, 173-26-211(5)(t)(1) states "The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses." ChapterI73-26-211(5)(t)(ii), Management Policies, states in item (D) that "Commercial development should be limited to water oriented uses." ARE Galt has ruled that Trendwest is a transient accommodation resort or a commercial facility. Since it is an non-water-oriented 2[( . ._~_. e It commercial use and does not meet the above criteria, it should be prohibited from development adjacent to the shoreline. Thus, the request for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit should be denied or as a minimum resubmitted to the Washington Department of Ecology for review against State regulations related to commercial development adjacent to the shoreline. Based on my review I do not understand why or how Jefferson County has recommended that the PLDA be modified to allow Trendwest when its own ARE has ruled that it is not allowable. If PLA and Trendwest want to place a development in Tract E not allowed under zoning applicable to the property, they should apply for an amendment to the zoning of the property as any other resident of the County is required to do. The means to do this is through a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This back door method of changing zoning is simply not consistent with County rules and regulations and makes a mockery of the State and County's own rules and regulations. I strongly urge the denial of the request for an amendment to the PLDA. Thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony and for your consideration of it. "..............-'...l1.t.e'/(j";:.....;.,..... j'.\. 1 ~- ',,,,- , iJ~""I,i fAl ... ,..c=~:.~;=r