HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 0417 00('C.: L')cD y•/8•cv
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF Amending }
The Emergency Interim Control }
Ordinance (EICO) No. 06-0828-98 }
With Respect to Siting of Public }
Purpose Facilities, and Changing the }
Name. Now to be Known as }
Interim Control Ordinance. }
Ordinance No. 03-0417-00
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive
Plan on August 28, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted the Emergency
Interim Control Ordinance (EICO) on August 28, 1998 to partially implement the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has renewed the EICO on
February 7, 2000 for an additional six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners authorized by motion of the
Board on March 6, 2000 to publish a request for proposals (RFP) from qualified
professionals to draft and coordinate through the public process final development
regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners had amended the EICO by
Ordinance No. 1-0208-99 to allow the siting of Public Purpose Facilities including Police
Stations upon all lands within unincorporated Jefferson County through a conditional use
process; and
WHEREAS, the 1998 Comprehensive Plan (specifically Table 9-1 on page 9-2)
distinguishes between Public Purpose Lands and Essential Public Facilities by stating that
Public Purpose Lands are lands needed to accommodate public facilities. These lands are
needed to provide the full range of services to the public provided by government,
substantially funded by government, contracted for by government, or provided by
private entities to public service obligations; and
WHEREAS, Table 9-1 on page 9-2 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan states that Essential
Public Facilities are typically difficult to site, usually unwanted by neighborhoods and
have unusual site requirements, or other features that complicate the siting process.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, as follows:
1. The EICO Use Table is amended to allow Public Purpose Facilities to be permitted
outright upon all lands within unincorporated Jefferson County;
~. ,
'"
Ordinance No.
03-0417-nn
Page 2
2. Such Public Purpose Facilities shall not be subject to the maximum building cap size
contained in Sections 8,9,10 and 11 of the EICO;
3. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to differentiate between Public
Purpose Facilities and Essential Public Facilities based upon the criteria and
discussion contained on pages 9-2 and 9-3 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan; and
4. The EICO is hereby amended and called the INTERIM CONTROL ORDINANCE.
ADOPTION
~
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners this --17 day of April
2000.
This action is exempt from SEP A review per WAC 197-11-800 (20), which states that
procedural actions are exempt when relating solely to governmental procedures, and
containing no substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment.
This ordinance amends Ordinance No. 06-0828-98, repeals Ordinance No. 1-0208-99 and
becomes effective upon adoption.
,,"'_.' -. ,
SEAL:
/
/
l
.
: '! !
;' '. '
'- ~,._-'
(Excused Absence)
Glen Huntingford, Member
Scalf
Director of Community Development
l:i : ~.t,1J). frS".6b
fA to-~-esi)
Olympic Environmental Council
County Commissiooers
County Court House
Port Townsend, W A 98368
P.O. Box 1906, Port Townsend, We 98368
Fax (360)379-8442
lR1~~~~~~[]
JUN 0 5 2000
6-5-00
Dear Commissioners,
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
The Olympic Environmental Council is opposed to the pro~ Interim Control Ordinance.
Thi& ordinance if passed would facilitate subjective performance based wning. This is the type of
zoning that was challenged in a law suit prior to the GMA based Comprehensive Plan that now
guides this county's planning. The county lost that law suit and the appeal.
1Ie administrative planning decisions allowed in this ordinance appear to be retroactive and could
allow the vesting of projects not allowed in our Comprehensive Plan. Further this proposal could
require the inordinate time and ~ergy of our zoning administrator who would have to make
decisions ~ut the use or non .e of section 13 within twelvè' da)tt of a clients response. This
is a totally unreason sable turn around time for decisions on projects that could change the land use
in this county. We have not spent the time to develop well thöught out performance standards that
meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the law.
This proposed Interim Control Ordinance is not aa efficient or effective process for decision
making or monitoring. It is an insult to the tax payers of this county who ha~ spent the la!l ten
years developing a million dollar comprehensive plan with goals and policies with the
understanding that a code would be put into place to reflect and promote the intent of their plan.
