Illahee Community Plan Comment Deadline - 12/3/08

Plan Comments Deadline 12/5/08. The deadline for public comments on the Illahee Community Plan is 4:30 pm on Friday, 12/5/08.

Example Comment Forms Requested. We have been requested to provide examples of email comments, primarily to show the email addresses of the County Commissioners, as some are more comfortable reading emails than sending them. We have taken the heading from an email sent to the Commissioners which is provided below. Some have sent one-liners, others have expounded with paragraphs. Our suggestion is to do whatever you feel comfortable with.

To: Steve Bauer: <sbauer@co.kitsap.wa.us>,

Josh Brown: <jwbrown@co.kitsap.wa.us>,

Jan Angel: <jangel@co.kitsap.wa.us>,

Subject: Illahee Community Plan

Cc: Katrina Knutson <Kknutson@co.kitsap.wa.us>

Dear Commissioners,

KAPO Letter With 13 Concerns. Yesterday we received a copy of the letter written by William Palmer that described 13 areas of concern that the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO) had with the Illahee Community Plan. It was the letter that was turned in at the public hearing for the Illahee Plan and that was referenced in the linked Kitsap Sun article. We responded to the letter with answers to all 13 concerns, and have attached the letter below for those who have been following the opposition letters to the Illahee Plan.

Let Us Know Your Thoughts. We have been preoccupied during the Thanksgiving holiday and are just getting back to Illahee issues. Let us know your thoughts on this subject and other issues you would like to have more information on.

Jim Aho

Board of County Commissioners

County Administration Building

614 Division Street

Port Orchard, WA 98366

Subject: Illahee Community Response to Palmer/KAPO Letter of November 24, 2008

Dear Commissioners:

The following is a response to the William Palmer / Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO) letter dated November 24, 2008, from the co-chairs of the Illahee Community Plan efforts in 2006 and 2007. We have followed the letter's numerical items with a brief restatement of their concern, followed by our response, and then a concluding comment.

KAPO Concern #1. "Criteria For SubArea Comprehensive Planning." KAPO's concern is that the "Board of County Commissioners have established no qualification criteria for how to determine what portion of the County might be considered for SubArea planning consideration," and specifically the absence of the City of Bremerton's involvement. They go on to allege the 2006 adopted Comprehensive Plan does not mention a need to specifically plan for the Illahee SubArea or suggest what constitutes its boundary.

Response. While we cannot respond to the Board's SubArea planning criteria, we can respond that in 2007 Geoffrey Wentlandt, City of Bremerton planner, participated with Kitsap County Planner Linda Bentley in the 2007 County Planning effort that took place prior to Ms. Bentley's departure. Additionally, the City has been kept informed of all planning efforts since 2006.

With regards to the allegation that the Comprehensive Plan did not mention Illahee or its boundaries, the Illahee Community Plan and the Illahee boundary map are presented in Chapter 17 of Volume I of the adopted 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update.

Conclusion. KAPO's concerns regarding the involvement of the City of Bremerton and the alleged failure to include reference to the Plan in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update are not substantiated.

KAPO Concern #2. "No Justification of Changed Conditions." KAPO's concern is that SubArea plans must be justified by changed conditions, which allegedly were not discussed in the Plan nor in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update.

Response. The Illahee Community Plan did discuss changed conditions in Section 1.3 "Visions for the Illahee Community" and more specifically they were also noted in Section 17.2 "Vision" in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update, Volume I.

Conclusion. Justification of "changed conditions" is provided in Section 17.2 of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update, and in Section 1.3 of the Illahee Community Plan.

KAPO Concern #3. "SubArea Plans Cannot Modify Policies and Land Use Designations." KAPO's concern is that the Illahee Plan modifies comprehensive plan policies and land use designations.

Response. The fact that the Growth Management Act permits yearly amendments to the 10 Year Comprehensive Plan Updates, and such amendments modify policies and land use designations, counters the allegation that SubArea plans cannot modify the contents of a Comprehensive Plan. The reason the Illahee Community Plan is being enacted on as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, rather than enacted earlier in the year similar to the Keyport Plan in 2007, is because it was already in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. The Illahee Community Plan is simply the further amplification and completion of the process documented in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan.

Conclusion. SubArea plans can and do update policies and land use designations as permitted and authorized by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process.

