Chapter 18.20
PERMIT PROCESS

Sections:

Article I. General Provisions

18.20.110    Purpose.

18.20.120    Applicability.

18.20.130    Actions exempt from procedural requirements.

18.20.140    Definitions.

18.20.150    Scope of review.

18.20.160    Consistency.

18.20.180    Interpretation of development regulations.

18.20.185    Reimbursement agreements.

Article II. Project Permit Processing

18.20.210    Classifications.

18.20.220    Determining appropriate review.

18.20.230    Review process I.

18.20.240    Review process II.

18.20.250    Review process III.

18.20.260    Review process IV.

18.20.270    Review process V.

18.20.280    Review process VI.

Article III. Procedures for Processing Permits

18.20.310    Preapplication review.

18.20.320    Project permit application.

18.20.325    Agent.

18.20.330    Review for counter complete status.

18.20.340    Review for technically complete status.

18.20.350    Determination of completeness or incomplete application.

18.20.355    Vesting.

18.20.360    Integrated permit process.

18.20.370    Notice of application.

18.20.380    Public notice – Types of.

18.20.385    Comment periods.

18.20.386    Content and timing of notice.

18.20.387    Costs of notice and comment.

18.20.390    Notice of decision.

Article IV. Time Limits

18.20.410    Determining time limits.

Article V. Appeals

18.20.510    Hearings and appeals.

18.20.515    Closed record appeal on certain Type I review processes.

18.20.520    Consolidated appeals – Concurrent review process.

18.20.530    Appeal deadline and filing requirements.

18.20.540    Standing.

18.20.550    Reports by city staff and applicant/appellant.

Article I. General Provisions

18.20.110 Purpose.

The city council finds and declares the following:

(1) The State Legislature has mandated certain requirements in the permitting process. This chapter conforms the city’s ordinances to state law. (Ord. 1376 § 2, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 1, 2001; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1996. Formerly 18.20.010).

18.20.120 Applicability.

These rules apply to development permits under OHMC Titles 11 through 21, and to any related regulation implementing these provisions or any other ordinance or law. Unless another department is the primary agency in a permit process, the director of development services, or his or her designee, shall administer these provisions and may adopt such rules as will assist in administering these provisions. Rules shall be filed with the clerk and copies given to the mayor and council. Proof of filing and notice shall be filed with the clerk. (Ord. 1376 § 3, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 2, 2001; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1996. Formerly 18.20.015).

18.20.130 Actions exempt from procedural requirements.

The project permit procedural requirements of this title pertaining to notice of completeness, notice of application, and notice of decision shall not apply to review process I or review process V decisions. Specifically exempted from these procedural requirements and the requirements of the Act, Sections 407 through 417 are:

(1) The adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations; and

(2) Lot line or boundary adjustments, street vacations and building and other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals, categorically exempt from environmental review under Chapter 43.21 RCW, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits.

(3) The following ministerial permits:

Type I permit processes except those specifically designated for appeal. (Ord. 1376 § 4, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 3, 2001).

18.20.140 Definitions.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) “Closed record appeal” means an administrative appeal on the record following an open 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 appeal argument allowed.

(2) “Department” means the department of development services.

(3) “Director” means the director of development services or his or her designee assigned to administer the provisions of this chapter unless another department or agency is in charge of the project permit in which case it refers to the department head of that department or agency. Example: fire chief for fire code issues and city engineer for street permits.

(4) “Open record hearing” means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer that creates the record through testimony and submission of evidence and information. An open record hearing may be held prior to a 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.

(5) “Project permit” or “project permit application” means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the city for a project action, including but not 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.

(6) “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 a 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.

(7) “Reviewing authority” means the person, agency or public hearing body charged with making a decision. In the context of the provision, a decision may refer to the initial determination with regard to a permit or the decision to be made on appeal. (Ord. 1376 § 5, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 4, 2001; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1996. Formerly 18.20.020).

18.20.150 Scope of review.

(1) If the applicable development regulations or comprehensive and other 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.

(2) 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.

(3) The city’s development regulations, comprehensive plans and environmental laws and rules adopted by the state and federal government have addressed a wide range of environmental subjects and impacts. These provisions address many impacts associated with a proposed development, such as building size and location, drainage, many transportation requirements, and protection of critical areas. Through this integrated project review process the reviewing authority shall determine whether existing requirements, including the applicable regulations or plans, adequately analyze and address a project’s environmental impacts.

(4) Project review 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.

(5) Project review and environmental review shall run concurrently to the extent possible.

(6) Project review shall primarily address consistency between the development regulations of the city and their associated adopted standards and, if no such regulations exist, the comprehensive plan. (Ord. 1376 § 6, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 5, 2001; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1996. Formerly 18.20.030).

