Chapter 19.02
PROCESSING OF PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sections:
19.02.010 Preapplication conference.
19.02.020 Project permit applications.
19.02.027 Application vesting, extensions, modifications.
19.02.030 SEPA—Integration with permit procedures.
19.02.040 Referral and review of project permit applications.
19.02.010 Preapplication conference.
A. Applications for project permits involving Type III and Type IVA actions or are within shoreline jurisdiction and/or designated critical areas shall not be accepted by the administrator unless the applicant has requested and attended a preapplication conference. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to acquaint the applicant with the requirements of this code and project review procedures and for city staff to be acquainted with the proposed application for purposes of determining appropriate review procedures and facilitating the application and project review process. In order to ensure that the preapplication conference is meaningful, the applicant must provide all information requested on the form required by the administrator.
B. The conference shall be held no more than fifteen calendar days following the filing of a written request for a preapplication conference with the administrator, on the form provided by the administrator. Preapplication meetings may take place via telephone or through email contact. If either of the later methods are used, the administrator shall print the correspondences and/or document the meeting in a memo or staff report to be placed in the project file.
C. At the conference or within five working days of the conference, the applicant may request that the administrator provide the applicant with the following information:
1. A form which lists the requirements for a completed application;
2. A general summary of the procedures and timelines to be used to process the application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to the approval of the application, as preliminarily identified at the preapplication conference;
4. The city’s design guidelines.
D. Information presented at or required as a result of the preapplication conference shall be valid for a period of one hundred eighty days following the preapplication conference. An applicant wishing to submit a permit application more than one hundred eighty days following a preapplication for the same permit application may be required to schedule another preapplication conference at the discretion of the administrator. If changes in physical or biological conditions or regulatory environment changes have been implemented, another preapplication meeting should be requested by the administrator.
E. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues. The discussions at the conference or the information sent by the city to the applicant under subsection C of this section shall not bind or prohibit the city’s future application or enforcement of all applicable laws.
F. At or subsequent to a preapplication conference, the jurisdiction may issue a preliminary determination that a proposed development is not permissible under applicable policies or regulatory enactments. In that event. the applicant shall have the option to appeal the preliminary determination to the appropriate hearing body as provided for in the administrative procedures code for the city.
G. Preapplication conferences for all other types of applications are optional, and requests for conferences will be considered on a time-available basis by the administrator. (Ord. 873 § 3 (Att. C) (part), 2015: Ord. 639 § 1 (part), 1996)
19.02.020 Project permit applications.
Applications for project permits shall be submitted to the city upon forms provided by the administrator. An application shall consist of all materials required by the applicable development regulations or the regulations herein for the specific permit(s) sought and the applicable fee as established by city council ordinance or resolution.
A. Shoreline Permits. A complete application for a shoreline exemption, substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall contain, at a minimum, the following information; provided, that the administrator may vary or waive these requirements on a case-by-case basis. The administrator may require additional specific information depending on the nature of the proposal and the presence of sensitive ecological features or issues related to compliance with other city requirements.
1. Applicant/Proponent Information.
a. The name, address and phone number of the applicant/proponent, applicant’s representative, and/or property owner if different from the applicant/proponent.
b. The applicant/proponent should be the owner of the property or the primary proponent of the project and not the representative of the owner or primary proponent.
2. Property Information.
a. The property’s physical address and identification of the section, township and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. All applications for projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude and latitude location.
b. Identification of the name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the proposal is associated with.
c. A general description of the property as now exists including its size, dimensions, land use, vegetation, landforms, other physical and ecological characteristics, existing improvements and existing structures.
d. A general description of the vicinity of the proposed project including identification of the surrounding land uses, structures and improvements, intensity of development and physical characteristics.
e. A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use to roads, utilities, water and sewer, existing developments and uses on adjacent properties.