KAPO Concern #4. "Arbitrary Boundaries Set For the SubArea." KAPO alleges the Illahee boundaries are arbitrary and not justified to extend westward to Wheaton Way.

Response. The boundary discussion occurred early in 2006 and then again in 2008. As stated in the Plan, the Citizens Advisory Group (CAG) followed GMA and other guidelines, which were straightforward and noted. The major guideline was to utilize any governmental or public jurisdiction boundaries, which explains the extension of the boundary to State Highway 303. The boundaries are essentially the boundaries of the Port of Illahee, with two "logical extensions" that again fit the guidelines that are to be followed. Also, the Illahee Preserve boundary extends westward to State Highway 303, and much of the northerly and southerly boundaries for the Preserve define the boundaries of the Illahee Community's Westerly extension. It makes no sense to limit the boundary to the top of the ridge, essentially cutting through the center of the Illahee Preserve.

The primary justification of the use of the Port of Illahee boundaries is that they provide a jurisdictional boundary that provides for taxation and representation, through the election of the Port of Illahee Commissioners. What better criteria can there be for a community boundary than one that has already been defined by earlier public officials and has been in existence for decades, that encompasses the major natural features of the area, and that provides for representation and taxation of the community?

Conclusion. The Illahee boundaries are not arbitrary, but were well thought out considering all parameters and inputs. The boundary rationale was presented and approved by the CAG in both 2006 and again in 2008, and represents the most logical and appropriate boundary delineation possible. The boundary map was published in early 2006 and has been in every Plan since, not to mention that it is included as Figure 17-1 in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Update (Volume I) that was adopted December 11, 2006 by the Board of County Commissioners.

KAPO Concern #5. "No Commercial or Industrial Area in Illahee Proper." KAPO on one hand is concerned that the boundary extends to State Highway 303 (see previous item) and then states that without a commercial area that it would no longer qualify for SubArea status.

Response. The Illahee Plan does include the 120 acre commercial corridor along SR 303, which according to the rationale stated by KAPO, justifies the SubArea plan.

Conclusion. A commercial corridor does exist in Illahee along the east side of SR 303.

KAPO Item #6. "Lack of Compliance with County-Wide Planning Policies." KAPO's letter alleges the Plan does not comply or discuss the County's adopted County Wide Planning Policies.

Response. The first draft of the Illahee Community Plan was completed in July 2006, nearly a year and a half before Kitsap County Ordinance 403-2007 "Kitsap Countywide Planning Policies" was adopted on November 19,2007. Members of the CAG did not feel the need to reference the Ordinance or restate policies, but rather to ensure that the Illahee Plan was in compliance. That compliance was confirmed during the county review process.

Conclusion. The Illahee Community Plan, while not referring directly to the Ordinance, does comply with the policies stated therein.

Note: The Realtor Board's letter of concerns, which are referred to in the KAPO letter, described in greater detail some of the issues with the Ordinance. Those issues were previously answered in the response letter regarding the Realtor Board's concerns.

KAPO Concern #7. "Unnecessary Introduction of New Zones to Zoning Ordinance." KAPO states that the Plan unnecessarily introduces new Zones to the planning area noting that the zones are unjustified and complicate the zoning process.

Response. The Illahee Plan includes two new zones: a View Protection Overlay Zone and a Greenbelt Overlay Zone, both of which satisfy community goals. The View Protection Zone was desired by residents to protect their own and future residents' east facing views. The Greenbelt Zone was desired to protect many of the natural features of the critical areas surrounding Illahee Creek and the natural features and wildlife corridors between the Cheney Estates, Illahee State Park, and the Illahee Preserve.

Conclusion. There are no unnecessary Zones introduced in the Illahee Community Plan.

KAPO Concern #8. "Lack of Substantive Discussion of Property Rights." KAPO's concern is that the Illahee Plan only gives "lip service" to the property rights issue and that the issue "desires a whole lot more discussion than one paragraph."

Response. The property rights statement used in the Plan was adopted early on from the 2002 Manchester Community Plan in order to use a statement that has gone through previous public and county scrutiny. In retrospect, with the addition of view protection overlay in 2008, an additional sentence from the 2007 Updated Manchester Plan could have been added to address the new overlay regulations, which read as follows: "New regulations included in the Plan allow the sensible development of land without inappropriate financial impacts."

