HE Decision 001~e~
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AFC ~~V
P e
CITY OF YELM 31pOS
REPORT AND DECISION
CASE NO.: BSP-05-0197-YL and SPR-05-0160-YL
APPEAL OF MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
BSP-05-0197-YL
APPLICANT/
APPELLANT: 3B&C,LLC
P.O. Box 875
Yelm, WA 98597
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval to create 6 commercial building sites through the
binding site plan process, and to construct a 5,600 square foot commercial building on one
of the building sites. The site encompasses 2 parcels. There are existing residences on
the site that will be demolished.
SUMMARY OF APPEAL:
The appellant is appealing the mitigation measures attached to a Mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance for a proposed binding site plan to create commercial spaces for and
site plan review to construct a 5,600 square foot commercial building.
SUMMARY OF DECISION:
Request granted.
Appeal denied.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing Planning and Community Development Staff Report and examining
available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a public
hearing on the request as follows:
The hearing was opened on November 7, 2005.
Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner.
i-
The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows
EXHIBIT "1" - Planning and Community Development Staff Report and
Attachments
EXHIBIT " 2" - Submittal from the City
EXHIBIT " 3" - Map
EXHIBIT "4" - Map
EXHIBIT "5" - Map
EXHIBIT "6" - Document from Washington State Department of Ecology
EXHIBIT "7" - Responses to Mitigation Measures
TAMI MERRIMAN appeared, presented the Planning and Community Development
Department Staff Report addressing the binding site plan, and testified that the site is
located at the intersection of West Road and 103r°. The applicant filed an environmental
appeal because it wants to use alternate technology for stormwater due to the location of
Yelm Creek and the high groundwater table. The site plan shows the buildings proposed
on the west side of the internal plat road. The development will require the demolition of
the existing residence, and wetlands are more than 200 feet away. The City will evaluate
each building in accordance with the design guidelines as it is proposed. Conditions require
landscaping and corner enhancement.
GRANT BECK appeared and presented the findings and conclusions of the responsible
official on the environmental appeal and testified that mitigating measures were imposed
pursuant to SEPA review on stormwater drainage impacts because of high groundwater.
The City did not accept alternate technology, but required the bottom of the pond to have
an elevation of six feet above groundwater. The pond must also accommodate road
frontage stormwater. The appellant cited three reasons for the appeal: 1. The City didn't
identify the groundwater protection in the presubmittal hearing; 2. The requirements are
beyond the minimum regulations of the City; 3. The proposed vortex system is used
elsewhere and accepted. He determined that all of the issues fail and that the MDNS
should be approved. Concerning presubmittal, it is true that the City did not identify the
additional protection, but these are pre-meeting conferences and pre-review conferences.
The Examiner has previously ruled on this issue. The City is requiring the same condition
as it did in the Wal-Mart MDNS. The high groundwater is an emergent issue. We have the
same groundwater issue and the same condition attached. The high groundwater did not
emerge as an issue until after formal submittal. SEPA review fills in gaps left by legislation.
At the time of review the Critical Areas Ordinance had not been updated, but now it is
included within the code. The ordinance would require the additional protection if the
applicant submitted the site plan today. At the time of submittal a gap existed in the City
ordinances. Review is based on Thurston County regulations and the Salmon Creek
Interim Regulations. Condition 3B refers to an elevation of 335 feet, but such is not a
regulation. It is an attempt to help the applicant determine the groundwater. The flood
-z-
elevation must be determined. The aerial photograph determined the high groundwater
and the applicant must install the system six feet above the map elevation which results
in the 335 foot guideline. Measure 3C requires separate water infiltration. No capacity
exists for additional stormwater from the road in the development across West Road.
Concerning approved alternate systems, DOE allows alternate systems under stringent
conditions and the City has allowed such systems where they are very large and where
there is financial backing, reporting, and maintenance. The school has the same system
the applicant desires, but meets the requirements of the City. These types of systems are
not appropriate in a binding site plan where lots can be owned by various businesses or
as an association. Concerning the policy background, he reviewed past projects and the
condition has a scientific background as the entire City has been identified as an aquifer
recharge area. A policy of the old Critical Areas Ordinance requires treatment of projects
located on a critical aquifer. Emergent technology is not listed in the 1992 DOE Manual
adopted by the City.
