HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda Packet 03-06-2019Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETING AGENDA Tri-Area Community Center 10 W Valley Rd March 6, 2019
P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
Public Hearing
Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Development Regulations 5:30pm Welcome (chair) and Overview Presentation
• Call to Order/Roll Call
• Approval of Agenda
• Approval of previous Meeting Minutes, if available
• Overview Presentation by David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner, Department of
Community Development 6:15pm Public Testimony 8:30pm Closing Remarks (Chair)
• Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work! Although the verbal record closes tonight, written testimony will be accepted until 4:30 PM, Friday, March 8th. All written testimony should be directed to plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us or to the Jefferson
County DCD, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Please include “ZON19-00004” in the subject line of all email comments submitted on this topic.
1 | P a g e
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4450 | email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development
Staff Report and Recommendation on UDC Amendment
Chapter 18.45.090 Comprehensive Plan and GMA
Implementing Regulations Amendment Process
To: Jefferson County Planning Commission
From: David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development (DCD)
Date: February 25, 2019
Re: Proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments to Jefferson County
Code (JCC) Chapters 18.05, 18.10, 18.40, and 18.45 and proposed amendments to the Planning Commission Bylaws regarding the scope and definition of development regulations (MLA19-00009/ZON19-00004).
Executive Summary
On January 28, 2019, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (BoCC) referred this proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment to the Planning Commission for review, public hearing, and recommendation. Currently, the Jefferson
County Code (JCC) 18.45.090 provides a process to amend all sections of the UDC
including those that implement the goals and policies of the County’s Comprehensive Plan (development regulations) and those that address administrative processes and procedures (procedural issues). The amendment process, as currently written, requires all amendments to be brought before the Planning Commission for a review and
recommendation to the BoCC. While the BoCC considers the Planning Commission recommendation, only the BoCC can adopt amendments. For reasons discussed more fully below, there is a compelling need to separate the approval process for development regulations from the approval process for procedural issues. The proposal below outlines how Staff proposes to accomplish this separation.
Under Washington state laws and regulations, development regulations are the controls placed on development or land use activities. Development regulations do not include ordinances or regulations that addresses administrative processes and
2 | P a g e
procedures related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law.
Consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Planning Enabling Act (PEA), Jefferson County has established public participation processes relating to the development of comprehensive plans and their associated development regulations (Local Review Process). This Local Review Process requires that development
regulations to be brought before the Planning Commission for a public hearing, review,
and a recommendation to the BoCC. Neither the GMA nor the PEA require that procedural issues be considered by the Planning Commission. The limited time afforded for important work of the Planning Commission should be focused on review of development regulations, not procedural issues. In addition, more expeditious changes to procedural
issues will enable DCD to be more responsive to customer needs without impacting
compliance with the GMA or the PEA. Accordingly, the BoCC directed DCD to work with the Planning Commission to amend the UDC to separate the review of procedural issues from the review of development regulations. To accomplish the separation, DCD proposes amending the UDC’s definition of
development regulation to be consistent with state law, which defines development regulation as:
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by Jefferson County, including, but not
limited to, this Unified Development Code (which among other provisions includes zoning, planned rural residential development (PRRD), subdivision, binding site plan and critical areas regulations), the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, and any other official controls implementing the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. A development
regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the Jefferson County board of commissioners.
JCC 18.10.040. Current definition. Staff proposes the following definition:
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on
development or land use activities, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project
permit or project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county (RCW 36.70A.030(7)). However, for the
3 | P a g e
avoidance of doubt, a development regulation does not include ordinances or regulations that address administrative processes and procedures
related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium
ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law. Amendments to the UDC meeting the above exception to the definition of
development regulation or regulations, such as a procedural amendment, would be
processed as a Type V legislation action, with BoCC review, BoCC public hearing, and BoCC action. The Planning Commission would not review procedural issue amendments. The proposal will rename the UDC’s “implementing regulations” to “development
regulations” to be consistent with state law and similarly situated Washington counties.