Conclusion. There is no need to use more than one paragraph to state that Illahee residents believe in individual property rights.

KAPO Concern #9. "Housing Affordability Issue Ignored." The concern appears to be that "Affordable Housing" was not addressed and the Plan should have a "substantive discussion" of this issue

Response. Affordable housing, or below market rate housing, was discussed at great length during 2006 as the CAG looked at trying to balance zoning designations with the numbers of people being allocated to specific areas. The solution was to increase zoning densities in areas where the infrastructure and services were available. Higher density zoning was proposed along Trenton Avenue and Almira, with senior and low income high rise buildings proposed along Almira. Those decisions were affirmed again in 2008.

Conclusion. Below market rate housing was properly and adequately considered.

KAPO Concern #10. "No Need for Natural Systems Section of Plan." KAPO simply asks the following question for this concern: "Where is the documentation of need for the expanded Natural System's section of the Illahee SubArea Plan?"

Response. Community plans are to highlight the unique features of the community and the area. Illahee has many natural systems, resource lands, and critical areas that limit development and these areas need to be described in a community plan

Conclusion. The abundance of natural features of Illahee are what make this area unique and worthy of special attention, which includes coverage in the Illahee Community Plan.

KAPO Concern #11. "The Transportation Section of the Plan is Duplicative." The concern is with duplication of policy items that are in the Comprehensive Plan and that there are policies that are "not capable of being implemented."

Response. Not everyone in the Illahee community is familiar with the Transportation policies in the Comprehensive Plan. As such there are duplications for the community. That is what the CAG wanted included in the Plan. This Chapter of the Plan was extensively reviewed and updated by county officials. We are not aware of what specific policies KAPO is referring to that are not capable of being implemented.

Conclusion. Duplication of Transportation Policies is appropriate in a community plan.

KAPO Concern #12. "Lack of Capital Improvement Financing Discussion." KAPO simply asks another question regarding this concern which is: "Why is there not discussion of capital improvement financing in the Illahee Sub Area Plan?"

Response. The future infrastructure plans for Illahee, specifically for sewers, are referenced. This issue has been a concern of some for years and has been discussed at various meetings. The community was told that there is generally insufficient density in the Illahee area for the county, or the City of Bremerton, which would be responsible for the areas to the south, for there to be a push for sewers in the near future unless new housing developments came on line. Community members met with both city and county engineers in 2006. County personnel worked with the CAG in 2008 to rework the chapter to suit current thinking and plans.

Conclusion. The discussion of capital improvement financing was not considered appropriate by the CAG or the County for inclusion into the Illahee Community Plan.

KAPO Concern #13. "Public Participation Too Limited." KAPO states that "public participation has been very limited at best," and that the County had "a greater responsibility to solicit participation from a broader area of the County..."

Response. Over the nearly three years the Illahee Community Plan has been in the preparation and review processes, there have been many involved and contributing residents and some non-residents involved in the completion of the Plan. Signs were placed along the roadways of Illahee, Illahee Community Newsletters go out via Postal Service mail to over 260 families, Illahee Community Updates go out via email to over 300 recipients, and the Illahee Community website was created primarily because of the Illahee Community Plan in order to keep the community and any interested others informed about the Plan and other Illahee issues. The first version of the Plan was completed by the community on July 5, 2006, and subsequent versions were issued in September 2007 and February 2008 before the County took over the process in February of 2008. The number of community members who have been kept informed of the Plan during this timespan is considerable, with the final list of public participants (which numbers nearly 100 for the process period between 2006 and 2008) available on the County's website.

We are not sure what more the County could have done to solicit participation from a broader area of the County as public notices were published in the legal sections of County papers. Additionally, the Kitsap Sun, the most widely distributed paper in the County, covered the Illahee Community Plan from 2006 to 2008.

Conclusion. Public notice and participation was more than adequate to properly represent the Illahee community. Additionally, press coverage and legal notices provided adequate notice to interested county residents.

Final Comment. The Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO) had every opportunity to be involved with the Illahee Community Plan from the beginning in 2006 until fall of 2008, a nearly three year time frame. They had a chance to bring their concerns before a very interested and involved Planning Commission, but did not do so. The KAPO objections to the Illahee Community Plan are without merit as noted in the above reasoned explanations and answers.