ROBERT TAUSCHER, professional engineer, appeared and introduced Exhibit "5", a
confrmation that wetlands do not exist on the property. Concerning emergent technology
policy, the DOE web page shows approval under the general use level. Concerning vortex,
he can't see an extra reporting requirement to DOE which produced Exhibit "6" which
defines the criteria of the system. He designed the engineering for the school and DOE
required no additional reporting. Maintenance of the system requires a vactor truck and a
condition could require a contract with a provider. Also, vortex itself provides maintenance.
The maintenance must occur about every four months. The maintenance is site specific
and a program is set up for each site. The only cost is that of the vactor truck. The roof
runoff can be taken and directed to the infiltration galleries. It can stay out of the treatment
element. An alternative is a Swale, but such would reduce the number of buildings. Another
alternative is a wet pond which would also cause the loss of a lot. A ground cartridge unit
is also an alternative, but it requires the same maintenance.
ERLING BIRKLAND appeared and testifed that he has no questions or concerns with the
staff report except for the storm drainage issue. In many jurisdictions they can provide a
bond to ensure maintenance of the system. They can accommodate these requirements.
The City needs to address other technology then dumping water in a hole.
MR. BECK reappeared and testified that other options do exist such as a wet pond above
or below ground. Wet ponds below ground do not consume surface areas. The vortex
raises the elevation of the storm drainage as the City desires. The applicant can provide
over winter monitoring to provide assurance of the groundwater level.
MR. TAUSCHER reappeared to introduce Exhibit "7" addressing the Salmon Creek
requirements. Other options do exist, but they are trying to keep the cost of development
down. They looked at the best cost effective method. Other jurisdictions accept their
proposed method.
3-
The Examiner then left the record open to November 22, 2005, for the applicant and the
City to further discuss the SEPA issues and for the City to respond to the applicant's
submittals. No one spoke further in this matter and the hearing was concluded.
NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community
Development Department
FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION:
FINDINGS:
1. The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, heard
testimony, and taken this matter under advisement.
2. Notice of the date and time of the public hearing was posted on the site, mailed to
owners of property within 300 feet of the project site, and mailed to the recipients
of the Notice of Application and SEPA Determination on October 24, 2005. Notice
of the date and time of public hearing was published in the Nisqually Valley News
in the legal notice section on October 21, 2005.
3. The City of Yelm Responsible Official issued a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance on August 12, 2005. An appeal was filed.
4. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a rectangular, five acre parcel
of property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of West Road SE and
NE 103`° Avenue within the City of Yelm. The parcel abuts West Road for 430 linear
feet and varies in depth between 577 and 474 feet. The southern tip of the parcel
touches NE 103`0 Avenue. The applicant requests binding site plan approval to
allow creation of six commercial building pads and site plan approval for one, 5,600
square foot structure.
5. Improvements on the site include two single family residential dwellings and
accessory outbuildings, all of which will be removed. The site plan shows access
provided via a single road extending northeast from West Road and terminating in
a cul-de-sac near the north property line. Three building pads and associated
parking areas are located on each side of the internal road. The site plan shows
Type 3 landscaping along the West Road frontage and Type 2 landscaping along
the balance of the perimeter. A portion of the northeastern property line extends
closer than 200 feet from the centerline of Yelm Creek, but no improvements are
planned for said area. The area within the shoreline jurisdiction will consist of Type
2 landscaping.
4-
6. The site is located within the Commercial (C1) zone classification of the Yelm
Municipal Code (YMC). Section 17.26.010 YMC provides that the purpose of the
C1 classification is to identify appropriate areas for the location of business centers
to serve the needs of the community for convenience goods and services such as
food, drugs, household supplies, automobile servicing and other related uses.
Section 17.26.030 YMC sets forth 69 uses allowed outright in the C1 classification.
7. Section 17.26.060 YMC requires for the C1 classification a minimum parcel size of
5,000 square feet and setbacks from side property lines of ten feet, rear property
lines of 20 feet, and front property lines of 15 feet. Section 17.26.090 YMC limits
the height of buildings to 40 feet and Section 17.26.110 YMC sets forth off-street
parking requirements. The site plan will comply with all bulk regulations of the C1
classification.
