Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit259 Gregg D. Jordshaugen 17435 S.E. 47th Bellevue, Washington 98006 RE(~EJl\VIED DEe 1 4 2007 JEffERSON COUNTY DCD December 14, 2007 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts Jefferson County Appellate Hearing Examiner c/o Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Re: File Nos. ZON03-00044, SDP05-00019, and SUB05-00030 APPEAL HEARING REBUTTAL & CLOSING ARGUMENT Jefferson County Testimony Rebuttal 1. Mr. Scalf testified that he believes the Townhomes in the Ludlow Bay Village subdivision ("LBV") are "multi-family" residences and not "single-family" residences, therefore 2 parking spaces per residence and 20' front yard setbacks are not required. This is not supported by the MPR Code (Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-1004-99), which states the following: Section 3.10 SINGLE FA1vfIL Y ZONE (MPR-SF) Section 3.103 Conditional Uses, Lot Size and Density, the final sentence in Paragraph 3. "For purposes of the Ordinance, "single family attached" shall mean a townhome style or side-by- side development, not stacked flats." Section 3.40 RESORT COMPLEX/COMMUNITY FACILITIES ZONE (MPR- RC/CF), Section 3.405 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements. "Single family re.sidential uses are subject to the requirements of section 3.10; provided that conditional use approval shall not be required for single family attached development. " It is clear that for purposes of the Ordinance the townhomes in LBV are defined as "single family attached" in Section 3.10. In Section 3.40, which covers the area that includes the LBV (and the townhomes), it specifically refers back to the requirements contained in Section 3.10 for the "single family attached development" - which is the townhome development that includes Buildings 400, 700, and 800. Two parking spaces per residence and 20' front yard setbacks are # Page LOG 'TEM ~5q. \ of7 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts December 14,2007 Page 2 of7 required and this requirement was not enforced by the County when the townhomes in Buildings 400, 700, and 800 were constructed. 2. Mr. Johnson testified the items listed on the face of the Jefferson County Boundary Line Adjustment Supplemental Application below the stated direction to include "Three copies of a clean and legible drawing suitable for recording showing the following:" were merely "suggestions" of what might be attached. That a County planner could waive any of the items listed if he already knew the information that would be disclosed by including the listed information. Including such things as the intended future use of the adjusted lots, the location and dimensions of all structures/improvements existing upon affected lots... with structures proposed to be removed depicted with broken lines and structures to remain depicted with solid lines, and several other items that were not included with the Port Ludlow Associates ("PLA") boundary line adjustment application were apparently things the Jefferson County Department of Community Development decided were not important for the public to know and approved the application without them. The concept that a County planner could "waive" required items listed on the face of the Jefferson County Boundary Line Adjustment Application Supplemental Application whenever he/she wanted to is very interesting. I assumed this must be a specific right given to the planners in the Jefferson County Code ("JCC"), but when I went to JCC, Chapter 18.35 Land Divisions, 18.35.070 Application submittal and contents, I found no provision that allowed a planner, or anyone else, to waive the inclusion of any item/ required as a part of a complete application. In fact the language at JCC 18.35.070 states that "To be considered complete applications for boundary line adjustments shall include the following:" and goes on to list requirements that are more detailed and burdensome than what is listed on the face of the Boundary Line Adjustment Application. At no place in JCC 18.35.070 does it say the Department of Community Development ("DCD") may pick and chose what it requires an applicant to include or not include to make an application complete. If DCD could decide on an application by application basis what should be included by an applicant based on what the planner knew, it would be nearly impossible for the public to make an informed decision about a boundary line application and whether there was any reason they should consider testifying in opposition to the application or not. The Boundary Line Adjustment Supplemental Application is not complete and should not be accepted or approved. # Page LOG \TEM 0-51- ~ of Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts December 14.2007 Page 3 of7 Port Ludlow Associates ("PLA") Testimony Rebuttal 1. PLA testified that encouraged by the Hearing Examiner (Mr. Irv Berteig) they conducted dozens of meetings and forums with groups in the Port Ludlow community to come up with a compromise development plan for the LBV resort buildout. Although this is true. it is interesting to know that PLA did not conduct a single meeting with the LBV townhome owners. The individuals most affected by the resort buildout plans were not consulted as a part of the community outreach by PLA and had no input into the development plans that PLA submitted in their September 13, 2006 letter. 