We, therefore, respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners approve the Illahee Community Plan.

Dennis Sheeran & Jim Aho

Sun Article & Misc - 11/26/08

Illahee Community Plan Report. We were hoping for others to report on Monday's public hearing regarding the Illahee Community Plan, but no one took up up on the offer so far. We do have a link to the Kitsap Sun's coverage.

End of Article Comments. There are comments at the end of the Sun article that have been interesting and we were asked to respond to one of them. It is easy to register and respond. This is something like we are attempting to do with our illaheecommunity.com website under the blog section.

Hearing Pictures. We are fortunate to have a photographer in Illahee who was at Monday's public hearing and hope to have pictures when he returns from Thanksgiving travels.

Illahee Property Rights & Realtors. We have residents in Illahee who are concerned about the battle between Illahee and KAPO and the Realtor Board. There are a number of participants who are property rights advocates and while we have realtors in Illahee, we had none that came forward to help with the plan. We do know that residents do not always agree with their organizations positions on some issues and they aren't sure whether to support their group or the community. We watched at least one person at the hearing, from outside Illahee, change his position. He was a supporter of the Plan until KAPO opposed it. It appeared to be a political decision and we understand that some choices aren't easy.

Property Rights Concerns. The majority of Illahee residents are property owners and are respectful of their and other's property rights. They also understand the need for zoning and other regulations that keep order and maintain quality of life. It is that balance that we think the Illahee Plan ensures. We worked hard to make sure everyones voice was heard and in the end we think we ended up with a document that was supported by most Illahee residents. We still don't understand why we have the opposition from the KAPO group on this issue. If you have any further questions on this issue please let us try to respond.

Beach Carcasses? We have a request that if you see a fish or seal, or other marine animal carcass on the beach to notify the Suquamish Tribal biologist. We have attached the email request we received below:

I met with Alison O'Sullivan, Biologist, Environmental Program for the Suquamish Tribe last night and she would like you to coordinate local people who find dead carcasses along the Illahee Shoreline to contact her immediately. Her phone number is 360 394 8447 and her email address is aosullivan@suquamish.nsn.us

Have a great Thanksgiving!

Jim Aho

Battle in Port Orchard - 11/25/08

KAPO & Realtor Board Fight Illahee Plan. There was a knock-down-drag-out battle Monday evening in Port Orchard as the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO) and the Realtor Board set out to derail the Illahee Community Plan. The battle took place before the County Commissioners at the public hearing for the Illahee Plan. There were about 20 KAPO and Realtor Board members who rallied around their presenters, and about 50 Illahee Community members who supported those who got up to speak. It was an exciting hearing that was pushed to the end of the Commissioners' agenda and didn't get started until about 9 pm and ended after 10 pm.

Supporters. The supporters of the Plan were predominately from Illahee, with a few others from other communities there in support of the Illahee community.

Opposition. The opposition were predominately from outside Illahee, with the exception of the owner of Allied Storage, who said he didn't consider himself a member of Illahee and that he didn't receive any of the notices sent by the county.

Realtor Letter. Two of the opposition group covered the items in the Realtor letter that was covered earlier in these Updates. The community response to their letter was also previously covered in an earlier Update so it is not presented here.

KAPO Issue. The primary focus of the KAPO opposition was that there is no need for community plans; that once you start giving each community a say in their destiny, where do you stop as there are many communities who would like to have a plan?

Boundary Issue. Ron Ross brought up the boundary issue. He stated he grew up in Illahee through the 1940's and he does not consider the areas to the north and south of historic Illahee, part of Illahee. He said it would have been more appropriate to use the CK School District boundaries rather than the Port of Illahee boundaries. He also didn't like the fact that the western boundary extended to State Highway 303.

Community Response. The basic community response was that the Illahee Community Plan has been in the news and meetings have been held for nearly three years and if any of these groups had been interested they could have participated. The community thanked Katrina Knutson for her efforts, and also Cindy Read, who developed the maps for the Plan.

Written Comments. Written comments will be taken until December 5, 2008. This is part of the public hearing testimony and the written comments are important.

Final Decision. The final decision on the Plan will not take place until December 22, 2008. It will be interesting to see if the Commissioner's give the community a present or a lump of coal for Christmas.

Other Perceptions? It is always nice to have others comment on their perception and observations on events like these. We will publish whatever you pass on to us.