This proposed ordinance is not in the best interests of this county and its citizens.
sincerelY,/" í
V~~~
Olympic Environmental Council Board
.. ' OCD ¿;
'.- '-~. fA -.S ~ - ~ -öi)
June 5, 2000
Public Hearing re: ICO Amendment
Testimony by Nancy Dorgan
CPA99-20 submitted last summer by the Port Hadlock and Quilcene Brinnon Chambers of
Commerce promoted the complete elimination of the EICO use tables. Their application
stated:
"The implementation of Section 13 Use Tables and Table 13-1 Permitted
Conditional Uses are inconsistent with the Goals and Policies of the Plan and
have proven to be too restrictive and counter-productive to placement of
businesses in the rural areas that can provide the necessary services and
jobs. "
The Chambers sought the wording modification, "including but not limited to" in major land
use polices and argued that performance standards could be used instead.
That was the first time I had heard of performance standards but the application didn't
explain what they were or how they should work. Subsequent reports and findings and
conclusions from staff, the planning commission, and the commissioners were not
concerned with this aspect of the chambers' amendment, and I didn't know anymore about
performance zoning at the end of the comp plan cycle than I knew at the beginning.
However, given the context of the chambers' faulty interpretations of the GMA in CPA99-20,
I have been instinctively suspicious of performance zoning ever since, and I'm still waiting
for the county to show me how this works and why it is a good thing. The ordinance
whereas's refer very briefly to flexibility, timely processing, and future unknown uses, but
that isn't much of a real explanation. It bothers me that I don't know more about this
approach to zoning and that I can't therefore offer you more informed criticism at this
hearing.
Where I am on my personal learning curve as a concerned citizen, I do know that this
ordinance is a major change to how the county grows. The draft seems very long on
process and short on criteria. Maybe the criteria listed are sufficient, maybe they are not.
What is the overlap with SEPA requirements, for example? Criterion F, that a proposed use
would be denied if " in conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive plan" does
not refer specifically to land use goals and policies, so I am curious whether a use could still
be approved if it did not demonstrate sustainability or provide family-wage jobs, which are
goals and policies at the heart of our comp plan.
I haven't been following county meetings lately, but in the Spring I did go to a number of
Community Development meetings in which their current work-plan was discussed. I don't
recall hearing anything about allocating staff time to prepare an interim ordinance for this
type of zoning, so why is it being worked on now when we have also just begun intensive
work on the UDC? This staff project seems to have surfaced about the same time you
discussed not accepting comp plan amendments this year. So now perhaps the county
Chambers of Commerce might get -- afterall-- what they couldn't get last year through
CPA99-20. If that is the case, it would rather be like giving a big cookie to a hungry child
while you are busy cooking up a proper meal. You know It isn't the best thing to do, but it
does keep things quiet for awhile.
When I attended your May 22nd meeting I was actually shocked to see this amendment in
the packet. It serves me right for not paying closer attention to legal notices, but after the
EICO was renewed and amended recently, I thought that would be the end of my
involvement until the draft UDC was released for public comment. This performance zoning
ordinance really did seem to come out of the blue. At the May 22nd meeting I heard
planning staff describe the importance and broad extent of future public involvement with
the adoption of the UDC, so it seems very odd to me that this significant change is coming
forward now with no known public outreach. If I missed it, I apologize and would like to
know when it occurred. I do know that the planning commision was not in this short loop,
and because this is being adopted as an interim ordinance, it is possible for you to take that
shortcut. I don't, however, understand why you would want to.
Being curious about how this amendment evolved, I went back to your minutes and learned
that on April 3 you approved a hearing notice for an April 17th hearing on amending the
EICO, but only with respect to siting to public purpose facilities and changing the name.
Those April 3rd minutes also recorded that Commissioner Harpole was "under the
impression that there are other items that the staff feel need to be changed." Just what
those other changes might be was not recorded in those minutes, but they said Mr. Saddler
reported that "this is the only change that the staff had ready for consideration. AI Scalf
reported that the use tables need criteria established." It would appear, then, that as of
April3rd, staff intended to prepare performance zoning criteria, but had not yet started.
Two weeks later at the April 17th EICO hearing, there was no citizen participation. Later in
your April 17th meeting, the minutes record that planning staff now had a draft ordinance
ready for implementing criteria development regs, and they reviewed it with you and you
then approved another hearing notice for a May 8th public hearing.
At that hearing only two citizens participated, Ryan Tillman an engineer/developer and Bill
Marlow, sponsor of CPA 99-20. Both were apparently very much in the information loop on
this ordinance and made comments that led to further revisions According to the minutes,
Warrent Hart explained the purpose and nature of the proposed ordinance and said that it
would provide the opportunity for a previously denied proposal to go through the appeal
process. Given the apparent speed this ordinance is moving, it would not surprise me if
there is just such a project in the background driving the abbreviated process. I don't find it
reassuring that the whole subject will be reviewed again later during public process for the
UDC. A lot can happen in six or seven months. After your May 8th hearing, you asked staff
for more information and asked them to do more more work on the ordinance, and I think
that also reflects the relatively short history of this proposed ordinance, and it also raises
another red flag in my mind that it might still need work in addition to public education.
It is my understanding that interim regulatory ordinances are usually more restrictive in
nature in order to preserve long term options but still allow the county to act more quickly by
bypassing planning commission review. But the whole point of this ordinance is to open up
options in quite a significant way. I don't think this kind of expanion should happen so
quickly and especially without the same kind of review that we all know will occur relatively
soon with the UDC, which we also know will include some kind performance zoning.
I would much prefer that you set this ordinance aside at this time and wait for the UDC.
Regular Agenda
Dept. of Community Development
Item #2
Page I of 3
Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Request
To:
From:
Board of County Commissioners
Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator
AI Scalf. Director of Community Developmen ~
Warren Hart, AICP, Planning Manager (.¡o. rv.
May 22, 2000
Date:
Subject:
Setting a Public Hearing Date and Publishing a Hearing Notice on an
Ordinance Amending Section 13 of the Interim Control Ordinance (lCO)
Statement of Issue:
Attached is a Public Hearing Notice for an Ordinance to amend
Section 13 of the Interim Control Ordinance (lCO), granting the
Zoning Administrator authority and criteria to differentiate uses in
Table 13-1, Permitted and Conditional Uses.
The Board of County Commissioners has previously held a public
hearing on Monday, May 8, 2000.
Staff has made, in its opinion, substantial revisions to the Section 13
Interim Control Ordinance (TCO) based upon comments from the
public and at the Board's direction to review certain sections of the
ordinance and is recommending that the Board hold a second public
hearing.
The public .hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Monday, June
5, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.
Analysis:
The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners adopted the
Interim Control Ordinance on August 28, 1998 to partially
implement the Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC has directed the
Department to prepare criteria for use by the Zoning Administrator
to clarify omissions, ambiguities and other factual situations that arise
with respect to the rco use tables. This Ordinance is an interim
measure until such time as the Unified Development Code is
adopted.
-~
Regular Agenda
Dept. of Community Development
Item #2
Page 2 of 3
The following narrative provides a summary of the changes made by
staff to the Section 13 Interim Control Ordinance (lCO):
Section 13.20 Authority of Zoning Administrator.
.
Addition of language clarifying that the Zoning Administrator
will use Section 13 when the proposed use is not already
listed on Table 13-1 of the ICO.
Deletion of language requiring the applicant to submit cost
estimates for a Section 13 Determination.
Addition of language requiring the applicant to submit a
description of the structure or structures (including the size
of the "footprint" of such structures) and if applicable, the
proposed hours of operation and estimated number of
employees for the proposed use.
.
.
Section 13.30 Notice to Applicant or Proponent:
.
Addition of language clarifying that the full payment of fees
shall be included with the application material.
Section 13.50
Criteria for Zoning Administrator's Decision:
.
Addition of language clarifying "rural development" and
"urban services" will be defined as in RCW 36.70A030.
Addition of a new paragraph clarifying that an applicant
cannot use a pre-existing or prior non-conforming use to
substantiate that the proposed land use is less objectionable
than other uses in the area.
.
Section 13.70 Timing of Written Decision:
.
