HE decision on reconsideration.pdf
1
2
3
/L hC 95ahb5{
th
4
121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
5
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION
6
7
8
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
9
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
10
RE: WSDOT
Noise Variance DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
11
12
13
PLN2014-0004
14
SUMMARY
15
The applicant has requested a variance to City of Edmonds noise standards for
temporary nighttime construction work for right-of-way improvements to SR 104.
16
The application was originally denied by a decision dated May 13, 2014 due to
17
discrepancies in sound estimates provided by the applicant. The applicant
subsequently filed a request for reconsideration. The request clarified some of the
18
information it had submitted into the record. Based on these clarifications, the
variance request is approved.
19
20
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
21
The clarifications in the applicants reconsideration request marginally justify
approval of the requested variance request. However, it should be noted that the
22
information specifically requested by the examiner was ultimately never provided by
the applicant. Further, the evidence supporting the variance request was marginal and
23
incomplete. The specific evidence that should be provided by future noise variance
24
applicants was identified in the May 13, 2014 original decision on this application.
25
At the hearing, the examiner requested that the applicant submit information
at
identifying the ambient noise levels SR 104 at night. The applicants
representative responded that he would provide this information in addition to the
ambient noise levels of the homes located closest to SR 104. The reason the
Noise Variance
p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
examiner requested this information was that the applicant asserted that the proposed
1
noise levels would not exceed the ambient noise levels of SR 104. The applicant had
provided information on the noise levels it would produce at SR 104, but did not
2
identify the ambient noise levels. The examiner wanted verification that ambient
noise levels were the same as the applicants construction noise. As explained by the
3
examiner at the hearing, the proposal would likely not be considered to adversely
affect neighboring properties if its noise levels didnt exceed ambient levels at SR
4
104.
5
In response to the examiners request for verification of noise levels at SR 104, the
6
applicant provided the following email, referring to a noise study attached to the
email that had been prepared for the Edmonds Crossing project in 1995:
7
8
These measurements were taken in 1995 but I believe the early morning
time frame accurately reflects the existing background sound levels for the
9
early morning hours when little traffic is on SR104.These reported
figures show that at these early morning hours sound levels could drop to
10
as low as 51-52 dBA (see attached tables). I am confident that, although
traffic increase in the day time, the night time background is still around
11
51-52 dBA as measured in 1995. In my professional judgment, nighttime
12
sound levels would, at most, increase the 1995 measurements 1-2 decibels.
13
I have also updated the equipment table to show how sound from this work
would drop off to the receivers at 500 and 1000 feet to residential
14
receivers indicated on the mailing list as well as revised some of the
activities based on a better understanding of how the equipment will be
15
used on the project.
16
In the May 13 decision on this application, the first paragraph as quoted above was
17
construed as providing the noise estimate specifically requested by the examiner, i.e.
the estimated levels at SR 104, which the paragraph notes is 51-52 dBA. The
18
secondparagraph providesthe estimates additionally volunteered by the applicant,
i.e. the noise levels of receiving properties.
19
20
In its reconsideration request, the applicants representative noted that his 51-52 dBA
estimate was not at SR 104 as requested but rather at the closest homes to SR 104,
21
located 500 feet away. Nothing in the applicants email or its attachments identified
the 51-52 dBA estimate as applying to receiving properties 500 feet from SR 104.
22
Nothing in the applicants email or its attachments otherwise provided a response to
the examiners request for estimates of noise levels at SR 104. The applicants
23
representative understood what the examiner was requesting, since at hearing he
24
noted that in addition to the estimates at SR 104, he would provide estimates for
receiving properties located 500 feet away from SR 104. Given these factors, it was
25
reasonable to conclude that the 51-52 dBA estimate was for levels at SR 104 as
expressly requested by the examiner. The applicant has never responded to this
request.
Noise Variance
p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
The applicants clarification as to the location of its 51-52 dBA is sufficient to merit
approval. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the increase in noise at receiving
2
properties will only be 10 dBA, as opposed to the 20 dBA deduced in the May 13
decision. The 20 dBA determination was based upon the (mis)understanding that the
3
applicants 51-52 dBA estimate was at SR 104 as opposed to at the receiving
properties 500 feet away.
4
5
In its request for reconsideration the applicant also notes that the original May 13
decision used incorrect decibel levels in assessing noise levels at 500 feet from SR
6
104. The original decision did erroneously identify noise levels at 500 feet in its
analysis when the values were actually for receiving properties located 1,000 feet
7
from SR 104. That error is immaterial. Using the applicants noise levels at 500 feet
8
(Ex. 1, att. 5), there is still a difference between ambient and project noise levels that
1
probably exceeds 20 dBA at 500 feetfrom SR 104 under theoriginal
9
at
(mis)understanding that ambient noise levels SR 104 are 51-52 dBA at night. 20
2
dBA is far above any threshold that would be considered significant, which was the
10
entire point of extrapolating noise levels out to the location of the closest residentially
developed receiving properties.
11
12
ORAL TESTIMONY
13
Staff
14
Mr. Mike Clugston from the planning division stated that the Washington State
Department of Transportation has applied for a noise variance for a project on
15
Washington State Route 104. He submitted the Staff Report from April 14 with ten
16
attachments to the record, and he submitted a public comment letter. Both were
admitted to the record. He stated that the variance has been requested because the
17
work that this project requires cannot be completed during the day, thus they have to
do it at night. The city code in chapter 5.30 requires that work be conducted between 7
18
a.m. and 10 p.m., and a noise variance is required to do work outside that time.
Additionally, chapter 5.30 identifies the sound levels that need to be met for projects,
19
and the work that would be done at night for this project would exceed these sound
20
levels.
21
Mr. Clugston stated that the application asks for twenty nights of noise variance
between May 1 and December 31, 2014, and the city must be notified each of the
22
twenty nights that the variance is used. Also, the application proposes several
23
1
The original decision referenced pick-up truck noise levels from Ex. 4 (revised Ex. 1, att. 5) in its
24
assessment of off-site noise impacts. This should have been the truck mounted attenuator (presumably
also known as a crash attenuator). A comparison to the pickup noise may have been more accurate.
25
Both the pickup truck and attenuator were listed as generating 64 dBA at the project site, but generated
differing noise levels further from the project site.
2
As shown in Table 1 to the Edmonds Crossing noise report, Ex. 3, a 20 dBA increase in noise
correlates with a perceived quadrupling in noise levels.
Noise Variance
p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
mitigation measures that are described in attachments 2 and 5 to the Staff Report.
1
These measures will attempt to reduce noise from the project; attachment 5 is a spread
sheet that lists a host of mitigation measures proposed for the equipment that would be
2
used. He stated that noise variances are different from regular variances that are
descripted in chapter 20.85. The process for a noise variance is the same, but the
3
criteria for a noise variance is specific, and it is described in chapter 5.30. Specifically,
ECC 5.30.120.A requires that the Hearing Examiner make a finding that compliance
4
with the noise requirements in chapter 5.30 cannot be achieved because of special
5
circumstances. In this case, where the project is proposed qualifies as a special
circumstance that prevents compliance with the noise requirements, and Staff
6
recommends approval of the variance.
7
The Hearing Examiner asked in reference to attachment 5 what the ambient noise level
8
is at night on SR 104, and Mr. Clugston stated that Staff does not have information on
that, but a noise study could be conductedto find out what the average noise level is at
9
night. Also, Mr. Clugston stated that Staff does not know what traffic is like on SR
104 at night. Attachment 9 has information about the residences that are near where
10
the project is proposed on SR 104. Mr. Clugston stated that he worked on a noise
variance in 2010, but he is not familiar with an application for a noise variance from
11
the city. The examiner explained that one possible factor that differentiates this project
12
from that one is that this project does not look to be in a relatively quiet area, thus the
noise from the project would not have a huge impact; this is why it might be important
13
to know what the ambient noise level at night on the SR 104 is.
