Chapter 17.07


17.07.010    Authority.

17.07.020    Purpose and intent.

17.07.030    Adopted level of service standards in the Shelton comprehensive plan.

17.07.040    Minimum requirements for concurrency.

17.07.050    Concurrency determination.

17.07.060    Certificate of concurrency.

17.07.070    Vested rights determination.

17.07.080    Request for appeals.

17.07.090    Appeals.

17.07.100    Exemptions.

17.07.110    Concurrency information.

17.07.120    Annual review.

17.07.130    Administrative rules and procedures.

17.07.140    Intergovernmental coordination.

17.07.150    Fees.

17.07.160    State Environmental Policy Act.

17.07.170    Severability.

17.07.180    Effective date.

17.07.010 Authority.

This chapter is adopted in compliance with, and pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, et seq., Washington Statutes (1990). After the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the city is required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(e) to ensure that transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impact of development are provided concurrent with the impact of development. The city is also required to address RCW 36.70A.020(12) to ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. This chapter furthers the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.020 Purpose and intent.

A.    The recital clauses of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and the following statements, are adopted by reference as the legislative findings of the city council of the city of Shelton (“city council”) and shall act as further justification and authority for the adoption of this chapter.

B.    It is the purpose of this chapter to establish a concurrency implementation and monitoring system (CIMS) that ensures that facilities and services needed to support land development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development. The CIMS shall ensure that the adopted level of service standards for transportation shall not be degraded below the levels adopted in the Shelton comprehensive plan by the issuance of a final development permit. For ongoing plan implementation and policy direction, the city shall monitor the impact of development upon facilities and services such as, water; sewer; solid waste; parks; stormwater; police; fire; animal shelter; cemetery; municipal services; library; SHELCOM; hospital; and schools. However, these facilities and services shall not be required to meet the CIMS.

C.    The city desires to establish a CIMS which informs the citizens about infrastructure conditions, creates options to mitigate such deficiencies, informs other governments or agencies when such deficiencies exist for infrastructure not the responsibility of the city, and allows minimal development through exemptions.

D.    Not all development activity impacts are significant enough to cause the deterioration of the level of service standard adopted in the Shelton comprehensive plan. It is further found that to establish a minimum development impact which, alone or in combination with other similar or lesser impacts, will not cause an unacceptable degradation of existing levels of service is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Shelton comprehensive plan. Finally, application of this methodology is found to be substantially related to the preservation of individual private property rights. (Ord. 1921-0518 (part), 2018; Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.030 Adopted level of service standards in the Shelton comprehensive plan.

The city shall recognize those levels of service adopted in the Shelton comprehensive plan, and as set forth below. The levels of service for public facilities and services subject to concurrency are:

Transportation. A level of service standard of “D” has been established for Shelton’s arterial roadways. This level of service standard will be applied to all roadway segments and intersections identified on the future traffic volumes and levels of service map with the exception of the intersection of Wallace Kneeland Boulevard and Olympic Highway North where a level of service standard of “E” has been designated. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.040 Minimum requirements for concurrency.

The Shelton comprehensive plan states that the following conditions must be satisfied:

(1a)    The City and applicant enter into an enforceable agreement which shall provide, at a minimum, a schedule for construction of the public facilities and mechanisms for monitoring to insure that the public facilities are completed concurrent with the impacts of development, or the development will not be allowed to proceed.

(1b)    The public facilities to be provided by the applicant are contained in the schedule of capital improvements of the Comprehensive Plan and will achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standards concurrent with the impacts of development.

In order to obtain a COC based on the existence of adequate transportation facilities and services, the following conditions must be satisfied:

A.    Transportation:

1.    The necessary facilities and services are in place at the time a final development permit is issued; or

2.    Provisions of facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement. The agreement must guarantee that the necessary facilities and services will be in place with the impacts of the development as they occur as defined under RCW 36.70A.070(6); or

3.    The necessary facilities are under construction at the time a final development permit is issued. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.050 Concurrency determination.

A.    Concurrency Evaluation of a Preliminary Development Permit.

1.    A concurrency evaluation shall be performed by the city prior to the issuance of a preliminary development permit. The concurrency evaluation for a preliminary development permit will be incorporated into the development review process as set forth in this title. The evaluation with respect to facility or service availability will be included in the staff report conducted under Chapter 17.06. The concurrency evaluation performed for a preliminary development permit does not guarantee service availability during subsequent reviews. A COC will not be issued for a preliminary development permit.

B.    Concurrency Determination for a Final Development Permit.

1.    The issuance of a COC shall be required with the issuance of any final development permit.

2.    If a development requires more than one final development permit, the issuance of the COC shall occur no later than with the issuance of the first final development permit.

3.    If the concurrency determination results in a finding that public facilities and services are sufficient to serve the development, the appropriate city department(s) shall reserve the capacity required for the final development permit at the time of notice of final decision, per Section 17.06.040 for said permit. This capacity shall not be returned to the system unless and until the application is, for whatever reason, denied, rejected, or invalidated. Even though the project meets the CIMS requirements, the city shall also address project mitigation under SEPA, where applicable.

4.    If the concurrency determination results in a finding that public facilities and services are not sufficient to serve the development, the application for the final development permit shall be returned to the applicant with an explanation as to deficiencies with the facility or service. The applicant may:

a.    Modify the application to reduce the need for concurrency facilities that do not exist;

b.    Demonstrate to the service provider’s satisfaction that the development will have lower need for capacity than usual and, therefore, capacity is adequate;

c.    Arrange with the service provider for the provision of the additional capacity of concurrency facilities required within six years; or

d.    Request for reconsideration of the concurrency determination to the hearings examiner in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.07.080.

C.    Notwithstanding these provisions, permits will be issued in accordance with Section 17.07.100, Exemptions, of this chapter. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.060 Certificate of concurrency.

A.    Issuance. A COC shall be issued after the concurrency determination has been completed per Section 17.07.050(B), or at the same time the development permit is issued and upon payment of any fee and/or performance of any condition required by a facility and service provider.

B.    Applicability. The COC shall contain the following information:

1.    The location or other description of the property on which the development is proposed;

2.    The type of development permit for which the certificate of concurrency is issued;

3.    The specific uses, densities, and intensities that were tested for concurrency and which are authorized for development of the property;

4.    The capacity of facilities and services are available and reserved for the development described in the certificate;

5.    An effective date; and

6.    An expiration date.

C.    Nontransferable. A COC shall not be transferable to other property, but may be transferred to new owners of the original property who propose the same project.

D.    Extensions. A COC shall expire if the accompanying development permit expires or is revoked. A COC may be extended according to the same terms and conditions as the accompanying development permit. In the event that an extension is granted for the development permit, then the accompanying COC shall automatically be renewed for the length of the time extension. If the accompanying development permit does not expire, the COC shall be valid for three years from the issuance of certificate.

E.    Unused Capacity. Any capacity that is not used because the developer decides not to develop or the accompanying development permit expires shall be returned to the pool of available capacity. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.070 Vested rights determination.

A proposed development shall be exempt from the concurrency requirements of the CIMS if it has received a notice of complete application as defined in Chapter 17.06 on or before June 5, 1997. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.080 Request for appeals.

A.    Basis for Appeals. An applicant’s concurrency determination may be appealed to the city based on three grounds: (1) technical error; (2) applicant provided alternative data or a mitigation plan that was rejected by the city; or (3) unwarranted delay in review that allowed capacity to be given to another applicant.

B.    Applicability. Only the applicant or authorized agent of the property may request reconsideration of the concurrency determination.

C.    Procedures.

1.    The applicant must file a written request for appeal to the hearings examiner within fourteen calendar days following the concurrency determination. The applicant shall specify in the request what aspect of the decision he/she wishes to have reconsidered and the reason for the request.

2.    The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show by a preponderance of evidence that the city was in error.

3.    Within fourteen calendar days after receiving the request for appeal, the hearings examiner shall notify the applicant in writing whether or not the city will reconsider its decision. The hearings examiner may reconsider the decision only if he/she concludes that there is substantial merit in the request.

4.    If the hearings examiner reconsiders the decision, the city shall send written notice of the final COC decision to the applicant and the appropriate city departments. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.090 Appeals.

The procedures for filing an appeal of a concurrency determination shall be processed in accordance with the hearing proceedings set forth in Chapter 17.06. This appellate process does not include, and is separate from, the vested rights determination process which is set forth in Section 17.07.070. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.100 Exemptions.

The portion of any facility used for any of the following purposes is exempt only from the concurrency requirements and not from the application and processing requirements of this chapter or from the requirement to do site specific improvements. Although these developments are exempt from the CIMS, it does not preclude the city from mitigating these impacts through other mechanisms, such as for a local improvement district, or SEPA. The following development permits or building permits are exempt from the concurrency determination requirements:

1.    Any replacement structure, or addition to a public facility or business with no increase in traffic as defined in Section 17.02.220;

2.    Interior or exterior renovations or modifications of structures with no change in the floor area, such as woodstoves or roofing;

3.    Temporary structures are exempt for five years, such as construction trailers and school portables. After five years, temporary structures are no longer exempt from the concurrency determination and must obtain a COC;