Clarification of the amount of time that the Zoning
Administrator has to issue the Section 13 determination.
Addition of language granting the Zoning Administrator the
ability to require the applicant provide additional infonnation
for the Zoning Administrator to make a determination, with
the addition of a 15 day period.
.
Section 13.100 Appeal process:
.
Clarification that the Zoning Administrator's decision to not
use Section 13 for a proposed use, when the proposed land
use is already listed on Table 13-1, is not appealable.
Regular Agenda
Dept. of Community Development
Item #2
Page 3 of 3
Section 13.140 Rettoactive applicability:
.
Addition of a new section that clarifies that Section 13 is
available to any landowner despite whether the proposed land
use was previously submitted to the County. This applies
equally to non-conforming uses, however, the Zoning
Administrator cannot supercede limitations on
nonconforming use policies found in the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
Alternatives:
The BOCC may concur with staff that substantial changes have been
made and set the public hearing date, or determine that substantial
changes have not been made to the Ordinance and adopt as is, or
send the Ordinance back to the Department for rewriting.
Fiscal Impact:
The Department estimates that it will take approximately 150 hours
of unbudgeted staff time in the Development Review Division to
process Section 13 decisions in fiscal year 2000 as a result of
adoption of this Ordinance. Should the Board of County
Commissioners adopt this Ordinance the Department will work with
the County Administtator to accommodate staffing and workplan
inconsistencies.
Reviewed by:
Charles C. Saddler, County Administrator
(or David Goldsmith, Deputy County Administrator)
Publish one time:
Bill to:
Wednesday, May 24, 2000
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan, Port Townsend, WA 98368
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Amending the Interim Control Ordinance
With Respect to the Zoning Administrator's Authority
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is scheduled by the Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners for Monday. June 5th at 2:00 lJ.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers,
County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, W A 98368.
Any person may submit written or oral comments at this public hearing with respect to the
contents and adoption of this ordinance. Information relating to the ordinance and hearing or
copies of the ordinance may be obtained from the Jefferson County Department of Community
Development at 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, Telephone: (360) 379-4450.
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Richard Wojt, Chair
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MA ITER OF amending
The Interim Control Ordinance
(ICO) No. 06-0828-98
With Respect to the Zoning
Administrator's Authority
}
}
}
}
}
Ordinance No.
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive Plan on
i\ugust28,1998;and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted the Emergency Interim
Control Ordinance (EICO) on August 28, 1998 to partially implement the Comprehensive Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has renewed the EIca on February
7,2000 for an additional six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has recently enacted an Ordinance to
change the name of the Emergency Interim Control Ordinance ("EICO") to the Interim Control
Ordinance or "ICO;" and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has directed the Department of Community
Development (or "DCD") to enter into a contract with Earthtec [an International Ltd. Co.] to
prepare a Unified Development Code (UDC) as development regulations intended to implement
the adopted Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development chapter of the adopted 1998 Comprehensive Plan
provides a goal EDG 5.0 to provide regulatory incentives to encourage and facilitate economic
opportunities within the County, as well as action items on page 7-18, providing guidance for
future land use regulations such as Action Item #16. Action Item #16 provides that when
rewriting the land use codes, County staff will work towards:
. Integrating and simplifying land use regulations;
. Ensuring current procedures provide efficient and effective processing, monitoring and
decision making;
. Developing multiple permitting process tracks to allow increased flexibility and rapid
processing of development applications that conform to a prescribed set of regulations
(Corresponding Goal: 5.0); and
WHEREAS, Action Item #17 mandates a review [of] the County's permit review process to
ensure current procedures provide efficient, timely and effective processing, monitoring and
decision-making. (Corresponding Goal: 5.0); and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners have directed that the ICO, specifically the
language located under the phrase "Note" on page 46 of the ICO (see attachment "A") be
reexamined and analyzed in light of the two "Action Items" listed above; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has taken legislative notice that neither they
nor any of the County staff can predict what types of uses, businesses, enterprises, for-profit
entities or other commerce will come to exist or will come some day to be suitable for location
and existence within this County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has directed the County Administrator to
generate for ultimate inclusion into the ICO specific criteria for use by the Zoning Administrator
can clarifY omissions, ambiguities and other unique factual situations that arise with respect to or
as a result of Table 13-1, entitled "Pennitted and Conditional Uses."