Implementing regulations is a term of art that does not exist under state law. The proposal requires an update to Section 3 and 10 of the Planning Commission’s Bylaws. The proposal also includes updates to 18.05.050, Planning Commission Duties and Responsibilities to accurately reflect their role in developing and amending
development regulations.
Benefits The proposal has several benefits. First, it will save Planning Commission time and
resources to focus on substantive comprehensive planning and their associated development regulations, such as updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program. Second, it will reduce the timelines for amendments located within the UDC that are not development regulations. For example, currently a minor procedural amendment must go through both Planning Commission and BoCC review and public
hearings prior to adoption. This amendment will save at least 60 days per non-development regulation UDC amendment. Third, it will save substantial DCD staff resources in preparing for and conducting Planning Commission review and hearings on these non-development regulation UDC amendments. Finally, it reduces risk for the County, as the procedural issue amendment will no longer require 60-day notice to the
Washington State Department of Commerce.
Staff Analysis
The following law, code, or documents were reviewed in preparation for the proposed
amendments: 1. Revised Code Washington – RCW 36.70 Planning Enabling Act; RCW 36.70A Growth Management Act & RCW 36.70B Local Project Review. 2. Development Regulation definition and process for Kitsap, Snohomish, and Skagit
counties. 3. County Wide Planning Policies of Jefferson County, Washington. 4. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
4 | P a g e
5. Unified Development Code of Jefferson County. 6. Resolution No. 54-97 Planning Commission.
7. By-Laws of the Jefferson County Planning Commission.
1. The proposal is consistent with applicable state law, such as the GMA, the PEA, and Local Project Review.
As discussed below, the GMA, the PEA, and Local Project Review provide a
process for developing and amending development regulations. This Local Review Process requires that Planning Commission review, hold a public hearing, and provide a recommendation to the BoCC. The BoCC then holds for their own review, public hearing, and final adoption on the proposed development regulations. The statutory definition and
application of development regulation does not include “ordinances or regulations that
addresses procedural issues related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards
or courts of law.” Accordingly, the proposed amendment is consistent with applicable state law.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70 (Planning Enabling Act), 36.70A (Growth Management Act) & 36.70B (Local Project Review) are sections of Washington State Law that define and control how Jefferson County controls land use development. Applicable sections of the RCW related to the proposed code amendments are as follows: (underlined for emphasis):
RCW 36.70.020 (Planning Enabling Act)
Definitions (4) "Commission" means a county or regional planning commission.
(11) "Official controls" means legislatively defined and enacted policies, standards, precise detailed maps and other criteria, all of which control the physical development of a county or any part thereof or any detail thereof, and are the means of translating into regulations and ordinances all or any part of the general objectives of the comprehensive
plan. Such official controls may include, but are not limited to, ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision control, platting, and adoption of detailed maps.
RCW 36.70.040 (Planning Enabling Act)
Department—Creation—Creation of commission to assist department.
By ordinance a board may, as an alternative to and in lieu of the creation of a planning commission as provided in RCW 36.70.030, create a planning department which shall be organized and function as any other department of the county. When such department is created, the board shall also create a planning commission which shall assist the planning department in carrying out its duties, including assistance in the preparation and
execution of the comprehensive plan and recommendations to the department for the adoption of official controls and/or amendments thereto. To this end, the planning commission shall conduct such hearings as are required by this chapter and shall make
5 | P a g e
findings and conclusions therefrom which shall be transmitted to the department which shall transmit the same on to the board with such comments and recommendations it
deems necessary.
RCW 36.70.545 (Planning Enabling Act)
Development regulations—Consistency with comprehensive plan Beginning July 1, 1992, the development regulations of each county that does not plan
under RCW 36.70A.040 shall not be inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan.
For the purposes of this section, "development regulations" has the same meaning as set forth in RCW 36.70A.030.1
RCW 36.70.550 (Planning Enabling Act)
Official controls
From time to time, the planning agency may, or if so requested by the board shall, cause to be prepared official controls which, when adopted by ordinance by the board, will further the objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan. The planning agency may also draft such regulations, programs and legislation as may, in its judgment, be required to preserve the integrity of the comprehensive plan and assure its systematic execution,
and the planning agency may recommend such plans, regulations, programs and legislation to the board for adoption.
