HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog119
e
e
Juelanne Dalzell
JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
_..'~~
.IEFFER8ON COUNTY SEAT - PORT TOWNSEND. WASf-tI'GTON
Courthouse - P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Telephone (360) 385-9180 FAX (360) 385-0073
David W. Alvarez, Deputy Prosecutor
John Raymond, Deputy Prosecutor
Cheryl Potebnya, Deputy Prosecutor
Katherine Gulmert, Deputy Prosecutor
Lianne Perron-Kossow, Victim Witness Advocate
August 15,2006
Steven Casseaux
McCarthy, Casseaux, Rourke, Inc., P.S.
902 South 10th Street
Tacoma, W A 98405
Re: Serving as Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County
September 22, 2006 hearing relating to Port Ludlow
Dear Mr. Casseaux:
Welcome to Jefferson County and what I hope will be a long-term and mutually beneficial
relationship. I recall that you have served at least once as an Appellate Hearing Examiner in this
county but felt a concise explanation of the regulatory structure might be of assistance to you. I
apologize in advance if I am restating the obvious.
DCD should include this letter as a log item in the record that will be presented to Mr.
Casseaux when he sits as Hearing Examiner on September 22, 2006 for the combined public hearing
on the proposed amendment to the Port Ludlow Development Agreement and the shoreline permit
requested by Port Ludlow Associates or "PLA."
This County has procedural rules for "Hearings Before the Jefferson County Hearing
Examiner(s)." Those rules are detailed in Ordinance #01-0203-03, enacted on February 3,2003. A
copy of same is provided for your convenience.
Although this may be restated to you in the staff report you receive prior to the September 22
hearing, you should be made aware that PLA is the successor in interest to a Development
Agreement ("the DA") between the County and Pope Resources executed in the spring of2000. The
DA has a term of 20 years. The DA applies to all PLA-owned real property within the Master
Planned Resort known as Port Ludlow. The DA specifically states that it provides no benefits and
confers no rights on any person or entity other than the County and Pope, now PLA. See the DA at
~4.13. The entire DA, with attachments, is 541 pages and thus is not made part ofthis letter. The
DA vests PLA to older Ordinances, i.e., Ordinances in effect before the County's current Uniform
Development Code ("the UDC") became effective on January 16, 200 1. ~ow Title 18
# 111
Page I
of 7.~
-
e
e
of the Jefferson County Code and can be found on the County's web site, although once there you
will be sent to where it is "housed," i.e., at the web site of our code publishing company. The UDC
applies to all other locations in the County.
One of the older Ordinances that PLA vests to is known as the "Land Use Procedures
Ordinance" and is Attachment "E" to the DA. A copy of what we call the LUPO is provided for
your convemence.
LUPO will be relevant to the public hearing you will preside over on September 22, 2006.
Note that the applicant has asked that its application for a shoreline permit be consolidated with the
legislative decision on whether to amend the DA. Since the legislative decision is a Type C
according to S6(C) ofLUPO, the combined shoreline permit application/legislative decision is being
handled as a Type C under the LUPO. See the LUPO, S7(A). Both those sections are found on page
4 of 19 in the LUPO.
Under S 16(B) ofLUPO, found at page 14 of 19, the County Commissioners decided to send
the consolidated permit/legislative decision matter to you with the expectation that you will provide
them with a written recommendation. In that regard I am providing you with portions of the Minutes
from the County Commissioners' meetings of May 22 and June 19, 2006, which explain and reflect
this decision. You are likely to hear on September 22nd testimony relating to both the shoreline
permit and the legislative decision. Your usual detailed Findings ofF act and Conclusions of Law in
your written recommendation will be most useful to the Commissioners, who do not typically make
quasi-judicial decision about development permits. Earlier County Commissions created the
Hearing Examiner system precisely to remove them from making such quasi-judicial decisions.
Any person or party with standing aggrieved by your decision can appeal your decision to the
Superior Court pursuant to the chart found in the LUPO at page 18 of 19.
This letter is and will be subject to disclosure if a request for same is made pursuant to the
Public Records Act, now codified at Ch. 42.56 RCW. If any questions arise, do not hesitate to call
me at (360) 385-9180.
Very truly yo.urs, n
~~, Ci~U6vLLV
David Alvarez, Chief Civil 'oP A
Attachments: Ordinance #01-0203-03
LUPO, also known as Ordinance #04-0828-98
County Commission Minutes 5/22/06 (portion)
County Commission Minutes 6/19106 (portion)
Cc: John Fischbach (w/o Enc.)
Al Scalf (w/o Enc.)
Barb Nightingale (wi Enc.)
Cheryl Halvorson (w/Enc.)
cC ~ \)(:D5
i>w .. ~/51()3
p~
Co~
e
e
JEFFERSON COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF AN ORDINANCE )
ADOPTING PROCEDURAL RULES FOR )
HEARINGS BEFORE THE JEFFERSON )
COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER(S) )
Ordinance # 01-0203-03
WHEREAS, there has been a perceived need in Jefferson County to enact and
codify procedural rules that would govern the process during a hearing or appeal before
this County's Hearing Examiner or Appellate HearingExaminer; and
WHEREAS, prior to January 16,2001 Jefferson County had in place procedural
Ordinances that govemedhearings or appeals before the County's Hearing Examiner,
including, but not limited to, the "Land Use Procedures Ordinance" (also known as
Ordinance #04-0828-98), the "Hearing Examiner Ordinance" (also known as Ordinance
#0 1-0318-91) and "Procedures & Criteria to Clarify Land Use Regulations Ordinance
(also known as Ordinance #05-0828-98); and
WHEREAS, all of the Ordinances listed above were repealed as part of the
adoption of the Unified Development Code (or "UDC") via Ordinance # 11-1218-00, thus
leaving the County without any procedural rules for the process during a hearing or
appeal; and
WHEREAS, the UDC, specifically UDC 91.3.6(e)(4), authorizes the Hearing
Examiner and/or the Appellate Hearing Examiner to ''prescribe rules and regulations
concerning procedures for hearings authorized herein, subject to confirmation by the
Board of Commissioners;" and
WHEREAS, legal counsel for the Board of County Commissioners has discussed
the language of this Ordinance in some detail with Irv Berteig, the person most often
asked to serve as this County's Hearing Examiner; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Berteig has offered suggestions to improve the language of this
Ordinance and can approve and recommend its adoption to the Board of County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been disseminated to staff members of the
County's Departments of Public Works and Community Development and then discussed
with those affected staff members on September 10, 2002 for additional comments and
questions and the Ordinance has been revised, in part, to reflect those concerns and
comments; and
Ordinance for Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Page 1
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 01-0203-03
WHEREAS, legal counsel for the Board of County Commissioners has prepared
and approved of those sections of this Ordinance which may have legal implications, for
example, sections on 'standing,' 'evidence' and 'appearance of fairness'; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will promote fairness in the process of hearings and
appeals before the County's Hearing Examiners and should promote efficient use of the
County's resources, i.e., its Hearings Examiners; and
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners have authority to enact and adopt this
Ordinance pursuant to the general police powers provided to them by Article XI, Section
11 of the Washington State Constitution and RCW 36.32.120(7).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED~ follows:
Section 1: Conflicts amonl! authorities:
These Rules may conflict with other sources or authorities of law. The order of
precedence applicable to such conflict situations shall be (from top to bottom) as follows:
a) State or federal constitution
b) State or federal statutes
c) State or federal regulations
d) State or federal published case law
e) UDC or other applicable duly-enacted Jefferson County Ordinance
f) These Rules
Thus, for example, to the extent these Rules conflict with the UDC, then the applicable
UDC provision shall apply.
Section 2: Definitions:
The following definitions apply for the purposes of this ordinance:
Aggrieved person: A person or entity is deemed to be an 'aggrieved person' only when
all of the following conditions are present: i) the decision being challenged has
prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person or entity, ii) the person or entity's asserted
interests are among those that the County was required to consider when it made the
decision, and 3) a judgment or decision in favor of that person or entity would
substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person or entity caused or likely to
be caused by the challenged decision.
BoCC: The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, the County Legislature
for the municipal corporation known as Jefferson County or any subsequently created or
approved legislative body for Jefferson County.
Comprehensive Plan: The 1998 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Land
Use Map as now adopted and as may be amended in the future.
Ordinance for Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Page 2
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 01-0203-03
Ex Parte Communication: Any written or oral communication between an aggrieved
person or a government agency and a Hearing Examiner that was made outside of public
hearing and was not included in the public record.
Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner or the Appellate Hearing Examiner.
Hearing: An Open Record predecision hearing before a Hearing Examiner or a
closed record hearing before an Appellate Hearing Examiner. By way of example only,
the term 'hearing' includes appeals based upon the UDC, the State Environmental
Protection Act (or "SEPA") and road vacation requests directed to and handled by the
County's Department of Public Works.
Interested Citizen: Any.person or entity that has
a) asked for a copy ofa written Hearing Examinerdecision by either
requesting (in writing) such documents from the Jefferson County Department
of Community Development or has signed a register provided for such
purpose at an Open Record predecision hearing or appeal Hearing, or
b) made comments (written, oral or otherwise) during an Open Record
predecision hearing.
Party: An aggrieved person (as defmed above) who has filed the fee required by
Jefferson County Ordinance to initiate or generate the hearing process, the applicant and
the Jefferson County agency that provided one or more reports to the Hearing Examiner
shall be considered parties to the hearing. Those persons or entities meeting the
definition of "interested citizen" above shall not be considered to be a "party" for the
purposes of this Ordinance unless they also meet the definition of "aggrieved person"
listed above. For the purposes of hearings relating to road vacations, the Petitioner
requesting the road vacation shall be considered a "party" as that term is defmed in this
Ordinance.
Timely submissions: Written submissions to the Hearing Examiner shall be considered
timely if the submission if sent to the Hearing Examiner (via paper or electronically)
seven days before the date of the hearing. Written submissions to the Appellate Hearing
Examiner shall be considered timely if the submission is sent to the Appellate Hearing
Examiner (via paper or electronically) seven days before the date of the hearing. A
submission is deemed to be sent when it is either sent electronically or possession of the
submission in paper form is transferred to the United States Postal Service or any private
document carrier.
UDC: The Unified Development Code, a set of development regulations derived from
the Growth Management Act, the County's Comprehensive Plan that were made effective
as of January 16,2001, as they are now adopted and as they may be amended, replaced or
revised in the future.
Ordinance for Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Page 3
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 01-0203-03
Section 3: Standin!!:
Only an 'aggrieved person,' as that term is defined in this Ordinance, shall have the
authority (legally known as "standing") to come before the Hearing Examiner and seek a
remedy or resolution from the Hearing Examiner. A determination by the Hearing
Examiner that a person or entity holds or lacks standing can be appealed pursuant to law.
Section 4: Powers of the Hearin!! Examiner:
The Hearing Examiner shall have the following powers:
a) To make all rulings, determinations or decisions he or she is permitted to make
pursuant to the laws and regulations of this country and this State and the
Ordinances of Jefferson County and to enter, if necessary, any written or oral
Order that accomplishes or implements any act the Hearing Examiner is
authorized to do. Th~ authority granted by this se(::tion includes, but is not limited
to, the authority to approve, deny or remand an application, proposal or decision
before him or her or, in the alternative, combine one or more of the three
alternatives listed, e.g., approve in part, remand in part.
b) To enter, if necessary, a written or oral Order, fmding and ruling that a
particular person or entity is not an 'aggrieved party' as that term is defmed in this
Ordinance and thus does not have standing (in the legal sense) to seek a resolution
or remedy from the Hearing Examiner.
c) To hold the power, while conducting any hearing, to administer oaths, preserve
order, limit or not accept repetitious testimony, and to issue summons for and
compel the appearance of witnesses and production of documents and/or
materials.
d) To have sole discretion to rule on all procedural disputes that arise during a
hearing, subject to subsequent appeal if a party decides that decision of the
Hearing Examiner was incorrect factually or legally.
e) To inspect the site which is the subject of a matter before them prior to or
subsequent to the hearing if he or she deems it necessary to obtain a full
understanding of the case. The failure of the Hearing Examiner to view a site shall
not nullify or injure the decision ultimately rendered by that Hearing Examiner.
f) To review and consider in making his or her decision all 'timely submissions,'
as that term is defined below. He or she shall have full discretion as to whether
they will consider submissions that are not timely.
g) To continue proceedings for any good cause he or she deems reasonable and
appropriate provided they enter a written or oral Order doing so before making
their fmal decision or recommendation.
Ordinance for Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Page 4
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 01-0203-03
h) TO'continue, upon an oral statement of good cause being shown, the current
hearing to a specific time, place and date without further notice of that new date,
time and place ifhe or she specifies on the record the time, date and place for the
continuation of the hearing.
i) To reopen a hearing after a written decision is rendered BUT before the
applicable appeal period expires ifhe or she becomes aware that the decision
rendered i) was based on fraudulent evidence, misrepresentation or other
misconduct by a 'party' [as that term is defined in this Ordinance], or ii) was based
upon mistake, misconception of facts, or erroneous application of the law.
j) To set a date for the reopened hearing, but said date must be sufficiently in the
future to provide ,not less than ten days' writtep notice of the time, date aD('- place
for the reopened hearing in the official newspaper for Jefferson County and ten
days' written notice of the time, date and place for the reopened hearing to all
'parties' and 'interested citizens' as those terms are defined within this Ordinance.
k) To set a time and date when the public comment period for a particular matter
before the Hearing Examiner closes or ceases.
I) To dismiss the application or appeal for default if the applicant or appealing
party (or their designated representative) fails to appear at the regularly scheduled
hearing or the reopened hearing, subject to the applicant or appealing party (or
their designated representative) filing a request within seven (7) business days to
vacate the default for good cause shown.
m) To impose upon an applicant or appellant (or their designated representative)
who is subject to a default but subsequently has that default vacated, the costs
associated with providing written notice for the rescheduled hearing date AND
any costs associated with the initial hearing date that the applicant or appealing
party missed or did not appear at.
Section 5: Disqualification or Recusal of Hearine Examiner
Any person acting as a Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County is subject to
disqualification for bias, prejudice, conflict of interest or any other cause for which a
judge can be disqualified under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Any 'party' or 'interested citizen' [as those terms are defined in this Ordinance] may
request the Hearing Examiner to disqualify himself or herself as soon as reasonably
possible upon discovering potential grounds for disqualification. The Hearing Examiner
shall determine whether to grant the request, stating facts and reasons for their decision.
If the Hearing Examiner is requested to recuse himself or herself but does not, the making
of the request by a 'party' or 'interested citizen' shall not be considered by the Hearing
Examiner when they make their substantive decision.
Ordinance for Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Page 5
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 01-0203-03
If the Hearing Examiner believes that his or her relationship to the 'parties' [as that term
is defined in this Ordinance] or his or her financial interest in the subject of the hearing
creates the appearance that the proceedings will not be fair, then the Examiner must
either a) voluntarily step down from the case; or 2) disclose the relationship or interest on
the record and state that he or she has a bona fide conviction that the interest or
relationship will not interfere with the rendering of an impartial decision.
A Hearing Examiner's voluntary decision to recuse himself or herself shall be made as
soon as the need for recusal becomes apparent or known to the Hearing Examiner.
