Chapter 16B.03
CLASSIFICATION BY PROJECT PERMIT TYPE
Sections:
16B.03.020 Project Permits Excluded from Some Review Procedures.
16B.03.030 Project Permit Procedures – Defined.
16B.03.040 Classification of Project Permit Applications.
16B.03.050 Limitations on Open Record Public Hearings and Closed Record Hearings.
16B.03.060 Optional Consolidated Permit Review Process.
16B.03.070 Administrative Interpretations.
16B.03.080 Development Agreement Review Procedures.
16B.03.010 Introduction.
For the purpose of project permit processing, all development permit applications shall be classified as one of the following: Exempt, Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, or Type 4. Legislative decisions are addressed in Sections 16B.01.030 – 16B.01.040.
(Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017: Ord. 6-2014 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2016: Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012: Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996).
16B.03.020 Project Permits Excluded from Some Review Procedures.
(1) All Type 1 applications listed in Table 3-2, building permits or other construction permits, or other similar administrative approvals, that are categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, are excluded from the following procedures. See also RCW 36.70B.140.
(a) Notice of Application (Chapter 16B.05);
(b) Consolidated permit review processing (Section 16B.03.060);
(c) Joint public hearings (Section 16B.08.070);
(d) Single report (Notice of Decision) stating all the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report (Chapter 16B.07).
(2) All of the review procedures listed in Subsection (1) of this Section apply to Type 1 and other project permits that are not categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA, unless environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits. See also RCW 36.70B.140.
(3) The development, activities and modifications to development listed in YCC Section 19.30.020(2) may require project permits under Yakima County Code, but are typically not required to obtain a project permit from the Administrative Official under Title 19.
(Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017: Ord. 6-2014 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2016: Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012: Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996).
16B.03.030 Project Permit Procedures – Defined.
(1) The Administrative Official shall determine the procedural classification (Type 1 – 4) for all development applications. If there is a question as to the appropriate procedure type, the Administrative Official shall resolve it in favor of the higher procedural classification.
(a) Type 1 applications involve ministerial actions and are exempt from public notice requirements. Type 1 applications that are not categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA are subject to public notice requirements. Decisions on Type 1 project permit applications will be made by the Administrative Official without a prior public hearing. Decisions on Type 1 projects can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner.
(b) Type 2 applications are administrative actions which may generate public interest. Public notice will be provided for Type 2 actions. Decisions on Type 2 project permit applications will be made by the Administrative Official without a prior public hearing, unless referred by the Administrative Official to the Hearing Examiner for final decision in accordance with the Table 3-2 Notes and YCC 19.03.030(3)(b)(v). Decisions on Type 2 projects can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. Public notice will be provided on Type 2 actions.
(c) Type 3 applications are quasi-judicial actions and require an open record hearing by the Hearing Examiner. The Examiner’s written decision constitutes the final decision. Public notice will be provided on Type 3 actions.
(d) Type 4 Project permit applications are quasi-judicial actions which require an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Examiner’s written decision constitutes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board shall conduct a closed record hearing to act on the Examiner’s recommendation. Public notice will be provided on Type 4 actions.
(2) Any administrative appeals of SEPA determinations related to Type 1, 2, or 3 applications will be conducted in accordance with YCC 16B.09. Type 4 decisions and their related SEPA determinations are not subject to administrative appeal (see Table 3-1).
(3) Final administrative decisions on Type 1, 2, 3, and 4 applications and their related SEPA determinations are indicated in Table 3-1.
(4) Table 3-1 identifies the final decision maker, recommending body, hearing body, and appeal body for the four procedural types. Table 3-2 identifies the procedural classification for the various land use permits. Notice provisions for each procedural classification are contained in Table 5-1.
|
Process Type |
Public Notice |
Recommending Body |
Open Record Hearing Body |
Decision Maker |
Project Permit Appeal Body |
SEPA Appeal Body |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Type 1 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Administrative Official(2) |
Hearing Examiner(1) (Open Record Hearing) |
Hearing Examiner(1) (Open Record Hearing) |
|
Type 2 |
Yes |
N/A |
N/A |
Administrative Official |
Hearing Examiner(1) (Open Record Hearing) |
Hearing Examiner(1) (Open Record Hearing) |
|
Type 3 |
Yes |
Administrative Official |
Hearing Examiner |
Hearing Examiner (Open Record Hearing) |
No administrative appeal |
Hearing Examiner(1) (Open Record Hearing) |
|
Type 4 |
Yes |
Hearing Examiner |
Hearing Examiner |
BOCC (Closed Record Hearing) |
No administrative appeal |
No administrative appeal |
|
Notes: |
|
|
(1) |
Appeal determinations by the Hearing Examiner on Type 1 and Type 2 applications and on Type 3 SEPA appeals shall be final and binding and not subject to further administrative appeal. |
|
(2) |
Not all Type 1 project permits decisions are made by the Administrative Official. Refer to Title 19. |
(Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017: Ord. 6-2014 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2016: Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 2012: Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996).
16B.03.040 Classification of Project Permit Applications.
The following project permits or actions are subject to the decision making processes specified in Table 3-1 and Section 16B.03.030 of this Code, except where indicated in other Titles.
|
Title 19 – Yakima County Unified Land Development Code Type 1 Review(2,4,7) |
|
|
Type 1 Permitted Uses shown in the land use table in YCC Chapter 19.14 except when Type 2 review is required (19.30.030(1)(c)) |
|
|
Interpretations and similar use determinations by the Administrative Official (Chapter 19.31) |
|
|
Reconstruction of damaged buildings or structures not involving expansion or nonconforming use (19.33.050(2)(d)) |
|
|
Legal Nonconforming use determination by the Administrative Official (19.33.060(1)(a)) |
|
|
Replacement or restoration of legal nonconforming dwelling (19.33.060(6)(a)) |
|
|
Utility divisions (19.34.090) |
|
|
Boundary Line Adjustments (19.34.020) |
|
|
Minor amendments of approved preliminary plats (19.34.050(9)(b)) |
|
|
Final Subdivisions and Short Subdivision(1) (19.34.070) |
|
|
Segregations within an approved Binding Site Plan for commercial or industrial development (19.34.080(3)(b)) |
|
|
ESLU Setback modifications exceptions (19.35.020(6)(d)) |
|
|
Administrative Modifications to existing or approved uses (19.35.030(3)) |
|
|
Minor modification to a previously approved Master Planned Resort, Resort Development Plan or Planned Development (19.35.050(1)) |
|
|
Future Projects or actions in compliance with an approved Master Development Plan or Development Agreement (19.35.055(1)) |
|
|
Type 1 Uses require Type 2 review when:(3,4,7) |
|
|
All or part of the development, except for agricultural buildings, single-family dwellings and duplexes are located within the 100 year floodplain or the Greenway Overlay (GO) District (19.17.050); |
|
|
All or part of a development that is in a Master Planned Development Overlay (MPDO) District and is identified in a development agreement requiring Type 2 review (19.17.040); |
|
|
The Reviewing Official cannot determine from the application submitted that the use will meet the approval standards in Section 19.30.090; |
|
|
The permitted use could be approved subject to broader conditioning authority (19.30.100); |
|
|
The Administrative Official cannot conclusively determine the legal status of a nonconforming use (19.33.060(1)(c)); |
|
|
The proposed use includes hazardous material as defined in Section 19.01.070. |
|
|
Type 2 review(3,4,5) |
|
|
Type 2 Administrative Uses shown on the land use table in Chapter 19.14 are generally allowed in the zoning district |
|
|
Change of a legal non-conforming use to another non-allowed use subject to review criteria in Subsection 19.33.060(5)(b) |
|
|
Amendments to an approved preliminary short subdivision (19.34.040(5))(11) |
|
|
Alteration or vacation of a recorded short plat (19.34.040(9))(11) |
|
|
New Binding Site Plans for commercial and industrial development (19.34.080) |
|
|
Administrative Adjustments to standards authorized (19.35.020) |
|
|
Type 3 Review |
|
|
Conditional Uses shown on the land use table in Chapter 19.14 |
|
|
Plat vacations or alterations under Chapter 58.17 RCW |
|
|
Major modifications to a Master Development Plan or Development Agreement (19.35.055(3)) |
|
|
Type 4 Review(10) |
|
|
Type 4 Quasi-judicial uses or development shown on the land use table in Chapter 19.14 |
|
|
Master Planned Resorts (MPRs) in rural or resource areas (19.11.050) |
|
|
New or expanded Master Planned Developments in Urban Growth Areas (19.17.040) |
|
|
Subdivision Applications (19.34.050) |
|
|
Major amendments to approved preliminary subdivision (19.34.050(9)(c))(11) |
|
|
Major modification to a Master Planned Resort or Planned Development (19.35.050(2)) |
|
|
Minor Rezones (19.36.030)(10) |
|
|
Application |
Process Type |
|
Environmental Review (SEPA Checklist) |
Type 2(7) |
|
Title 16C – Yakima County Critical Areas Ordinance and Title 16D – Yakima County Regional Shoreline Master Program |
|
|
Application |
Process Type |
|
Floodprone Permit (16C.05)(13) |
Type 1 |
|
Floodprone Development Variance (16C.05.52) & (16D.05.52)(13) |
Type 2(4) |
|
Flood Hazard Permit (16C.05.44.040) & (16D.05.44.050)(13) |
Type 1 |
|
Standard Development Permit (16C.03.20) |
Type 1(6) |
|
Critical Areas Adjustment (16C.03.23) |
Type 2 |
|
Critical Areas Reasonable Use Exception (16C.03.24) |
Type 3 |
|
Minor Revision to approved uses/development (16C.03.25) & (16D.03.25) |
Type 1 |
|
Non-Conforming Use/Facility Alteration (16C.03.26) & (16D.03.26) |
Type 2(8) |
|
Non-Conforming Structures or Areas (16C.03.26 or 16D.03.26) & (16D.05.40.020) |
Type 2(9) |
|
Shoreline Exemption (16D.03.05) |
Type 1 |
|
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (16D.03.19 & 16D.10.05 & Table 16D.10.05) |
Type 2(4) |
|
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (16D.03.21 & 16D.10.05 & Table 16D.10.05) |
Type 2 |
|
Shoreline Variance (16D.03.22) |
Type 2 |
|
Notes: |
|
|
(1) |
Final plat applications are subject to determination of completeness as required by Section 16B.04.030 – 060. However, once the application is deemed complete, i.e. – all requirements of the preliminary plat resolution as signed by the BOCC have been met, the final plat is forwarded to the BOCC for signature at its next regular agenda meeting. |
|
(2) |
The Administrative Official reviews applications subject to Type 1 review under the procedures of Section 19.30.090 and YCC Chapter 16B.03 for compliance with Title 19. Type 1 Uses listed in Subsection 19.30.030(1)(d) are generally not subject to project review by the Administrative Official provided all applicable standards of the Title are met and/or when categorically exempt from environmental review under YCC Section 16.04.100, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, and when locating on an existing lot. |
|
(3) |
The compatibility between a Type 2 Administrative Use and the surrounding environment cannot always be determined in advance. Therefore, a Type 2 Administrative Use may be conditioned to ensure compatibility and compliance with the provisions of the zoning district and the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. |
|
(4) |
Type 2 review, Administrative Use applications, Floodprone (as defined in YCC Titles 16C and 16D) Development Variances, Zoning Variances, Administrative Adjustments and Substantial Development permits may be referred by the Administrative Official to the Hearing Examiner for final decision, in a manner similar to a Type 3 application. |
|
(5) |
Type 3 review required for Type 2 Administrative Uses referred by the Administrative Official for Hearing Examiner review and for other specific reviews established by Title 19. Such referred reviews are subject to the criteria of 19.30.030(2)(b)(iv) for Type 2 uses. |
|
(6) |
Standard Development permits under the Critical Areas Ordinance may be processed for final decision as Type 2 project permits rather than as Type 1 permits at the discretion of the Administrative Official. |
|
(7) |
SEPA determinations where the underlying permit is Type 1 shall be circulated to agencies with expertise or jurisdiction as defined in WAC 197-11-714 and listed in YCC 16B.05.030(3) but notice to adjacent property owners is not required. |
|
(8) |
The term “alteration” in a zoning context may include changing from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, but does not include intensification. Certain nonconforming use alterations may not be subject to additional critical area or Shoreline review as described in YCC 16C.03.26(2)(b) and 16D.03.26(2)(b). |
|
(9) |
No additional Critical Area or Shoreline review required if reconstruction cost of a conforming use with a nonconforming structure or area is less than 75 percent of value before damage or destruction. See YCC 16C.03.26(2)(a) and 16D.03.26(2)(a). |
|
(10) |
The process for review of Type 4 applications shall be as set forth in YCC Subsection 16B.03.030(1)(d) and Section 19.30.080 and the process for Minor Rezone applications shall be as set forth in Section 19.36.030. |
|
(11) |
Minor changes or correction of errors to approved preliminary short plats and alteration or vacation of recorded short plats not involving a change in lot lines or conditions may be made by the surveyor through the Type 1 review process by recording an affidavit with the County Auditor referencing the short plat by number and the correction. |
|
(12) |
Critical Areas Title 16C may apply to property based on agricultural use. Refer to Title 16C to determine jurisdiction. |
|
(13) |
The Building Official issues flood hazard permits under Chapter 5 of Titles 16C and 16D. (N) |
(Ord. 10-2019 (Exh. 1) (part), 2019; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017: Ord. 6-2014 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2016: Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 2012: Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996).
16B.03.050 Limitations on Open Record Public Hearings and Closed Record Hearings.
Except for the appeal of a SEPA Determination of Significance, no more than one consolidated open record appeal or hearing may occur on SEPA threshold determinations or project permit decisions and no more than one consolidated closed record hearing may occur on project permit decisions.
(Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017: Ord. 6-2014 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2016: Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012: Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996).
16B.03.060 Optional Consolidated Permit Review Process.
Two or more project permits relating to a proposed project action may be processed collectively under the highest numbered category of project permit required for any part of the proposal or processed individually under each of the procedures identified by the code. The applicant may determine whether the project permits shall be processed collectively or individually. If the application is processed under the individual procedure option, the highest numbered type procedure must be processed prior to and separately from the subsequent lower numbered procedure. Construction permits may be issued only after all other required land-use decisions have been made and all applicable appeal periods have passed.
(Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017: Ord. 6-2014 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2016: Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012: Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996).
16B.03.070 Administrative Interpretations.
Upon request the applicable official designated in Subsections 2 through 4 of this Section shall issue a formal written interpretation of a development regulation. The purpose of an interpretation is to clarify conflicting or ambiguous wording or the scope or intent of the County Code.
(1) The interpretation request shall be on a form provided by the Planning Division and shall include identification of the regulation in question, a description of the property (if applicable), a clear statement of the issue or question to be decided, a statement addressing why an interpretation is necessary and shall set forth a legal and factual basis in support of the proposed interpretation.
(2) The Administrative Official or his/her designee shall interpret and apply the provisions of YCC Title 16 (SEPA) Environment, Title 16C – Critical Areas Ordinances, Title 16B – Project Permit Administration, Title 16D – Yakima County Regional Shoreline Master Program, and Title 19 – Unified Land Development Code. Interpretations shall be first presented to the Administrative Official but are subject to appeal to the Hearing Examiner.
(3) The Administrative Official is authorized under Chapter 19.31 to determine whether a proposed use is not classified in any category of the land use table in Chapter 19.14 but is consistent in character with the purpose of the Zoning District.
(4) The Hearing Examiner shall issue similar use interpretations regarding any provisions of the Yakima County Unified Land Development Code (Title 19), as specified by Chapter 19.31, and any interpretation matter referred by the Administrative Official. The Hearing Examiner shall determine when a hearing is required for such interpretations. Interpretations by the Hearing Examiner are final and not subject to further administrative appeal.
(5) An interpretation of the provisions of a development regulation shall not be used to amend any development regulation in Yakima County Code, such as any provision affecting required location of land uses or review requirements. Administrative interpretations may be specific to the fact situation presented in the request for the interpretation and therefore may not apply to circumstances or situations other than that considered in the interpretation.
(6) In making an interpretation of the provisions of the development regulation, the Reviewing Official shall state the analysis and reasons upon which the interpretation is based in considering the following factors:
(a) The applicable provisions of development regulations in Yakima County Code including their purpose and context; and
(b) The impact of the interpretation on other provisions of Yakima County Code; and
(c) The implications of the interpretation for development within the County as a whole; and
(d) The applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant codes and policies; and
(e) Any other factors the Reviewing Official wishes to consider.
(Ord. 10-2019 (Exh. 1) (part), 2019; Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017: Ord. 6-2014 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2016: Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exhs. A, B) (part), 2012: Ord. 14-1998 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 4-1996 § 1 (part), 1996).
16B.03.080 Development Agreement Review Procedures.
(1) The County may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or legal control of real property within its jurisdiction or outside its jurisdiction as part of an outside utility service agreement. A development agreement sets forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement.
(2) Notice of the hearing shall be provided by publishing in a newspaper of general circulation within the County in the manner prescribed for project permits in YCC 16B.05.030.
(3) The determination of completeness under YCC 16B.04.030, notice of decision under YCC 16B.07.010 and time frame of YCC 16B.07.030 do not apply to development agreements.
(4) When a request for a development agreement is consolidated with a project permit, or a modification to a development agreement is proposed, the public hearing shall be conducted by the hearing body indicated in Table 3-3 after notice as indicated in Table 5-1.
|
Process Type |
Hearing Body |
Procedure |
|---|---|---|
|
Type 1 |
Board |
The Administrative Official will provide a recommendation to the Board and incorporate the Board’s decision on the development agreement into the decision on the project permit. |
|
Type 2 |
Board |
The Administrative Official will provide a recommendation to the Board and incorporate the Board’s decision on the development agreement into the decision on the project permit. |
|
Type 3 (and Type 2 elevated to Type 3 review) |
Hearing Examiner (consolidated with open record hearing) |
The Hearing Examiner will consider the development agreement during the open record hearing on the project permit and will make a recommendation to the Board on the development agreement; and approval of the project permit shall be conditioned on the Board’s approval of the development agreement. |
|
Type 4 |
Hearing Examiner (consolidated with open record hearing) |
The Hearing Examiner will consider the development agreement during the open record hearing on the project permit and will make a recommendation to the Board on the development agreement; and the Board’s approval of the project permit shall be conditioned on the Board’s approval of the development agreement. |
(5) The BOCC may approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution only.
(Ord. 7-2017 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2017: Ord. 6-2014 § 2 (Exh. A)(part), 2016: Ord. 5-2012 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 2012).