2. PLA testified the townhomes in LBV are "multi-family" residences and not "single-family" residences. See rebuttal to this testimony contained in Jefferson County Item 1 above. 3. PLA testified that Section 3.903. Requirement to vacate or withdraw existing or vested residential development rights of the MPR Code. does not require that PLA apply for a plat alteration as required by state law and applicable county ordinances because they are not dealing with development rights that meet all of the three (3) listed requirements: 1) have not been developed, and 2) are located in the RC/CF zone. and 3) are not included in the described Resort Plan They specifically testified their plans did not include "development rights for projects or parts or phases of projects that" were not included in the described Resort Plan. In fact none of the townhome development on the 28 townhome lots that PLA proposes to be changed to a commercial parking lot and condominium development are included in the described Resort Plan in the MPR Code. They therefore do in fact meet all three (3) requirements and should be required to apply for a plat alteration as stated in Section 3.903. In addition the Development Agreement makes it perfectly clear in Paragraph 3.15.2 that "Any application for alteration of the Ludlow Bay Village Plat shall be processed pursuant to the County land use procedures ordinance and applicable state law. A public hearing shall be required for any necessary plat alteration. and the review process shall consider the criteria in RCW58.17.215 controlling plat alterations. " LOG \TEM # ~5.:L- ~ page3-of- - Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts December 14, 2007 Page 4 of7 The alteration of the Ludlow Bay Village subdivision as proposed by PLA is a plat alteration that must be handled as required by RCW58.17.215 and not exempted as a boundary line adjustment under RCW58.17.040(6). 4. PLA offered no testimony that their proposed alteration of LBV would not create a new "division" within the subdivision. The removal of28 townhome lots from the Townhome Association and the creation of II parcels that would become a part of a new owners association (described in greater detail in my Appeal Brief and Appeal Hearing Response Brief) does in fact result in a new division in the LBV subdivision which precludes PLA from using the RCW58.17.040(6) exemption for a boundary line adjustment. PLA must be required to apply for a plat alteration to be processed as required by RCW58.17.215. 5. PLA testified that condominium units are not considered "lots" for purposes of applying the tests included in RCW58.17.040(6) which would allow them to alter the LBV subdivision by a boundary line adjustment that would result in the elimination of 28 townhome lots and 4 single family lots and replace them with 42 condominiums and commercial development. They also testified the terms "lot" and "parcel" are interchangeable, having identical meaning. In fact each condominium is considered a "parcel" by Washington State law, which means that each condominium would therefore also be considered a "lot". RCW64.34.040 states ".. . each unit that has been created, together with its interest in the common elements, constitutes for all purposes a separate parcel of real property." The result of the proposed boundary line adjustment would therefore create additional lots and require that a plat alteration be applied for and processed.as required by RCW58.17.215. PLA further testified that imposing this standard on the proposed 42 unit condominium development would in some way violate RCW64.34.050 which does not allow "a zoning, subdivision, building code, or other real property law, ordinance, or regulation" to "impose any requirement upon a condominium which it would not impose upon a physically identical development under a different form of ownership." No matter what form of ownership is involved PLA would not be allowed to convert 28 townhome lots (that allowed for the construction of only 28 townhomes) into 42 lots by the use of a boundary line adjustment. Using a two stage process to convert 28 lots into II parcels and then have the stated objective of building 42 condominiums should not be allowed to circumvent the requirements of the plat alteration requirements. LOG ITEM # 9-.54 Page~,of_". Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts December 14, 2007 Page 5 of7 PLA is not going to construct 11 separate condominium developments on each of the 11 parcels they have proposed in their boundary line adjustment. The 11 parcels will be owned by a single condominium association as part of a single condominium development of 42 units (parcels/lots). PLA has already prepared and distributed to all townhome owners amended CC&R's for the LBV subdivision that make it perfectly clear there will only be one condominium association with 42 members. 