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, as follows:
Section 1: The Interim Control Ordinance, specifically Section 13, entitled "Use Tables",
page 46, is amended by the deletion of the phrase "Note" and all sentences, bullets and language
that follow the phrase "Note" on that page.
2
Section 2: The Department of Community Development shall be authorized to charge
appropriate fees pursuant to the Indexed Fee Schedule Ordinance No.12-1209-96, Ordinance No.
11-1115-99 and Ordinance No. 13-1212-99, specifically listed on said Indexed Fee Schedule as
Code Interpretation - Administrative Review/Decision.
Section 3:
There shall be created in Interim Control Ordinance the following new sections:
Section 13.10 Primacv of Use Table. Table 13-1: Table 13-1 found within the ICO,
entitled "Permitted and Conditional Uses," shall be and is the primary representation and
compilation of the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners with respect to land
uses and proposed land uses within Jefferson County. However, the County acknowledges that
the description of land uses found within Table 13-1 contains only examples of usual and
customary land uses. The uses described and listed in Table 13-1 are merely intended to be
typical and are not intended to represent all possible uses.
Section 13.20 Authority of Zoning Administrator: The Zoning Administrator, upon his
or her written determination that, because a proposed use is not found within Table 13-1 of the
ICO or because of the unique qualities or facts underlying a particular proposed land use, Table
13-1 of the ICO does not provide or can not provide a clear or definitive answer to determine if
such a proposed land use would be permitted outright or conditionally permitted in this County,
shall be empowered to use the following decision criteria when determining the status of that
proposed land use. The Zoning Administrator is also authorized, upon his or her receipt of a
written request from a citizen for a Section 13.50 decision that includes the address or
Assessor's parcel number of the location where the use would occur if approved, a reasonably
detailed description of the use proposed, a description of the structure or structures (including
the size of the "footprint" of such structures) such a use would require, and if applicable, the
proposed hours of operation and estimated number of employees for the proposed use, to utilize
this Section 13, including the criteria listed at Section 13.50, to respond to the written request
from that citizen.
Section 13.30 Notice to Applicant or Proponent: The Zoning Administrator shall
notify the applicant or proponent in writing that he or she has determined that the facts presented
require a "Section 13" decision by the Zoning Administrator in order to determine if such a
proposed land use would be permitted outright or conditionally permitted in this County.
Included in the letter shall be a statement that the Zoning Administrator intends to apply the
rules of Section 13, a copy of the criteria the Zoning Administrator shall use (all of Section 13)
to make his or her decision and a copy of the fee schedule applicable to the interpretation and
the subsequent publication of any decision reached. That written notification shall also inform
the applicant or proponent that he, she or it has twelve (12) business days (measured from the
date of the letter) to provide proof to the Zoning Administrator that the proposed land use
satisfies the criteria of this Section and to pay the appropriate fees for the interpretation and the
subsequent publication of the Administrator's decision. Failure to provide this information and
full payment within twelve (12) business days will lead to a denial of the Section 13.50 request.
Section 13.40 Burden of Proof: The applicant or proponent of the proposed land use
that is subject to a decision of the Zoning Administrator based upon the criteria listed in Section
3
13.50 below shall at all times have the burden of proof with respect to proving via clear and
convincing evidence that the proposed land use satisfies the criteria of this Section.
