Loading...
Reconsider Decision 001OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF YELM DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION CASE NO.: APPEAL OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DENIAL BLA-04-0099-YLRPP-04-0128-YL APPELLANTS: Kathryn Dotson 16440 Middle Road SE ~1'eim, vVA 98:91 Freestone DFF Yelm II LLC J. Scott Griffn, Jr. P.O. Box 73669 Puyallup, WA 98373 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: William Lynn Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1157 Tacoma, WA 98401 The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows: EXHIBIT " 2" - Request for Reconsideration dated November 8, 2004 EXHIBIT " 3" - Memorandum from Examiner circulating Request for Reconsideration dated November 16, 2004 EXHIBIT "4" - Response from City dated November 19, 2004 EXHI~I' "5" - .°.esYass `ro; vi=.! !.; ^., ~1g._+ December g, 2n0a By Report and Decision dated October 27, 2004, the Examiner granted the appeal of Kathryn Dotson and Freestone DFF Yelm II LLC of the City's denial of a boundary line adjustment (BLA) request. On November 8, 2004, Cathie Carlson, Parametrix, timely filed a Request for Reconsideration which [he Examiner circulated to parties of record on November 16, 2004. On November 19, 2004, the Examiner received a response to the reconsideration request from Grant Beck, Director, Community Developr,~ent Department. The Examiner also received a letter from William T. Lynn, attorney at law, dated December 6, 2004. Based upon the reconsideration request and responses thereto, the following additional -1- findings are hereby made as follows: Condition No. 1 of the decision granting the appeal reads: The appellant shall connect the newly created, smaller lot to City sewer and water. The appellant asserts in its reconsideration request that it cannot comply with Condition No. 1 due to the property owner's refusal to connect to City water and sewer until completion of the purchase of her property. The applicant asserts that it cannot complete the purchase of the property until the BLA is approved and recorded. The appellant therefore proposes to posi d bond v/ith the City in zn amount equal fo 150% of the total cost of the connections. The appellant desires a maximum of 90 days from the date of recording to complete the connections. In his letter of December 6, 2004, Mr. William Lynn advises that the improvements will meet Health Department requirements and offered an assignment of cash as opposed to a bond. 2. It appears that Health Department regulations control the requirements for and timing of connection to sanitary sewers and public water. Mr. Lynn notes that the project would meet Health Department requirements by connecting only to sewers, but the appellant agreed to connect to both sewer and water. Mr. Beck notes that the City accepts financial guarantees only when circumstances outside the control of the developer prevent the completion of a project, and when the work remaining is minor and would not permit the development from basic functionality when not completed immediately. 3. While Mr. Beck conectly asserts that the circumstances of the purchase of the lot are not beyond the appellant's control, at the same time the appellant has proposed an assignment of funds for 150% of the cost of connection and a maximum of 90 day period to complete the work. It also appears that the applicant has agreed to connect the smaller Ict t.^, vrate~ which !':ea!?h Departmen! regulations would not require. While the City's position is technically in accordance with its policies, the only issue prohibiting compliance is the timing of the improvement (subsequent to the BLA). Such timing constraint does not affect the substance of the original decision nor does it create a risk for the City. Therefore, the request for reconsideration should be granted and Condition No. 1 modified as follows: The appellant shall connect the nevdly created, smaller lot to City sewer and water; provided, however, that the appellant may make such connections within 90 days of the recording of the BLA. Provided, further, that the appellant shall post an assignment of cash -z- in an amount of 150% of the total amount of the estimated cost of the improvements. Failure of the appellant to post the assignment or complete the project as required will automatically render the BLA null and void. DECISION: The request for reconsideration is hereby granted as set forth above. ORDERED this 7'M1 day of January, 2005. . CAUSSEAUX, JR. Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this 7" day of January, 2005, to the following: APPELLANTS: Kathryn Dotson 16440 Middle Road SE Yelm, WA 98597 Freestone DFF Yelm II LLC J. Scott Griffin, Jr. P.O. Box 73669 Puyallup, WA 98373 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: William Lynn Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1157 Tacoma. U2A 9°-~01 OTHERS: Parametrix City of Yelm Attn: Cathie Carlson Attn: Tami Merriman/Grant Beck 8830 Tallon Lane NE 105 Yelm Avenue Lacey, WA 98516 P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 -3- CASE NO.: APPEAL OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DENIAL BLA-04-0099-YL and APP-04-0128-YL NOTICE APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The foal decision by the Examiner may be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or written that disacrees with the decision of the hearing examiner, except threshold determinations (YMC 15.49.160) in accordance with Section 2.26.150 of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). NOTE: In an effort to avoid confusion at the time of filing a request for reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration. -4-