8. All abutting parcels are located within the C1 classification; and parcels to the south
across 103rtl Avenue and to the east along 103`tl Avenue are improved with
commercial uses. The abutting parcel to the west is improved with a single family
residential dwelling. Improvement of the site as proposed fits well with the existing
commercial uses and future uses as contemplated by the comprehensive plan and
development regulations.
9. Conditions of approval require the applicant to improve the street frontage of West
Road SE to a commercial collector standard which requires an 11 foot wide travel
lane, five foot wide paved shoulder, vertical curb, planter strip with street trees, a
five foot wide sidewalk, and streetlighting. The applicant must also pay the
transportation facility charge of $750.00 per new p.m. peak hour trip and meet the
parking requirements set forth in Chapter 17.72 YMC. Compliance with said
conditions will ensure that the plat makes appropriate provision for streets, roads,
alleys, and other public ways.
10. The City of Yelm will provide both domestic water and fire flow as well as sanitary
sewer service to the site. The applicant must pay the connection fee for both water
and sewer.
11. The northeast corner of the site extends approximately 20 feet into the shoreline
jurisdiction of Yelm Creek, but no development will occur therein. Wetlands
associated with Yelm Creek measure more than 200 feet from the property line, and
therefore the site meets all buffer requirements for the creek and associated
wetlands.
12. The applicant must comply with all landscaping and screening requirements set
forth in Chapter 17.80 YMC to include perimeter landscaping and landscaping
necessary to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. At the time of civil
-5-
plan review the applicant must present a detailed foal landscape and irrigation plan
for approval.
13. The Yelm Design Guidelines place the site in a Mixed Use District. Design
guidelines require a development to define the street edge with building,
landscaping, or other features and to provide direct access to the building from the
frontage. Larger developments must increase pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
reduce negative impacts to adjacent properties, and upgrade the overall visual
quality of the City. Street corners require substantial landscaping, a decorative
screen wall, pedestrian access, and architectural cover treatments. The site plan
does not presently provide for enhancing the corner of West Road and 103rd
Avenue, but must do so prior to final approval. The applicant proposes to landscape
around the west, north, and east property lines. Sidewalks circulate through the site
and from West Road SE into the site, and pedestrian access exists to all building
pads. The pedestrian circulation and building design and details must meet all
criteria set forth on pages 8-10 of the staff report. Compliance with code
requirements will ensure that the site plan review for the first building satisfies all
criteria set forth in Section 17.84.020(C) YMC.
14. Prior to obtaining binding site plan approval the applicant must establish that the
request satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 16.32.065 YMC. Findings on each
criteria are hereby made as follows:
A. The site plan shows areas in the southern corner and along the northeast
property line retained in open space and perimeter landscaping along all four
property lines. Taxes will support parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools
and school grounds. As found hereinafter, constructing the storm drainage
system in accordance with the requirements of the SEPA mitigating
measures will ensure that the binding site plan makes appropriate provision
for drainage ways. Required improvements to streets, the payment of the
transportation facility charge, and the connection to public water and sewer
will ensure that the binding site plan makes appropriate provision for streets,
roads, alleys, other public ways, potable water supplies, and sanitary waste.
The sidewalks circulating through the site and from West Road will ensure
safe walking conditions and a safe location for a transit stop if desired in the
future.
B. The binding site plan will serve the public use and interest by providing an
attractive location for a commercial use consistent with the zoning and
comprehensive plan designation as well as surrounding uses.
C. Public facilities impacted by the businesses are adequate and available.
6-
D. As previously found, the City will provide sanitary sewer service for the
project as well as water service.
SEPA APPEAL
15. On August 12, 2005, the City Responsible Official (RO) issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance following review pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). On September 2, 2005, Erling Birkland on behalf
of 36&C LLC (appellant) timely filed an environmental appeal challenging mitigating
measure no. 3 which reads as follows:
3. Civil plan submission shall include an updated preliminary
stormwater plan that meets or exceeds the standards of the
1992 stormwater Manual as adopted by the City of Yelm.
