Port Ludlow logging dispute settled

Posted

Jefferson County and Port Ludlow Associates (PLA) have signed a settlement agreement that the county said protects “open space reserve” land and details protocols for timber harvesting on other property within the master planned resort (MPR).

County commissioners unanimously approved the settlement Monday, Dec. 19.

Diana Smeland, PLA’s president, also signed the agreement, thus ending a year-and-a-half conflict between the county and the developer over timber harvesting done by PLA in 2015 that at the time, the county said was illegal and that PLA said it had a right to do.

In exchange for the agreement, in addition to the two parties not suing each other, the county withdrew its May 7, 2015 letter in which former county Department of Community Development Director Carl Smith told PLA to stop timber harvesting because it was “in violation of the county code.” Smith also had told PLA to make amends to South Bay residents and those living near the Oak Bay timber harvest.

There are no monetary fines outlined in the settlement agreement.

“The County acknowledges that it is unaware of any evidence that PLA acted in bad faith, unethically, or unreasonably in connection with the Timber Harvests; the County recognizes that PLA was open and transparent in its actions; and the County acknowledges that PLA believed its actions were consistent with the Development Agreement, MPR code, and other applicable laws, orders, ordinances and regulations,” the settlement reads.

Randy Verrue, PLA owner, had said in public in September that he believed PLA did not do anything wrong.

“It is great to see that the County has recognized that PLA did nothing wrong in our prior tree-cutting activities and is withdrawing their letter of May 7,” Verrue wrote in an email comment to The Leader. “While we have no plans to continue our tree-cutting activities in the open space areas, the agreement spells out the procedures that we must follow if we plan on tree-cutting activities in the future,” he said.

“The permits that we secured from DNR requires us to mitigate the sites that were logged which we have completed or will complete in the future,” Verrue wrote.

In a press release issued Dec. 19, PLA stated: “PLA conceded in the settlement agreement that the organization will end commercial forestry in the Master Planned Resort Community (MPR) of Port Ludlow in exchange for rights to cut trees for land development and property management purposes.” PLA urged people to read the settlement and contact the county commissioners with questions.

County Commissioner David Sullivan said all three commissioners were involved in discussing the agreement in executive sessions. He said County Administrator Philip Morley also took a lead working on details.

“I think it’s a very good agreement considering the lack of clarity in the original development agreement made back in 1990 that was hammered out,” Sullivan said. “I think this is much more desirable than to go to court and have a judge try to decide.”

Sullivan also noted that the development agreement between PLA as part of the master planned resort and Jefferson County ends in eight years. That MPR agreement was the first of its kind in Washington state.

Once that development agreement ends, Sullivan said, “It will mean [the development agreement is] no longer in place, so all of Port Ludlow will be governed under the [county] unified development code like everybody else,” Sullivan said.

The property owners and respective homeowner associations within Port Ludlow would need to decide what to do when that agreement ends, the commissioner noted.

“I could see them making agreements built on this settlement agreement,” Sullivan said of the homeowners’ associations. “I think this clarifies the basic assumptions” about timber harvesting, but there are still other issues to iron out.

Sullivan confirmed that PLA had acted in good faith, advising a number of people about the pending timber harvesting at meetings, including publishing a notice in the Village Voice before harvesting began.

“PLA is a property owner, too, and it doesn’t help any of the property owners to have conflict in the community. I think everyone’s eyes are open to that right now,” the 12-year commissioner said.

LUDLOW REACTION

Dave McDearmid of the Ludlow Maintenance Commission, which represents property owners in the North Bay area, presented a statement Dec. 19 at the county commission meeting after the board came out of executive session on the issue, and before the board voted on the agreement.

McDearmid, Bill Dean of the Port Ludlow Village Council and Dave Jurca of the South Bay Community Association had been assigned by their respective associations to bird-dog the controversy and communicate with PLA about how the community felt about the timber harvesting.

In that letter, the three called the settlement “a compromise: not entirely what either party wanted.”

“As this document is being made public and the residents of Port Ludlow have an opportunity to review it, they will certainly see that this agreement is a compromise from what they requested and does not address all of the many concerns they brought to your attention,” the three wrote.

“We cannot stress strongly enough that the County and PLA meet with the community at their earliest convenience to discuss this agreement and any concerns that remain,” the trio wrote.

They also acknowledge that the agreement does address “the overarching concern that there be appropriate restrictions on future timber harvesting within the MPR.”

The spirit of the agreement, they wrote, eliminates commercial tree harvesting in the MPR for the sake of profit and provides protections to the open space reserves and other parcels.

“The County is well aware of the community’s sensitivities surrounding this issue and I think it’s safe to say the residents will be on ‘watchdog’ mode to ensure that this agreement does provide the necessary safeguards,” they wrote, concluding, “We hope that this agreement will facilitate the start of a much needed healing within the community and that life can again return to enjoying the beauty and aesthetic qualities that we invested in here in the Village in the Woods by the Bay.”

PLA President Smeland said at the Dec. 19 meeting that the settlement had 23 iterations.

“As Philip [Morley] said, we are not engaging in commercial foresting. We thank the community for their input, and Bill for his input, which was essential. I hope you all read this agreement, because an enormous amount of work went into it,” Smeland said. “There were many compromises along the way.”

COSTS TO COUNTY

Negotiating for Jefferson County was Patrick J. Schneider of Foster Pepper PLLC, who was paid $400 an hour. As of Nov. 21, the county had $98,080.66 to settle the case, with the bulk of that going to Foster Pepper, according to information The Leader obtained from Jefferson County.

Verrue could not say how much money he has spent on attorney fees, but called the total “substantial.”

(Leader staff writer Kirk Boxleitner contributed to this report.)