18.20.160 Consistency.

(1) Consistency should be determined in the project review process by considering four factors found in applicable regulations or plans:

(a) The type of land use allowed;

(b) The level of development allowed, such as units per acre or other measures of density;

(c) Infrastructure, such as the adequacy of public facilities and services to serve the proposed project; and

(d) The character of the proposed development, such as compliance with specific development standards.

(2) 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 require more analysis.

(3) When an applicant applies for a project permit, consistency between the proposed project and applicable regulations or comprehensive 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, by development regulations under Chapter 36.70A RCW, and by the environmental process under Chapter 43.21C RCW, run concurrently and not separately.

(4) The project review process shall address consistency between a proposed project and the applicable regulations or plan:

(a) A uniform framework for the meaning of consistency;

(b) An emphasis on relying on existing requirements and adopted standards, with the use of supplemental authority as specified by Chapter 43.21C RCW to the extent that existing requirements do not adequately address a project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts; and

(c) The identification of three basic land use planning choices made in applicable regulations or plans that, at a minimum, serve as a foundation for project review and that should not be reanalyzed during project permitting. (Ord. 1376 § 7, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 6, 2001).

18.20.180 Interpretation of development regulations.

(1) Any applicant may request an interpretation of a development regulation by submitting the request in writing to the director together with the required fee.

(2) Assigned responsibility for making interpretations of development regulations is as follows:

(a) Interpretations of OHMC Titles 17, except the building code; 18; 19; 20 and 21 shall be by the director; provided, that interpretation of engineering requirements under OHMC Title 21 shall be by the city engineer.

(b) Interpretation of OHMC Titles 11, 13, and 14 with reference to development permits shall be by the city engineer.

(c) Interpretations under OHMC Title 8 for development permits shall be by the fire chief.

(d) Interpretation of OHMC Titles 12 and 15 and pretreatment standards under OHMC Title 14 shall be by the public works superintendent.

(e) Interpretation of the building code shall be by the building official.

(3) The determination of the person assigned under subsection (2) of this section shall be final unless overturned on appeal. Whenever there is a conflict in requirements, the director shall reconcile such conflict if possible. The appeal of a code interpretation shall be a closed record appeal. This appeal shall attach to any other appealed issues so only one appeal per applicant is held. (Ord. 1376 § 8, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 7, 2001; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1996. Formerly 18.20.110).

18.20.185 Reimbursement agreements.

Reimbursement agreements authorized by law must be applied for prior to construction. Approval by the city council is discretionary. (Ord. 1376 § 9, 2004).

Article II. Project Permit Processing

18.20.210 Classifications.

For the purpose of project permit processing, all development permit applications shall be classified as one of the following:

(1) Review process I, administrative decisions;

(2) Review process II, administrative decisions subject to integrated permit review;

(3) Review process III, public hearing decision – hearing examiner;

(4) Review process IV, public hearing decision – planning commission or city council;

(5) Review process V, city council legislative decisions; and

(6) Review process VI, city council public hearing decision on final plat. (Ord. 1376 § 10, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 8, 2001).

18.20.220 Determining appropriate review.

(1) If not otherwise specified by code as to type of hearing process, the director shall determine the proper classification for all development permit applications. If there is a question as to the appropriate classification, the director shall resolve it in favor of the higher classification number. A determination of classification is a review process I decision.

(2) An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered classification required for any part of the application or processed individually under each of the classifications identified by the specific city regulation. The applicant may determine whether the application is processed under the individual procedure option. If the application is processed under the individual procedure option, the highest numbered classification must be processed prior to the subsequent lower numbered procedure. For any action requiring a legislative decision, including a change in the comprehensive plan (review process V), the legislative decision must be made prior to processing another land use permit application (review process I through IV and VI).

(3) Applications processed in accordance with subsection (2) of this section which have the same highest numbered classification but are assigned different public hearing bodies shall be heard by the hearing examiner and decided by the highest ranking decision-maker. The city council is the highest, followed by the planning commission. (Ord. 1376 § 11, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 9, 2001).

18.20.230 Review process I.

Review process I applies to permit applications and approval that involve minor administrative land use decisions. The focus of minor administrative review is code compliance verification, to determine compliance with the city’s zoning code and other applicable ordinances and regulations. Review process I actions include the following minor administrative decisions:

(1) Sidewalk relocation;

(2) Fire code;

(3) Park impact fees;

(4) Land clearing permit exemption;

(5) Sign code permits;

(6) Home occupation permit;

(7) Temporary use permit – other;

(8) Land clearing plan time extension;

(9) Land clearing permit – minor;

(10) Zoning code occupancy permit;

(11) Transportation concurrency;

(12) Temporary use permit – street;

(13) Transportation impact fees;

(14) Street improvement;

(15) Street opening;

(16) Building code;

(17) Boundary line adjustment;

(18) Wetland exemption processes;

(19) Mobile home park license;

(20) Storm water permit;

(21) Site plan not qualifying as Type II;

(22) Sewer code permit (OHMC Title 14), except pump station;

(23) Water code permit (OHMC Title 13), except water pressure maintenance pump;

(24) Solid waste code permit (OHMC Title 12); and

(25) Street name.