RCW 36.70.640 (Planning Enabling Act)
Official controls—Board may initiate
When it deems it to be for the public interest, the board may initiate consideration of an ordinance establishing an official control, or amendments to an existing official control, including those specified in RCW. The board shall first refer the proposed official control or amendment to the planning agency for report which shall, thereafter, be considered and processed in the same manner as that set forth in RCW regarding a change in the
recommendation of the planning agency.
RCW 36.70A.030 (Growth Management Act)
Definitions (7) "Development regulations" or "regulation" means the controls placed on development
or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even
though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county or city.
RCW 36.70B.020 (Local Project Review)
Definitions
(4) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not
1 This definition is quoted below.
6 | P a g e
limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or
approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a
comprehensive plan or subarea plan, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection.
2. The UDC refers to “implementing regulations”, not “development regulations”, which is not a GMA or PEA term. This proposed amendment changes “implementing regulations”
to “development regulations”.
JCC 18.45.090 refers to “implementing regulations.” The RCW does not define
“implementing regulations,” it only defines “development regulations.” Implementing regulations is a term of art to that refers to all regulations that “implement” the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. By this definition, “development regulations” are implementing regulations, since they implement the land use rules that control the physical development of the County. DCD proposes to change “implementing regulations”
to “development regulations” to be consistent with state law and surrounding jurisdictions. 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan states, “[t]he Unified Development Code
(UDC) provides detailed regulations for implementation of these goals and policies” (page xvii). An example of Comp Plan goals and policies that would require implementing regulations, but are not development regulations are as follows:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Element
Permit Processing Goal LU-G-14 Ensure responsive, fair, and efficient permit
processing.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.1 Develop and maintain implementing regulations and internal policies
that ensure that development applications are processed in a timely, fair, and predictable manner.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.2 Ensure that permit review and requests for additional information are
fair, consistent and balanced with the needs of the applicant and the public interest at large.
▶ Policy LU-P-14.3 Implement and maintain a land use and building permit enforcement
program that encourages voluntary compliance as the first course of action, but is
protective of the community’s life, safety, and environmental health. This goal and associated policies are consistent with and support the proposed amendment as the proposal is procedural in nature and does not affect substantive
development regulations or official controls over property. Regulations must control and
direct the physical development of property, as well as be within the traditional sphere of
7 | P a g e
land use regulations, such as zoning or critical areas ordinances for them to be considered a development regulation. The proposed amendment will streamline the UDC
amendment process for procedural issues, allowing DCD to bring these proposed
amendments directly to the BoCC for review, public hearing, and action. Accordingly, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed amendment requires modifications relating to the Planning
Commission’s duties, responsibilities, and bylaws. Proposed changes are consistent with
state law and similarly situated Washington counties. The Planning Commission as part of the “Planning Agency,” “shall assist the planning department in carrying out its duties, including assistance in the preparation and
execution of the comprehensive plan and recommendations to the department for the
adoption of official controls” (RCW 36.70.040). Those “controls” being defined as
“development regulations,” do not include “process and procedure regulations.”
Therefore, “process and procedure regulations” do not need review by or require recommendations from the Planning Commission. The proposed code and bylaw amendments more clearly define “development regulations” and the role of the Planning
Commission in the review and recommendation of those regulations. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to the UDC relating to development regulation are consistent with state law and similarly situated Washington counties.
5. The proposal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act Review. The proposal is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800(19)(b) “[t]ext amendments resulting in no substantive changes respecting use or modification of the
environment.” Alternatively, this proposal is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-
11-800(19)(a) “[r]elating solely to governmental procedures, and containing no substantive changes respecting use or modification of the environment.” 6. Staff submitted the proposal for Washington State Department of Commerce review.