3. Site Plans. Site plan(s) identifying existing conditions and proposed developments consisting of photographs, text, maps and elevation drawings, drawn to an appropriate scale to clearly depict all relevant information that may include the following. The administrator may require more specific detailed information prepared by a qualified professional, if additional information is required to confirm or add detail to the application.
a. Parcel Boundary and Dimensions. The boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is proposed. A survey may be required where substantial questions exist regarding the location of property lines or other important features.
b. OHWM. The ordinary high water mark of all water bodies located adjacent to or within the boundary of the project. For any development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the ordinary high water mark (e.g., structure setback), the mark shall be located precisely on the ground and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans shall be noted in the development plan. Where the ordinary high water mark is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest ordinary high water mark of a shoreline.
c. Topography—Existing and Proposed Land Contours. The contours shall be at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing character of the property and the extent of proposed change to the land that is necessary for the development. Areas within the boundary that will not be altered by the development may be indicated as such and contours approximated for that area. The use of cross-sectional drawing and three-dimensional drawings or imagery may also be used to provide elevation information.
d. Vegetation. A general representation of the width, location, and character of vegetation found on the site.
e. Structures. The dimensions and locations of all existing and proposed structures and improvements including but not limited to: buildings, paved or graveled areas, roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields, material stockpiles or surcharge, and stormwater management facilities.
f. Landscaping Plans. Where applicable, a landscaping plan for the project.
4. Plan Review. A plan review shall be conducted to determine if the application is complete. Plan review shall determine if adequate information is provided in or with the application in order to begin processing the application and that all required information and materials have been supplied in sufficient detail to begin the application review process. All information and materials required by the application form must be submitted. All studies supporting the application or information that addresses anticipated impacts of the proposed development must be submitted. A notice of completion or incompletion shall be prepared and submitted to applicant within twenty-eight days of receipt of materials.
The purpose of the plan review is to ensure adequate information is contained in the application materials to demonstrate consistency with this program, applicable comprehensive plans, development regulations and other applicable regulations. City staff will coordinate the involvement of agencies responsible for the review of the proposed development.
B. Critical Areas. All land use and development applications are required to disclose the location of all critical areas, including shoreline buffers, within one hundred feet of the proposed activity, development or proposed use. The provisions of Chapters 17.30 (outside of shoreline jurisdiction) and 17.46 of this code (within shoreline jurisdiction) shall be applied to any such proposals. Existing designated critical areas and areas within shoreline jurisdiction (see Maps VII-1 through VII-6 and Map VIII-2 in the city of Brewster comprehensive plan map appendix) together with any supporting information consistent with the requirements found below.
1. Preapplication Meeting/Site Visit. Upon receiving a land use or development proposal, the administrator shall schedule a preapplication meeting and/or site visit with the proponent for purposes of a preliminary determination whether the proposal is likely to result in impacts to the functions and values of critical areas or pose health and safety hazards. At this meeting, the administrator shall discuss the requirements of this chapter and other applicable regulations; provide critical areas maps and other available reference materials; outline the review and permitting processes; and work with the proponent to identify any potential concerns with regards to critical areas.
2. Application and SEPA Checklist. For all nonexempt proposals, the proponent shall submit all relevant land use/development/shoreline applications, together with a SEPA checklist. The administrator may waive the requirement for a SEPA checklist if the proposal is exempt under SEPA regulations and is unlikely to yield information useful in the review process.
3. Determination of Need for Critical Areas Report. Based upon the preapplication meeting, application materials, and the SEPA checklist (unless waived), the administrator shall determine if there is cause to require a critical areas report. In addition, the administrator may use critical areas maps and reference materials, information and scientific opinions from appropriate agencies, or any reasonable evidence regarding the existence of critical area(s) on or adjacent to the site of the proposed activity.
4. Documentation and Notification. The administrator shall document the preapplication meeting and/or site visit, application and SEPA threshold determination, and any other steps or findings that inform the determination whether a critical areas report shall be required. The applicant shall receive notice of the determination and any findings that support it.