Review process I decisions are appealable when so referenced in the applicable code to the hearing examiner whose decision is final. Other review process I decisions are not administratively appealable. (Ord. 1376 § 12, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 10, 2001).

18.20.240 Review process II.

(1) Review process II applies to all permit applications that involve administrative decisions wherein significant discretion is involved or there is significant impact to other properties.

(2) All review process II administrative decisions made by the reviewing authority shall be issued in writing. The reviewing authority may attach to any permit approval such conditions as may be necessary to assure compliance with this title, other applicable city ordinances and regulations, or any other regulations administered by federal or state agencies.

(3) Review process II applications include the following administrative decisions:

(a) Short subdivision approvals of nine lots or less;

(b) Short subdivision alteration or vacation approvals;

(c) Subdivision or short subdivision variances;

(d) Binding site plan and site plan approval where a public hearing is not required prior to decision (see Chapter 19.48 OHMC);

(e) Binding site plan variances;

(f) Administrative shoreline permits (less than one acre);

(g) Wetland permit decision under Chapter 20.24 OHMC by the director of development services;

(h) Expansion of an existing nonconforming property use;

(i) Other review processes listed in the Oak Harbor Municipal Code as a review process II;

(j) Those review processes designated by the director;

(k) Dedication in lieu of park impact fee;

(l) Landscape approval;

(m) Land clearing permit;

(n) Wireless communication facilities;

(o) Sidewalk deferral;

(p) Water system development charge;

(q) Floodplain development permit;

(r) Floodplain variance;

(s) Landscape – alternative compliance;

(t) Site plan – administrative (see Chapter 19.48 OHMC);

(u) Sewer system development charge;

(v) Joint use agreement for parking;

(w) Accessory dwelling permit;

(x) Pump station requirements under sewer code or water code.

Review process II decisions are appealable to the hearing examiner. (Ord. 1589 § 2, 2010; Ord. 1376 § 13, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 11, 2001).

18.20.250 Review process III.

(1) Review process III applies to all permit applications that require an open public hearing before the hearing examiner.

(2) Review process III actions include the following decisions:

(a) Variances;

(b) Conditional uses;

(c) Wetland permits and variances designated to be decided at a predecision public hearing. (Ord. 1376 § 14, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 12, 2001).

18.20.260 Review process IV.

(1) Review process IV applies to review processes by hearing examiner or planning commission and city council. Primarily, these actions are quasi-judicial in nature.

(2) Review process IV applications require an open public hearing before the hearing examiner or planning commission with recommendation to the city council or an open public hearing before the planning commission with a decision by the planning commission.

(a) Preliminary plat approval by city council but the hearing is before the planning commission;

(b) Preliminary PRD approval by city council but the hearing is before the planning commission;

(c) Rezones – Quasi-Judicial in Nature. Hearings are before the hearing examiner, but decision is by the city council;

(d) Preliminary PIP approval where the zoning is already in place before the planning commission holds a public hearing. The planning commission makes the decision;

(e) Preliminary PBP approval where the zoning is already in place before the planning commission holds a public hearing. The planning commission makes the decision;

(f) Certain site plan approval designated in Chapter 19.48 OHMC where the hearing shall be before the hearing examiner but the decision shall be by the city council.

The hearing examiner shall make a record of proceedings and recommended findings and decision to the deciding authority. (Ord. 1376 § 15, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 13, 2001).

18.20.270 Review process V.

(1) Review process V applies to all proposals which require a legislative decision by the city council. Review process V proposals require a public hearing before the planning commission. All actions taken by the planning commission take the form of a recommendation to the city council. The city council may hold additional hearings. Usually, these processes are carried out on an annual basis.

(2) Review process V actions include the following planning commission and city council legislative decisions:

(a) Rezones made in conjunction with yearly updates of the comprehensive plan;

(b) Amendment to regulations, land use codes, and comprehensive plan;

(c) Amendments to the comprehensive plan map;

(d) Adoption of subarea plans and planned actions;

(e) Adoption of a “planned development” overlay zone (PRD).

There is no administrative appeal. (Ord. 1376 § 16, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 14, 2001).

18.20.280 Review process VI.

Review process VI applies to final plats which require a city council approval. (Ord. 1376 § 17, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 15, 2001).

Article III. Procedures for Processing Permits

18.20.310 Preapplication review.

(1) The purpose of preapplication review is to acquaint city staff with a sufficient level of detail about the proposed development to enable staff to advise the applicant accordingly. The purpose is also to acquaint the applicant with the applicable requirements of this title and other applicable city regulations. Further, the preapplication review is intended to provide the applicant with preliminary direction regarding the required content of the proposed application. However, the preapplication review is not intended to provide an exhaustive review of all the potential issues that a given application could raise. The preapplication review does not prevent the city from applying all relevant laws to the application.

(2) Preapplication review, while not required, is recommended for review process II, III, IV and V applications.

(3) To initiate preapplication review, an applicant shall submit a completed request for preapplication meeting form provided by the department for that purpose, any required fee, preliminary site plan and all other information required by the city. A list of information for a preapplication conference shall be approved by the director and be available.

(4) The preapplication conference shall be scheduled to be held no more than 21 calendar days after the city accepts the application for preapplication review.

(5) Preapplication review does not vest an application. (Ord. 1376 § 18, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 16, 2001).

18.20.320 Project permit application.

(1) Applications for project permits shall be submitted upon forms provided by the director. An application shall consist of all permits required by the applicable development regulations as they apply to the proposed land use action. At a minimum, applications shall include the following information:

(a) A completed land use permit application packet containing all required information and any special studies or information necessary to process the application indicated by the city in a preapplication meeting;

(b) Filing fee;

(c) A complete and accurately filled out application form including a statement that the applicant is the owner of the property affected by the application or is authorized by the owner to submit the application;

(d) A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications required by the pertinent land use permit application packet and applicable development regulations;

(e) A complete and accurate site plan as required under Chapter 19.48 OHMC or proposed land use plans as described in the permanent land use permit application packet;

(f) When listed in the application packet, a supplemental narrative statement describing how the proposal meets required evaluation criteria;

(g) A complete and accurate mailing list of property owners, as required by the pertinent land use permit application packet and applicable development regulations;

(h) Complete and accurate special studies, reports, information, plans or other documentation required by the director to support the application and to enable the city to evaluate consistency and compliance of the application with permanent policies and development regulations, and analyze the environmental impacts of the proposal; and

(i) An assessor map showing location of the property.

(2) The director may waive application requirements that are clearly not necessary to show that an application complies with relevant regulations; review criteria and standards may modify application requirements based on the nature of the proposed application, development site, or other factors.

(3) Applications for development permits and approval under OHMC Titles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 shall be submitted on forms provided by the department. The information required shall be coordinated with the applications to be completed under subsection (1) of this section and shall have such necessary requested information to meet review criteria for the permit or approval in question.

(4) The director or his or her designee shall coordinate permit applications to assure there is as little duplication as possible. (Ord. 1376 § 19, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 17, 2001).

18.20.325 Agent.

The director may require the applicant for a project permit to designate a single person or entity to receive determinations and notices required by this chapter. (Ord. 1376 § 20, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 18, 2001; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1996. Formerly 18.20.080).

18.20.330 Review for counter complete status.

(1) Before accepting an application for technically complete status, the city shall determine whether the application is counter complete.

(2) The city shall decide whether an application is counter complete when the application is accepted, typically “over the counter.”

(3) An application is counter complete if the city finds that the application purports and appears to include the information required in the permit application, any information necessary to process the application as indicated by the city in a preapplication meeting, and all required filing fees.

(4) If the city decides the application is counter complete, then the application shall be accepted for review for technically complete status. If it is determined the application is not counter complete, then the city shall immediately reject and return the application and identify in writing what is needed to make the application counter complete. (Ord. 1376 § 21, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 19, 2001).

18.20.340 Review for technically complete status.

Before accepting application for processing, the city shall determine that the application is technically complete. A technically complete application contains all information required under OHMC 18.20.320. The city shall issue a written notice of completeness or notice that the application is deemed incomplete as set out in OHMC 18.20.350. (Ord. 1376 § 22, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 20, 2001).

18.20.350 Determination of completeness or incomplete application.

(1) Within 28 calendar days after receiving a project permit application, the city shall mail or personally provide a written determination to the applicant which states either:

(a) That the application is complete; or

(b) That the application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete.

(2) To the extent known by the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project permit application shall be identified in the city’s completeness determination.

(3) A project permit application is complete for purposes of this section when it meets the procedural submission requirements set forth in OHMC 18.20.320 and 18.20.330 and is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modification may be undertaken subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. The determination of completeness may include the following optional information:

(a) A preliminary determination of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation;

(b) A preliminary determination of consistency, with the comprehensive plan or subarea plan, and applicable development regulations; or

(c) Other information deemed appropriate by the director.

(4) An application shall be deemed complete under this section if the director, within 28 calendar days of receiving the application, does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete.

(5) If the director determines that an application is not complete, then within 28 calendar days after receiving the application the director shall place in the mail to the applicant a written statement that the application is incomplete based on a lack of information and list what is required to make the application technically complete; provided, however, an applicant may request or agree to an extension of the 28-day completeness review period.

