Hearing Examiner Decision AP-08-6.pdfrhe 18911
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Appeal of )
Craig Reimer )
}
Of an Administrative Interpretation )
NO. AP -08-6
Reimer Appeal
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
An appeal of the Community Development Department's decision to deny a request for lot line
adjustment, based on the application of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
17,40,039,C, Te t . 9 reel p Qp gty located atl$607 Olympic View Drive ?A 1 eft s,
Washington is DENIED. The City's interpretation is affirmed.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Craig Reimer (Appellant) appeals the City of Edmonds Community Development Department's
determination that the two legally described parcels addressed as 18607 Olympic View Drive
have been combined by operation of ECDC 17.40.030.0 and that therefore his application for lot
line adjustment must be denied.
Hearing •
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the appeal on
November 20, 2008. The Hearing Examiner conducted a site visit prior to the hearing.
Testimony -
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
2. Craig Reimer, Appellant
3. Steve Bullock, Appellant Representative
4. Alvin Rutledge
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Community Development Department Staff Report
2. Zoning & Vicinity map
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Reimer Appeal, No. AP --08-6
Incorporated August I1, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
page 1 of 6
3. Aerial Map
4. Land Use Application
5. Lot Line Adjustment Narrative (from Appellant)
6. Plat Certificate
7. 08-09-2008 Record of Survey — Site Map prepared for proposed lot line adjustment
8. Correspondence from K. Lien to C. Reimer, dated August 20, 2008
9. Correspondence from S. Bullock to K. Lien, dated September 8, 2008
10. Correspondence from K. Lien to. S. Bullock, dated September 23, 2008
11. Correspondence from S. Bullock to K. Lien, dated October 7, 2008
12. Edmonds Sea View Plat, recorded 1906
13. