Application - Appeal 001
City of Yelm
Community Development
Department
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dale aacel;ee~/G/_~~cs
ey - 5a~~ ~~.
File No L ¢~~
4
APR p 5 20p5
Fee: Staff Decision - $50.00
Hearing Examiner Decision - $100.00
(In addition, any professional service
charges per Resolution #358)
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 1811
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 tiled within 14 days of
NOtlce Of Final Decision.
PROJECT LASE NUMBER BEING APPEALED SBPA: 0175
DATE OF NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION March 21 2005
APPELLANT(S) Freestone DFF Yelm II, LLC through idill lam Lv_nn
Mailing Address Gordon, Thomas, Honerwe ll etal P 0. Box 1157
City, Stale and Zip Tacoma, WA 98401
Telephone 253-620-6416 EMAIL wlvnn@GTH-Law.com
SPECIFIC I7EMS OF DECISION BEING APPEALED (attach additional sheet if necessary):-
Set forth in [he attached letter
I affrm that all answers, statements and information conlainetl in and submitted with this application
are complete and accurate to the best o(my knowledge. I also affirm that I am the owner of the
subject site or am duly authorizetl 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 Velm antl other
governmental agencies to enter upon and inspect said property as reasonably necessary to process
this application. {gg, ee to payA all fees of the City that apply to This application.
Signed :.L [,u ,._. TJ Date ~ /41 ~~
~~Y t~R ~ ,ctp~.i.,c
105 }'elm Avenue I5'esf (360) 458-JY35
PO Box 4]9 (J60) 45S-JI44 F.SC
Yelm, MA 9559] uuu ayvelrn.ua.us
~ ~
LPW OFFiC ES
GORDON. THOMAS. HONEYWELL. MAL.4NCA. PETERSON is DAHEIM LLP
aEP~.. o~F~cE
WILLIAM To LYNN
Lnni ~IynnwW gl Tlaw.com
April 4, 2005
Gran[ Beck
Community Development Director
City of 1'elm
P.O.Box479~~~~~~ ~~~
Yelm, A>,tA 95597
RE: SEPA Appeal
Dear D9r. Beck:
This leper provides the basis for the appeal of the MDNS for the plat o(Griffn Place.
The MD1'S runs issued March 21, 2005, and a copy is attached to this letter.
The Appellant challenges Dlitigation measure 2(d) and alleges the Collowing cnors:
]. The condition is imposed on unexisting single-family lot that is not part of the
proposed subdivision. Therefore, the City has no authority to impose any conditions.
2. The current use oC the existing single-Camily home that is the subject of
Mitiea[ioo measure 3(d) will not be altered by the approval of the subdivision, thus there is no
impact that may be "mitieated" under the authority oC RCW 4321C Chapter and the
implementing City code provisions. \\'AC 197-11-660(4) "Responsibility Tor implementing
mitigation measures may be imposed upon applicant only to the extent attributable to the
identified adverse impacts of its proposal.'
3. RCN 43.210060 only pemsits the imposition oC mitieation measures that
mitigate "specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the environmental
documents' prepared under SEPA. Mitigation measure 2(d) does not meet this requirement.
4. RCW 43.21 C.O60 also requires that any conditions be based upon policies
identified by the local gocemment as a basis for the exercise of its mitieation authority.
Moreover, under WAC 197-1 1-G60(b), airy such policy that is relied upon nmst be identified in
writing. D9itigation measure 3(d) does not meet these requirements.
[1300075 vl.doc]
I ~~ CORDON, THO\1AS. HONEI"\\ELL•
MALANCA. P[TCRSON ~ DAHEIM LLP
April 4. ?005
Paec 2
•
5. RCW 4321C.060 and WAC 197-11-660(c) requires that mitigation measures be
reasonable and capable of being accomplished. For the reasons cited above, and for the
additional reason that the subject property is not e~idiin the ownership and control of the
Appellant, Mitieation measure 3(d) does not meet this requirement.
The D4itiga[ion measure 2(d) is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
Very tru]y yours,
i
i ,\
William T. Lynn
J
WTL: oam
Attachments
[1306075 vl.doc]