The stormwater plan shall include the following elements:
a. Alternative technologies are not accepted.
b. The elevation of the bottom of the infiltration
gallery shall be a minimum of six feet above the
elevation of the high groundwater area as
identified by Thurston County (approximate
elevation 335), and must be 50 feet horizontally,
or 2 feet vertically away from the High Ground
water area, which ever distance is less.
c. Separate water quality treatment for roof runoff
shall be provided.
d. The stormwater system shall be designed to
accommodate stormwater generated by required
frontage improvements.
16. The appellant desires to use an alternative technology for the treatment of
stormwater prior to infiltration. The appellant proposes a vortechnics unit
manufactured by stormwater 360, Inc. which it asserts meets or exceeds many of
the traditional means of removing pollutants. The appellant further asserts that the
City has allowed the vortechnics unit in recently constructed schools. However,
according to the RO, the City has rarely allowed the use of emerging stormwater
treatment technology systems such as the vortechnics unit within the City. The City
has allowed Yelm Community Schools to use such technologies because the district
has the maintenance staff and financial resources to maintain the system and
complete status reports. In the present case, the applicant proposes a relatively
small, five acre project which will through the binding site plan process have six
different owners of different sections of the parcel. A condominium type ownership
is not appropriate to test emerging technologies, especially considering that the site
is located atop a critical aquifer.
17. Concerning Mitigating Measure No. 3(b) the appellant asserts that the City did not
disclose the required 335 foot groundwater elevation during the presubmission
conference. Section 17.84.050 YMC entitled "Preliminary Site Plan" provides:
Prior to applying for site plan review, a developer may file with the
SPRC (Site Plan Review Committee) a summary site plan, which
shall contain in a rough and approximate manner all of the
information required in the site plan application. The purpose of a
summary plan is to enable a developer filing the plan to obtain the
comments of the SPRC as to the applicability of the intent,
standards and provisions of this chapter to the plan.
Section 17.84.020(C) YMC requires the SPRC to review a site plan as follows:
C. The SPRC shall review a site plan and approve, or approve
with conditions, site plans which conform to the standards
provisions and policies, of the site as expressed in its
various adopted plans including the applicable sections of
the shoreline master program for the Thurston region....
The YMC does not contemplate that the presubmission review requires the City to
identify all standards, provisions, and policies which will apply to a proposed plan.
According to Section 17.84.050 YMC, the applicant need only provide a "summary
site plan" which contains "in a rough and approximate manner all of the information
required in a site plan application". The notes from the preapplication meeting
specifically advise an applicant of that fact:
These comments are preliminary in nature and not intended to
represent final comments and/or requirements for the City of Yelm.
Until a complete application is made, the Community Development
Department can only attempt to inform the applicant of general
requirements as they appear in the form presented by the applicant
at the time of submission.
Thus, lack of disclosure of the 335 foot elevation during the presubmission
conference does not prohibit its imposition.
18. In its appeal the appellant questions how the City determined the 335 foot elevation
and what datum it used to derive the elevation. The appeal notes that the 1992
DOE Stormwater Manual adopted by the City requires three feet of separation
between the bottom of an infltration facility and the seasonal high groundwater. The
a-
appellant also notes that the City has not formally adopted the Salmon Creek
standards which require six feet of separation within the Yelm Creek area. However,
the City has identified high groundwater in the area and has also determined that
a minimum of six feet of separation is required between the bottom of an infiltration
facility and said high groundwater table to provide adequate protection for the
critical aquifer. The City Critical Areas Ordinance, amended subsequent to the filing
of a completed application, now requires the six foot separation. The City also
required the same six foot separation for the Wal-Mart Supercenter site. While
Mitigating Measure 3(b) refers to an elevation of 335 feet such elevation is not a
standard or regulation, but an attempt to assist the applicant in determining the
height of the groundwater. The applicant must determine the flood elevation and
install the system six feet above said system which results in the 335 foot estimate.
19. According to RCW 43.21C.060, a portion of the SEPA statute, SEPA supplements
existing authority of all governmental agencies and allows decisionmakers to go
beyond their traditional criteria (ordinances) and exercise SEPA given authority to
make land use decisions based upon environmental considerations. The RO in
evaluating the environmental impacts of the binding site plan application determined
that existing ordinances did not provide adequate environmental protection for the
groundwater due to an elevated winter water table, and therefore imposed a greater
standard than required by ordinance pursuant to SEPA authority.
20. Our Courts have explained the purpose of SEPA review as follows
SEPA is a procedural statute designed to ensure that local
governments consider the environmental and ecological effects of
major actions to the fullest extent. SEPA's purpose is to provide
decisionmakers with all relevant information about the potential
environmental consequences of their actions and to provide a
basis for a reasoned judgment that balances the benefits of a
proposed project against its potential adverse effects. Des Moines
v. Puget Sound Regional Council, 98 Wn. App 23 at 36; (1999).
In fulfilling its responsibilities under SEPA, the RO reviews the environmental
checklist and supporting documents and issues a threshold determination as to
whether any probable significant adverse environmental impacts will result from the
proposed development. Before requiring mitigating measures the RO must first
consider whether the development regulations of local, state, or federal jurisdictions
and enforcement thereof would mitigate an identified significant impact (WAC 197-
11-330; 197-11-660). The RO followed these procedures in issuing the MDNS in
the present case, but found that existing City storm drainage standards would not
provide suffcient aquifer protection. The RO therefore imposed mitigating measures
pursuant to SEPA authority requiring the six foot vertical clearance standard. Thus,
g-
the RO has authority to impose the Salmon Creek standards even though not
adopted by the Yelm City Council to mitigate a probable significant adverse
environmental impact.
21. The appellant asserts that the drainage manual does not require the treatment of
roof runoff prior to infiltration and questions the adoption of such standards by the
City. The appellant also questions measure 3(d) which requires the stormwater
system to accommodate stormwater generated by required frontage improvements
on West Road based upon the existence of a stormwater collection system within
West Road. The RO imposed these measures because no capacity exists for
additional stormwater in the development on the southeast side of West Road.
These issues can be resolved through providing additional capacity for existing
systems or providing capacity on or off site. The appellant must accommodate
stormwater generated by frontage improvements.
22. RCW 43.21C.075 entitled "Appeals" provides that where an agency authorizes an
environmental appeal under SEPA as does the City, the agency:
(d) Shall provide that procedural determinations made by the
responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight.
Our Washington Supreme Court interpreted the "substantial weight" requirement in
Wenatchee Sportsman v. Chelan Countv, 141 Wn. 2d 169 (2000), as follows:
A decision to issue an MDNS may be reviewed under the clearly
erroneous standard...A Ending is clearly erroneous when, although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed... For the MDNS to survive judicial scrutiny, the record
must demonstrate that environmental factors were considered in
a manner sufficient to amount to prima facia compliance with the
procedural requirements of SEPA and that the decision to issue an
MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the
proposal's environmental impact. 141 Wn. 2d 169 at 176.
The Examiner is not left "with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed", especially considering adoption of the required standards by the
new critical areas ordinance. Applying the "substantial weight" criteria, the City's
environmental analysis provides sufficient information to identify the proposal's
probable significant environmental impacts, and the MDNS adequately mitigates
said impacts to less than substantial.
-io-
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented
by this request.
2. The applicant has established that the request for binding site plan approval and site
plan review approval satisfies all criteria set forth in the Yelm Municipal Code.
3. The appellant has not shown that the responsible offcial was clearly erroneous in
the issuance of the MDNS and in the imposition of Mitigating Measure No. 3. The
environmental appeal should therefore be denied.
4. The request for binding site plan approval and site plan review approval should be
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance are
hereby referenced and are considered conditions of this approval.
2. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the City of Yelm
Development Guideline standards based on one space for every 300
square feet of gross floor area.
3. The applicant shall connect to the City water system.
The cost to connect shall include a fee of $1,500.00
per Equivalent Residential Unit (900 cubic feet per
month), subject to change. The number of ERU's will be
calculated on water usage based on engineers
calculations.
4. The civil plan submission shall include fire flow
calculations and demonstrate that the fire flow
requirements of the International Fire Code have been
met at the site. The civil plan submission shall
include a fire access plan showing all required fire
lanes and a striping plan for fire lanes. All fire
hydrants installed as part of the development shall
include hydrant locks approved by the Development
Review Engineer and the Public Works Director.