(6) If the applicant receives a determination of the city that an application is not complete, the applicant shall have 90 calendar days to submit the necessary information to the city. The director may grant an extension to the 90-day time deadline for filing the required information. Within 14 calendar days after an applicant has submitted the additional information requested in a notice of incompleteness, the city shall make a new determination of completeness as described in this section, and notify the applicant in the same manner.

(7) If the required information is not submitted by the date specified and the director has not extended that date, the director may take one of the following actions as deemed appropriate by the director:

(a) Reject and return the application and 80 percent of the application fees and mail to the applicant a written statement which lists the remaining additional information needed to make the application technically complete; or

(b) Issue a decision denying the application, based on a lack of information; or

(c) Allow the applicant to start the technically complete review process a second time by providing the required missing information by a date specified by the review authority, in which case the review authority shall retain the application and fee pending expiration of that date, or a technical review of the application as amended by that date. (Ord. 1376 § 23, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 21, 2001).

18.20.355 Vesting.

(1) An application for a development permit, to be processed under the city development regulations or the shoreline master program, vests at such time as a complete application is filed with the development services department and all required permit fees are paid. An application is “complete” on the date a complete application is filed, as subsequently determined in the letter of completeness issued pursuant to OHMC 18.20.350. An application vested under this subsection is not subject to any laws or regulations which become effective after the date of vesting, except as provided below.

(2) If a permit application vested under subsection (1) of this section is approved, and that permit approval includes one or more future uses or permits on the property that are subject to that permit approval, then:

(a) If the permit approval contains a detailed description of the future uses, including a detailed site plan drawn to scale, specifying the location of all buildings and improvements to be constructed in conjunction with the use(s), and such site plan is consistent with all laws and regulations in effect at the time the original application vested, then all permit applications in connection with the future use(s) are vested to the laws and regulations in effect at the time of the vesting of the original permit application, and laws and regulations enacted after that vesting date shall not apply to the future use(s) or any permit applications filed in connection therewith;

(b) If the development approval does not describe in detail all future uses or does not contain a detailed site plan, drawn to scale, specifying the location of all buildings and improvements to be constructed in conjunction with the future use(s), then the future use(s) shall be subject to all later enacted laws and regulations in effect at the time of the vesting of any required application for permits in connection with the future use(s). Subject to the provisions of this section, it is the intention of this subsection that, consistent with other federal, state, and county regulatory requirements, an applicant be able to vest his future development rights to the level of detail the applicant chooses to show in the application documents.

(3) Nothing herein shall be construed to restrict the city from imposing conditions on development permits pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, Chapter 197-11 WAC and Chapter 14.12 SCC, as long as such conditions do not change any of the requirements of the underlying code section pertinent to the particular development permit.

(4) Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the city from imposing new regulations necessary to protect the public health and safety, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the building, health, and fire codes, as now adopted or as subsequently amended.

(5) Applications for site plan reviews, rezones, and comprehensive plan amendments are not subject to the vesting rules in this section. These rules also do not apply to the application of impact fees or system development charges. (Ord. 1588 § 1, 2010).

18.20.360 Integrated permit process.

The city shall provide a project review process that is integrated with the SEPA review process to the maximum extent feasible. For projects which require more than one project permit approval, all permit decisions shall be made concurrently to the extent permissible by law.

(1) In the manner set forth in Article II of this chapter, an application that involves two or more review process I, II, III and IV procedures shall be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application unless the applicant requests that the application be processed under the individual procedure option. Based upon the specific content of the application and the required permits, the director shall have discretion to grant or deny a request to process the application under individual procedures for separate permit decisions. When an application involves a Type V review process, the Type V review process shall proceed first.

(2) The director shall integrate the permit procedures in the notice of application section with environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW as follows:

(a) Except for a determination of significance, the director may not issue his threshold determination, or issue a decision or a recommendation on a project permit until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application.

(b) For all review process IV applications, if the city’s threshold determination requires public notice under Chapter 43.21C RCW, the city shall issue its threshold determination at least 15 calendar days prior to the reviewing authority’s open record hearing.

(c) For all applications which involve two or more review process I or II decisions, the director shall issue a single consolidated decision on all project permits requested in the consolidated permit application; provided, however, an applicant may request an interpretation of applicable provisions of the city’s land use regulations under OHMC 18.20.180, and the director may issue a written determination prior to issuance of a consolidated decision.

(3) For all applications involving two or more review process I, II, III or IV permit decisions, the city shall issue a single consolidated report stating:

(a) All the recommendations or decisions made as of the date of the report on all project permits included in the consolidated permit process that do not require an open record hearing before a reviewing authority; and

(b) Staff recommendation on project permits that do require a reviewing authority’s public hearing.

The report shall define documents that contain an analysis of impacts resulting from the development and state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or the agency’s authority under RCW 43.21C.060. The report may be the local permit. If a SEPA threshold determination has been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this determination.

(4) The director may combine any hearing on a project permit with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency; provided, that the hearing is held within the geographical boundary of the city. Hearings shall be combined if requested by an applicant, as long as the joint hearing can be held within the time periods specified in this title or the applicant agrees to the schedule in the event that additional time is needed in order to combine the hearings.

(5) The director shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with other agencies in holding a joint hearing if requested to do so, as long as:

(a) The city is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so;

(b) Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agency’s adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, ordinance, or rule; and

(c) The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed projects from the applicant to hold its hearing at the same time as the city’s hearing. (Ord. 1376 § 24, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 22, 2001).

18.20.370 Notice of application.

(1) A notice of application shall be provided within 14 calendar days after the issuance of a determination of completeness for all review process II, III or IV applications.

(2) A notice of application shall not be required for legislative decisions (review process V applications), or for project permits that are categorically exempt under SEPA (unless a public comment period or open record predecision hearing is required).

(3) The director may issue a determination of significance under Chapter 43.21C RCW concurrently with the notice of application, in which case the notice of application shall be combined with the determination of significance and scoping notice. Nothing in this section prevents a determination of significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to the notice of application.

(4) For all review process III applications, the notice of application shall be provided at least 15 calendar days prior to the public hearing. For review process IV applications, the notice of application shall be provided at least 15 calendar days prior to the planning commission public hearing.

(5) Notice of application will serve as the principal public notice for review of projects subject to review processes II, III and IV.

(6) Whenever possible the notice of application will be combined or issued concurrently with other required notices including the notice of completeness, preliminary SEPA notice, and notice of public hearing.

(7) The notice of application shall include the following information:

(a) The date of application, the date of the notice of completion for the application, and the date of the notice of application;

(b) A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under this title or under RCW 36.70A.440;

(c) The identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by the local government;

(d) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and the location where the applicable studies may be reviewed;

(e) A statement of public comment period, and statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights;

(f) The date, time, place, and type of hearing, if applicable and if scheduled at the date of notice of the application;

(g) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and of consistency with applicable development regulations and the comprehensive plan; and

(h) Any other information determined appropriate by the director.

(8) The director shall integrate the permit procedures in this section with environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW as set forth in OHMC 18.20.360.

(9) When a preliminary threshold determination which requires public notice under WAC 197-11-340 is issued, both the public notice methods under the city’s SEPA ordinance, OHMC 20.04.200 and the public notice of application requirements under this title shall be provided. (Ord. 1376 § 25, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 23, 2001).

18.20.380 Public notice – Types of.

(1) Review Process I – Minor Administrative Decisions. No public notice is required for review process I minor administrative decisions.

(2) Review Process II – Administrative Decisions. Public notice shall be provided by posting of the property with 24-inch by 36-inch signs and mailing notice to contiguous property owners.

(3) Review Process III. Public notice shall be provided by posting the property with 24-inch by 36-inch signs; mailing to the adjacent property owners located within 300 feet and publishing legal notice in the official city newspaper. If an open record public hearing is requested on an administrative preliminary subdivision, subdivision and short subdivision alteration or vacation the city shall provide notice of the time and place of the hearing as defined in OHMC Title 21.

(4) Review Process IV – Public Hearings of the Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner. Public notice shall be provided by posting the property with 24-inch by 36-inch signs, mailing to adjacent property owners located within 300 feet and publishing legal notice in the official city newspaper.

(5) Review Process V – Planning Commission and City Council. Public notice shall be provided by publishing legal notice in the official city newspaper and mailing to people of interest who have registered with the city to receive such notices. (When such actions are determined by the city to constitute a site specific proposal, the notice requirements as established in review process III shall be followed.)

(6) Review Process VI – City Council Approval of Final Plats. No public notice is required for review process VI.

(7) Notice in a form as determined by the director shall be posted to the Internet website for review processes II, III, IV, V and VI. (Ord. 1376 § 26, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 24, 2001).

18.20.385 Comment periods.

(1) Comments by agencies and the public shall be as specific as possible.

(2) Comments must be in writing, shall be specific as possible, and shall be submitted within 15 calendar days of the issuance of the notice of application. Exceptions:

(a) Comments on review process II administrative preliminary subdivision, subdivisions and short subdivision alteration or vacation applications shall be submitted within 20 calendar days of the issuance of the notice of application.

(b) Comments on review process II and III shoreline permit applications shall be submitted within 30 calendar days of the issuance of the notice of application. (Ord. 1376 § 27, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 25, 2001).

18.20.386 Content and timing of notice.

(1) Posting of Property. Where posting is required as part of a particular review process, such notification shall be posted conspicuously in two places on or near the subject property and shall be readily accessible for the public to review. The posting notice shall contain the following information:

(a) The name of the applicant;

(b) The address or locational description of the subject property;

(c) A written description of the requested action or actions;

(d) Identification of the existing environmental document that evaluates the application;

(e) For review process III and IV, the date of public hearing; and for review process II, the date by which written comments must be received;

(f) The name, address and phone number of the staff contact person;

(g) A project vicinity map; and

(h) A statement regarding the availability of the notice of application and the location where the application may be reviewed.

(2) Mailing. Where mailing to contiguous or adjacent property owners is required, the content of the notice shall be as set forth in OHMC 18.20.370(6).

(3) Publication in Official City Newspaper. Where legal publication is required as part of the notification for a particular review process, the notification shall be published in the official newspaper for publication of city legal notices. Notice shall be published at least 15 calendar days prior to the date of hearing or date of decision.

(4) Responsibility for Notice.

(a) The city shall be responsible for publication of notice.

(b) The applicant shall be responsible for posting the property subject to the application in compliance with rules established by the director.

(c) The applicant shall be responsible for providing a mailing list in compliance with rules established by the director. The city shall be responsible for mailing the notice of application. (Ord. 1376 § 28, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 26, 2001).

18.20.387 Costs of notice and comment.

All costs of providing notice shall be borne by the applicant including costs of posting to the city’s website. (Ord. 1376 § 29, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 27, 2001).

18.20.390 Notice of decision.

(1) The city shall provide a written notice of decision on all review process II, III and IV project permit applications. Except as otherwise provided herein, the notice of decision shall be issued within 120 calendar days after the city notifies the applicant that the application is complete.

(2) The city shall use the procedures in OHMC 18.20.410 for determining the number of days that have elapsed after the issuance of its determination that the application was complete.

(3) The notice of decision shall include a statement of any threshold determination made under Chapter 43.21C RCW and the procedures for any administrative appeal. The notice of decision may be a copy of the report or decision on the project permit application.

(4) The notice shall be provided to the applicant and to any person who, prior to the rendering of the decision, requested notice of the decision or submitted substantive comments on the application.

(5) For review process III, the notice of decision shall be the written decision.

(6) If the city is unable to issue its final decision on a project permit application within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. (Ord. 1376 § 30, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 28, 2001).

Article IV. Time Limits

18.20.410 Determining time limits.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, the director should issue a notice of final decision on a project permit application within 120 days after it notifies the applicant that the application is complete unless the director makes specific findings that a specific amount of additional time for permit processing a completed specific permit application is needed. In determining the number of days that have elapsed after the director has notified the applicant that the application is complete, the following periods may be excluded by such findings:

(a)    (i) Any period during which the applicant has been requested to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the date the director determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or 14 days after the date the information has been provided;

(ii) If the director determines that the information submitted by the applicant under subsection (1)(a)(i) of this section is insufficient, he shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under subsection (1)(a)(i) of this section shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made;

(b) Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW;

(c) Any period for administrative appeals of project permits, if an open record appeal hearing or a closed record appeal, or both, are allowed. The time period for considering and deciding shall not exceed:

(i) Ninety days for an open record appeal hearing; and

(ii) Sixty days for a closed record appeal. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend these time periods;

(d) Any period during which an applicant has requested an interpretation through the period of time in which the time for appeal of interpretation is expired or appeal is ruled upon; and

(e) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the director.

(2) The time limits established by subsection (1) of this section should not apply if a project permit application:

(a) Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;

(b) Requires approval of a new fully contained community as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360;

(c) Involves the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200;

(d) Involves annexations of land to the city;

(e) Involves capital facility projects of the city of Oak Harbor;

(f) Involves comprehensive municipal code amendments for comprehensive plan implementation;

(g) Involves contract rezones or rezones dependent on change to the comprehensive plan;

(h) Involves planned residential development, planned industrial development and planned business park development;

(i) Involves project permits exempt pursuant to development agreement;

(j) Involves street or other public right-of-way vacations;

(k) Involves tax exemption determinations;

(l) Involves zoning and other ordinance text amendments;

(m) Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete under Article III of this chapter.

(3) If the director is unable to issue its final decision within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision. Decisions concerning time limits in this section are a Type I permit process review.

(4) Wording in this section shall preclude the existing deadlines for issuing a specific project permit approval for any reasonable period of time mutually agreed to by the applicant and the director. (Ord. 1376 § 31, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 29, 2001; Ord. 1040 § 1, 1996. Formerly 18.20.070).

Article V. Appeals

18.20.510 Hearings and appeals.

(1) Hearing examiner decisions of appeal of permit application Types I and II shall be final except for those provided closed record appeals to city council. Appeal of a hearing examiner’s final decision is to the Island County superior court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeals of the planning commission’s final decision shall be to the Island County superior court.

(2) Planning commission open public hearings shall be in the form of recommendations which shall be reviewed by the city council in closed record review. Decisions of the city council shall be final and subject only to review by the Island County superior court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW.

(3) Review process VI – final plat decision by city council shall be final and appealable only to Island County superior court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW. (Ord. 1376 § 32, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 30, 2001).