Washington law requires a 60-day notice and review period for development regulation amendments. On February 6, 2019, DCD submitted a request for expedited review of the proposal to the Washington State Department of Commerce.
Summary of Amendments
Summary of Proposed Code Amendments The following sections of the UDC are proposed for amendment:
1. JCC 18.05.050 Planning Commission – Duties and responsibilities (1) & (2) to
remove “land use ordinances” and include “development” to specify which regulations are required for Planning Commission review.
8 | P a g e
2. JCC 18.10.040 D Definitions – to enhance definition to “development regulations.” 3. JCC Chapter 18.45 Comprehensive Plan and GMA Implementing Regulations –
to replace “implementing” with “development.”
4. JCC 18.40.040 Project permit application framework – to amend Table 8-1 to clarify the types of amendments, and Table 8-2 Action Types – Process to clarify the role of the Planning Commission in amendment review. 5. JCC 18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction – to include
“Development Regulations” in the amendment process, as Type V legislative
process without Planning Commission review. 6. JCC 18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing regulations – to replace
“implementing” with “development,” and include a revised definition of development regulations.
Proposed Planning Commission Bylaw Amendments: 1. Amendment to Section 3: “The planning commission shall review land use ordinances and regulations development regulations of the county and make recommendations in cooperation with DCD regarding them to the board of
commissioners.” 2. Amendment to Section 10: “Comprehensive Plan Changes, Zoning Changes, By-
Law Changes, Unified Development Code development regulation changes and
other site-specific approvals shall be by the affirmative vote of not fewer than (5)
five members - a majority of the total membership.
Amendments to the By-Laws are not subject to a public hearing or public comment and
can be made at any time by the Planning Commission per Section 16 – Amendments of
the Planning Commission By-Laws.
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposal, conduct a public hearing on March 6, 2019 to take public testimony and take written comments, deliberate
and make a recommendation to the BoCC.
1 | P a g e
DRAFT
Chapter 18.45
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GMA IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AMENDMENT PROCESS
Sections:
18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction.
18.45.020 Annual amendments – Consideration of cumulative effects.
18.45.030 Exceptions to the annual amendment process.
18.45.040 Applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment.
18.45.050 Compilation of preliminary docket.
18.45.060 Review of preliminary docket – Adoption of final docket.
18.45.070 Final docket – DCD review and recommendation – SEPA review.
18.45.080 Final docket – Planning commission and board of county commissioners review.
18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing development regulations.
18.45.010 Amendments – Purpose and introduction.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures for amending the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, and Development Regulations, defined for the purposes of this chapter as including the
plan text and/or the Land Use Map. The Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter 36.70A RCW) generally
allows amendments to comprehensive plans no more often than once per year, except in emergency
situations. This chapter is intended to provide the following:
(3) Planning Commission Role. The Jefferson County planning commission is an advisory body that shall
make recommendations to the county commissioners on all Comprehensive Plan matters, including
amendments to the plan text and Land Use Map, implementing development regulations and subarea plans.
18.45.090 Amendments to GMA implementing development regulations.
(1) Initiation. The text of the cCounty’s adopted Comprehensive Plan implementing development regulations
(RCW 36.70A.030(7)), (also referred to within this code as “development regulations”) may be amended at any
time, provided the amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use
Map. When inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, the amendment shall be processed
concurrent with any necessary plan amendments using the process and timelines for plan amendments set
forth in this chapter. “Implementing Development regulationsRegulations” means the controls placed on
development or land use activities, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances,
shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and
2 | P a g e
DRAFT
binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A development regulation does not include
a decision to approve a project permit or project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even
though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the legislative body of the county. A
development regulation does not include ordinances or regulations that address procedural issues related to
land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state
administrative boards or courts of law. including, but not limited to, this Unified Development Code, the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, or any other official controls required to implement the plan (see
RCW 36.70A.030). Proposed amendments, changes, or modifications to development regulations may be
initiated as follows:
(a) When consistent with the plan, at any time at the direction of the board of county
commissioners or by the planning commission pursuant to RCW 36.70.550;
(b) When inconsistent with the plan, under the process and time lines for Comprehensive Plan
amendments by any interested person consistent with this chapter; or
(c) Immediately following or concurrent with an amendment or amendments to the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan, the implementing regulations shall be amended to be consistent
with the plan and Land Use Map.
