Letter to County About
MPR Attempt to Do An End Run Around Court Decision and Development Agreement
AND
Asking Prosecuting Attorney to Take Action
The Brinnon Group has written a letter to the jefferson County Board of commissioners, department of community development, and prosecuting attorney
EXERPT“…
In sum, Jefferson County should take the following actions.
5.1. It should decline to review the current subdivision proposal submitted byStatesman 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.
5.2. Jefferson County should return any proposed subdivision plans, includingthe proposal discussed herein, to the applicant and decline further review until the submittal of plans is consistent with the Amended Development Agreement and Jefferson County codes.
5.3. The County should determine the subdivision application is not complete asit does not contain all required features and documentation.
5.4. The Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney should immediately take the necessary steps to prevent sales or advertisement for sales of properties within the Pleasant Harbor MPR until all terms of the Development Agreement and Jefferson County platting ordinances are met.
The spring Pleasant Tides newsletter describes unsuccessful efforts by Pleasant Harbor to get water from them.
FEBRUARY 2, 2024 ATTORNEY LETTER
UPDATE ON DUCKABUSH BRIDGE PROJECT
EXERPT: The state and the federal government are planning to replace the Duckabush Bridges and to restore the river estuary at the same time . The plan calls for about 1600 feet of Highway 101 to be elevated above the estuary on support piers. Historic channels of the river would be restored.
Jefferson County has approved a master planned resort with almost 900 units and recreational facilities on the same estuary. Extensive review of the resort did not include the planned salmon recovery project or the impacts of an urban density project on it.
The changes to the highway, bridges, and river are expected to cost more than $100 million. Planning started in the mid 1990’s, involving the state Fish and Wildlife and Transportation departments, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group.
See more information
__________________________________________________________________
1. The Statesman Company has proposed a Master Planned Resort (MPR) at Brinnon on Hood Canal in Jefferson County.
MPRs are an exception to the prohibition of urban development in rural areas. However, the Growth Management Act requires that MPRs are not a typical residential development but must meet requirements such as being “a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development…with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities.”
2. 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.
3. 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.
4.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.
5. 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, including:
a. Community recreation center with 208 short term hotel rooms, pool, waterslides, hockey rink, and sports courts
b. Road network and road improvement on Highway 101
c. A nine-hole golf course
d. 52 residential units for MPR staff
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.”
6. 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.