C. Critical Areas Report.
1. If the administrator determines that the site of a proposed development potentially includes, or is adjacent to, critical area(s) other than wetlands, a critical areas report shall be required if impacts are anticipated to occur, including intrusions into required buffer and setback areas. If the critical area is a wetland, a wetland critical areas report is required (see subsection (C)(2) of this section). When required, the expense of preparing the critical areas report shall be borne by the applicant.
a. The requirement for critical areas reports may be waived by the administrator if there is substantial evidence that:
i. There will be no alteration of the critical area(s) and/or the required buffer(s);
ii. The proposal will not impact the critical area(s) in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent and requirements of this master program and the comprehensive plan;
iii. The minimum standards for protection of the specific critical area as provided in Chapter 17.30 of this code will be met; and
iv. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of this chapter as set forth in Section 19.01.070.
b. Critical area reports shall be completed by a qualified professional who is knowledgeable about the specific critical area(s) in question.
c. At a minimum, a required critical areas report shall contain the following information:
i. Applicant’s name and contact information, permits being sought, and description of the proposal;
ii. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal. drawn to scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred feet and showing:
(A) Existing features on the site, such as topography, vegetation, etc.;
(B) Identified critical areas, buffers, and the development proposal with dimensions;
(C) Limits of any areas to be cleared; and
(D) A description of the proposed stormwater management plan for the development and consideration of impacts to drainage alterations;
iii. The names and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site;
iv. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area;
v. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposed development of the site;
vi. An analysis of site development alternatives;
vii. A description of the application of mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas;
viii. A mitigation plan (Section 19.02.025(B)), as needed, in accordance with the mitigation requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to:
(A) The impacts of any proposed development within or adjacent to a critical area or buffer on the critical area; and
(B) The impacts of any proposed alteration of a critical area or buffer on the development proposal, other properties and the environment;
ix. A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and proposed activity;
x. Financial guarantees to ensure compliance; and
xi. Any additional information required for specific critical areas as listed in subsequent sections of this chapter.
d. The administrator may request any other information reasonably deemed necessary to understand impacts to critical areas.
2. Critical Area Report for Wetlands.
a. If the administrator determines that the site of a proposed development includes, is likely to include, or is adjacent to a wetland, a wetland report, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be required. The expense of preparing the wetland report shall be borne by the applicant.
b. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum:
i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland-related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project.
ii. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon.
iii. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets for delineations, function assessments, baseline hydrologic data, etc.
iv. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, function assessments, or impact analyses including references.
v. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate conditions within three hundred feet of the project boundaries using the best available information.
vi. For each wetland identified on site and within three hundred feet of the project site provide: the wetland rating per wetland ratings (Section 17.30.160); required buffers; hydrogeomorphic classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on-site portion and entire wetland area including off-site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and, to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site.
vii. A description of the proposed actions including an estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation and survey and an analysis of site development alternatives including a no-development alternative.
viii. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development.
ix. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to mitigation sequencing (Section 19.02.025) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wetlands.
x. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land-use activity.
xi. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions.
xii. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer. Include reference for the method used and data sheets.
xiii. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and required buffers on site, including buffers for off-site critical areas that extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical areas; grading and clearing limits; areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates).
xiv. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s) associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project. (Ord. 873 § 3 (Att. C) (part), 2015: Ord. 639 § 1 (part), 1996)
19.02.025 Mitigation.
Where applicable, plans for development of areas on or off the site as mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed project shall be included and contain information consistent with the requirements as follows:
A. Mitigation Requirements. The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of shoreline and critical areas. If alteration is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to shoreline and critical areas and buffers resulting from the proposal shall be mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report and SEPA documents. Mitigation shall be on site, when possible, and sufficient to maintain the functions and values of the shoreline and/or critical area, and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area.
1. Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to shoreline and/or critical areas. Proposed individual uses and developments shall analyze environmental impacts of the proposal and include measures to mitigate environmental impacts. When shorelines and/or critical areas are identified, alteration to these areas shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following order of preference:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;
c. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;
d. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods;
e. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
f. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and
g. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary.
2. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to development within shorelines and/or critical areas, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable.
3. Application of mitigation sequencing shall achieve no net loss of ecological functions for each new development and shall not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline and/or critical area ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline and/or critical area functions fostered by the policies of the acts.
4. When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or identified needs for shoreline and/or critical area resource conservation based on watershed or comprehensive resource management plans applicable to the area of impact may be authorized. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions.
B. Mitigation Plan (See Section 17.30.025). When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval a mitigation plan as part of the critical area report. The mitigation plan shall include:
1. A written report identifying mitigation objectives, including:
a. A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the mitigating actions proposed, including addressing mitigation sequencing, and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of compensation objectives; identification of critical area functions and values; and dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities;
b. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation and a description of the report author’s experience to date in critical areas mitigation; and
c. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project.
2. Measurable criteria for evaluating whether or not the objectives of the mitigation plan have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this chapter have been met.
3. Written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, including, but not limited to:
a. The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration;
b. Grading and excavation details;
c. Erosion and sediment control features;
d. A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and
e. Measures to protect and maintain plants until established.
4. A program for monitoring construction of the compensation project, and for assessing the completed project and its effectiveness over time. The program shall include a schedule for site monitoring and methods to be used in evaluating whether performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five years.
5. Identify potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met.
6. The following performance standards shall apply to compensatory mitigation projects:
a. Mitigation planting survival will be one hundred percent for the first year, and eighty percent for each of the four years following.
b. Mitigation must be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the administrator.
c. Where necessary, a permanent means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings that are designed by a landscape architect or equivalent professional, as approved by the administrator. The design shall meet the specific needs of riparian and shrub steppe vegetation.
d. Monitoring reports by the biologist must include verification that the planting areas have less than twenty percent total nonnative/invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic and invasive species may include any species on the state noxious weed list, or considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services Department or local conservation districts.
e. On-site monitoring and monitoring reports shall be submitted to the city one year after mitigation installation; three years’ time involved in monitoring and monitoring reports may be increased by the administrator for a development project on a case-by-case basis when longer monitoring time is necessary to establish or reestablish functions and values of the mitigation site. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a qualified professional biologist. The biologist must verify that the conditions of approval and provisions in the fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan have been satisfied.
f. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems; include rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants; protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants; and repair and replacement of any dead plants.
g. Prior to site development and or building permit issuance, a performance surety agreement in conformance with Section 17.30.160(H) must be entered into by the property owner and the city. The surety agreement must include the complete costs for the mitigation and monitoring which may include but not be limited to: the cost of installation, delivery, plant material, soil amendments, permanent irrigation, seed mix, and three monitoring visits and reports by a qualified professional biologist, including Washington State sales tax. The administrator must approve the quote for said improvements.
h. Sequential release of funds associated with the surety agreement shall be reviewed for conformance with the conditions of approval and the mitigation and management plan. Release of funds may occur in increments of one-third for substantial conformance with the plan and conditions of approval. Verification of conformance with the provisions of the mitigation and management plan and conditions of approval after one year of mitigation installation shall also allow for the full release of funds associated with irrigation systems, clearing and grubbing and any soil amendments. If the standards that are not met are only minimally out of compliance and contingency actions are actively being pursued by the property owner to bring the project into compliance, the city may choose to consider a partial release of the scheduled increment. Noncompliance can result in one or more of the following actions: carryover of the surety amount to the next review period; use of funds to remedy the nonconformance; scheduling a hearing with the city’s hearing examiner to review conformance with the conditions of approval and to determine what actions may be appropriate.
C. Mitigation Ratios. Mitigation ratios shall be used when impacts to riparian and upland habitat conservation areas are unavoidable. Compensatory mitigation shall restore, create, rehabilitate or enhance equivalent or greater ecological functions. Mitigation shall be located on site unless the biologist can demonstrate, and the city approves, that on-site mitigation will result in a net loss of ecological functions. If off-site mitigation measures are determined to be appropriate, off-site mitigation shall be located within Okanogan County in the same watershed as the development.
The on-site mitigation ratio (mitigation amount to disturbed area) shall be at a minimum ratio of one to one for development within aquatic habitat and terrestrial buffers. A ratio of two to one shall apply to native vegetation removal within these areas. Mitigation for diverse, high quality habitat or off-site mitigation may require a higher level of mitigation. Mitigation and management plans shall evaluate the need for a higher mitigation ratio on a site-by-site basis, dependent upon the ecological functions and values provided by the habitat. Recommendations by resource agencies in evaluating appropriate mitigation shall be encouraged. (Ord. 873 § 3 (Att. C) (part), 2015)
19.02.026 Plan review.
A. A plan review shall be conducted to determine if an application is complete. Plan review shall determine if adequate information is provided in or with the application in order to begin processing the application and that all required information and materials have been supplied in sufficient detail to begin the application review process. All information and materials required by the application form must be submitted. All studies supporting the application or information that addresses anticipated impacts of the proposed development must be submitted. A notice of completion or incompletion shall be prepared and submitted to applicant within twenty-eight days of receipt of materials.
B. The purpose of the plan review is to ensure adequate information is contained in the application materials to demonstrate consistency with the requirements of Title 17 Brewster Municipal Code, applicable comprehensive plans, other development and applicable regulations. City staff will coordinate the involvement of agencies responsible for the review of the proposed development. (Ord. 873 § 3 (Att. C) (part), 2015)
19.02.027 Application vesting, extensions, modifications.
A. An application shall become vested on the date a determination of completeness is made and all fees have been paid. Thereafter the application shall be reviewed under the codes, regulations and other laws in effect on the date of vesting; provided, in the event an applicant substantially changes his/her proposed development after a determination of completeness, as determined by the administrator, the application shall not be considered vested until a new determination of completeness on the changes is made. An application shall only be considered vested for a period of one hundred eighty days unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except the administrator is authorized to grant one or more extensions for additional time periods not exceeding one hundred eighty days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and a justifiable cause demonstrated.
B. Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of the permit or approval of a conditional use permit or variance. However, the city may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record. In the case of a shoreline permit, conditional use or variance, notice shall also be provided to the Department of Ecology.
C. Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of a permit or any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit. However, the city may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the department.
D. The effective date of a permit or any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized by the city shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections B and C of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals.
E. Revisions to permits, including under WAC 173-27-100, may be authorized after original permit authorization has expired; provided, that this procedure shall not be used to extend the original permit time requirements or to authorize development after the time limits of the original permit.
F. The city of Brewster shall notify the Department of Ecology in writing of any change to the effective date of a shoreline permit, conditional use or variance authorized by this section, with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change. Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those authorized by RCW 90.58.143 as amended shall require a new permit application. (Ord. 873 § 3 (Att. C) (part), 2015)
19.02.030 SEPA—Integration with permit procedures.
Environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW and Title 14 Brewster Municipal Code shall be integrated with the procedures described in this section as follows:
A. If an open record predecision hearing is required and the city’s threshold determination requires public notice under Chapter 43.21C RCW and Title 14 Brewster Municipal Code, the city shall issue its threshold determination at least fifteen calendar days prior to the open record predecision hearing.
B. Comments shall be as specific as possible. (Ord. 873 § 3 (Att. C) (part), 2015: Ord. 639 § 1 (part), 1996)
19.02.040 Referral and review of project permit applications.
Upon accepting a complete application, the administrator shall do the following:
A. Transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. The affected agencies and city departments shall have fifteen calendar days to comment. The referral agency or city department is presumed to have no comments if comments are not received within the specified time period. The administrator shall grant an extension of time for comment only if the application involves unusual circumstances. Any extension shall only be for a maximum of ten additional calendar days;
B. In addition to the procedure set forth in subsection A of this section, the administrator may schedule a meeting of the project permit processing committee, which committee shall be comprised of at least one city staff member from each of the following departments: (1) planning, (2) public works, (3) building. Each department head shall designate the staff member who will participate in the project permit processing committee. The committee shall meet in order to provide joint review and comment on any project permit application. (Ord. 873 § 3 (Att. C) (part), 2015: Ord. 639 § 1 (part), 1996)