Jim Aho

Citizens Call to Arms Letter - 10/30/08

Last Update Entry. In our last update, see below, we said we would try to obtain more information about a reported citizens letter, and if possible, obtain a copy to pass on.

Illahee Community Plan Letter? We heard there is a group working on a letter to distribute to Illahee residents regarding the recent opposition to the Illahee Community Plan by the Realtor Board and the KAPO Executive Director. We will try to find out more and if possible print the letter.

Reason for the Letter #1. Evidently this letter was drafted for some residents to copy and distribute in their neighborhoods. We saw one email where the person was going to change the title to something they felt more comfortable with. We heard there were some who felt their neighbors were not aware of the controversy and wanted to use the letter as a way to explain what was happening.

Reason for the Letter #2. Another person was more frank in describing their reason for helping with the letter, i.e., that the Update we issued regarding the subject did not adequately stress the importance of having residents write to the Commissioners or the necessity of residents attending the public meeting on November 24th.

The Letter. Note that we try to maintain impartiality in the Updates we issue and as such try to just report the facts. We do, however, pass on most of the information we receive, with little or no editing.

Keep the Information Coming.

Jim Aho

Requested Additional Information Re KAPO Allegations - 10/20/08

Requested Information Regarding Mullinex Property. Many of you have requested more information about the Mullinex situation that was mentioned in the KAPO letter and the allegations made by Ms. Henderson. We have obtained permission to print the contents of a response to KAPO by a nearby neighbor that provides more in depth details. If you are in a hurry and want to skip the historical details in the letter, read the last three paragraphs. Let us know if you have more questions and we will try to obtain answers.

October 19, 2008

Dear Ms Henderson,

After reading your comments in your letter to the Board of Commissioners about the Illahee Community Plan and referencing the "Mullinex family ", I am compelled to respond.

The property now owned by Shaun and Alida Mullinex was originally owned by Joe Yank. Mr. Yank owned a large farm acreage and later his daughter had an equestrian facility and the land now owned by the Mullinex's was pasture. Part of the farm was sold to Dr. David Relling (Mr. Yank's son-in-law at that time) in the 1950's and he established his veterinary practice, still known today as Relling Small Animal Hospital. The other part of the farm was sold to a Clifford Burlingame in 1973. Mr. Burlingame was a builder and his plan was to place his home on the western part of the parcel (the parcel now owned by the Mullnex's) alongside Perry Avenue. But, these plans were not allowed by Kitsap County because the property was too wet for development. What is most unfortunate is that while the Burlingame children recall these interactions with the county there are no county records as no building permit was applied for. It was the way things were done in those days (1970's); honesty and integrity were integral to a person's word. Mr. Burlingame had this parcel appraised during this time. Because of the appraisers notes (on file in county records) stating that this parcel of land was essentially unbuildable due to the stream, surrounding topography and wetlands, the property taxes for this parcel were significantly reduced. Someone on behalf of the Mullinex family should have encouraged them to obtain this information. Over the course of the next 25 years, according to Mrs. Burlingame, many ideas were considered for ways to use this property. One of these was a Christmas tree farm, but alas the trees died- they were too wet. Another idea was to turn it into a pet area, but this proposal was nixed by Kitsap County officials as the pet feces would contaminate the stream. The stream was considered a primary source of water recharge to the area wells as well as feeding into the acknowledged South Fork of Illahee Creek. What finally grew along the stream were (now large and productive) blueberry bushes- blueberries love moisture.

In 1998 when Mr. Burlingame passed away the property went into an estate and that parcel now owned by the Mullinex's was purchased for $25,000 by the Heidners. Several of the Burlingame children still live in the area and can provide more factual details of this transaction. In July of 2005 the property went up for sale about six years after the Heidners had purchased it. They made a tidy profit, selling the land for $115,000.00 to Shaun and Alida Mullinex.