(2) Notice.
(a) Proposed amendments to the implementing development regulations pursuant to subsection
(1) of this section which must be processed concurrently with an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map shall be processed and noticed in the same manner as
plan amendments consistent with this chapter.
(b) Notice of any hearing on amendments to the implementing development regulations
generated by DCD staff, the board of county commissioners or the planning commission outside
of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process shall be given by one publication in the
official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting
a copy of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County Courthouse.
(c) Any additional notice required by state or local law (e.g., statutory notice requirements for
amendments to the Shoreline Master Program), or deemed appropriate by the administrator,
shall be paid for by the applicant.
3 | P a g e
DRAFT
(3) Planning Commission Review. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on any amendment(s)
to the implementing development regulations and shall make a recommendation to the board of county
commissioners using the site-specific criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable.
(4) Board of County Commissioners Review. The board of county commissioners shall consider the proposed
amendments at a regularly scheduled meeting.
(a) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the
board of county commissioners concludes that no change in the recommendation of the
planning commission is necessary, the board may make a final determination on the proposed
amendment(s) and adopt the amendments as recommended by the planning commission.
(b) If after applying the criteria set forth in JCC 18.45.080(1)(b) and (1)(c), as applicable, the
board of county commissioners concludes that a change in the recommendation of the planning
commission is necessary, the change shall not be incorporated until the board conducts its own
public hearing using the procedures set forth under JCC 18.40.310. The hearing shall be
noticed by one publication in the official newspaper of the county at least 10 days prior to the
date of the hearing, and by posting copies of the notice of hearing in the Jefferson County
Courthouse. The notice and public hearing for proposed amendments to implementing
development regulations may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or for other actions of the board of county
commissioners.
(5) Transmittal to State. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any proposed amendment(s) to the
implementing development regulations at least 60 days prior to the expected date of final action by the board of
county commissioners, as consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any
adopted amendment(s) to the implementing regulations to OCD within 10 days after adoption by the board.
(6) Appeals. All appeals to the adoption of any amendment(s) to the implementing regulations shall be filed with
and processed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW. [Ord. 2-06 § 1]
Chapter 18.05
18.05.050 Planning commission – Duties and responsibilities.
The duties and responsibilities of the planning commission shall be as follows:
4 | P a g e
DRAFT
(1) The planning commission shall review the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and other planning
documents to determine if the county’s plans, goals, policies, land use ordinances and development regulations
are promoting orderly and coordinated development within the county. The commission shall make
recommendations concerning this to the board of commissioners.
(2) The planning commission shall review land use ordinances and development regulations of the county and
make recommendations regarding them to the board of commissioners.
(3) The planning commission shall recommend priorities for and review studies of geographic subareas in the
county.
(4) All other county boards, committees, and commissions shall coordinate their planning activities, as they
relate to land use or the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, with the planning commission.
(5) The planning commission may hold public hearings in the exercise of its duties and responsibilities as it
deems necessary.
(6) The planning commission shall have such other duties and powers as heretofore have been or hereafter
may be conferred upon the commission by county ordinances or as directed by resolution of the board of
commissioners, the performance of such duties and exercise of such authority to be subject to the limitations
expressed in such enactments. [Ord. 8-06 § 1]
Chapter 18.10
18.10.040 D definitions.
“Development regulation or regulations” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by
Jefferson County, including, but not limited to, this Unified Development Code (which among other provisions
includes zoning, planned rural residential development (PRRD), subdivision, binding site plan and
environmentally sensitive areas regulations), the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, and any other
official controls implementing the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. A development regulation does not
include a decision to approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the
decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the Jefferson County board of commissioners.
means the controls placed on development or land use activities, including, but not limited to, zoning
ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development
ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. A
development regulation does not include a decision to approve a project permit or project permit application, as
5 | P a g e
DRAFT
defined in RCW 36.70B.020, even though the decision may be expressed in a resolution or ordinance of the
legislative body of the county (RCW 36.70A.030(7). However, for the avoidance of doubt, Aa development
regulation does not include ordinances or regulations that address administrative processes and
proceduresprocedural issues related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium
ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law.