14
Applicants
15
The applicant, Mr. Larry Magnoni, stated that he is the acoustic air quality and energy
16
specialist for the Washington State Department of Transportation. He has been doing
this work for 23 years. He stated that the buffer zones identified in the application
17
refer to the zones in which several mailings have been sent to notify residents nearby,
or those within a 1,000-foot radius, about the project. Most work in the project is
18
going to be around the crosswalk, which is the area that the 1,000 foot radius is based
on. There will be a few activities, e.g. traffic control signing, outside this 1,000-foot
19
radius, but those activities should not exceed the noise levels. The Examiner asked
20
where the closest homes to the construction work would be located and Mr. Magnoni
indicated they were located to the sough in Woodway. Mr. Magnoni was unable to
21
note the distances to these homes.
22
Mr. Magnoni stated that, as far as the typical ambient noise level on SR 104 at night, it
is fairly loud at 6 p.m. but it gets quieter as the night goes on, and this project would
23
take lanes on the highway from about 7:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. There is traffic in the area
24
for the ferry nearby that operates as early as 5:30 in the morning. Mr. Magnoni stated
that he did not know the typical ambient noise level on SR 104 at, say, 2:00 in the
25
morning. When the Hearing Examiner asked why the attachments say that the noise
from the equipment would not be louder than the noise that is typically in the area, Mr.
Magnoni clarified that this is the case at 7 p.m., but the area typically grows quieter as
Noise Variance
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
the night goes on. He stated that for the closest nearby residents, the noise would be
1
like a refrigerator kicking on. If there are complaints about the noise, they will respond
within 24 hours to address the concerns. In the past, they have responded to
2
complaints by offering ear plugs, providing white noise machines, or putting residents
in hotels. Mr. Magnoni stated that he could easily put up a meter on SR 104 for 24
3
hours to take noise measurements that would determine the typical ambient noise level
in the area at night.
4
5
Mr. David Crisman, who also works for the Washington State Department of
Transportation, stated that the noisy work for the project would include cutting into
6
the concrete sidewalk, putting in a ramp, creating an island for pedestrians to cross in
the area, and putting in foundations for a signal; the loudest noises would be from
7
using the saw, pouring the concrete, and drilling. These activities would be within the
8
1,000-foot radius, and they would not be continuous throughout the night; the noise
level would be up for a bit, down for a bit, up for a bit, etc. during the night. Other
9
work in the project would include striping, controlling erosion, putting up signs, and
these activities would be outside the 1,000-foot radius.
10
Mr. Magnoni stated that they have planned mitigation measurements to reduce the
11
noise of the machines; one is to line the bed of the trucks to quiet the noise that they
12
make. But there is not much that they can do to reduce the noise of equipment such as
the drills. In response to questions from the Hearing Examiner about how barriers
13
might be used to mitigate the noise, Mr. Carl Barker, who is from the construction
office, stated that temporary, insulated barriers would be used to mitigate the noise
14
from small, stationary equipment, but those barriers are not really possible on larger,
moving equipment like drills. In general, this is a measure for mitigation that the city
15
puts into contracts, and it is mitigation measure three in the Staff Report.
16
Public Comments
17
Mr. Rutledge asked how many consecutive days would work be done, and whether
18
notifications to residents about the noise would be sent out for each day, or whether
one notification would be sent out to warn about the noise that would be heard for
19
several nights in a row. Are people going to receive twenty notifications at a rate of
20
one every twelve days? He asked what the crime watch would be while this
construction was going on. It would be easy for a person to put on a construction
21
uniform, break into a home, and leave town without being caught. He asked about a
tentative date for when the project would start. He stated that the project could be shut
22
down if there are more than three complaints at once. It is important to remember to
notify the residents.
23
24
Staff Rebuttal
25
Mr. Clugston stated in response to Mr. Rutledge that section ECC 5.30.140 discusses
citizen complaints, and it does address the concerns that Mr. Rutledge addresses.