4.    Resurfacing of existing driveways, streets or parking lots;

5.    Landscaping, lighting, or fencing;

6.    Sign permits and master sign plans;

7.    Street use permit and right-of-way permits;

8.    Demolitions;

9.    Sewer permit for existing single-family residence;

10.    Water service permit for existing single-family resident;

11.    Cellular antennas and satellite dishes;

12.    Mechanical and plumbing permits;

13.    Business licenses;

14.    Street vacations;

15.    Boundary (lot) line adjustments;

16.    Administrative exceptions;

17.    Temporary use permits;

18.    Annexations;

19.    Permits for construction of single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes and accessory dwelling units on existing platted lots of record at the time of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and are part of projects that are categorically exempt under SEPA. Projects resulting from split ownerships apparently intended to gain this exemption will not be granted the exemption;

20.    Conditional use permits;

21.    Variances;

22.    Rezones;

23.    Expansions or phases of project that were disclosed by the applicant and subject to concurrency test as part of the original application, provided that the COC was issued for the expansion or subsequent phase;

24.    The subsequent building permit for an approved development if a concurrency determination was approved for the development permit and there is no change in use, densities, and intensities;

25.    Permits for development that have been issued a notice of complete application (per Section 17.06.030), or a building permit before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; or

26.    Those uses identified as exempt under the state’s Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.110 Concurrency information.

Concurrency information shall be provided to the public upon request. This will include information on existing and anticipated capacities and levels of service standards for concurrency facilities and services addressed by this chapter.

A.    Annual Capacity Statement. The city shall monitor final development permits for their impact on concurrency facility and service availability. The monitoring of permits will be accomplished through the annual capacity statement. The annual capacity statement will reflect existing facility and service capacities, planned and committed facility and service capacities, and existing and committed service demands as identified in the comprehensive plan, specifically the capital facilities element. In addition, the annual capacity statement will indicate whether a public facility or service is at ninety percent of capacity. For those facilities and services at ninety percent of capacity, the city shall determine whether development should be monitored on an annual quarterly, or permit-by-permit basis. In conjunction with the office of financial management’s (OFM) annual population estimates, and the city’s submission of development activities to OFM, the city will formally update the annual capacity statement in April.

B.    Concurrency Inquiry Application. An applicant may inquire whether or not concurrency exists for facilities and services without an accompanying request for a development permit. Any available capacity shall not be reserved. A COC shall only be issued in conjunction with development permit approval as outlined in Section 17.07.050. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.120 Annual review.

The city should examine the provisions of this chapter not less than one year from the date of its adoption and shall submit a report to the city council advising them as to the operation of the chapter, and recommend changes and amendments, if any, which are desirable and in the interest of furthering the public health, safety and general welfare. (Ord. 1921-0518 (part), 2018; Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.130 Administrative rules and procedures.

The city shall be authorized to establish administrative rules and procedures for administering the concurrency implementation and monitoring system. The administrative rules and procedures shall be contained in the CIMS procedures manual which shall include but not be limited to application forms, necessary submittal information and processing times, issuance of the COC, and processing appeals and requests for reconsideration, and the annual capacity statement. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.140 Intergovernmental coordination.

A.    Agreements. The city may enter into agreements with other local governments, applicable noncity managed utilities, Mason County and the state of Washington, and other facility providers to coordinate the imposition of level of service standards and other mitigation for concurrency.

B.    Applications. The city may apply transportation standards and mitigation to development in the city that impacts other local governments in the state of Washington. Development permits or building permits issued by the city may include conditions and mitigation that will be imposed on behalf of and implemented by other local governments in the state of Washington. The city may agree to accept and implement conditions and mitigation that are imposed by other jurisdictions on development in their jurisdiction that impact the city. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.150 Fees.

Reasonable fees for conducting concurrency analyses, providing written information, and for providing services to support the CIMS may be charged and collected upon establishment of a schedule of reasonable fees by resolution of the city council (i.e., Resolution 584-692). A fee may also be charged for conducting a concurrency inquiry application. All such concurrency review fees are to be paid in full with the development permit or building permit submittal. (Ord. 1921-0518 (part), 2018; Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.160 State Environmental Policy Act.

A.    SEPA Mitigation. This chapter is not intended to limit the application to the State Environmental Policy Act to specific proposals. Each proposal shall be reviewed and may be conditioned or denied under the authority of SEPA.

B.    SEPA Action. A determination of concurrency shall be an administrative action of the city of Shelton that is deemed to be categorically exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.170 Severability.

If any section, paragraph, subsection, clause, sentence, or provision of this chapter is adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this chapter shall not be affected by such judgment and shall remain in full force and effect. (Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)

17.07.180 Effective date.

This chapter shall take effect thirty days from and after its passage and publication as required by law passed and ordained by the city council of the city of Shelton, Washington, on May 5, 1997. (Ord. 1921-0518 (part), 2018; Ord. 1473-497 § 3 (part), 1997)