The applicant shall connect to the City S.T.E.P. sewer system. The cost
to connect shall include a fee of $5,417.00 per ERU with a $145.00
inspection fee per connection, subject to change. The number of ERUs
required will be determined by approved water consumption calculations
submitted as part of the civil plans. Sewer connection fees are paid at
building permit issuance. Approved grease interceptors or oil interceptors
shall be provided on all side sewers serving areas which include the
_11_
potential for introduction of oils and greases into the sewer system. All
S.T. E. P. tanks shall be designed to the specifications of the City of Yelm
Development Guidelines, including a maximum depth to the tank invert of
6 feet below finish grade.
6. Upon completion of the onsite installation pursuant to the City's
Development Guidelines, the S.T. E. P. sewer equipment, appurtenances
and lines shall be conveyed to the City, and an easement provided for
maintenance.
7. The applicant shall design and construct all stormwater facilities in
accordance with the conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Non-
significance. A final stormwater report shall be included in the civil plan
submission.
8. The civil plans shall include a complete detailed landscape plan in
accordance with Chapter 17.80 YMC, including provisions for irrigation
and for maintenance of landscaping.
9. Landscaping is required.
o Type II landscaping is required along the perimeter property lines and
adjacent to buildings.
o Type III landscaping is required with all frontage improvements.
o Type IV landscaping is required in all parking areas.
o Type V landscaping is required in all above ground stormwater facilities.
10. Building elevations shall be consistent with the Yelm Design Guidelines
for the mixed use district.
11. The corner of West Road and 103`tl Avenue shall include corner
enhancements consistent with the Design Guidelines for the mixed use
district that include the following elements:
o Landscaping enhancements
o A structural element designed to enhance the intersection and create an
attractive entry.
o The landscaping plan shall include the plan for corner enhancement.
12. Refuse collection and trash compaction areas shall be designed to contain
all refuse generated on site and deposited between collections. Deposited
refuse shall not be visible from outside the refuse enclosure. Screening shall
be of a material and design compatible with the overall architectural theme
of the associated structure, shall be at least as high as the refuse container,
and shall in no case be less than six-feet in height with a gate enclosure.
-12-
The fence shall be a solid material such as wood or masonry, and shall be
designed per the City of Yelm Development guidelines. Building plans shall
include architectural details of the enclosure.
DECISION:
The request for site plan approval to allow creation of six commercial building pads and site
plan approval fora 5,600 square foot commercial building at a site located at the northeast
corner of West Road SE and 103rtl Avenue SE within the City of Yelm is hereby granted
subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above.
The environmental appeal challenging the imposition of Mitigating Measure No. 3 in the
MDNS is hereby denied.
ORDERED this 22n° day of December, 2005. i~
STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR.
Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED this 22n° day of December, 2005, to the following:
APPELLANT: 3B&C,LLC
Erling Kirkland
P.O. Box 875
Yelm. WA 98597
OTHERS:
Robert Tauscher
Jerome W. Morrissette
1700 Cooper Point Road SW
Olympia, WA 98501
City of Yelm
Tami Merriman
105 Yelm Avenue West
P.O. Box 479
Yelm, Washington 98597
13-
CASE NO.: BSP-05-0197-YL and SPR-OS-0160-YL
WEST COMMERCIAL ROAD
NOTICE
1. RECONSIDERATION: Any interested party or agency of record, oral or
written, that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner may make a written
request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner. Said request shall set forth specifc
errors relating to:
A. Erroneous procedures;
B. Errors of law objected to at the public hearing by the person requesting
reconsideration;
C. Incomplete record;
D. An error in interpreting the comprehensive plan or other relevant material; or
E. Newly discovered material evidence which was not available at the time of
the
hearing. The term "new evidence" shall mean only evidence discovered after the hearing
held by the hearing examiner and shall not include evidence which was available or which
could reasonably have been available and simply not presented at the hearing for
whatever reason.
The request must be fled no later than 4:30 p.m. on January 4. 2006 (10 days from
mailing) with the Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West, Yelm, WA
98597. This request shall set forth the bases for reconsideration as limited by the above.
The hearing examiner shall review said request in light of the record and take such further
14-
action as he deems proper. The hearing examiner may request further information which
shall be provided within 10 days of the request.
2. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The fnal decision by the Examiner
may be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or
written that disagrees 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.
is