Noise Variance
p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Applicant Rebuttal
1
In response to questions about when the project will start, the applicant stated the
2
project would be put up for contract on May 12, there would be a twelve-week period,
and it would be awarded potentially June 16, executed potentially July 7, and the
3
contractor would need time to procure the materials for up to four months. That is why
the application allows for such a long period; once the contractor starts work, it will
4
most likely be done within about six weeks. Residents need to be notified about the
5
noise at least seven days prior to the noise, and they will most likely be notified that
there will be noise for twenty nights within a thirty-day period.
6
EXHIBITS
7
8
The staff report and its 10 attachments were admitted as Exhibit 1 during the hearing.
A letter of support written by Christy Cufley was admitted as Exhibit 2. An April 29,
9
2014 email from Larry Magnoni to Diane Cunningham with three attachments is
admitted as Exhibit 3. The applicants reconsideration request is admitted as Exhibit
10
4.
11
FINDINGS OF FACT
12
Procedural
:
13
1. Applicant. The Applicant is the Washington State Department of
14
Transportation.
15
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on April 24, 2014. The record was held
16
open through May 2, 2014 in order for the applicant to submit noise readings of
ambient night noise levels at the project site. The original decision, denying the
17
variance, was issued on May 13, 2014. The applicant filed a request for
3
reconsideration on May 20, 2014.
18
19
Substantive
:
20
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) is requesting a nighttime noise variance for work on right-
21
of-way improvements to State Route 104 (SR104). According to their cover letter in
22
Attachment 2, WSDOT proposes to construct a mid-block pedestrian and bicycle
crossing to make a connection to the sidewalk west of SR104 with a pedestrian trail
23
that leads to Edmonds City Park at approximately Mile Post 25.03. The project will
24
3
ECDC 20.06.010 gives the examiner the option of sending out a request for reconsideration for
25
comment from parties of record. In this application that option was not exercised because no party of
record contested the accuracy of the applicants noise estimates or expressed any concerns about noise
impacts in general. The only comment in opposition expressed concerns over the improvement project
itself as opposed to the noise it generates.
Noise Variance
p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
involve paving and concrete work, digging and other utility placement activities,
1
signing, striping and traffic control equipment.
2
If this work could be completed during the daytime, a noise variance would not be
required. However, because WSDOT can only do lane closures on SR104 at night,
3
the construction work envisioned within the travel lanes can only occur at night.
Approval of this variance would permit WSDOT to conduct construction activities
4
for this project between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. for 20 nonconsecutive
5
nights between May and December 31, 2014. It would also allow the regularly
allowed nighttime decibel levels for potential receiving properties to be exceeded.
6
4. Adverse Impacts. With the clarifications provided by the applicant, it is
7
determined that the noise generated by the proposal will not create significant impacts
8
to residents of properties in the vicinity. The applicant provided evidence, Ex. 3, that
marginally establishes that ambient noise levels at the closest residentially developed
9
receiving properties is 51-52 dBA at night.The maximum noise levels generated by
the equipment of the project 62 dB, as listed in Ex. 3, revised Ex.1, att. 5. The
10
applicants representative testified that this noise level was the equivalent of that
generated by a refrigerator. The Edmonds Crossing noise report, Ex. 3, states that 60
11
dBA is the level of sound generated by a large store air conditioner. Further,
12
according to Table 1 of the Edmonds Crossing noise report, an increase from 50 to 60
dBA is perceived as a doubling in loudness.
13
Even with the applicants reconsideration clarification, however, the evidence
14
presented by the applicant still contains a major inaccuracy. Ex. 1, attachment 5
notes that the equipment generating the loudest noise (80 dBAwould be perceived
15
at night
at or near the same as existing background noise from SR 104 . (emphasis
16
added). As determined in the preceding paragraph, the perceived noise level will in
fact double. That is nowhere near at or near the same as existing background
17
noise. Under questioning from the examiner, the applicants representative clarified
that the comment meant to address perceived noise levels at 7:00 pm and that SR 104
18
noise levels decrease as the night goes on. The comment in Ex. 1, attachment 5 on
this issue is highly misleading. Night noise levels for the purpose of Edmonds
19
noise regulations (and Department of Ecology noise levels as well) is defined as
20
10:00 pm to 7:00 am, which of course does not include 7:00 pm noise levels. The
greatest impacts to adjoining residents would be in the quietest portion of the evening,
21
when project noises would be most likely to wake them. Despite this gross
mischaracterization of night time noise levels, the applicant failed to correct that
22
statement when it revised attachment 5 in its Ex. 3 submission.
