Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit256 JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 AI Scalf, Director CLOSING ARGUMENT To: From: Phil Olbrecths, Jefferson County Appellant Hearing Examiner Al Scalf, DCD Director David Wayne Johnson, Port Ludlow Lead Planner December 14, 2007 . Closed Record Appeal of Port Ludlow Major Revision to Resort Plan Date: Re: Jefferson County would like to respectfully re-assert its desire to move forward with this project. As such, we would like to briefly touch on most of the issues raised as part of this closed record appeal. Issues: Single Familv vs. Multi-familv The final SEIS, County Staff and Hearing Examiner all agreed that the townhomes are multi-family (based upon UBC standards) and setbacks for those structures are regulated under the UBC (Uniform Building Code) as specified under the MPR Code and which allow a zero foot building setback for garages. Heron Road Heron Road was approved for 24 feet on the face of the Plat and areas of that road were granted a variance to 20 feet by the Jefferson County Commissioners. We would also like to point out that Appellants have absolutely no proof to support their claim that Heron Road is inherently unsafe because of County actions, lack of enforcement or combination thereof. Condominiums The Hearing Examiner did not approve any "condos" only "residential units." # Page LOG ITEM ~5f.o , of t.\ Building Permits/Inspections (360) 379-4450 Development Review Division ascalf@co.iefferson.wa.us Long Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 Boundary Line Adjustment vs. Plat Alteration County Staff (based upon the Crispin v. Seattle court case and advice from legal Counsel) and the Hearing Examiner agreed that the proposal met the criteria for a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) under RCW 58.17.040(6). It would be unconscionable to require a Plat Alteration of an applicant when a BLA is sufficient. CC&Rs Upon advice from legal Counsel, County Staff determined no CC&Rs would be violated as a result of the BLA. Appellants have legal recourse should they disagree with this determination. Resort Amenities There is no guarantee implied or otherwise of additional Resort Amenities in either the Development Agreement or the MPR Code. Section 3.90 Resort Plan states, "The Resort Plan for future development of properties in the MPR-RC/CF zone shall be limited and shall not exceed the scope of development set forth below and shall include no uses except those set forth below, unless a major revision is approved (see section 3.905). Changes to this Resort Plan that decrease the sizes noted below are allowed." In fact, the MPR limits the scope and scale of the buildout unless a major revision is approved. The Hearing Examiner recognized that to focus on the Resort Complex as the only area of resort type amenities was a mistake and risked taking out of context the criteria for a Master Planned Resort. He states in his decision, "Granted, the geographic scope of the application falls within the RC/CF area. However, Port Ludlow is the whole development. The residents identify with the whole of Port Ludlow, including the golf course, trails, open spaces, architectural design controls, and the various other recreational features." Other recreational features would be sure to include shoreline beach access and all the activities that are associated with it. Level of Detail Just because the Appellants didn't find the plan level of detail adequate to suit their needs does not mean that the plans submitted by the applicant were insufficient for County Staff and the Hearing Examiner to review and approve the proposed revision. Apparently the Appellant's are under the impression that a project should not be granted approval without their consent after their review and approval of plans they deem sufficient. As stated at the hearing, those plans are conceptual. The level of detail demanded by the Appellants isn't warranted until the building permits are submitted and it would be inappropriate and financially over burdensome to require anv applicant to submit that level detail for a resort plan revision with the understanding and likelihood that those plans may change. LOG ITEM # ?-Sb Page.2_ of ~ Stormwater Treatment Details on how Stormwater shall be treated are submitted at time of building permit application. The Port Ludlow Drainage District (PLDD) has no jurisdictional authority over Stormwater treatment; however the County does consult with the PLDD on Stormwater treatment and issues within its boundaries. Defacto Rezone It was stated at the hearing that at least one of the Appellants considers the revision a rezone. This is in no way a rezone since no new uses were approved that were not already allowed within the RC/CF zone. View Blockage As with the supposed violations of other CC&Rs, view blockage in this case would be a civil matter. The Hearing Examiner states, "While the view issues are outside of the Examiner's authority, the parties are encouraged to continue negotiations with the focus on review of actual building plans prepared at the building permit stage." Summary: In his Decision to approve a Major Revision to the Resort Plan, Boundary Line Adjustment and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a Conditional Use permit, the Hearing Examiner clearly addresses these and other issues. The County agrees with the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Conclusion: The fact that the four Appellants disagree with the Hearing Examiner's Decision after four days of open record hearing in which they were allowed to testify to the same issues they have raised in their appeals and to then have those issues addressed by a highly experienced and competent Hearing Examiner is troublesome and frustrating to County Staff. Of course, they have a right to appeal. The developer also has the right to develop. What troubles County Staff is the apparent determination by Appellants to continually dredge up past grievances combined with issues out of context and not under the authority of the Examiner and use those issues and grievances to prevent the developer from proceeding with the Resort buildout. Although Appellants have the right to due process, Staffviews their justification for excising that right as nothing more than a "grudge" against the County and the developer - and in fact, their testimony bares witness to that. The Hearing Examiner states on page 27 of his decision, "One may quibble about details. One may dwell on past arguments lost. However, the goal of the proposed revision clearly supports a conclusion that Criterion (e) is met." Do Appellants have the right to use their right to due process as a weapon against PLA? What about the rest of the residents of Port Ludlow? Are their rights being addressed by these Appeals? Appellants for the LMC would like us to believe that they represent all the members in LOG ITEIVI # ?S" Page._L.of~ their organization, but do they? County staff would like to think that we represent the rights and interests of all the residents within the Port Ludlow MPR not just those within the LBV plat, RC zone or LMC. Regardless, Appellants have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Hearing Examiner's Decision of February 7,2007 is in error. Jefferson County respectfully submits that it is not in error. In conclusion we request that the Appellant Hearing Examiner Approve the Hearing Examiner Decision of February 7,2007 or Modify the Decision with conditions as he sees fit to advance the project for the benefit of all the residents of Port Ludlow. To Remand the decision would be to not only move in the wrong direction, but would reinforce the notion that due process and appeal of a project based upon grudges can be used to stall, prevent and ultimately kill a project. And that is not good for anyone. LOG ITEM # ;) 5~ Pag~--B-of-=t-