Recusal or disqualification of a Hearing Examiner shall not be necessary or mandated
simply because the Hearing Examiner has considered the same or similar proposal in
apother hearing, has made a l1lling adverse to the interestQf a 'party' [as that term is
defined in this Ordinance] in the present or another hearing, or has considered and ruled
upon the same or similar issue in the same or similar context.
Section 6: Evidence
Admissibility. The hearing generally will not be conducted according to technical rules
relating to evidence and procedure. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the
type which would tend to prove or disprove a material or relevant fact or assertion and
would be commonly accepted by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their
affairs. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the extent recognized by law.
Relevant material and reliable evidence shall be admitted. Irrelevant, immaterial,
unreliable and repetitious evidence may be excluded at the sole discretion of the Hearing
Examiner, who shall, during the hearing, have full discretion to make evidentiary rulings.
Copies. Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the
original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to
compare the copy with the original.
Official Notice. The Hearing Examiner may take official notice of judicially cognizable
facts and in addition may take notice of general, technical or scientific facts within his or
her specialized knowledge. When a recommendation or decision of the Hearing
Examiner rests, in whole or in part, upon the taking of official notice of a material fact
not appearing in the evidence of the record, opportunity to disprove such facts so noted
shall be granted any affected person making timely notice therefore.
Evidence received subsequent to the hearing. If additional evidence is submitted after
the public hearing or after the date when public comment will no longer be accepted,
such additional evidence will only be considered upon a showing that the evidence has
significant relevance AND there is good cause for the delay in its submission. All
"parties" (as that term is defmed herein) will be given notice of the consideration of such
evidence and, at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner, granted an opportunity to review
such evidence and file rebuttal arguments regarding that additional evidence.
Ordinance for Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Pago 6
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 01-0203-03
Section 7: Recordin2: the Hearin2:
Hearings shall be electronically or digitally recorded and such recordings shall be part of
the official case record. Copies of the electronic recordings of a particular proceeding
shall be made available to the public upon request and the reasonable cost of such
copying shall be paid by the person or party requesting the recording.
Section 8: Obtainin2: copies
Copies of any or all documents submitted during a hearing can be obtained by any person
or party willing to pay for such copies.
Section 9: Testimony
All testimony before the Hearing Examiner shall be taken under oath.
Section 10: Ri!!hts of Parties:
Every party (as that term is defmed in this Ordinance) shall have the right of proper
notice, cross-examination (rebuttal), presentation of evidence, objection and all other
rights essential to a fair hearing. Cross-examination shall be permitted to the extent it is
necessary for a full disclosure of the facts.
Section 11: Ex Parte Communications Prohibited (and Remedy)
No person or entity that is either a 'party' or 'interested citizen', as those terms are
defined in this Ordinance, with respect to a particular petition or application which has
been designated for an hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall communicate ex parte
(outside of the record), directly or indirectly, with the Hearing Examiner concerning the
merits of that or a factually related petition or application. This rule shall not prohibit ex
parte communications that purely concern procedural matters (e.g., what are the deadlines
for a timely submission, where can I get a copy of the Hearing Examiner Rules, what is
the address for the County?)
No Hearing Examiner shall communicate ex parte, directly or indirectly with any person
or entity that is either a 'party' or 'interested citizen', as those terms are defmed in this
Ordinance, with respect to a particular petition or application which has been designated
for an hearing before the Hearing Examiner concerning the merits of that or a factually
related petition or application. Communications about purely procedural matters do not
fall within this prohibition.
If a substantial prohibited ex parte communication is made to or by the Hearing
Examiner, then such communication shall be publicly disclosed and the Hearing
Examiner shall within his or her discretion, abstain from participating in any
consideration of the matter that was discussed ex parte.
Ordinance for Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Page 7
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 01-0203-03
Section 12: Severabilitv
In the event anyone or more of the sections of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held
to be invalid, then such invalidity shall not affect or invalidate any other provisions of
this Ordinance, but instead this Ordinance shall be construed and enforced as if such
invalid provision had not been contained therein.
Section 13: SEPA
This ordinance is categorically exempt from SEP A, perW AC 197-11-800 (20). The
adoption of this ordinance relates solely to governmental procedures and contains no
substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment.
Section 14: Effective Date
'this Ordinance shall be effective upon adoption.
Approved and adopted this ..3 ~ day of
t
/
~ 'IV"! '{ /:' ".
! '. , ;A'. "t.. u..
,2003.
",' 'f . J '\~
~.,~ t.'~ j9~;'l.:.. '
.: ~ " .~. . . ...... V,
R..,.'.~ c.ii: ,'. "~~"'.
L,1Ir . ~1'-AL . '.;:' ,
l.'..~. .'. ... \~
'0 .....-.
~'~j..:!:" \.' "c'~..~ ..1 'I ,. ,,~
., ~ \'.\ I ....'r::, _ / '.
"';.:"... (.~ ~,' ~.' . " .J- - :'
. \. r, .... ,. ~--. .,.. . ...
"J .....'" ~'!..:.,../..-.
'lcr1'1!'S1='::- .
,. " -. '1 -.,. .
.4'
JEFFERSON CO TV
BOARD'OF COMMISSINERS
8.-~~
Dan Tittemess, Chai,r
v'; .J/\ (' .'
\X (.~,}/ta ~. JJ2l{l'~U<.-~1
Lorna Delaney, CMC A-
Clerk of the Board '.1
Orr~ LOrJL
Wendi H. Wrinkle, Member
Ordinance for Jefferson County Hearing Examiner
Page' 8
e
111111111111 :~~~:~.:.
.Jeff....., Cantv. 1M POPE IlEIOURCES IESO HI."
APPENDIX "E"
Jefferson Co~ty.
LAND lJS,E
PROCEDURES ORDINANCE
Adopted August 28, 1998
Effective September 28, 1998
#-
/
.--
Ordinance 104-0828.98
/
e
1IIIIdlllll:~~?:~,
.Jef f...... c:ow,t v. WA POPE IESOURC&:S RESO HI. II 4IA
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
In the Matter of Establishing Procedures }
for Land Use Applications Processed }
by Jefferson County . . }
ORDINANCE NO. 04-0828-98
WHEREA.S~ the Jefferson County Commi~oners commissioned an independent
assessment of its l~ use permit system; and,
WHEREAS~ the recommendations of this assessment included the development of
tb~ following 4 documents:
. A Land Use Application Procedures Ordinance;
. A Code InteIpfetation Ordinance;
. Rules of Procedure for land use hearings;
. A decision format for all Jefferson County land use decisions; an~
WHEREAS. a Citizen Task Force was appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners to assist in the preparation of these docmnents; and,
WllEREAS~ the Citizen Task Force believes these documents provide a solid
foundation for accomplishing land use reform in Jefferson County and forms the framewodc by
which systematic revision to existing ordinances and creation of new ordinances can be achieved, .
and;
WHEREAS~the Citizen Task: Force recommended the adoption of these 4 docu-
ments as the basis for a concise~ organi7.ed land use code; and, .
. WHEREAS~ the Board of County Commissioners has reviewed the recom-
mendation of the Citizens Task Force and the 4 draft documents, and agree that they will be
beneficial to the citizens of Jefferson County; and,
WHEREAS~ the Land Use Application Procedures Ordinarice complies with State
Regulatory Reform requirements.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE rr ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners
of Jefferson County~ Washineton, as follows:
e
IIIIII.I.II~~::~
.JeUeraon Counh. WA POPE RESOURCES RESO III."
Orciin;:uyp No 04-0R/~qR I ~rvf IIc:;p AppI"~tm PrnrPrlt II"fI'C:
Section 1: Purpose
The purpose of this Ch8pter is to establish procedures for land use applications pi-ocessed by
Jefferson County. The procedures are designed to promote timely and informed public
participation; eliminate redundancy in the land use application review process; minimi7e delay
and expense; and help ensure the use of land in.a manner consistent with County goals as set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Land use applications may also
be subject to review under state and federa1laws.