23
Ultimately, whether or not a noise level is significant is a subjective determination.
24
In this case the applicants noise expert testified that the noise levels would not be
significantly adverse and there was no evidence to the contrary. Noise levels will be
25
those of an air conditioning unit or refrigerator, which would not be anticipated to
interfere with the sleep. The conditions of approval will require numerous noise
attenuation measures, including the use of noise mitigation shields, noise blankets,
Noise Variance
p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
skirts and other devices to reduce noise of stationary equipment. Parking and idling
1
near residences will not be permitted. Further, the conditions of approval require the
applicant to provide a noise complaint line for persons that are adversely affected. In
2
response to complaints, the applicant is prepared to accommodate the concerns of
affected residents with measures such as providing ear plugs or even putting up the
3
residents in a hotel. No one testified against the noise levels of the proposal. Further,
the noise levels will be of limited duration and the maximum 62 dBA levels will be
4
very close to the 60 dBA levels designated as acceptable by ECDC 5.30.040 for
5
daytime noise levels. Although some of the applicants evidence was misleading,
most of it was consistent with the findings and noise information in the Edmonds
6
Crossing report. For all these reasons, as conditioned it is determined that the facility
will not create significant adverse noise impacts.
7
8
5. Other Mitigation. The applicant testified that there is no other mitigation
reasonably available beyond that incorporated into the conditions of approval. The
9
mitigation proposed bythe applicant (and partially summarized in Finding of Fact
No. 4) does appear to be as comprehensive as could be reasonably expected from the
10
applicant. The only other mitigation that could be employed would be to require the
construction work to be done during the day. The staff report notes that the project
11
will entail lane closures on SR 104 that cannot be shut down during the day. The
12
record does not identify why this cannot be done, but given the high traffic levels of
SR 104 and the associated ferry traffic as identified in the Citys comprehensive plan,
13
it is reasonableto conclude that lane closures on SR 104 could create significant
traffic problems. Given the absence of any testimony to the contrary, it is determined
14
that there is no other mitigation available that could involve feasible technology or
control methods.
15
16
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17
Procedural
:
18
19
1.Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.85.020 provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications as Type III-
20
A.
21
Substantive
:
22
2. Review Criteria and Application. As discussed in the Summary, the
23
project will generate night time noise levels up to 80 dBA at the noise source and up
to 62 dBA at residential receiving properties. ECDC 5.30.040, in conjunction with
24
4
ECDC 5.30.050(A), limits noise levels, depending on the zoning of the noise source,
to 45 dB to 50 dBA at residentially zoned receiving properties between the hours of
25
4
The applicant and staff did not identify the zoning of the noise generating or noise receiving
properties.
Noise Variance
p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
10:00 pm and 7:00 am. As noted in the staff report, the noise generated by the
1
proposal during daylight hours is exempt from Chapter 5.30 ECDC standards as
construction and utility noise. ECDC 5.32.120(C) (3) provides that variances to noise
2
standards shall be processed as required by and meet the criteria of ECDC 20.85.020
\[sic\]. ECDC 5.30.120(A) and (B) also add additional criteria to noise variances.
3
Applicable criteria are quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions
of law.
4
5
ECDC 5.30.120(A):
Variances may be granted to any person from any requirement
of ECC 5.30.040 or 5.30.110 if findings are made that immediate compliance with
6
such requirement cannot be achieved because of special circumstances rendering
immediate compliance unreasonable in light of economic or physical factors,
7
encroachment upon an existing noise source or because of nonavailability of feasible
8
technology or control methods.
9
3. Special circumstances justify the noise variance because there is no other
mitigation available that could involve feasible technology or control methods as
10
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.
11
ECDC 5.30.120(B):
Any such variance or renewal thereof shall be granted only for
the minimum time period found to be necessary under the facts and circumstances.
12
13
4. The applicant proposes a maximum of 20 nights for the variance, which it has
determined is necessary for completion of the proposed SR 104 improvements at
14
night. The applicant has no discernible reason to extend the construction period for
any time longer than necessary. There being no evidence to the contrary, it is
15
determined thatthe requested variance is for the minimum time period necessary to
complete the project.
16
17
ECDC 20.85.010:
No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this
section can be made.
18
ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) Special Circumstances:
That, because of special
19
circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in
20
the vicinity with the same zoning.
21
a.Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
22
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as
23
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
24
b.Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal
25
to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be
necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a
scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any
Noise Variance
p. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same
1
property;
2
5. The special circumstance of the proposal is the location of SR 104 in
proximity to residential areas. The transportation needs of the area dictate the
3
location of SR 104 and improvements such as the proposed crosswalk are in the
public interest and cannot be avoided. Public necessity also justifies the variance as
4
identified in ECDC 20.85.010(A)(1). The special circumstances are not predicated
5
upon any factor personal to the applicant and arise entirely from public necessity.
6
ECDC 20.85.010(B) Special Privilege:
That the approval of the variance would
not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations
7
upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
8
6.Variances would likely be granted for any other improvements to public
9
roads that have similar impacts. No special privilege is involved.
10
ECDC 20.85.101(C) Comprehensive Plan:
That the approval of the variance will
be consistent with the comprehensive plan;
11
12
7. Page 86-87 of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contains a section on
noise pollution. This section of the Plan recognizes that noise can adversely affect
13
health and that measures should be taken to preserve a quiet environment. The
limited duration and extent of the noise variance in conjunction with the numerous
14
mitigation measuresare consistent with these comprehensive plan objectives.
15
ECDC 20.85.010(D) Zoning Ordinance:
That the approval of the variance will be
16
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which
the property is located;
17
8. ECDC 16.10.000(B)(4) provides that one of the purposes of all residential
18
zones is to keep residents free from noise. The conditions of this variance decision
mitigate noise as much as reasonably possible and limit nighttime noise to moderate
19
levels. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the purpose of keeping
20
residents free from noise.
21
ECDC 20.85.010(E) Not Detrimental:
That the variance as approved or
conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health,
22
safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
same zone;
23
24
9. As conditioned, the variance will not create significant adverse noise
impacts as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Consequently, the criterion is met.
25
Noise Variance
p. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
ECDC 20.85.010(F) Minimum Variance:
That the approved variance is the
1
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
2
10. As determined in the Findings of Fact, the applicants have provided as
3
much noise mitigation as they reasonably can under the circumstances and the
variance is limited to the time necessary to complete the project. The criterion is
4
satisfied.
5
DECISION
6
The variance application is approved, subject to the following conditions:
7
1.The proposed mitigation measures described in Attachments 2 and 5 are
8
required. In addition, the notice to residents shall include contact information
for a designated City staff person to address situations where the applicant
9
does not resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant. City staff
shall have the authority to require the applicant to provide for additional
10
accommodations to the complainant as reasonably necessary to mitigate
11
adverse noise impacts.
2.The granting of a variance does not relieve WSDOT from the requirements of
12
ECC 5.30.130 relating to public disturbance noises.
13
3.The noise variance is valid for only 20 nights between May 1 and December
31, 2014 and WSDOT must notify the City each time the variance is used.
14
15
Dated this22nd day of May, 2014.
16
17
18
Edmonds Hearing Examiner
19
20
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
21
22
This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council as
authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the issuance
23
of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may be requested
within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.06.010.
24
25 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Noise Variance
p. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Noise Variance
p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision