Chapter 16.24
USER’S GUIDE TO PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Sections:
16.24.015 Federal project compliance.
16.24.030 Shoreline administrator.
16.24.035 Exceptions to shoreline permits or local reviews.
16.24.040 Exemptions from substantial development permit requirements.
16.24.050 Statement of exemption.
16.24.060 Application for substantial development, conditional use or variance permit.
16.24.070 Public notice required – Application.
16.24.081 Permit tracking procedure.
16.24.090 Review criteria for conditional use permits.
16.24.095 Review criteria for variance permits.
16.24.100 Local appeal – Process.
16.24.110 State appeal – Process.
16.24.120 Revisions to substantial development, conditional use, and variance permits.
16.24.130 Nonconforming development.
16.24.140 Enforcement and penalties.
16.24.150 Additional authority.
16.24.010 Generally.
No substantial development shall be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a substantial development, variance, or conditional use permit from the city. “Substantial development” means any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds that established by state law in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e), or any development that materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state, except those exempted developments set forth in WAC 173-27-040, as now exists or as amended hereafter.
Exemption from substantial development permit requirements does not constitute exemption from the policies and use regulations of the Shoreline Management Act, the provisions of this master program, and other applicable city, state or federal permit requirements. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 710 § 1, 2003; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.015 Federal project compliance.
Pursuant to WAC 173-27-060 the following will apply to federal and nonfederal activities:
(1) Direct federal agency activities in or affecting Washington’s coastal zone shall be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the most recent federally approved Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. (CZMA) and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
Washington’s coastal zone, as established in the state’s approved Coastal Zone Management Program, includes the following coastal counties: Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan, Island, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Kitsap, Jefferson, Clallam, Grays Harbor, Pacific and Wahkiakum.
The Shoreline Management Act is incorporated into the Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program and, thereby, those direct federal agency activities affecting the uses or resources subject to the Act must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable provisions of the Act, regulations adopted pursuant to the Act and the local master program.
(a) When the department receives a consistency determination for an activity proposed by the federal government, it shall request that local government review the proposal and provide the department with its views regarding the consistency of the activity or development project with the enforceable policies of the local master program.
(b) The CZMA federal consistency decision-making process for federal agency activities is prescribed in the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(1) and (2)), in federal regulations at 15 C.F.R. Part 930, subpart C, and in Washington’s most recent federally approved CZM Program document.
(2) Federal agency activities may be required by other federal laws to meet the permitting requirements of Chapter 90.58 RCW.
(3) The policies and provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW, including the permit system, shall apply statewide to all nonfederal developments and uses undertaken on federal lands and on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease or easement, even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016).
16.24.020 SMP administration.
The Shoreline Management Act requires that local government shall have primary responsibility for initiating and administering this shoreline master program. This chapter establishes the policies for the application and enforcement of the provisions of this shoreline master program. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.030 Shoreline administrator.
(1) The SMP administrator for Normandy Park shall be the city manager or his designee.
(2) The administrator shall receive all applications for substantial development permits, conditional use and variance permits, and exemptions pertinent to the shoreline area of the city. The administrator has the authority for and the responsibility to:
(a) Approve or deny statements of exemption, pursuant to the exemptions from substantial development permits section of this master program.
(b) Review applications for conformity to the rules and regulations of this master program.
(c) Provide the applicant with a checklist of other authority approvals potentially required in addition to the city’s.
(d) Ensure that the required publication/posting/mailing of public notices, described in the user’s guide section of this master program, is accomplished.
(e) Approve, approve with conditions, or deny substantial development permits, including conditional use and variance permits, and exemptions; provided, that city approval of conditional use and variance permits must be submitted to the Department of Ecology for approval/disapproval (RCW 90.58.140(10)). (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 710 § 1, 2003; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.035 Exceptions to shoreline permits or local reviews.
Pursuant to WAC 173-27-044 and 173-27-045, requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following:
(1) Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to Chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the Department of Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under Chapter 70.105D RCW.
(2) Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for stormwater treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater general permit.
(3) WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review.
(4) Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045.
(5) Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020).
16.24.040 Exemptions from substantial development permit requirements.
(1) Certain development activities are exempt from the requirement to secure a shoreline substantial development permit. Developments that are exempt from the requirement for a substantial development permit are identified in WAC 173-27-040, or as subsequently amended. Developments that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial development permit still require a letter of exemption consistent with NMPC 16.24.050 and as provided for in WAC 173-27-050, as now exists or as amended hereafter. Interpretations of exemption status shall be narrowly construed. Exemption from shoreline permits does not exempt activities from other state and federal permits that may be required. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process.
(2) An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or the local master program, nor from any other regulatory requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of the applicable master program and the Shoreline Management Act. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to the local master program, or is an unlisted use, must obtain a conditional use permit even though the development or use does not require a substantial development permit. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance standards of the master program, such development or use can only be authorized by approval of a variance.
(3) The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant.
(4) If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project.
(5) Local government may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Act and the local master program. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 710 § 1, 2003; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.050 Statement of exemption.
Applicants for all other permits or approvals within the shoreline area must obtain a written statement of exemption from securing a substantial development permit. The process provides for verifying that the action is exempt and offers an applicant an itemization of SMP and other requirements applicable to the proposed project. In the case of development subject to the policies and regulations of this master program but exempt from the substantial development permit process, the building official or other permit authorizing official shall attach shoreline management terms and conditions to the building permits and other permits and approval pursuant to RCW 90.58.140. For example, the approval of a building permit for a single-family residence can be conditioned with provisions from the master program. Other permit approvals may be conditioned on the basis of SMP policy and use regulations as well. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.060 Application for substantial development, conditional use or variance permit.
(1) Pursuant to WAC 173-27-150, a substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with:
(a) The policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act; and
(b) The provisions of these regulations.
(2) Completed applications for a substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall be submitted to the shoreline administrator accompanied by the following information and diagrams.
(3) Project Diagrams. All site plans and maps shall be drawn to scale and shall clearly indicate scale on the lower right-hand corner and be attached to the application.
(a) Site plan, showing the following data:
(i) Site boundary;
(ii) Property dimensions in vicinity of project;
(iii) Ordinary high water mark;
(iv) Typical cross-section or sections showing:
(A) Existing ground contours,
(B) Proposed ground contours,
(C) Height of existing structures,
(D) Height of proposed structures;
(v) Where appropriate, proposed land contours using five-foot intervals, if development involves grading, cutting, filling or other alteration of land contours;
(vi) Show dimensions and locations of existing structures which will be maintained;
(vii) Show dimensions and locations of proposed structures;
(viii) Identify composition and volume of fill material;
(ix) Identify sources, composition, and volume of any extracted materials and identify proposed disposal area;
(x) Location of proposed utilities, such as sewer, septic tanks and drainfields, water, gas and electricity;
(xi) If the development proposes septic tanks, compliance with local and state health regulations;
(xii) Shoreline designation according to master program;
(xiii) Show which areas are shorelines and which are shorelines of statewide significance.
(b) Vicinity Map.
(i) Indicate site location using natural points of reference (roads, state highways, prominent landmarks, etc.).
(ii) If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise, please identify the proposed disposal site on the map. If the disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity map showing the precise location of the disposal site and its distance to the nearest city or town.
(iii) Give a brief narrative description of the general nature of the improvements and land use within 1,000 feet in all directions from the development site.
(iv) A copy of completed environmental checklist, declaration of nonsignificance or environmental impact statement as is appropriate. Note that if the environmental review has not occurred prior to application for a shoreline permit, the time period for application review may be extended.
(v) The names, addresses, and legal description for each parcel of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the subject property as shown by the records of the King County assessor.
(vi) Other information, plans, data and diagrams as required by the shoreline administrator. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.070 Public notice required – Application.
(1) Applicants are responsible for providing the following information to the Normandy Park shoreline administrator:
(a) Type of permit applied for;
(b) Brief description of proposed use;
(c) Address of subject property;
(d) Applicant’s name;
(e) Public hearing time and date; and
(f) Invitation to express views on proposal at the public hearing or in writing to the shoreline administrator one week prior to the public hearing (date to be specified).
(2) The city shall be responsible for the following:
(a) Posting of a 16-square-foot sign on the subject property, presenting the following information:
(i) Notification to the property owners who are within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property being developed, by regular mail no less than 20 days prior to permit issuance or a public hearing on the proposed improvement. The form of such notice shall be provided by the city and the content shall be approved by the shoreline administrator prior to mailing.
(ii) Public notice publication in the official newspaper of the city no less than once a week on the same day of the week for two consecutive weeks, with the last publication date not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing date. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.080 Permit procedure.
(1) Application submitted and public notice given in accordance with NPMC 16.24.070.
(2) A public hearing shall be held before the shoreline administrator. The shoreline administrator shall determine the application’s compliance with the “Review Criteria for Substantial Development Permits” or as specified for conditional use or variance permits. Upon a finding of compliance with such criteria, the shoreline administrator shall issue the permit, issue the permit with conditions, or deny the application.
(3) After all local permit administrative appeals or reconsideration periods are complete and the permit documents are amended to incorporate any resulting changes, the shoreline administrator will mail the permit using return receipt requested mail to the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Attorney General. Projects that require both conditional use permits and variances shall be mailed simultaneously with any substantial development permits for the project. Materials to be mailed include:
(a) Copies of the original application;
(b) Affidavit of public notice;
(c) Site plan;
(d) Vicinity map;
(e) Permit;
(f) Final order of the city;
(g) All materials required by Chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act.
(4) Consistent with RCW 90.58.140(6), the state’s Shorelines Hearings Board 21-day appeal period starts with the date of filing, which is defined below:
(a) For projects that only require a substantial development permit: the date that Ecology receives the city’s decision.
(b) For a conditional use permit or variance: the date that Ecology’s decision on the CUP or variance is transmitted to the applicant and city.
(c) For SDPs simultaneously mailed with a CUP or variance to Ecology: the date that Ecology’s decision on the CUP or variance is transmitted to the applicant and the city.
(5) The time requirements for shoreline permits are as set forth in WAC 173-27-090, as now exists or as hereafter amended. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 710 § 1, 2003; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.081 Permit tracking procedure.
City staff will develop a tracking system to track all land use and development activity, including exemptions, within shoreline jurisdiction for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects of all development activities and how the city is meeting no net loss. A staff report will be assembled that provides basic project information, including location, permit type issued (including exemptions), project description, impacts, mitigation (if any), and monitoring outcomes as appropriate. Electronic records of tracked project information will be kept by the city and will be provided to Washington Department of Ecology upon request. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016).
16.24.085 Review criteria.
A substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or variance shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with the following:
(1) The policies of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW);
(2) Goals, objectives, policies, and use regulations of the Normandy Park shoreline master program;
(3) Chapter 173-27 WAC, as now exists or as amended hereafter, Department of Ecology rules regarding permits for developments of shorelines;
(4) Normandy Park comprehensive plan; and
(5) NPMC Title 18, zoning code. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 710 § 1, 2003; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991. Formerly 16.24.090).
16.24.090 Review criteria for conditional use permits.
Conditional use permits shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with WAC 173-27-160, as stated below or as amended hereafter:
(1) Uses which are classified or set forth in a master program as conditional uses may be authorized; provided, that the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
(a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program;
(b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
(c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program;
(d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and
(e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
(2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
(3) Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable master program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in the master program.
(4) Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection (1) or (2) of this section. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016).
16.24.095 Review criteria for variance permits.
The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
Variance permits shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with WAC 173-27-170, as stated below or as amended hereafter.
(1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
(2) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
(b) That the hardship described in subsection (2)(a) of this section is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s own actions;
(c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
(d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;
(e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
(f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
(3) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property;
(b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsections (2)(b) through (f) of this section; and
(c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected.
(4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
(5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016).
16.24.100 Local appeal – Process.
(1) Appellant Action. Any person aggrieved by any interpretation, decision or action of the administrator may request review of that interpretation, decision or action by the Normandy Park hearing examiner. Such requests shall be made in writing to the administrator within 15 days of the interpretation, decision or action. The written request shall state clearly the basis for appeal.
(2) Administrator Action. Within seven working days of the administrator’s receipt of a request for appeal, the administrator shall forward to the hearing examiner the request for review, all pertinent documents and the administrator’s written analysis of the issues involved in the appeal. The administrator shall also send one copy of the analysis to the appellant and one copy to applicant, if different than the appellant.
(3) Shoreline Appeals Board Action. Within 30 days of receipt of the required materials for an appeal, the hearing examiner shall take one of the following actions at a public meeting:
(a) Grant the appeal, with or without conditions; or
(b) Deny the appeal, stating the reasons for the denial. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 833 § 6, 2009; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.110 State appeal – Process.
(1) State Shorelines Hearings Board Action. All appeals of any final permit decision are governed by the procedures established in RCW 90.58.180 and Chapter 461-08 WAC, the rules and procedures of the State Shorelines Hearings Board. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 710 § 1, 2003; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.120 Revisions to substantial development, conditional use, and variance permits.
When a revision of a substantial development, conditional use or variance permit is sought, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes in the permit and demonstrating compliance with the scope and intent of the original permit pursuant to WAC 173-27-100, as now exists or as amended hereafter:
(1) If the city determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit, the city may approve a revision. “Within the scope and intent of the original permit” means all of the following:
(a) No additional over-water construction will be involved except that pier, dock, or float construction may be increased by 500 square feet or 10 percent from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less;
(b) Ground area coverage and height of each structure may be increased a maximum of 10 percent from the provisions of the original permit;
(c) Additional separate structures may not exceed a total 250 square feet;
(d) The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, buffer, setback, or any other requirements of the applicable master program except as authorized under the original permit;
(e) Additional landscaping is consistent with conditions (if any) attached to the original permit and with the applicable master program;
(f) The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and
(g) No substantial adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision.
(2) If the revision or the sum of the revision and any previously approved revisions violate the terms of one or more of the provisions itemized above, the applicant shall apply for a new shoreline permit in the manner provided herein.
(3) Within eight days of the date of final city action the revised site plan, text, and the approved revisions shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General for their files. A notice of revision approval shall be forwarded to persons who have notified the shoreline administrator of their desire to receive a copy of the action on a permit pursuant to WAC 173-27-100, as now exists or as amended hereafter.
(4) If the revision to the original permit involves a conditional use or variance that was conditioned by the Department of Ecology, the city shall submit the revision to the Department of Ecology for the Department’s approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The revision shall indicate that it is being submitted under the requirements of WAC 173-27-100(6), as now exists or as amended hereafter. The Department of Ecology shall render and transmit to the city and the applicant its final decision within 15 days of the date of the Department’s receipt of the submittal from the city. The city shall notify parties of record of the Department’s final decision.
(5) The revised permit shall become effective immediately upon final action by the city or, when appropriate under WAC 173-27-100(7), as now exists or as amended hereafter, by the Department of Ecology.
(6) Appeals shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 and shall be filed within 21 days from the date of filing of the city’s action by the Department of Ecology or, when appropriate under WAC 173-27-100(7), as now exists or as amended hereafter, the date the Department’s final decision is transmitted to the city and the applicant. Appeals shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the provisions of WAC 173-27-100(2), as now exists or as amended hereafter. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not authorized under the original permit is at the applicant’s own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline. If an appeal is successful in proving the revision is not within the scope and intent of the original permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 710 § 1, 2003; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.130 Nonconforming development.
Nonconforming development is a shoreline use or structure which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the Act or the master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the master program or policies of the Act. In such cases, the following standards shall apply:
(1) Nonconforming development may be continued; provided, that it is not enlarged, intensified, increased, or altered in any way which increases nonconformity;
(2) A nonconforming development which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance with the master program and the Act;
(3) If a nonconforming development is damaged to the extent of the replacement cost of the original development, it may be reconstructed to those configurations existing immediately prior to the time the development was damaged; provided, that application is made for the permits necessary to restore the development within one year of the date the damage occurred, all permits are obtained and the restoration is completed within three years of permit issuance;
(4) If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months or for 12 months during any three-year period, the nonconforming rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall be conforming. A use authorized pursuant to subsection (6) of this section shall be considered a conforming use for purposes of this section;
(5) A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use, regardless of the conforming or nonconforming status of the building or structure in which it is housed;
(6) An undeveloped lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which was established prior to the effective date of the Act and the master program but which does not conform to the present lot size or density standards may be developed as long as such development conforms to other requirements of the master program and the Act;
(7) Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but which are nonconforming with regard to setbacks, buffers, or yards; area; bulk; height; or density may be maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded; provided, that said enlargement does not increase the extent of nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into areas where construction or use would not be allowed for new development or uses;
(8) A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to adoption of the master program or any relevant amendment and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to the applicability of the master program to the site and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a nonconforming use;
(9) A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming structure and the requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting nonconformities;
(10) A nonconforming structure which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance with the applicable master program and the Act. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.140 Enforcement and penalties.
(1) For the purposes of improving enforcement of this SMP program, the shoreline administrator shall monitor activities along the Normandy Park shoreline through as follows:
(a) Conduct a boat survey of the Normandy Park shoreline zone every six months to assess violations of this shoreline program. Provide an annual report of the results of these surveys to the city council.
(b) Assess whether the city is achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions on an annual basis and cumulatively from the issue date of this shoreline program. The report shall include an analysis of impacts from development (and where possible including unpermitted actions) and how this is balanced by restoration actions within Normandy Park to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. This shall be reported annually to the city council.
(2) The choice of enforcement action and the severity of any penalty should be based on the nature of the violation and the damage or risk to the public or to public resources. The existence or degree of bad faith of the persons subject to the enforcement action, the benefits that accrue to the violator, and the cost of obtaining compliance may also be considered.
(a) RCW 90.58.210, Court actions to ensure against conflicting uses and to enforce – Civil penalty – Review, is incorporated in this section and will be enforced by the city.
(i) Except as provided in RCW 43.05.060 through 43.05.080 and 43.05.150, the attorney general or the attorney for the local government shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to ensure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state in conflict with the provisions and programs of this chapter, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(ii) Any person who shall fail to conform to the terms of a permit issued under this chapter or who shall undertake development on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining any permit required under this chapter shall also be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars for each violation. Each permit violation or each day of continued development without a required permit shall constitute a separate violation.
(iii) The penalty provided for in this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the department or local government, describing the violation with reasonable particularity and ordering the act or acts constituting the violation or violations to cease and desist or, in appropriate cases, requiring necessary corrective action to be taken within a specific and reasonable time.
(iv) The person incurring the penalty may appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the penalty. The term “date of receipt” has the same meaning as provided in RCW 43.21B.001. Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section by the department shall be subject to review by the shorelines hearings board. Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section by local government shall be subject to review by the local government legislative authority. Any penalty jointly imposed by the department and local government shall be appealed to the shorelines hearings board.
(3) RCW 90.58.220, General penalty, is adopted in this code and enforced by the city.
In addition to incurring civil liability under RCW 90.58.210, any person found to have willfully engaged in activities on the shorelines of the state in violation of the provisions of this chapter or any of the master programs, rules, or regulations adopted pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment: PROVIDED, That the fine for the third and all subsequent violations in any five-year period shall be not less than five hundred nor more than ten thousand dollars: PROVIDED FURTHER, That fines for violations of RCW 90.58.550, or any rule adopted thereunder, shall be determined under RCW 90.58.560.
(4) RCW 90.58.230, Violators liable for damages resulting from violation – Attorney’s fees and costs, is adopted in the code and enforced by the city.
Any person subject to the regulatory program of this chapter who violates any provision of this chapter or permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to violation. The attorney general or local government attorney shall bring suit for damages under this section on behalf of the state or local governments. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this section on their own behalf and on the behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by a violation the court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including money damages, the court in its discretion may award attorney’s fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party.
(Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).
16.24.150 Additional authority.
In addition to any other powers granted hereunder, the city may:
(1) Acquire lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other governmental entities, when necessary to achieve implementation of the master program;
(2) Accept grants, contributions, and appropriations for any agency, public or private, or individual for the purposes of the Act and the master program;
(3) Appoint advisory committees to assist in carrying out the purposes of the Act and the master program;
(4) Contract for professional or technical services required by the city which cannot be performed by city employees;
(5) Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this SMP and the SMA; and
(6) The application of this program should be consistent with constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The administrator should give adequate consideration to mitigation measures, dimensional variances, and other possible methods to prevent undue or unreasonable hardships upon property owners. (Ord. 998 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 940 § 1 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 539 § 2, 1991).