-
Section 2: Definitions
The following terms are defined in Chapter One of the Jefferson County Land Use Code:
n Appellate Examiner" means the individual who decides ~ of Hearing Exan1iner .
decisions. The Appellate Examiner is a "Hearing Examiner" for the purposeS of Chapter 36.70
RCW.
"Closed Record Appeal" means an 8dministrative appeal following an open record hearing on a
land use application. A closed record appeal is on the record and does not consider new
documents or testimony.
"Director" means the Director of the Department of Community Development of Jefferson
County.
"ODen Record Appeal Bearine" means an open record hearing held by the HearingsExan1iner
following an administrative decision by the Director. An open record appeal hearing by the
Hearings Examiner is conducted in the same manner as a pre-decision open record hearing
because the Hearings Exan1iner is to hear and decide the application anew with no weight given
to the pdministrative decision. .
"Open Record Hearine" means a pre-decisi~n hearing that creates a record through testimony
and submission of evidence under procedures prescnDed by this Chapter and using the Rules of
Procedure. adopted in accordance with this Chapter.
"Party of Record" means the Applicant and any person who, prior to the closing of the record,
has submitted substantive comments on an application.
"SEP A" means the State Environmental Policy Act in Chapter 43.21 C of the Revised Code of
Washington, as amended, and any provisions of Jefferson County Code adopted pursuant to that
statute.
Page 2 of 19
e
11111I111111~5;?~,
"-Uereon County, 1M POPE IESOURCES !!!!4'!!!I11:4IA
.- _.M
Ordinance No. Q4.0828-98 Land Use Application Procedures
Section 3: Controlling Ordinance and Rules
The procedures for decision-making described in this Chapter and in the Rules of Procedure
adopted under this Chapter supersede any conflicting procedures that may be found in other
chapters of the Jefferson County Code. This Chapter applies to existing permit applications as
well as to those that may be filed in the future.
Section 4: Who May Apply
Any property owner. or any persOn who bas written authorization from an owner, may Submit a
land use application.
Section 5: Exemptions from Lal1d Use Application
Processing.
A Whenever a land use application bas been designated as a Type A, B or C decision, the
procedures in this Chapter shall be follo~ except that the following applications are
excluded from the procedures set forth in this Chapter due to special circumstances that
warrant different review processes:
1. . Landmark designations;
2. Street or road vacations;
3. Street use permits;
B. The following applications are exempt from the procedures set forth in this chapter except for
the time limits required for issuance of a Determination of Completeness and a final decision:
1. Boundary line adjustments;
2. Building and other construction permits not sUbject to review under SEP A; and
3. Temporary Use permits offorty-five (45) days. duration or less.
Section 6: Types of Land Use Applications.
Land use applications are classified into three categories: 1) Type A (Administrative decisions),
2) Type B (Hearing Examiner decisions), and 3) Type C (Board of County Commissioners
decisions).
A. Type A (Administrative Decision)
The following applications require a decision by the Director:
1. Building permits that are subject to review under SEP A;
2. . Accessory Dwelling Units;
3. Home-based occupations;
4. Temporary Uses of greater than forty-five (45) days duration;
5. Condominium subdivjsions of four (4) or fewer units;
6. Mobile home parks of four (4) or fewer lots;
Amended by Ordinance No. 08-1 123-98
Page 3 of 19
e
IIIIIII.I.II;~~~:~
Jeff ereon County. WA POPE RESOURCES ItESO HI. fie
Ortiin;mrp No O4-OR?R-QR I ;:1M I kI" Appflr;:ltlnn PrnrPdtlf'p<;;
Type A (Administrative Decision)
7. Plat alterations or vacations, not including BOundary Line Adjustments;
8. Short subdivisions of four (4) or fewer lots;
9. Subdivision exemptions;
10. Shoreline Exemptions; and
11. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits for Primary Uses.
A. Type B (Hearing Examiner Decision) _
. The following applications require a Hearing Examiner decision:
1. Planned Unit Developments;
2. Special Uses;
3. Conditionalll,ses; ....
4. Variances (Zoning, Critica1Areas, ShoreliDe,Subdivision, etc.);
5. Condominium subdivisions of five (5) units or more;
6. Long Subdivisions. including mobile home parks, offive (5) lots or more
(preliminary plat review);
7. . CommerciallIndustrial Park Divisions;
8. Shoreline Conditional Uses;
9. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits for secondary uses; and
10. Recreational Vehicle Parks/Camper Clubs
C. Type C (Board of County Commissioners Decision)
1. Site-specific rezones. including all land use application requests that are consolidated
with a request for a rezone, require a Board of County Commi~oners decision.
2. Legislative actions. including area-wide rezone and Comprehensive Plan decisions. are
not affected by this Chapter.
D. Other Applications
1be appropriate decision-making process for any other land use application authorized by
Jefferson County but not listed in this section shall be determined by the Director in
accordance with this Chapter unless the decision-making authority is expressly identified
Section 7: Consolidated Applications
A. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. A land use application that involves novo or
more permits may, at the option of the Applicant, be consolidated into a single process using
the highest procedure required for any permit included in the application. For example, an
application involving Type A. B and C permits shall be processed under Type C procedure.
If the Applicant does not opt to proceed with consolidated permit processing, the pennit(s)
Page 4 of 19
e
lll~!I"II;;~:?;~
_...
.
f'lnin:urp No 04-M~R-qR I ;uvf I kP ~tinn PmrMrP<;
Optional COl;lsolidated Permit Process~g. - Continued "
requiring the higher procedure(s)must be processed prior to the permit(s) requiring the lower
procedure(s). For example, Type C permits must be processed prior to Type B permits.
B. Joint Hearings
1. The Director may combine any hearing on a land use application with any other hearing
that may be held by another local, state, regionaL federal, or other agency on the
application, so long as the requirements of ~bsection (3) are met
2 Hearings sbaIl be combined if requested by an Applicant, provided:
a. The requirements of subsection (3) are met; and
b.The joint hearing can be "held within the 1ip1e periods specified in this ~onor
the Applicant agrees to an alternate schedUle jn the event tbatadditional time is
needed in order to combine the hearings. '
3. A joint hearing may' be held with another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency on
the proposed action, provided:
a. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;
b. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies' adopted
notice requirements as set forth in statute, ordinance or rule;
Each agency bas received the necessaryinfonnation about the proposed project
from the Applicant to hold its hearing at the same time as the local government
hearing; and
The hearing is held within Jefferson County.
(
c.
d.
Section 8: Pre-application Procedure
A. Purpose
lhe pre-application conference is a discussion between a potential Applicant and County
staff regatding a proposed project. The pmpose of the pre-application conference is to assist
the Applicant by identifying the following:
1. Requirements for submittal, including types of permits necessary to complete the
~ procedmes for processing Permits, and whether SEP A review is required;
2. Requirements for compliance with applicable County plans, goals, policies, codes or
guidelines and possible revisions to the proposed project which will improve the proposal
with respect to these requirements; and
3. Required plans, studies, reports, and/or other materials specific to the proposal that will
provide necessary information for staff to review the project.
4. All requirements sball be provided to the applicant in writing.
B. WIlen Required
A pre-application conference may be schedUled by the Director for any type of land use
application, but is required prior to submitting an application for the following:
PageSof 19
· 111111111111 :::~~I~J.
Jeff..-ton County. WA POPE IlESOURCE$ RESO _.11
OniimrYp No 04-M?st-QR I ~nd I kP AppIir~tinn PrnrPlft "PC;
I. Conditional Use Permits;
2. Special Use Permits;
3. Subdivision or planned unit development applications;
4. Shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, or shoreline
variance applications;
5. Mobile Home Parks;
6. Recreational Vehicle Parks/Camper Clubs; and
7. ~lidated project review.
c. Fees
An applicant may be charged a fee for a pre-application meeting in accordance with fees
. established by resolution of the Board of County Comm,i$sioners. c.
Section 9: Project Planner
The Director shall designate a Project Planner for each land use application submitted to the
County. The Project Planner shall serve as the County representative to the Applicant and shall
process the application in accordance with the provisions of Jefferson County Code. The
Applicant may rely upon written information provided by the Project Planner.
Section 10: Applications
A. Required Information
1. A land use application shall be filed on forms prescribed by the Director and shall include
fees as required by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The Director shall summarize the submittal requirements for each application as specified
in the applicable provisions of the Jefferson County Code. The Director shall attach this
summary as Appendix A to this ordinance to assist the public. The Director shall update
Appendix A upon adoption of any revised submittal requirements.
3. Additional requirements may be requested in writing by the Director or Project Planner.
The request shall refer to a specific section of the Jefferson Count)' Code where that
information is required in order to process the application.
B. Inactivity
An application may be canceled for inactivity if an Applicant fails to specifically respond to
the Project Planner's written request for revisio~ correctio~ or additional information
within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the request. The Director shall extend the
response period beyond sixty (60) calendar days if the Applicant provides and adheres to an
approved schedule with specific target dates for submitting the full revisions, correctio~ or
Page 6 of 19
e
1IIIIftlllll::::~J.
"'''er.., County, WA POPE RESOURCES RESo SII."
Orcfimryp No 04-M.?R-q~ I anti IkP ~tinn PrnrM rpc;
other information needed by the Project Planner. Failme to adhere to the approved schedule
sball result in cancellation of the application.
Section 11: Determination" of Completeness
A.. When Complete
A land use application shall be complete when all submittal requirements, as specified in
Section Ten of this Chapter,and all fees as required by resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners have been submitted. }he Director may waive specific submittal
requirements that are determined by the Director to be unnecessary for review of the
application provided that the Waiver is in writing and specifically states why the itUormation
is not needed.'
B. Notice
Within twenty-eight (28) calendar days after receiving a land use application, the Director
shall either'mail, fax, or otherwise provide to the Applicant a written determination, stating
either that the application.is complete or that the application is incomplete and what is
necessary to make the application complete. The notice sball inform the Applicant tbat the
application may be canceled due to inactivity, pursuant to section lOB of this chapter, if the
Applicant does not respond within 60 days.
c. Additional Information
Within ten (10) working days after an Applicant has submitted additional information
identified by the Director as being necessary for a complete application, the Director shall
notify the Applicant whether the application is complete or what additional information is
necessary. The Director shall inform the Applicant that the application may be canceled due
to inactivity, pursuant to section 10 B of this chapter, if the Applicant does not respond
within 60 days.
D. When Deemed, Complete _
If the Director does not provide a written determination as to whether the application is
complete within the twenty-eight (28) calendar days, the application ~ball be deemed
complete as of the twenty-eighth day.
E. Change in Circumstances
A determination of completeness shall not preclude the Director from requesting additional
information if a change in circumstances is discovered during the review process and/or new
information is necessary to complete review or if substantial changes in the application are
proposed. The request for additional information shall be in writing and shall identify the
change of circumstances and need for additional information.
Page 7 of 19
.e
F. Standards for Review . .
. The determination of completeness initiates the review period for the application and entitles
the Applicant to have the application considered and reviewed pursuant to the substantive
laws. regulations and standards in effect on the date a complete application was submitted.
Section 12: Application Time Frames
A. Final Decision
The County shall issue a-final decision on a land use application within one-hutuired-twenty
(120) calendar days from the date the application is determined to be complete.
-B. Calculation of Time .
- .
For purposes of calculating the time period for issuance of a final decision, the time period
shall begin on the first day following the date the application is determined to be complete.
The following periods shall be excluded ftom the calculations:
I. Any period dming which the Applicant has been requested by the Director or Project
Planner to correct Plans. perform required studies, or provide additional information;
2. Any period dwing which an environmental impactstatement is being prepared following
a determination of signifiCance pursuant to SEP A;
3. Any period. dwing which an appeal is being reviewed; and
4. Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the Applicant and the Director or Project
Planner.
C. Exceptions to Time Limits
The time limits established by this section do not apply if a land use application includes one
of the following:
I. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or an amendment to a land use development
regulation;
2. Siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.10A.200; or
3. An application substantially revised by the Applicant, ~ which case the time period shall
start from the date at which the revised project applicatioIl; is determined-ttibe-romplete
pursuant to this Chapter. .~ -
D. County Fallure to Adhere to Applicable Time Periods
If the County is unable to issue its final decision on a land use application within 120 days
from the date the application is determined to be complete. the County shall provide written
notice of this fact to the project Applicant prior to the expiration of the 120 day time period.
The notice will include a statement of reasons why the time periods have not been met and a
specific date for issuance of the notice of final decision. The revised date shall not exceed
sixty (60) additional days.
Page 8 of 19
e
l"I!'gll;;~~
Clrrimnrp Nn 04-0R/R-q~ I ~M IIc:ta ~tinn Prnn>di .-pc;
. .
Section 13: Public Notice Requirements
A- When Required
All Type A,B and C land use applications require the following public notifications:
1. Notice of application and public comment period;
2. Notice of hearing. if a hearing is scheduled; and
3. Notice of decision and appeal period.
B. Public Mailing List
The DirectOr shall maintain a mailing list of those persons who request, in writing, to receive
notice ofalllapd use applications and decisions. .Mailed notice shall be distributed to those
persons as provided in this Chapter.
C. Notice of Application and Public Comment Period-Notice to Public
1. Time and Method of Notice: Within seven (7) calendar days of issuing a written
determination of complete application, the Director shall issue a notice of application that
includes the public comment period of thirty (30) calendar days commencing on the day
the notice is issued. The notice of application shall be provided to the public and other
government agencies with jwisdiction over some aspect of the application by the
following means: _
a. Mailine written notice to adjoining property owners as required by applicable law.
The list of property owners and addresses shall be provided by the Applicant
based on information regarding current ownership of property listed on tax
records and provided by a Land Title Company doing business in Jefferson
County. The list shall be certified by the Department.
b. Mailing written notice to those individuals ~ requested in writing to be placed
. on a mailing list to receive notice of land use applications and decisions;
c. Posting notice in the official posting places of the County; and
d. Publishing notices in the official newspaper of the County.
2. SEP A Review _
a If a land use application is subject to environmental review and requires a SEP A
threshold determination, SEP A public notice and comment period sha1l be
combined with other land use application notices when possible.
b. A combined notice shall include a statement that a comment letter may be
submitted that addresses environmental impacts as well as other issues subject to
review under the decision criteria for the land use application.
c. If the Director expects to issue a Determination of Non-Significance under SEP A,
the notice sha1l inform the public of proposed mitigation measures. if any. and
explain that this may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental
impacts of the project.
Page 9 of 19
IIIIIIIIIIII=~~
.klf..lon CcM.nh, 1M POPE RESOURCES RESO III."
Orrlin;mrp No 04.-0R?R-QR I ~nrll kP AppIintinn PrnrPrll II"P';
e
d. The final SEP A threshold determination shall not be issued prior to the expiration
of the notice of application comment period:
3. Notice of Application Contents
The notice of application shall contain the following information:
a Date of application, date of complete application, and date of notice of
application;
b. A brief description of the proposed project and its location and street address if
applicable;
c. Identification of requested limd use applications, existing environmental
dOCtDDen~ pertaining to the propo~ and. a location where the application and
existing documents may be reviewed;
d. The date, tiDle and place of any pre-decision hearing on the applicatioh;
e. An address where comments may be mailed during the 30-day comment period;
f. The preliminary determination, if any, of development regulations that will be .
used for project mitigation;
g. A statement of the right for any person to i) Comment on the appliCation, h) .
receive notice of hearings, and ill) receive a copy of the decision; and
h. Any appeal rights.
D. Notice of OpeD Record Hearing
1. rune and Method of Notice
Notice of an open record hearing sball be provided at least fomteen (14) calendar days
prior to the hearing using the following methods:
a Posting notice in the official posting places of the County;
b. Publishing notice in the official newspaper of the County;
c. Mailing notice to the Applicant and Appellant and to those individuals who
requested in writing to be placed on a mailing list to receive notice of land use
applications and decisions;
d. Mailing written notice to adjoining property owners as required by applicable law.
The list of property owners and addresses shall be provided by the Applicant
based on information regarding current ownership of property listed on tax
records and provided by a Land Title Company doing business in Jefferson
County. The list sball be certified by the Deparbnent; and
e. Posting the notice at the subject property. The Applicant shall post a sign
provided by the County containing the information descnDed in subsection (2Xa)
through (g) below, "Hearing Notice Contents," in the manner prescnDed by the
Director.
2. Hearing Notice Contents
The Notice of Hearing sball contain the following information:
a Applican~ agent and project name;
b. Name and telephone number of the Project Planner;
Page 10 of 19
e
11111111111:r:~~
".ffwlOft County, 1M POPE IIDOUtCES RESO ......
Orrimnrp No ~'R-qR I and I Jc:;p ~tinn PrnrMrP<:
c. . Hearing date. time andpla~ and the code provision req~ the hearing;
d. Location of the proposal including vicinity map and street address if useful;
e. Brief description of the proposal and requested land use application;
f. Information on the Rules of Procedure for the Hearing. including procedures for
public comment; and
g. Any SEP A determination.
3. Additional Contents for Open Record Ap,peal Hearings. If the hearing is an open record
appeal hearing. the following infonnation shall be provided in addition to the
requirements under subsection D 2 of this section:
a The name of the Appellant;
b. A brief despiption of the decision being appealed; and
c. A statement of who may participate in the appeal.
E. Notice of Decision and Appeal Period
1. Contents A notice of decision shall be issued on a land use application. The notice of
. decision maybe the decision itself. The notice slUill include:
a A statement indicating that the application is approved, approved with
modifications, denied or remanded;
b. A brief statement of any conditions included as part of a decision;
c. A statement of facts upon which the decision is based and the conclusions of law
derived from those facts;
d. A Single consolidated report setting forth the recommendations and decisions
made on the application. 1he report shall state any mitigation required or
proposed under the development regulations or as required through SEP A. The
report shall include SEP A determination if a determination has not previously
been issued; and,
e. Procedures for appeal.
2. Distribution
The notice of decision shall be distributed on the day of the decision by mail. fa.x or
personal service to the Applicant and to any person who. prior to the decision, requested
notice of decisions or submitted testimony or comments on the application.
Section 14: Administrative (Type A) Decision Procedures
A. Applicability
This section applies to all Type A applications.
B. Environmental Review
For a land use application subject to Chapter 43.21C RCWand Jefferson County's SEPA
Ordinance. a final SEP A threshold determination may be issued simultaneously with the :final
decision on the land use application.
Page 11 of 19
e
IIIIIII..II~::~~
Jefferson CoI.I'lty, WA POPE IlESOURCES RESO .....
('lniim1Y'P. No 04-MJR-QR I ;,mcf IkP ~tinn PrnrP1'llrpc;
c. Decision Procedures
I. In malcing a decisi~ the Director shall consider the policies of the Comprehensive Plan
and subarea plans, the applicable criteria of the Jefferson County Code, and other
applicable law.
2. Corrections or Clarification.
a The Djrector may correct clerical errors clearly identifiable from the public record
at any time.
b. The Director may clarify a statement in the written decision as long as the
clarification does not materially alter the decision.-
D. Director Decision
The Director may approye, approve with modificatiQns or deny the application. The Director
shall use the Land Use Decision Format provided inA:PPendix B to this Chapter. '. -
E. Filing ofDeclsion
The Director shall maintain a notebook of all decisions, which sball be available for public
review. Copies of all decisions shall also be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners.
F. Effect of Decision
The decision of the Director is the final decision of the ~unty unless an appeal is filed with
the Hearing Examiner in accordance with this chapter.
Section 15: Hearing Examiner (Type B) Decision Procedures
A. Applicability
This section applies to Type B land use applications and all other land use applications
consolidated under Type B procedures using Consolidated Permit Review.
B. Environmental Review
For a land use application subject to SEP A, the :final SEP A threshold determination-sball be
issued and any required public comment period shall be completed prior to a hearing.
c. Decision Procedures
1. Open Record Hearin~: The Hearing Examiner shall hold an open record hearing prior to
issuing a decision. The Hearing Examiner shall maintain a record of the exhibits
presented and a tape recording of the testimony and arguments presented. The Rules of
Procedure adopted in accordance with this chapter shall be used, as appropriate, in the
conduct of the hearing.
2. Decision Considerations: In making a decision, the Hearing Examiner. shall consider the
following:
a The contents of the application;
Page 12 of 19
-
b. The re:cord of the open record ~ on the application includipg any testimony
and any written material submitted as part of the hearing process; and,
c. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans, the
decision criteria listed in each section of the Jefferson County Code under which
the application was.~ and any other applicable laws.
3. Continuance A hearing may be continued to a specific date without additional notice as
long as all parties to the hearing are informed of the continuance.
4. Motion for Reconsideration A motion for reconsideration may be filed in accordance
with Rules of Procedure adopted in accordance with this chapter. Such motion shall be
filed in writing ten(l 0) working days from the date the Hearing Examiners decision was
filed. Such D19tion sIlall be decided on the~rd. If a timely and appropriate request for
reconsideration is file<l,the appeal period shall begin.from the date the decision on the
reconsideration is issued. ,..
5. Corrections or Clarification
a. The Hearing Examiner inay correct clerical errors clearly identifiable from the
public record at any time. .
b. The Hearing Examiner may clarify a statementin the written decision as long as
the clarification does not materially alter the decision.
D. Hearing Examiner Decision
1. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application.
The Hearing Examiner shall use the Land Use Decision Format provided in Appendix B
to this Chapter.
2. The decision shall be issued within ten (10) working days of the open record hearing,
unless a longer period is agreed upon by the Hearing Examiner and the Applicant.
E. Tiling of Decision
Copies of all decisions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners.
The Hearing Examiner shall also forward copies of all decisions to the Director. The
Director shall maintain a notebook of all decisions, which shall be available for public
review.
F. Effect of Decision
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is the final decision of the County unless an appeal is
filed in accordance with this chapter.
Page 13 of 19
e
l"~!IJ.II~~i~~
Clrrimnrp No 04-M;>R-QR I and I kI- ~tinn PrnrPlllF"';
Section 16: Board of County Commissioners, Decision
(Type C) Procedures
A. Applicability
This section applies to Type C land'use applications and all other land use applications
consolidated under Type C procedmes using Consolidated Permit Review.
B. Decision Procedures
1. Hearine: Examiner Recommendation' The Board of County. Commissioners may refer a
Type C application to the Hearing Examiner for an open record hearing. The Hearing
EJcaminer sh8ll follow the procedmes set forth in this Chapter and in the RWes of
Procedure adopted in ~ with this Chapter. The Hearing Examinefs written
recommendation shall be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners.
2. Board of County Commissioners' Hearlnf If the Board of County Commissioners does
not refer the application to the Hearing Examiner for recommendation as provided in
subsection (B)(l) above, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold an open record
hearing to consider the land use application prior to issuing. a decision. The Board of
County Commissioners shall follow the procedures set forth in this Chapter and in the
Rules of Procedure adopted in accordance with this Chapter,
C. Board of County Commissioners Decision
1. Elements to be Considered. The Board of County Commissioners shall consider the
following in deciding upon an application:
a. The contents of the application;
b. The record of the open record'hearing on the application including any testimony
, , and any written material submitted as part of the hearing process;
c. The recommendations of the Hearing Examiner, if applicable; and,
d. The policies of the Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans,
decision criteria listed in each section of the Jefferson County Code under which
the application was made, and any other applicable law. .
2. Decision The Board of County Commissioners may approve, approve with
modifications, or deny the application. If a decision has ~ referred to the Hearing
. Examiner for a recommendation and the Board determines that the Hearing Examiner's
record has been insufficiently developed, the Board may remand the application to the
Hearing Examiner with specific instructions for further proceedings.
3. Corrections or Clarification
a. The Board may amend the decision at any time to correct clerical errors clearly
identifiable from the public record. Such a correction does not affect any time
limit provided for in this Chapter.
Page 14 of 19
e
IIIIII.IIII~~:'?:~
Jeff..-ton Countv. 1M POPE RESOURCES ROO&tI.M
flrdmnrf' No 04.-(lA7R-QR I ::aM IIc:P ~tiM PmrPdl rpc:;
b. The Board may clarify a statement in the written decision at any time as long as
the clarification does not materially alter the decision.
D. Filing
Copies of all decisions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners.
The Clerk of the Board shall forward copies of all decisions to the Director. The Director
sball maintain a notebook of all decisions, which shall be available for public review.
E. Effect of Decision
The decision of the Board of County Commi~oners sball be the final decision of the County
on the application unless, within twenty-one (21) calendar days after issuanceofa decision,
an appeal is filed in Superior Com in accordancC: with Chapter 36.7OC RCW.
Section 17: Appeal Procedures -Appeal ofa Type A
Decision .
A. Applicability
. Any person may appeal an Administrative (Type A) decision.' The Hearing Examiner shall
decide all appeals of Administrative (Type A) decisions.
B. Form and Content of the Appeal
1. An appeal of an administrative decision shall be filed in writing with the Clerk of the
Board of County Commissioners fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the
decision.
2. Appeals shall identify the decisiol\ appealed and the date of the. decision, and shall
contain a summary of the grounds for the appeal.
3. The aPPropriate fee as established by County resolution must be paid upon filing of the
notice of appeal. No appeal will be processed without receipt of the appropriate fee before
expiration of the period for filing the-appeal.
4. Following receipt of a notice of appeal and payment of the appropriate fee, the Hearing
Examiner shall conduct an open record appeal hearing.
C. Open Record Appeal Hearing
Participation in an open record appeal hearing shall include the Applicant, the Applicant's
representative, the Appellant, the Appellant's representativ~, appropriate County staff and
consultants, and any witnesses called by the Applicant or the Appellant. Others may
participate if the Hearing Examiner determines that the testimony will be relevant to the issue
on appeal and non-repetitive of the testimony of other witnesses. The Hearing E.uminer
sball, to the extent appropriate, conduct the hearing in compliance with the Rules of
Procedure adopted in accordance with this Chapter.
Page 15 of 19
It
llllllllllll::?:~
Jeff ....an County. 1M POPE RESOURCES ROO ... It
Orrimnrp Nn O4-O~JR-q~ I ~ ,Ic;p ~tinn PrfYM "PC:;
D. Decision on the Appeal
" I. Hearing In considerin:g open record appeals, the Hearing Examiner shall:
a. Affirm the decision;
b. Reverse the decision;
c. Affirm the decision with modifications; or
d Remand the decision to the Director for further consideration. The Hearing
Examiner sbaIl include in the order the issues to be reviewed on remand.
2. Standard of Review The Hearing Examiner shall review the application anew without
regard for the Director's deCision. .
3. Conditions The Hearing Examiner may include conditions as part of a decision granting,
or granting with modifications an appeal to insw'e conformance with the Jefferson County
COde, the CountY's ComprehenSive Plan and o\her applicable laws or regulations. .
4. Written Decision The Hearing Examiner sball issue a written decision on the appeal no
later than ninety (90) calendar days :from the date of the original d~ion from which the
appeal is taken and no later than ten (10) working days from the date the record is closed
at the hearing. The written decision shall contain the following:
a. The decision of the Hearing Examiner granting or denying the appeal in whole or
in part;
b. Any conditions included as part of the decision on the appeal; and
c. Findings of facts upon which the decisions based and the concl1JSions of law
derived from those facts. "
S. Distribution The Hearing Examiner shall mail a copy of the written decision to the
Applicant, the Appellant, the Director, and any person requesting the written decision or
who submitted substantive comments on the application prior to the decision.
6. filing Copies of all decisions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners. The Hearing Examiner shall also forward copies of all decisions to the
Director. "The Director shall maintain a notebook of all decisions, which sbaIl be
available for public review.
7. Appeal of the Decision of the Hearing Examiner The decision of the Hearing Examiner
shall be fina1 unless, within fourteen f14) calendar days after issuance of a decision, a
party appeals the decision to the Appellate Examiner in accordance with this Chapter.
Section 18: Appeal Procedures - Appeal of a Hearing
Examiner (Type B) Decision
A. Applicability
Any person who participated in the Open Record Hearing may appeal a Hearing Examiner
(Type B) decision. The Appellate Examiner shall decide appeals of Hearing Examiner
decisions.
Page 16 of 19
fa
11111111111~~~t
JeffwlOft CoIIltv, 1M POPE 1EtOUICES' ~14/~~1:4IA
Orrin;mrp No 04-('}RJR-QR l;and I kP ~tinn Prnnott.IrP<;
B. Form an~ Content of the Appeal . .
I. Any appeal shall be filed with the Clerk: of the Board of County Commissioners within
fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision.
2. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners, shall identify the decision appealed and the date of the decision, and
shall contain a summary of the grounds for the appeal.
3. The appropriate fee as established by County resolution sbalI be paid upon filing of the
notice of appeal. No appeal ~ be processed without receipt of the appropriate fee before
expiration of the period for filing the appeal.
4. Following receipt of a notice of appeal and payment of the. appropriate fee, the Appellate
Examiner shall conduct a closed record appeal.
5. The issues considered in the closed recordappea1sba11 be limited to those speCified in the
written appeal.
C. Oosed Record Appeal
Appellant decisions shall be based only on the reconI"compiled by the Hearing Examiner.
The Appellate Examiner shall consider no new docmnents or testimony. The Appellate
Examiner may request legal briefs or oral argument if appropriate to assist him in making the
decision on appeal. .
D. Decision on the Appeal
.1. Hearing
In rendering a decision regarding a closed reco!Ci appeal, the Appellate Examiner shall do
one of the following based on a review of the record:
a Affirm the deciSion; or
b. Reverse the decision; or .
c. Affirm the decision with modifications;. or
d. . Remand the decision to the Hearing Examiner for further consideratio~ including
a statement of the issues to be reviewed on remand.
2. Standard of Review
The Appellate Examiner may grant the appeal it following a review of the record, one of
the following standards has been met:
a. The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the laW;
b. The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when
viewed in light of the whole record;
c. The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts; or
d. The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the Hearing
Examiner.
3. Conditions The Appellate Examiner may include conditions as part of a decision
granting or granting with modifications an appeal to insure conformance with the
Jefferson County Code, the County's Comprehensive Plan and other applicable laws or
regulations.
Page 17 of 19
e
IIIIIIIIIIII:~~~~
Jeff....on CowIh, WA POPE R6OUltC:O ROO ......
Ordimfl('p No Cl4-OR,R-qg I ;vvf I ~ ~tinn PrnrM"~
4. Written Decision The Appellate Examiner shall issue a written .decision on the appeal no
later than sixty (60) calendar days from the date of the original decision from which the
appeal is taken, and no later than ten (10) working days from the date of transmittal of the
record and submittal of any written or oral arguments. The written decision shall contain
the following:
a. The decision of the Appellate Examiner on appeal;
b. Any conditions included as part of the decision on.the appeal;
c. Findings of facts upon wbichthe decisjon,including any conditions, is based and
the conclusions of law derived from those facts; and
d The right of an Applicant or Appellant to appeal the decision of the Appellate .
Examiner.
5. Distq"bunon The AppeUate Examinetsball mail a copy of the Written decision to the
Applicant, the Appellant, the Hearing Examiner, the Director, and any person requesting
the written decision or who submitted substantive comments on the application prior to
the decision.
6. Elling Copies of aU decisions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners. The Hearing Examiner shall also forward copies of all decisions to the
Director. The Director shall maintain a notebook.of all decisions, which shall be
available for public review.
7.. Appeal of the Decision of the Appellate Examiner The decision of the Appellate
Examiner shall be final unless within twenty-one (21) calendar days after issuance of a
decision an appeal is filed with Superior Court in accordance with Chapter 36.7OC RCW. .
Section 19: Review Procedures
ApplieatioD
Type
Type A
Type B
Type C
Director HeariDg ExamiDer
Appellate ExamiDer
Board of Couty
CommissioDers
D A
(OpeD Record)
D
(Open Record)
.R
A
(Oosed Record).
A
(Oosed Record)*
D*
D = Decision
A = Appeal
R = RecommeDdation upon request of Board of COUDty Commissioners
Note: Legislative Actions (Area-wide re-zone5, Comprehensive Plan adoption or amend-
ment) are not affected by this Chapter.
* These decisions may be appealed to Superior Court or the Shorelines HeariDgs Board
in acoordaDce with Chapter 36.7OC RCW or Chapter 90.58 RCW.
Page 18 of 19
e.
1IIIIdlllll=;:'?I~
Jeff....., County. WA POPE IIESOl.ItCES RESO He."
Or~fl('P No 04-()R?R-QR I ~rvt IkP ~tinn PrnrPd rpc;
Section 20: Repealer
This Ordinance repeals and replaces Ordinance No. 08-0408-96 in its entirety.
Section 21: Severability
.If any sectio~ subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or !igure of this ordinance or its application to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application to other
persons or circwnstances shall not be affected.
Section 22: Effectiv&Date
This ordinance "shall become effective 30 days after adoption.
Section 23: Adoption
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF CO SSIO
- (Excused Absence)
Daniel Harpole, Member
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney
- Page 19 of 19
-
e
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of May 22, 2006
e
Commissioner Rodgers moved to direct staff to forward MLA06-00185, a MPR zoning code amendment
requested by Holland/Goldsmith, to the Planning Commission who will conduct a public hearing and
formalize a recommendation back to the Board. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried
by a unanimous vote.
Port Ludlow Drainage District: Last month the Drainage District Commissioners came before the Board
with a request to revise the stormwater standards in the UDC. Al Scalf stated that the revisions are generic
in nature and suggested that they could be addressed through a Memorandum of Understanding. This
amendment would also go through the Planning Commission's public process, including a public hearing
and a recommendation to the Board. The Board makes the final decision.
Commissioner Rodgers moved to direct staff to forward MLA06-00211, a requested amendment by the Port
Ludlow Drainage District, to the Planning Commission who will conduct a public hearing and formalize a
recommendation back to the Board. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a
unanimous vote.
Recommended Decision Procedures re: Suggested Amendment to the Port Ludlow Master
Plan Resort Development Agreement; To AUow Timeshare Use for Tract E; Port Ludlow Associtltes,
MLA06-00221: Al Scalf explained that this application is legislative in nature and is subject to the statutory
provisions of a development agreement. A public hearing is conducted, findings are developed, and a
legislative decision is made. The Trendwest proposal is currently under litigation and staff advises the
Board to seek legal counsel immediately. The history to this point is:
· In January, 2005, a series of permit applications were submitted: a shoreline permit, a binding site
plan, and a zoning conditional use permit granted by the previous Hearing Examiner in 2002.
· The Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing and granted approval.
· The decision went to the Appellate Examiner in a closed record appeal. The Appellate Examiner
vacated and remanded a portion of the decision.
· The remand has been heard by the Hearing Examiner in an open record hearing and he has entered
his findings back to the Appellate Examiner.
· The current status on Trendwest is that it is vacated based upon the closed record appeal.
· This decision has been challenged in Superior Court and is still pending.
· The Hearing Examiner's approval of the shoreline permit was sent to the State Department of
Ecology (DOE) as a matter of procedure. The DOE makes the final decision. They did not deny it
and an appeal was filed with the Shorelines Hearings Board, a quasi-judicial body. On May 17, the
Shorelines Hearings Board issued a decision remanding the permit decision back to Jefferson
County.
l'
If the suggested amendment is approved and the development agreement is revised, a permit would be
issued. Other permits would follow that would be handled administratively.
Page 2
e
.. ..~._------
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 19,2006
e'.-'
..
.
Discussion re: Port Ludlow Development Agreement Amendment: Al Scalf explained that a
consolidated application has been submitted by Port Ludlow Associates for the amendment to the
Development Agreement and a Shoreline permit application. Under the land use procedures, the Board can
choose to have a public hearing on the consolidated application or send it to the Hearing Examiner to be
heard. The Hearing Examiner would then make a recommendation to the Board and the Board would make
the final decision for both the amendment to the Development Agreement and the shoreline permit.
Commissioner Rodgers noted that the benefit of having the consolidated application heard by the Hearing
'Examiner is that it would separate the legal aspects from the Political aspects. He would prefer that process.
Al Scalf noted that this is also the staff recommendation. The Deputy Prosecuting Attorney recommended
that the Board have the application go to the Hearing Examiner because he has expertise in legal land use
issues and he can create a document that is well-founded in points oflaw and fact.
Commissioner Sullivan moved to have the Hearing Examiner conduct a public hearing on the consolidated
application submitted by Port Ludlow Associates. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which
carried by a unanimous vote. The Chair signed a hearing notice for the newspaper.
Unified Development Code Omnibus Amendment PacluJge Deliberations (Continued): The
County Administrator suggested that the Board note what they are in agreement about and then they can
estimate how much time and work needs to be spent on the other items. David Alvarez added that one
ordinance will be drafted for the Board's final review with all the changes included.
Commissioner Sullivan continued his question about the following section:
· Section 18.15.123, page 29, Allowable Uses: He noted that churches/religious assembly facilities
aren't included in the list of meeting facilities in the Master Plan Resort (MPR.) Commissioner
Rodgers said that he thinks staff needs to look at the impact of a regulation and in many cases there
are distinctions that are unnecessary. Commissioner Sullivan asked if churches should be included
as cultural and educational facilities? Commissioner Rodgers stated that the size of the building and
the occupancy rating should prevail. Commissioner Sullivan said that he would be inclined to
include it.
· Page 34, Mineral Resource Lands Nuisance and Noise Levels: Commissioner Sullivan noted that
this isn't just about Fred Hill Materials. He thinks it is a problem to measure noise at night and
limiting hours isn't necessarily a bad way to go. He is not aware of any other nighttime mining
operations in the County. Commissioner Rodgers stated that FHM produces a world class resource
on a different scale than most other operations. This resource is in demand and should be utilized.
Commissioner Rodgers said that he agrees with the way it is written. Commissioner Sullivan noted
that other counties have specific mining hours such as :from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. A suggestion was made
that staff and the Planning Commission do a more indepth review on the whole mining operation
issue. Al Scalf asked for policy direction from the Board. The discussion continued regarding other
Page 7