18.20.515 Closed record appeal on certain Type I review processes.

(1) The following Type I and Type II review processes shall be subject to closed record appeal to the city council by an aggrieved party or the city:

(a) Transportation concurrency;

(b) Transportation impact fees;

(c) Park impact fees;

(d) Dedication in lieu of park impact fees;

(e) Other permits or variances under OHMC Title 13.

(2) Appeals for closed record review shall be filed within 10 days of the date of the decision with the city clerk’s office with a fee for appeal per the master fee schedule adopted by resolution of the city council.

(3) If other permits are to be issued prior to determination of the closed record appeal, the person, if appellant, is required to pay the fees or complete other actions and shall post a bond, cash or other assurances acceptable to the city sufficient to cover the fee or assessments or complete the requirements appealed; provided further, that the city shall not be required to post fees, cash or other assurances. If the city appeals, issuance of permits will be conditional upon payment of fees or completing conditions if the city should win.

(4) A closed record appeal shall be considered solely on the record and decision of the hearing examiner.

(5) Issues of law shall be reviewed de novo.

(6) Issues of fact shall be reviewed on the basis that the determinations of the hearing examiner shall stand unless there is found to be no substantial evidence supporting the same.

(7) The city council may adopt such other procedures to effect closed record appeals as are needed by motion or resolution.

(8) Decision of city council is final, subject to appeal to the superior court of Island County under Chapter 36.70C RCW. (Ord. 1696 § 79, 2014; Ord. 1376 § 33, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 31, 2001).

18.20.520 Consolidated appeals – Concurrent review process.

(1) No more than one consolidated open record hearing shall be provided.

(2) All appeals of review process I or II project permit decisions, and any appeal of environmental determinations other than an appeal of a determination of significance (DS) under SEPA, shall be considered together in a single consolidated open record appeal hearing before the hearing examiner.

(3) Any appeal of a SEPA determination (other than a DS) for a review process IV land use permit decision shall be considered in a single consolidated open record hearing before the city council (the decision maker for review process IV permits as provided for in OHMC 18.20.260). The city council shall hold a single consolidated hearing on the SEPA appeal and the land use permit application. The city council’s decision on both the SEPA appeal and the land use application shall be final.

(4) An appeal of a determination of significance, if filed within 14 calendar days of its issuance in accordance with OHMC 18.20.530, shall be heard by the hearing examiner in a separate open record hearing, prior to the further processing of the land use permit application or issuance of a decision. (Ord. 1589 § 3, 2010; Ord. 1376 § 34, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 32, 2001).

18.20.530 Appeal deadline and filing requirements.

(1) Any administrative appeal of the project decision shall be combined with any appeal of any environmental determinations, and shall be filed within 14 calendar days after the notice of the decision or after other notice that the decision has been made and is appealable.

(2) All appeals must be filed on forms provided by the department and will not be considered valid unless the appeal form is filled out clearly, completely and legibly and is accompanied by the applicable fee.

(3) Appeals must be received by the department by 5:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period, and may be delivered to the department by hand or by mail.

(4) For purposes of computing the time period for appeal, the day from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday nor a legal holiday. Legal holidays are prescribed in RCW 1.16.050 and by city ordinance. (Ord. 1376 § 35, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 33, 2001).

18.20.540 Standing.

Standing to bring a land use appeal for a review process I, II, III and IV decision under this title is limited to the following persons:

(1) The applicant and the owner of property to which the land use decision is directed; and

(2) Another person aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision, or who would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the land use decision. A person is aggrieved or adversely affected within the meaning of this section only when all of the following conditions are present:

(a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person;

(b) That person’s asserted interests are among those that the city was required to consider when it made the land use decision; and

(c) A judgment in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision. (Ord. 1376 § 36, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 34, 2001).

18.20.550 Reports by city staff and applicant/appellant.

(1) For any appeal heard pursuant to this title, the following procedure shall apply:

(a) At least 20 calendar days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing on the appeal, the appellant shall file with the reviewing authority a memorandum setting forth the appellant’s arguments and authority. Such arguments and authority shall be restricted to those issues set forth in the appellant’s written appeal statement;

(b) At least 10 calendar days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing, city staff shall file with the office of the reviewing authority and provide the appellant with a staff report responding to the appellant’s memorandum concerning the appeal; and

(c) At least five calendar days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing, the appellant shall file with the office of the reviewing authority any reply memorandum which the appellant desires to file. The scope of the reply memorandum shall be restricted to responding to issues raised in the staff report.

(2) Failure to comply with the requirements of this title may result in the reviewing authority taking such action in regard to the failure as is appropriate including, but not limited to, continuing the hearing, postponing the hearing or limiting testimony at the hearing. (Ord. 1589 § 4, 2010; Ord. 1376 § 37, 2004; Ord. 1278 § 35, 2001).