Hood Canal Environmental Council Requests Denial of Black Point Project

Posted on February 8, 2024 by Al Bergstein

The Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) has requested that Jefferson County deny the current subdivision proposal by the Statesman for Pleasant Harbor Development. They also request that the County prevents any further sales of properties until all terms are met.

This project, which has been contested for almost 20 years, has seemed to be an ever changing situation. Lawsuits by the developer, counter suits, years of negotiation over payment for services by the county, then the county settling for far less than their billed services. One would have to ask when the citizens of this county will ever see the promised outcomes that Statesman put forward back in the mid 2000s. Certainly if the opponents to it have there way, never, but even if Statesman gets their way, when are we expected to see anything more than a clearcut in this location?

Let’s remember that two full cycles of County Commissioners have moved this forward, against the wishes of many in this county. Is it time for them to admit that this is never going to happen and kill it? One way or another all of us in Jefferson County are paying for the lawsuits that this has incurred on us. Pretending that it’s a zero sum game is just not reality. Anyway, read it and make up your own mind. If you have strong feelings, one way or the other, now seems a good time to throw your thoughts into the disucussion at the County Commissioners meeting.

Here is the letter from the HCEC.

Cristina Haworth, AICP
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Josh D. Peters, AICP
Jefferson County Community Development Director
James Kennedy -Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney

RE: Master Planned Resort at Black Point

Greetings:

For more than 50 years the Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC) has been active in protecting Hood Canal. As part of this legacy, we have offered input on Jefferson County plans for a Master Planned Resort (MPR) at Black Point. We share the concerns of the Brinnon Group expressed in the February 2, 2024, letter from attorney Richard Aramburu to you (attached).

We hope that Jefferson County intends to follow statutory law, court decisions and its own agreements in matters dealing with land use and protecting Hood Canal. Recent plans submitted to the county to develop the Black Point MPR do not comply with the 2018 Kitsap Superior Court decision or the 2019 Amended Development Agreement.

HCEC endorses the recommendations in the recent letter from attorney Aramburu, that Jefferson County should take the following actions:

1.                  Decline to review the current subdivision proposal submitted by Statesman for Pleasant Harbor development. The plan for 216 single-family residential lots, without the required MPR project features, is inconsistent with the 2019 Development Agreement amendments because it approves residential development without any permits, plans or showing of financial ability to fund or deliver the fanciful amenities, such as a “tea house in the trees” and a full-size NHL hockey rink.

2.                  Return any proposed subdivision plans to the applicant and decline further review until the submittal of plans is consistent with the Amended Development Agreement and Jefferson County codes.

3.                  Determine the subdivision application is not complete because it does not contain all required features and documentation.

4.                  Prevent sales or advertisement for sales of properties within the Pleasant Harbor MPR, through the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney, until all terms of the Development Agreement and Jefferson County platting ordinances are met.

HCEC welcomes dialogue with you over these concerns.

Sincerely, Phil Best – President
Hood Canal Environmental Council

Filed under: Environmental Activism, Environmental Protection, Jefferson County, Land Development | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Brinnon Pleasant Harbor Update

Posted on September 17, 2023 by Al Bergstein

The never ending saga of the proposed but never built Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort. The Brinnon Group, the main local organization opposing this planned community, recently published this on their web site: 

Our attorney has written a letter to the county commissioners about an agreement they have signed with the developer. The agreement includes the developer’s payment of past due fees and a new arrangement for the developer to pay for a county planner to process MPR county permits. The letter points out that the developer has not done the things legally required to be able to apply for county permits.

EXERPT from the County Agreement“…no residential development in this MPR can proceed without construction of the recreational facilities described above, in particular the construction of the golf course, recreational center with hotel rooms, community center, a pool, water slides and other such facilities. It is notable that in the 4 1⁄2 years since the Superior Court’s decision, there has been little or no progress on the required recreational features of the Master Planned Resort. As far as we known, no permit applications have been submitted for the golf course, recreation center, hotel, or any of the other required recreational elements. These features must be built out prior to the construction and sale of residential lots, finished homes or condominium units.

The question has to be asked at this point, now over 15 years since the Canadian developer started applying for this project, that other than clear cutting areas of the site, (from which they likely made money selling the timber), why has there  been no movement that is visible to uphold their end of the contract. They were contractually supposed to build out infrastructure before building residential development. It certainly seems that the county commissioners of that era, who were warned by many in the community, failed in their duties to protect the county. It appears all the county has got for this agreement is a costly long running lawsuit. Should the county rescind the agreement for breach of contract? It would be an interesting question. 

It is hard to understand what the Canadian developer actually wanted to do with this property. They claimed they wanted to develop it, but were they ever financially capable of doing that? It’s not like the county has not given them time and resources to get this underway. 

Background from the Brinnon Group website: 

“Before land sales can take place, infrastructure and recreational amenities must be complete. Four years ago, the developer attempted to move forward with its plans without committing to completing facilities that would qualify it for an MPR, but the Brinnon Group successfully sued in Superior Court to require that infrastructure must be complete before land sales can occur.  Now the developer is once again promoting sales of property in the MPR without completing any of the work required by its terms of approval. Sales brochures have been sent through the US mail to local residents in Western Washington, including referencing advertising on various internet sites.The Brinnon Group has filed complaints with the Washington State Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division and the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau seeking orders to cease deceptive sales activity until site work and amenities are complete. The full complaint is on the Brinnon Group website. Though the sale material conveys the impression the MPR is move-in ready, in fact there are not even permit applications, much less completed facilities for any of the elements required for the MPR. Indeed, the essential of development, sewer and water facilities, are not even in the planning stage, though Stateman promises ”indoor pools, hockey and skating, indoor soccer and other training facilities” to prospective owners. It also fancifully promises a “health center” offering “an approved surgical operatory” for various procedures including “plastic surgery, urology and gynecology.” The developer appears to lack basic financing for this substantial venture; indeed, it asked local and state governments for some $37million in grants and loans for the project a few years ago.

Filed under: Environmental Protection, Land Development | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Oso Landslide and the Political Football of County Development Departments

Posted on May 29, 2014 by Al Bergstein

Earthfix has done a superb job of exploring the sordid story of Snohomish County Development Department and the pressure from the Master Builders Society. This isn’t just about Snohomish, the same pressures exist everywhere. These departments are usually funded by taxes and fees from the very people they serve. While it makes sense when it comes to the overall permitting process, it’s broken when someone has to step up and deny permits where they don’t make scientific sense.

http://earthfix.nwpr.org/communities/article/development-pressure-vs-landslide-risk-in-snohomis/

Filed under: Puget Sound | Tagged: , , | Comments Off on Oso Landslide and the Political Football of County Development Departments