6. PLA testified their plans for the resort build-out in the LBV subdivision would expand the "resort", not eliminate it. Assuming that by "resort" PLA is referring to the non-residential components of the LBV subdivision, it is hard to understand how they can possibly support the notion the "resort" is being expanded. The current Harbormaster Restaurant will be eliminated and replaced with a much smaller restaurant, the current Marina office and store will be replaced with a new Marina office and store of comparable size, and there will be a gathering place for the yacht club which also currently exists. Although the "resort" is not being eliminated, it is being significantly reduced in size while the residential density is being substantially increased. It is hard to justify this change based on the definition of a Master Planned Resort. 7. PLA testified that Section 4.24 of the Ludlow Bay Village CC&Rs in fact allows them to build any type of structure in the LBV subdivision because it was intended as the section of the CC&Rs to exempt the Declarant (claimed to be PLA) from design' review. That is completely false and shows that PLA interprets the CC&Rs in any manner that is beneficial to them without regard for what they really mean. Section 4.24 of the CC&Rs is not intended to exempt the Declarant from design review because that is specifically accomplished in Section 11.1, Lots Subject to Ludlow Maintenance Commission Architectural Review, of the CC&R's where it states: "At all times after conveyance from Pope Resources, the Owners of each Town Home Lot and Single-Family Lot within Ludlow Bay Village shall be subject to Ludlow Maintenance Commission ("LMC") architectural control,. . . ." The clear implication is that until Pope Resources sold a Lot to an unrelated party, they were not subject to LMC architectural control. Section 4.24 of the CC&R's, which I reproduced on Page 9 of my Appeal Hearing Response Brief is merely an exemption to the Declarant that allows them to LOG ITEM # ?~1 Page 5 of .."'"....~..;.~ Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts December 14,2007 Page 6 of7 construct things like construction shacks and sales offices to assist them during the development and selling of town homes. 8. PLA testified the "Resort Development" as detailed in Section 3.90 of the MPR Code was not expected future development in Port Ludlow in order to meet the requirements of being a Master Planned Resort ("MPR"). That in fact the resort facilities that existed at the time the MPR Code was adopted (a 37 room IIUl, Marina, Harbormaster Restaurant, and golf course) were sufficient with no additional resort amenity development to meet the requirements of being classified an MPR. Section 3.90 of the MPR code makes statements such as "This section describes the "Resort Plan" for facilities to be located in the Resort Complex/Community Facilities zone..." and "The Resort Plan... shall include no uses except those set forth below, unless a major revision is approved." It is perfectly clear the MPR Code contemplated that additional resort development would be required to meet the statutory requirements of an MPR and specifically included a detailed list of 15 items. If the resort amenities and facilities were sufficient to meet the requirements of an MPR at the time the ordinance was passed there would be no purpose for including the detalled list. There would be no reason for Pope Resources to build any new resort facilities. Closing Argument A plat alteration processed in accordance with RCW58.17.215 is required for the resort build-out plan proposed by PLA. This. requirement is supported by the language of the MPR Code and the Development Agreement. The exemption from the requirements of RCW58.17.215 allowed by RCW58.17.040(6) for boundary line adjustments that do not create an additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division is not available to PLA because their proposed resort build-out does create additional parcels (which PLA has testified is another term that is interchangeable with the term lot) and the proposed resort build-out does create a new division within the LBV subdivision. The plat alteration to accomplish the resort build-out proposed by PLA will violate at least one restrictive covenant in the LBV CC&Rs (see details of covenants violated presented in my Appeal Hearing Brief and Appeal Hearing Response Brief), therefore it requires the signatures of all town home owners in the LBV subdivision acknowledging their approval and agreement to the alteration of the plat. # Page LOG ITEM ~~4 b of Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts December 14, 2007 Page 7 of7 There have been substantial violations of the MPR Code and county building standards by PLA, and approved by Jefferson County, over the past several years. Now is the time to correct those violations by making them conditions attached to any new development within the LBV subdivision. Very truly yours, ~~~ LOG ITEM # ?S-q Pag~) of 7