HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog218
e
.
VALERY PILMER
37 McKenzie Lane
Port Ludlow, W A 98365
\~\~:(( ~lgIVE{)
NOV 0 1 2006
J~Ht"XUW ~""NlV 0&0
November 5,2006
..
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
C/O Barbara Nightingale
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
I.
Subject: MLA06-00221/Z0N06-00024/SDP06-000 19/ Trendwest Resorts Inc, /PLA
To the Honorable Hearing Examiner:
I do not support the current proposal by Trendwest Resorts/Port Ludlow Assoc. to amend the
PLA development Agreement. I agree with the opinion expressed by others that this project
should have been ftled as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan rather than as a modification
to the existing Development Agreement.
RCW 36, 70B.170 regarding Development Agreements states that "A development agreement
shall be consistent with applicable development regulations adopted by a local government
planning under chapter 36.70A RCW." It follows that an amendment to a development
agreement that is inconsistent with the County's regulations cannot be approved.
RCW 36.70B.040, Determination of consistency; lists four areas to be considered when
determining whether or not a proposal is consistent with the jurisdiction's development
regulations. These include the type ofland use; the level of development; infrastructure; and
characteristics of development. Jefferson County zoning currently designates the proposed project
area for a density of 4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed amendment to the development
agreement would allow a density of9 to 16 dwelling units per acre. It is difficult to understand
how a modification to the development agreement allowing such a significant increase in the
level of development can be found consistent with the County's current regulations, The staff
report mailed out in advance of the November 3, 2006 hearing included a finding that the
proposal would meet the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan,
however, the issue of intensity of use and consistency was not addressed. If consistency cannot
be determined, then the amendment should not be approved. The applicant does have another
process open to them, however. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
It appears that the applicant has been frustrated in his attempts to gain approval of this project,
Frustration with the system. however, should not influence how this project is processed by the
County. Going around the system for the sake of expediency puts tax payer money at risk, as the
County could end up defending a legally questionable action, Thank you for your consideration.
S. inCere.lY,,~. ..../)
~~~
Vale~& -
~/~
{
1