18.40.040 Project permit application framework.
Table 8-1. Permits – Decisions
Project permit application framework.
6 | P a g e
DRAFT
Table 8-1. Permits – Decisions
Type I (1) Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Septic permits Classification of unnamed and discretionary uses under Article II of Chapter 18.15 JCC
Reasonable economic use variances under JCC 18.15.220
Final plats under Chapter 18.35 JCC
Special use permits under JCC 18.15.110
Allowed uses not requiring notice of application (e.g.,
“Yes” uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040, building permits, etc.)
Release of six-year FPA moratorium for an individual single-family residence under JCC 18.20.160
PRRDs under Article VI- M of Chapter 18.15 JCC and major amendments to PRRDs under JCC 18.15.545(3)
Final PRRDs under Article VI-M of Chapter 18.15 JCC
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan amendments under Chapter 18.45 JCC
Minor amendments to planned rural residential developments (PRRDs) under JCC 18.15.545
Cottage industries under JCC 18.20.170 Shoreline substantial development permits for secondary uses, and conditional and variance permits under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Amendments to development regulations including amendments to this UDC and the Land Use Districts Map
Home businesses approved under JCC 18.20.200
Short subdivisions under Article IV of Chapter 18.35 JCC
Plat alterations and vacations under JCC 18.35.030(3)
Amendments to the Jefferson County SMP
Temporary outdoor use permits under JCC 18.20.380
Binding site plans under Article V of Chapter 18.35 JCC
Long subdivisions under Article V of Chapter 18.35 JCC
Subarea and utility plans and amendments thereto Stormwater management permits under JCC 18.30.070
Administrative conditional use permits under JCC 18.40.550(1)
[i.e., listed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as
“C(a)”]
Discretionary conditional use permits under JCC 18.40.550(2) [i.e., listed
in Table 3-1 in JCC
18.15.040 as “C(d)”] where required by administrator
Development agreements and amendments thereto
under Article XI of this chapter
Road access permits under JCC 18.30.080 Discretionary conditional use permits under JCC 18.40.550(2) [i.e., listed in Table 3-1 in JCC
18.15.040 as “C(d)”] unless Type III process required by administrator
Conditional use permits under JCC 18.40.550(3) (i.e., uses listed in Table 3- 1 in JCC 18.15.040 as
“C”)
Master plans for master planned resorts
Sign permits under JCC 18.30.150 Minor variances under JCC 18.40.670(1) Major variances under JCC 18.40.670(2) Amendments to the Unified Development Code Boundary line adjustments under Article II of Chapter 18.35 JCC
Shoreline substantial development permits for primary uses under Jefferson County SMP
Wireless telecommunications permits under JCC 18.20.130 and Chapter 18.42 JCC
1 If not categorically exempt pursuant to SEPA, Type I projects shall be subject to the notice requirements of JCC 18.40.150 through 18.40.220 and Article X of this chapter (the SEPA integration section).