Our property borders the entire Mullinex property to the north. When we purchased our property in 1999, my cousin Paul Drury worked for the county as one of their storm water engineers. He commented to us about the beautiful stream- the stream that meandered across our property going northward under Burrett Street connecting to the main fork of Illahee Creek and southward onto the adjoining property now belonging to the Mullinex's continuing southward feeding into one of the North Perry well sites. We have a short article written by the Burrett's daughter and provided to us by the listing real estate agency (John L. Scott) from whom we bought the property. She had written about "her father purchasing the land from the Phillips . . . their apple orchards . . . and the wonderful year around stream". I began to research the area talking with our neighbors and anyone who knew more of the area's history eventually learning about the stream being the South Fork of Illahee Creek. When the For Sale sign was posted (John L. Scott Realty, Agent Bob Arnold), a call went out to the seller's agent by those that knew of the nature of this land not only to provide this information but to ensure that this information was ultimately passed on to any possible buyers. Of note, the still natural state of this entire watershed area of which this parcel is only a part of is well known to many in the area. The Category Wetland rating was not something placed upon this land by anyone other than Kitsap County. This agent's response was most unfortunate, as he made it quite clear that he had no intention of disclosing such conditions to the prospective buyers. In fact, he responded vehemently that when the sewers would come to this area, everyone would sell out. Because of his response, I chose to do some research on disclosure and learned that apparently disclosure is only required by real estate agents when it involves buildings or other structures and does not transfer to land for development. It is up to the buyers to research raw land.

When the Apex Septic service began to dig the various holes for percolation studies that July of 2005, we were quite interested to see how this would transpire. These holes were dug along the west side of the property bordering Perry Avenue and contiguous to our wetland property. It was also the very site that Mr. Burlingame had wanted to place his home and was denied this by the county because of the boggy terrain. We chose to take pictures of these holes- these holes remained wet throughout that summer of 2005.

In November of 2005, Mr. Mullinex came to see the property. According to Shaun he was told by the seller's agent that the wet, winding area was a drainage ditch.

I will never forget the day they arrived from Hawaii, straight from SeaTac driving directly out onto their property to see their new home site. My heart sunk when I met this wonderful family and being a Vietnam era veteran I was even more disheartened to learn of their active duty military status. And as the months ensued and I learned more about them and about Alida's health I was deeply saddened and more than angry. I could not for the life me understand how this could have happened. This saga still continues today and what I write next is from what Shaun and Alida shared with me over these next months.

Most interested in this property they placed a deposit, more than they wanted to but were encouraged to do so by the seller's agent because property was selling fast and they needed to secure this if they truly wanted it, was dependent upon an approved septic design. While in Hawaii, their real estate agent was called by the seller's agent telling them that a septic design had been approved. The septic design that was approved by the Kitsap County Health Department showed the house located in the middle of the property on top of the stream and surrounding wetlands. In January of 2006 at the sale closing they thought an approved septic design sufficient enough for them to proceed to purchase the property. It was not until their building permit reached the next phase did they learn about the true nature of their land. Yes, subsequently the county worked very, very hard not to deny them in any way their right to build upon their property. What has not been disclosed in all your recriminations, Ms Henderson, is what they are allowed to build. The home area allowed would be quite different in size compared to their original plans and located in the very eastern back of their property. Their dream home designed to accommodate any handicap, given Alida's diagnosis, no longer a possibility. Any enjoyment of the surrounding land for lawn or play would only be a very small area due to the need to mitigate and fence the stream and wetlands. The area proposed for the location of a possible Glendon Septic system was in the far NE corner of their property. This area is often very wet and borders our land of which we have pictures documenting the standing water. The area proposed for the reserve drain field would be accessed by coming from the main system across/under the stream and uphill to the western boundary of the property- again, the same area of this lot that had heretofore been undevelopable much less an appropriate location for a drain field.

I would remind you again, at this point, that the wetland categorization comes from Kitsap County documents and not from any other source. Had there been any moral fiber in the nature of the seller's agent for disclosure on this land or perhaps by law a requirement to compensate for the lacking of such integrity, the Mullinex's in all probability would never have purchased this property. Therefore, your inflammatory comments about the vigilantes in the Illahee community being responsible for the plight of the Mullinex family are totally unjustified. What is inexcusable here is how the seller's agent failed this family. It wasn't ignorance on his part, he had been made fully aware of the conditions of this property, and chose his course of action. That is to whom you need to direct your comments on the plight of this family. And, while Kitsap county representatives have done everything they could to help Shaun and Alida; the county is somehow, through a process that I cannot comprehend, culpable. How the Health Department could have approved such a design given all the county maps available documenting this watershed area for the stream, its wells that are a part of the North Perry Water District, Critical Aquifer Recharge Maps, Hazardous areas maps, etc. is again, something I simply do not understand.

As for your statements about the Illahee Community individuals which you maligned in your letter as well as those statements you made about them in two public meetings; those statements need to not only be formally retracted by you, but accompanied with an apology and in such a time and place that they may be viewed in the same venue as they were delivered.

Furthermore, if I had had any reservations about the sub area plans which you have castigated in your letter to our Commissioners especially regarding the Illahee Community Plan, they have disappeared. It is community plans, carefully researched, well written, and empowered by the letter of the law; that will protect the citizens of this community from agents that wish to hide, conceal or otherwise ignore any conditions that might interfere with the development of raw land. I, now, not only fully support the Illahee Community Plan I will make every effort to see that it is not only passed by our Commissioners but that it is maintained.

Linda Drury Hinde

Cc: Commissioner Jan Angel, Commissioner Steve Bauer, and Commissioner Josh Brown (via email)
Katrina Knutson, Associate Planner, DCD (Cc:email and letter)
Barney Bernhard, President, Illahee Community Club (via email)
Shaun and Alida Mullinex (via email)

Responses and Questions - 10/17/08

Response to Realtor Letter? We have been asked if there will be a response to the Realtor letter that was included as part of the Update on 10/15, or the KAPO letter that was attached to the 10/16 Update. So far we have heard of several individuals who are working on responses to the Realtor letter and when they found out they weren't the only ones responding they said they would like to meet Sunday afternoon or early evening to either coordinate their responses or agree to write their own. If anyone would like to help with the responses, please answer this email as we will pass on the meeting place and time, when it is decided.

KAPO Letter Response. We have had a number of people who want to know more about the Mullenix situation and why the KAPO people are blaming the Illahee community for the Mullenix's problems. A nearby neighbor to the Mullenix property is preparing a response that will likely contain pertinent facts to the situation and controversy. We should be able to get permission to send it out in an Update when the letter is completed.

Illahee Road Opening at Gilberton Creek. Some thought the date of the opening ceremony (Oct 23rd) would be the date the road opened. Actually we did too, until we saw the progress, which was evident from the photos send out earlier this week. The road is now open as shown in the front page headlines in Friday's Kitsap Sun. What a pleasure to not have to drive around anymore.

Other Responses to the Community Plan Attacks? We have been asked what community members can do to show their support for the Illahee Community Plan. The Realtors and KAPO sent their email and letters to the three County Commissioners, with copies to the County Administrator and the Department of Community Development Director. Community members should do likewise. They should also plan on attending the the Commissioner's meeting when the Illahee Plan comes up for a public hearing.

More Ideas Later. We expect there will be more information and other options available and we will pass the information on as it becomes available to us.

Jim Aho

KAPO Targets Illahee Community Plan - 10/16/08

Second Opposition Letter. We just received the second opposition letter that came from the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO), which is provided as an attachment. The letter is signed by Vivian Henderson, who is the Executive Director and one who spoke at both the Commissioners' meeting and the Planning Commission meeting, reportedly asking that the Illahee Community Plan not be adopted.

Endorsement of Realtor Letter. The KAPO letter is an endorsement of the Realtor letter sent that was sent out in an earlier Update, but goes on to present other concerns.

Their Concerns? It appears they are concerned that only "a few voices" (paragraph 2) are speaking for the community and they question whether the plan represents the voice of the community. "KAPO fears the county is giving community organized groups a political voice not enjoyed by other members of the community." (paragraph 5). We are not sure what community organized group KAPO is referring to since we are not aware of any Illahee group being represented on the Citizens Advisory Group.

A Personal Vendetta? In trying to understand where KAPO is coming from it appears they are most concerned that several members on the Citizens Advisory Group were involved in a land use issue a few years ago (paragraphs 8-10) that KAPO took an active interest in. They seem to imply that the Illahee Community Plan was written by those members based on KAPO's statement "Should government empower citizens who use such bullying tactics against their neighbors?" (paragraph 10) This makes it seem more like a personal vendetta against those individuals, who happen to be members of the CAG, than on the Illahee Community Plan itself.

Your Comments Are Solicited. That was our interpretation of the KAPO letter based on what we read. We are anxious to hear your thoughts.

Jim Aho