Section 13.50 Criteria for Zoning Administrator's Decision: The Zoning
Administrator, having previously determined that Table 13-1 of the ICO does not provide or can
not provide a clear or definitive answer to determine if a particular proposed land use would be
permitted outright or conditionally permitted in this County, shall approve the proposed land use
only if the applicant has met his her or its burden of proof with respect to demonstrating to the
Zoning Administrator that the proposed land use will not:
a. be unreasonably incompatible with the types of uses permitted and conditionally
permitted in the specified zoning district by Table 13-1;
b. create, generate, add or cause additional pedestrian or vehicular traffic that would be
substantially greater than would be created by similar legally-pennitted and
conditionally permitted uses in the area where the proposed land use would occur;
c. create noise, odor, heat, vibration, air or water pollution impacts that would be
substantially greater than would be created by similar legally-pennitted and
conditionally permitted uses in the area where the proposed land use would occur;
d. be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;
e. if applicable, adversely affect the historical or rural character as
defined in RCW 36.70A.030 of the surrounding area;
f. be in conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan;
g. require the extension of urban services or expansion of existing urban services as
urban services are defined in RCW 36.70A.O30;
h. be inconsistent with all other applicable local, state and federal regulations.
Applicants or proponents of a proposed land use that is being subject to a Section 13
interpretation shall not be permitted to mention or utilize in their oral or written arguments in
support of obtaining a positive Section 13 decision the presence of any or all pre-existing or prior
non-conforming uses, sometimes called "grandfathered" uses, that might exist within the zoning
district where their proposed land use would, if permitted or conditionally permitted, be
eventually located.
Section 13.60 . Written decision: The Zoning Administrator shall issue a written
decision regarding his or her application of the Section 13.50 criteria to the proposed land use.
Nothing in Section 13 shall prevent the Zoning Administrator from imposing, as part of his or
her approval, reasonable conditions to mitigate the potential or expected consequences of the
now-approved land use. A decision made pursuant to Section 13 that the proposed land use
should be permitted outright or conditionally permitted does not relieve the applicant from
ensuring that his, her or its project or proposal is in full compliance with all other County
Ordinances that apply to the specific proposal brought forward. .
Section 13.70 Timing of Written Decision: The Zoning Administrator shall issue his or
her decision not later than twenty-five (25) business days after the date of the initial letter sent to
the applicant or proponent stating that the Zoning Administrator intended to apply the procedures
4
and rules of this Section. The Zoning Administrator shall be required to mail his or her written
decision via ordinary mail to the applicant or proponent at the address provided by the applicant
or proponent no later than 32 business days after the date of the initial letter sent to the applicant
or proponent informing the applicant or proponent that the Section 13 procedure would be used.
If the Zoning Administrator needs additional information before he or she can make a
decision, then he or she may send a written request to the applicant or proponent at the address
provided describing the additional infonnation needed. The Zoning Administrator is authorized
to grant the proponent or applicant not more than fifteen (15) business days [measured from the
date of the letter requesting more information] to provide the additional infonnation, during
which time the deadlines mentioned in this section shall be revised to reflect the addition of the
additional days given the proponent or applicant to provide the additional infonnation. Thus, if
the Zoning Administrator gives the applicant or proponent 15 additional business days to provide
more information, then the decision of the Zoning Administrator must be issued not later than
forty (40) business days [25 + 15] after the date of the initial letter to the applicant stating the
Zoning Administrator intended to apply Section 13. Failure on the part of the applicant to
provide the additional infonnation requested in the time provided shall lead to a negative
decision regarding the Section 13 interpretation.
Section 13.80 Mailed Notice: A copy of the Zoning Administrator's written
decision made pursuant to the Section 13.50 criteria shall be mailed to 1) the proponent or
applicant of the proposed land use at the address provided and 2) any person who has made
written request of the Department of Community Development that they be advised in writing of
all written decisions made pursuant to Section 13 of the ICO.
Section 13.90 Published Notice: There shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation within Jefferson County, at the expense of the proponent or applicant, who shall pay
the cost of such publication, not more than fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the
written Section 13 decision, a notice that contains a) the date of the written Section 13 decision,
b) the name of the proponent or applicant for the proposed land use, c) the street address or
parcel number of the real property suggested for the proposed land use, d) a brief summary of the
Section 13 decision reached by the Zoning Administrator and e) a statement that any person who
wishes to appeal the Administrator's interpretation must do so by filing his or her appeal in
writing with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development not later than 14
calendar days after the date of the written decision.
Section 13.100 Appeal process: Any person may appeal a decision of the Zoning
Administrator made pursuant to Section 13.50 by fully complying with the provisions relating to
Type A ("Administrative Decision") decisions as delineated and described in the Land Use
Procedures Ordinance, also known as Ordinance No. 08-1123-98. A decision by the Zoning
Administrator that the proposed land use for which a Section 13 interpretation is sought is not
entitled to a Section 13 interpretation because the proposed land use is listed on Table 13-1 and
is denominated there as a prohibited use shall not be appealable.
Section 13 .11 0 Simultaneous hearings: In those circumstances where a proponent of
a proposed land use has received approval with conditions imposed pursuant to Section 13.50 of
this Ordinance AND another person or entity has timely appealed the positive decision made
5
pursuant to Section 13.50, then there shall be a single open record hearing to determine both the
validity of the conditional approval granted pursuant to Section 13.50 and the appeal of the
positive decision. If the positive decision pursuant to Section 13.50 is reversed by the Hearing
Examiner, then the Hearing Examiner shall also deem "moot" any analysis of the conditional
approval granted under Section 13.50.
Section 13.120 Supremacy of Section 13: Upon determination by the Zoning
Administrator that Section 13 is applicable to a proposed land use because of its unique qualities
or underlying facts or because the use is not present in Table 13-1, then this Section of the ICO,
rather than any provision of Ordinance #05-0828-98, entitled "Procedures & Criteria To Clarify
Land Use Regulations Ordinance," shall apply.
Section 13.130 Effect of a Zoning Administrator's Denial: Should the Zoning
Administrator, based upon the criteria listed in Section 13.50, issue a denial of the proposed land
use and should any subsequent appeal or judicial review of the Zoning Administrator's decision
be denied or rejected, then the applicant must seek and obtain a legislative change to Table 13-1
of the ICO before the proposed land use may be implemented.
Section 13.140 Retroactive a\Jplicability: The procedure outlined in this Ordinance
shall be available to any landowner (or the agent of that landowner if the agent has the written
permission of the landowner) with regard to a land use proposal made to the County in writing
before the adoption of this Ordinance despite any prior rejection, disapproval or refusal on the
part of the County to approve, license or permit that earlier proposal
ADOPTION
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners this
day of June 2000.
This action is exempt from SEP A review per WAC 197-11-800 (20), which states that
procedural actions are exempt when relating solely to governmental procedures, and containing
no substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment.
This ordinance amends Ordinance No. 06-0828-98 and becomes effective upon adoption.
6
Attachment A, Ordinance No.
SECTION 13
USE TABLES
Key:
C = Conditionally Permitted in the zone.
ý'
= Permitted Outright in the zone.
L = Essential Public Facilities sited in accordance with RCW 36.70A.200 are a legislation action.
Uses for the Jefferson County International Airport are described in Section 15.
Note:
. Crossroads are hierarchical in terms of allowed uses i.e. any use allowed in a more restrictive crossroad is
allowed in a less restrictive crossroad unless otherwise noted.
.
The absence of a check mark in a box means the use is not allowed in that zone.
Uses not listed in this table or the corresponding section as specifically permitted, outright or
conditionally, in a specific zone are prohibited unless:
. determined to be similar to a listed use through an administrative clarification, or
. added to the table by amendment of this ordinance through a legislative process.
.
Uses shall be strictly interpreted.
46
August 28, 1998 amc:nded November 9. 1998
February 24, 1998
Jefferson County Commissioners
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Re:
Comprehensive Plan Comments
Gentlemen:
Thank you for this opportunity to address comments directly to you regarding the
proposed extension of the "Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance".
I strongly oppose re-authorizing the EICO as a definative control for Jefferson County
Land Use. It is a poorly crafted document that doesn't embody the spirit and intent of our
Comprehensive Plan. It is ambiguous. It re-uses portions of at least two previous
versions of the Zoning Code, so that reading of the code is inherently difficult and
compliance is entirely subjective.
I encourage you to suspend the EICO, and let the Comprehensive Plan become the
definative land use control in the County. It is not acceptable to the citizenry of Jefferson
County to continue the delay of Final Development Regulations.
Sincerely,
R~~an ÞL
President