7 | P a g e
DRAFT
Table 8-2. Action Types – Process
Project Permit Application Procedures (Types I-IV) Legislative
Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V
Recommendation made by: Project planner Project planner Project planner N/A Planning commission1
Final decision made by: Administrator Administrator Hearing examiner Board of county commissioners Board of county commissioners
Notice of application: No Yes Yes No N/A
Open record public hearing: No Only if administrator’s decision is appealed, open record hearing before hearing examiner
Yes, before hearing examiner, prior to permit decision by the hearing examiner
No Yes, before planning commission to make recommendation to board of county commissioners1
Closed record appeal/final decision:
No No No N/A Yes, or board of county commissioners could hold its own hearing Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes2
1Type V land use actions are subject to review and recommendation by the planning commission. However, except for utility plans, ordinances or regulations that address procedural issues related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law. and are not subject to review and consideration by the planning commission. 2Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.250 and 36.70A.280, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) is authorized to hear and determine petitions alleging that the county is not in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of the Shoreline Master Program, or Chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or Chapter 90.58 RCW. Direct judicial review may also be obtained pursuant to RCW 36.70A.295. 1 If not categorically exempt pursuant to SEPA, Type I projects shall be subject to the notice requirements of JCC 18.40.150 through 18.40.220 and Article X of this chapter (the SEPA integration section). SUMMARY OF DECISION-MAKING Type I: In most cases, administrative without notice. However, if a Type I permit is not categorically exempt under SEPA, then, administrative with notice. Type II: Administrative with notice. Final decision by administrator unless appealed. If appealed, open record hearing and final decision by hearing examiner. Type III: Notice and open record public hearing before the hearing examiner. Final decision by hearing examiner. Appeal to Superior Court.
Type IV: Closed record decision by board of commissioners during a regular public meeting. Type IV decisions are purely ministerial in nature (see Article IV of Chapter 18.35 JCC). Type V: Notice and public hearing before planning commission, with planning commission recommendation to board of county commissioners Eexcept for utility plans, ordinances or regulations that address procedural issues related to land use planning, interim or emergency ordinances, moratorium ordinances, or remand actions from state administrative boards or courts of law notice and public hearing before planning commission, with planning commission recommendation to board of commissioners. Notice and of public hearings before board of county commissioners with final legislative action by the board of county commissioners. provided prior to final legislative decisions (see Chapter 18.45 JCC). [Ord. 11-04 § 3; Ord. 18-02 § 2 (Exh. D); Ord. 2-02 § 1; Ord. 7-01 § 1 (Exh. B); Ord. 3-01 § 1; Ord. 11-00 § 8.1(4)]
Ordinance No. 1
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In The Matter of Enacting an } Ordinance No.________
Ordinance Amending Jefferson County }
Code Chapters 18.05, 18.10, 18.40 & }
18.45 Regarding the Scope, Definition & }
Amendment of Development Regulations }
WHEREAS, Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.45.090 provides a process to
amend all sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC), including those that
implement the goals and policies of the County’s Comprehensive Plan
(development regulations), and those that address administrative processes and
procedures (procedural issues); and,
WHEREAS, JCC 18.45.090 as currently written, requires all amendments to
the UDC be brought before the Planning Commission for a review and
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Enabling Act, Chapter 36.70 RCW (PEA), and
Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW (GMA), define and control the
process to enact and amend development regulations; and,
WHEREAS, the RCW 36.70.030 authorizes the creation of a Planning
Commission to assist the Planning Department in carrying out its duties, including
assistance in the preparation and execution of the comprehensive plan and
recommendations to the department for the adoption of official controls or
amendments thereto; and,
WHEREAS, the GMA defines “development regulations” as “controls
placed on development or land use activities by a county… but not limited to,
zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official
controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding
site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto” and that a development
Ordinance No. 2
regulation does not include process or procedural regulations, such as “a decision to
approve a project permit application, as defined in RCW 36.70B.020;” and,
WHEREAS, Local Project Review (Chapter 36.70B RCW) defines a project
permit application as “excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive
plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically
included in this subsection;” and,
WHEREAS, neither the GMA or the PEA require Planning Commission
review for adoption or amendment of procedural issues amendments; and,
WHEREAS, it is beneficial to the County that time and resources of the
Planning Commission focus on substantive comprehensive planning and its
