The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLog226 . . Barbara Nig~ale Subject: Powers & Therrien [powers_therrien@yvn.com] Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:50 PM Barbara Nightingale; AI Scalf; David Alvarez Elizabeth Van Zonneveld; bert loom is; Rick Rozzell; LewisHale@aol.com; Jeanne & Peter Joseph; paula macreau Re: 11 great photos From: Sent: To: Cc: Barbara: One more matter must be considered. without regard to any grading or clearing permit, the property is within or contiguous to the shoreland and subject to the SMA and the Master Program. Any action that is on or affects the shoreland must be examined through that prism. The question, then, is whether clearing and grading can be done on the shoreland without an SSDP, particularly, where as here it is part of a proposal to build a Trend West Resort. Moreover, if there is risk of silt from the activity, WFW would be involved as would SEPA. I think your evaluation of this matter is too narrow and does not take into consideration the environmental aspects of the activity and the lack of approval of the mitigation plan represented by the seeding and strawing of the site. I think an examination of the photographs sent you on July 25th that are part of the log raise serious questions whether the activity was not a general grading and clearing of the site, an activity that would certainly implicate the SMA and Program as well as JARPA and SEPA, particularly where it is clear that it could not have been undertaken at a cost of less than $2,500. To have seeded the property means that the land that was seeded was disturbed. I do not believe that hydroseeding is done on land that has a vegetation cover as this property had before disturbance. That amount of the property appears to exceed six acres. Finally, I think the notion that this was a cure for the log dump activity is not insupportable. Those activities ceased in the mid 1990s. The ground that the log dump was located on naturally reseeded to native vegetation in the ten years or so since it was last disturbed. In fact it had reseeded. I saw the property from the Ludlow Cove I lots earlier in the summer before Mr. Rozzell took his pictures in late July, 2006. The ground cover was present before it was disturbed prior to reseeding and covering with straw. Your explanation, which I might add is the third variant on the theme, is not supported by the facts or any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. Please add this letter to the log. I continue to object to the lack of investigation and action required thereby. Your correspondence admits that the area was disturbed and that the applicant used self help to cure the disturbance it created. No mitigation plan was developed. No investigation of the disburbance and its circumstances were made contemporaneously even though DCD was advised of the matter on July 25, 2006. Your response was that the area did not involve the shorelandjcritical areas of the property. Did you actually inspect the property then to see what had happened or just look at the photos? If, as you earlier indicated the County was using the area for staging the road construction, wouldn't there be an agreement pertaining to use and cleanup? Please provide a copy to me or explain its absence. Are you suggesting that the applicant permitted the County to leave heavy equipment that is notoriously likely to leak and deposit toxic fluids on a property upon which a residential buildout was contemplated from the applicant's magnanimity? That whole story seems strained. In any case, I do want all correspondence and other documentation and memoranda, physically or electronically preserved discussing the arrangement relating to the use of the property as a staging area or storage area for County road building activities during 2006. Please consider the request an FOIA request. Also, if the request involves other departments such as public works, please forward it to them. I remain suspicious of these varying explanations. It seems to me they have a common thread, a nexus between the applicant's or its permittee'S disturbance of property within the shoreland and unapproved mitigation that may very well not address the actual and now unknown scope of the problem. 1 )~~ I ~-< -,/ Further investigation and qU~fication of the disturbance a!IIPts circumstances is required. Please keep in mind, the subject property is along the sensitive estuary to Ludlow Creek which is struggling to maintain a small salmon run. Silting could be a huge problem Les Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Nightingale" <bnightingale@co.jefferson.wa.us> To: "Powers & Therrien" <powers_therrien@yvn.com>i "AI Scalf" <ascalf@co.jefferson.'wa.us>i "David Alvarez" <dalvarez@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: "Elizabeth Van Zonneveld" <evz@cablespeed.com>i "bert loomis" <bertl@cablespeed.com>i "Rick Rozzell" <rr2dp@aol.com>i <LewisHale@aol.com>i "Jeanne & Peter Joseph" <jjadv@olympus.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:14 PM Subject:RE: 11 great photos All, Just to further clarify on the issue of clearing and grading permits: Although there is no sign of clearing and grading on the proposed Trendiest site, please be advised that clearing and grading permits do not apply to those parcels owned by PLA, as PLA development falls under the Port Ludlow Development Agreement. The Storm water Management Ordinance incorporated into the development agreement neither requires nor recognizes a clearing and grading permit. Despite this, PLA does have a storm water maintenance plan already approved and on file with Jefferson County Public Works for Ludlow Cove projects and small parcel erosion plans for the individual lots on Ebb tide Court. The individual single-family residences being built on several lots, including Lots 8 and 9, along Ebb Tide Court, are owned by PLA and they have obtained their required permits. Respectfully, 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 -----Original Message----- From: Powers & Therrien [mailto:powers_therrien@yvn.com] Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:54 PM To: Al Scalfi David Alvarez Cc: Powers & Therrien; Barbara Nightingalei Elizabeth Van Zonneveldi bert loomisi Rick Rozzelli LewisHale@aol.comi Jeanne & Peter Joseph Subject: Fw: 11 great iPhotos AI, David: I forward photographs made by Bert Loomis today of Ludlow Cove II. Approximately a third of Ludlow Cove II has been cleared and/or graded. Again, I ask, has a grading permit been issued? What is the basis for this development activity prior to the approval of the consolidated permit application relating to Ludlow Cove II? If there is none, I expect Jefferson County to issue administratively a cease and desist order, judicially to file an action for damages to compensate the owners of property in the MPR for damages resulting from any violation of the Program, and to inform Mr. Casseaux of these developments, and to suspend further hearings on Ludlow Cove II until compliance and compensation obtains. Investigation will not wait until after the hearing. Please confirm immediately your investigation of this matter, ther~~t~~xeof, and actions you are undertaking to enforce the Program in connection ~~~. q~I~~lvities described in the photographs, if any, in violation thereof. # ~J- Vi 2 ----~-_.- Pags_2.:::_ ofJ~_. the . Les Powers ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bert Loomis" cbertl@cablespeed.com> To: "Les Powers" cpowers_therrien@yvn.com> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:34 PM Subject: 11 great iPhotos > > > 100 0823.JPG > > > 100 0824.JPG > > > 100 0825.JPG > > > 100 0826.JPG > > > 100 0828.JPG > > > 100 0829.JPG > > > 100 0831.JPG > > > 100 0832.JPG > > > 100 0833.JPG > > > 100 0834.JPG > > > 100 0835.JPG > > > > . LOG \TEM #: A~~ page._..3-of .....:?-- 3