Applications and Originals~.-
~~
~e~
~~ _ ~~. -
~-~ - =-
-_ _~
~~~~~~~~~~. ~3~15
- " -`~ ****FIFTY DOLLARS & 00 CENTS
J. SCOTT GRIFFIN 08/24/04 33015 50.00 CHECK 3050
1935 37TH PLACE E
SEATTLE. WA 98112
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT
DIANA
BLA-04-0099-YL
City of Yelm
Community Development Department
Building Division
Phone: (360) 458-8407
Fax: (360)458-3144
Applicant:
Name: Griffin, J. Scott & Kathryn Dotson
Address: Freestone DFF Yelm II LLC / PO Box 73669 City: Puyallup
Project Information:
Permit Fees Schedule
Permit No: APP-04-0128-YL
Phone: 253-896-1300
State: WA Zip 98373
Project: Appeal of BLA-04-0099-YL
Description of Work: Appeal of Griffin Boundary Line Adjustment decision of BLA-04-0099-YL on August 11, 2004, regarding
parcels 64303600600 and 64303600700.
Site Address: 16440 Middle Rd SE Assessor Parcel No. 64303600700
Fees:
Item Acct Code Item Fee Base Amt Unit Fee Unit Rate No. Units Unit Desc
--------------------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------------
Appealto H.E. 001-345-81-00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
TOTAL FEES: $50.00
~~ THE p
,~G~ ~~~
4~' f~,
~~
YELM
WASHINGTON
CITY OF YELM
PO Box 479
Yelm WA 98597
360-458-3244
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Fee: Staff Decision - $50.00
Hearing Examiner Decision - $100.00
(In addition, any professional service
char es per Resolution #358
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
,c/ ~
Fee A ''
Date Received 7rX~ ~'
By Y L
File No. ~~ -
R~eE~ QED
AU6 2 41004
A Closed record appeal may follow either an open record hearing or an open record administrative
decision on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record, and no or limited new
evidence or information is allowed to be submitted. Appeals on Category I & II project decisions are
heard by the City Council. Appeals on Category III & IV project decisions as well as Category 18~ II
decisions which have been appealed to the City Council go to Superior Court and follow the judicial
review process set forth in RCW 366.70C. A Notice of Appeal must be filed within 14 days of
Notice of Final Decision.
PROJECT CASE NUMBER BEING APPEALED BLA- 0 4 - 0 0 9 9 - YL
DATE OF NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION August 1 , 2 0 0 4
APPELLANT(S) Kathryn Dotson Freestone DFF Yelm II LLC *
Mailing Address 1 e co ri ln, r.
City, State and Zip e m, WA PO Box 7 6 9
Telephone - uya up,
(253) 896-1300
SPECIFIC ITEMS OF DECISION BEING APPEALED (attach additional sheet if necessary):-
See attached
I affirm that all answers, statements and information contained in and submitted with this application are
complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also affirm that I am the owner of the subject site
or am duly authorized by the owner to act with respect to this application. Further, I grant permission
from the owner to any and all employees and representatives of the City of Yelm and other
governmental agencies to enter upon and inspect said property as reasonably necessary to process
this application. I agree to pay all fees of the city which apply to this application.
Signed Date 13
Signed'y / Date ~.. ,~~-rid ~"
*Successor to Caddis Construction
CITY OF YELM
Community Development Department
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Re: Scott Griffin Boundary Line Adjustment
The following are the grounds for appeal for the Applicant's appeal of the City's August
11, 2004 decision in the Griffin Boundary Line Adjustment.
1. The City asserts that the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment violates the
Thurston County Health Code and corresponding provisions of the Washington
Administrative Code. This conclusion is erroneous for the following reasons:
A. Those provisions are administered by the Thurston County Health
Department which has not concluded, as the City has, that the proposed adjustment
would violate the cited provisions;
B. There are readily available alternatives to the cited minimum lot size
requirements including minor increases in the size of the relevant parcel, the provision
of an off-site easement for drainfield proposes, etc. The Applicant is ready, willing and
able to modify its proposal to meet these requirements, and should have an opportunity
to do so as opposed to having its application summarily denied;
C. WAC 246-272-2501 states that a person proposing a development shall
obtain approval from the local health officer prior to any development where the use of
an on-site septic system is proposed. The City did not give the local health officer an
opportunity to review, comment, and/or approve/deny the application;
D. Additional soils work may confirm that the site has adequate area and
soils along the western portion of the lot for a reserve drainfield and, if so, the lot size
may be satisfactory to the Health Department. Again, the Applicant should have had an
opportunity to exhaust these alternatives prior to the City even considering denial of the
Boundary Line Adjustment;
E. As another alternative, the Applicant could connect the site to the City's
water system which would likely affect the application of the Health Department's
regulations; and
F. The 100-foot well radius can be located within the boundaries of the
proposed lot, and/or on adjacent property restricted by covenant. The Applicant can
obtain or provide such a covenant and should be given the option to do so.
2. The next basis for denial of the Boundary Line Adjustment was that the proposal
did not meet minimum density requirements for the medium density residential (R-6)
zoning district and that the density requirement could not be achieved through any re-
[1279874 v2] - 1 -
division of the property due to the size of the parcel and the requirements of the
subdivision code. This conclusion is erroneous for the following reasons:
A. RCW 58.17.040(6) exempts from the requirements of the Subdivision Act:
"A division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting
property lines, between a platted or unplatted lots or both,
which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or
division nor create any lot, tract, parcel, site, or division
which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet
minimum requirements for width and area for a building site"
An adjustment meeting those requirements is exempt from local regulatory authority as
well. The subject proposal is consistent with and falls within the express language of
this exemption;
B. More specifically, the proposed lots do contain sufficient area and
dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area. The exemption does not
specify that created lots must meet minimum density requirements, and the City may
not read such a requirement into the exemption language;
C. In fact, the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment brings the subject
property closer in conformance to any minimum density requirements by reducing the
size of the parcel;
D. Given the existing improvements that have been constructed on the
property, the proposed lot is the smallest that could practically be designed to
encompass the home and its accessory improvements. To require that the lot be
smaller denies the Applicant its rights under the common law and statutory provisions
regarding non-conforming uses and vested rights;
E. The conclusion that the lot is too large to meet density requirements is
directly contrary to the first cited basis for the City's denial that the lot is too small;
F. The applicable rules appear to conflict with respect to the size of the lot,
with the Health Department regulations setting forth a minimum size and the Zoning
Regulations setting forth a maximum size. The Health Department regulations address
a matter of public health and have priority over and supersede the later-adopted zoning
requirements; and
G. The subject property can be re-developed in the future to bring it into
greater conformity with minimum density requirements.
3. As the third basis for its decision, the City asserts that Ms. Dotson's parcels were
not created through the subdivision process and thus the Boundary Line Adjustment
process is not available. That is expressly contrary to RCW 58.17.040(6) which allows
the adjustment between "platted or unplatted lots or both".
[1279874 v2] - 2 -
4. The City's decision is otherwise contrary to law, including but not limited to RCW
Chapter 58.17 and RCW 58.17.040(6) and the City of Seattle vs. Crispin, 149 Wn.2d
896, 71 P.3`d 208 (2003).
5. The City's decision is arbitrary and capricious.
DATED this 23`d day of August, 2004.
Respectfully Submitted,
GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL,
MALANCA, PETERSON & DAHEIM
~~.~ir-~--. ~
By:
William T. Lynn
WSBA No. 07887
1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 2100
PO Box 1157
Tacoma, WA 98401-1157
(253) 620-6416
[1279874 v2) - 3 -