associated development regulations, such as updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance
and Shoreline Master Program; and,
WHEREAS, it is also beneficial to the County that staff time and resources
to amend procedural issues be reduced; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing with approval and adoption by the BoCC will
continue to be required for both development regulations and procedural issues
amendments to the UDC; and,
WHEREAS, segregating the process to amend development regulations and
amendments to procedural issues is common practice in other jurisdictions planning
under GMA; and,
WHEREAS, On January 28, 2019, at its regularly scheduled meeting, the
BoCC made a motion which carried directing the Department of Community
Development (DCD) to work with the Planning Commission to amend the UDC to
separate the review of procedural issues from the review of development
regulations; and,
WHEREAS, processing as a Type V legislative action, with BoCC review,
BoCC public hearing, BoCC approval and adoption will continue to be required
both development regulations and procedural issues amendments to the UDC; and,
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2019 DCD staff initiated Zoning Case ZON19-
00004, aka MLA19-00009 to process proposed amendments to the UDC to clarify
the definition of development regulations and the process the amend them; and,
WHEREAS, On February 6, and February 20, 2019, DCD staff presented the
subject proposed UDC amendments, staff report, and proposed amendments to the
Ordinance No. 3
Planning Commission By-Laws to the Planning Commission at their regularly
scheduled meetings; and,
WHEREAS, DCD staff forwarded the proposed UDC amendments to the
Department of Commerce on February 6, 2019 (Exhibit _), requesting expedited
review as required under JCC 18.45.090(5); and,
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission and DCD staff having
reviewed the issue, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
March 6, 2019, took public testimony, deliberated and made a formal
Recommendation (Exhibit _) to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) dated
_____________, 2019 to the effect that the UDC be amended to revise sections of
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.05.050, 18.10.040, 18.40.040, 18.45, 18.45.010
and 18.45.090; and,
WHEREAS, DCD has determined the proposed amendments to the UDC are
consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan by streamlining the
process to implement Land Use Element Goal LU-G-14 Ensure responsive, fair,
and efficient permit processing; and,
WHEREAS, DCD has determined that the proposed amendments to the
UDC are exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800(19)(b); and,
WHEREAS, DCD staff duly published notice of public hearing (ZON19-
00004) on February 20, 2019 to notify the public that the Planning Commission will
be hold a public hearing on March 6, 2019 to take public testimony on the subject
UDC amendments, and to accept written comments on the proposal beginning on
February 20, 2019 and to which ___ comments were received after close of the
comment period on March 8, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deliberated the proposed UDC
amendments on March 6, 2019 and voted to _________________________ their
recommendation of March _, 2019 (Exhibit F) and forward to the BoCC on March
__, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, The BoCC having held a duly required and noticed public
hearing on March _, 2019 to hear testimony on the subject UDC text Amendments,
deliberated and so moved to adopt amendments under separate ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the BoCC heard testimony on March __, 2019 and having
deliberated, addressed the concerns raised by the citizens through discourse with
DCD staff and a member of the Planning Commission; and further instructed staff
Ordinance No. 4
to prepare final versions of said ordinances that will have the force of law when this
Ordinance is adopted; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the Board of County
Commissioners ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Code Amendment. The Jefferson County Code is hereby
amended to include ________________________________________, Exhibit ___.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the
ordinance, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances
shall not be affected.
SECTION 3. Legislative findings. The “Whereas” clauses, one and all of
them listed in the enacting Ordinance, are deemed to be and shall be the legislative
findings of the Jefferson County Commission and shall represent the legislative
history of this Chapter of the Jefferson County Code.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
after passage.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Ordinance No. ____________________
Exhibit B: _______________________________________
Exhibit C: _______________________________________________
Exhibit D: Department of Commerce letter dated ____________________
Exhibit E: Text Amendments JCC 18.45.090, ___________________________
Exhibit F: Planning Commission Recommendation dated __________________
Exhibit G: ________________________________________________
APPROVED AND SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF ____________, 2019.
SEAL JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
______________________________
Kate Dean, Chair
Ordinance No. 5
______________________________
David Sullivan, Member
ATTEST
______________________________
Greg Brotherton, Member
____________________________
Carolyn Gallaway
Deputy Clerk of the Board Approved as to form
____________________________
Philip C. Hunsucker
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney