Chapter 14.02
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sections:
14.02.050 Procedure for processing project permits.
14.02.060 Optional consolidated permit processing.
14.02.010 Findings.
The city of Entiat finds and declares the following:
(1) As the number of environment laws and development regulations has increased for land uses and development, so has the number of land use permits, each with its own separate approval process;
(2) The increasing number of local and state land use permits and separate environmental review processes required by agencies has generated continuing potential for conflict, overlap, and duplication between the various permit and review processes; and
(3) This regulatory burden has significantly added to the cost and time needed to obtain local and state land use permits, and has made it difficult for the public to know how and when to provide timely comments on land use proposals that require multiple permits and have separate environmental review processes. (Ord. 701 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 579 § 1, 2001; Ord. 573 § 1, 2001)
14.02.020 Applicability.
These rules apply to all land use permits and approval under the Entiat zoning code, the Entiat subdivision code, the Entiat SEPA ordinance, the Entiat shoreline master program, and to any related regulations implementing these provisions or any other ordinance or law. Unless another department is the primary agency in a permit process, the mayor and/or his/her designee administers those chapters and may adopt such rules as will assist in administering those provisions. (Ord. 701 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 579 § 1, 2001; Ord. 573 § 1, 2001)
14.02.030 Purpose.
In enacting this title, the city of Entiat intends to establish a mechanism for implementing the provisions of Chapters 36.70B and 36.70C RCW regarding compliance, conformity, and consistency of proposed projects with adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations. In order to achieve this purpose the city finds that:
(1) Given the extensive investment that public agencies and a broad spectrum of the public are making and will continue to make in comprehensive plans and development regulations for the community, it is essential that project review start from the fundamental land use planning choices made in these plans and regulations. If the applicable regulations or plans identify the type of land use, specify residential density in urban growth areas, and identify and provide for funding of public facilities needed to serve the proposed development and site, these decisions at a minimum provide the foundation for further project review unless there is a question of code interpretation. The project review process, including the environmental review process under Chapter 43.21C RCW and the consideration of consistency, should start from this point and should not reanalyze these land use planning decisions in making a permit decision;
(2) Comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted by the city under Chapter 36.70A RCW and environmental laws and rules adopted by the state and federal government have addressed a wide range of environmental subjects and impacts. These provisions typically require environmental studies and contain specific standards to address various impacts associated with a proposed development, such as building size and location, drainage, transportation requirements, and protection of critical areas. When a permitting agency applies these existing requirements to a proposed project, some or all of the project’s potential environmental impacts will be avoided or otherwise mitigated. Through the integrated project review process described herein, the administrator should not require additional studies or mitigation under Chapter 43.21C RCW where existing regulations have adequately addressed a proposed project’s probable specific adverse environmental impacts;
(3) Consistency should be determined in a project review process by considering four factors found in applicable regulations or plans: the type of land use allowed; the level of development allowed, such as units per acre or other measures of density; infrastructure, such as adequacy of public facilities and services to serve the proposed project; and the character of the proposed development, such as compliance with specific development standards. This uniform approach corresponds to existing project review practices and will not place a burden on applicants or local government. The city intends that this approach should be largely a matter of checking compliance with existing requirements for most projects, which are simple or routine, while more complex projects may require more analysis; and
(4) When an applicant applies for a project permit, consistency between the proposed project and applicable regulations or plans should be determined through a project review process that integrates land use and environmental impact analysis, so that governmental and public review of the proposed project run concurrently and not separately. (Ord. 701 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 579 § 1, 2001; Ord. 573 § 1, 2001)
14.02.040 Definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout these provisions.
(1) “Closed record appeal” means an administrative appeal on the record to a local hearing body following an open record hearing on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only the appeal argument allowed.
(2) “Development regulations” means the procedural and substantive controls placed on development or land use activities by the city including, but not limited to, the zoning ordinance, the subdivision ordinance, the SEPA procedures, the resource lands and critical areas ordinance, the road standards, and any other official controls adopted by the city council either now or in the future.
(3) “Open record hearing” means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body, that creates the local government’s record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the local government by ordinance or resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to a local government’s decision on a project permit to be known as an “open record predecision hearing.” An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an “open record appeal hearing,” if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit.
(4) “Project permit applications” means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinance, site-specific rezones authorized by the comprehensive plan, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, or development regulations, except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection.
(5) “Public meeting” means an informal meeting, hearing, workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to the local government’s decision. A public meeting may include, but is not limited to, a design review or architectural control board meeting, a special review district or community council meeting, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public meeting does not include an open record hearing. The proceedings at a public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be included in the local government’s project permit application file. (Ord. 701 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 579 § 1, 2001; Ord. 573 § 1, 2001)
14.02.050 Procedure for processing project permits.
(1) For the purpose of project permit processing, all development permit applications shall be classified as one of the following: Type I, Type II, Type III or Type IV. Type IV actions are typically legislative decisions. Exclusions of project permit application processing are contained in EMC 14.08.020.
(2) The administrator or his/her designee shall determine the proper procedure for all development applications. If there is a question as to the appropriate type of procedure, the administrator shall resolve it in favor of the higher procedure type. (Ord. 701 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 579 § 1, 2001; Ord. 573 § 1, 2001)
14.02.060 Optional consolidated permit processing.
(1) An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application, or processed individually under each of the procedures identified in this section. The applicant may determine whether the application shall be processed collectively or individually.
(2) The applicant may request that the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as a joint hearing can be held within the same time periods set forth in this section. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to a particular schedule if that additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings. A joint public hearing may be held with another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, as long as:
(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 regulation; and
(c) The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough time to hold its hearing at the same time as the local government hearing. (Ord. 701 § 1 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 579 § 1, 2001; Ord. 573 § 1, 2001)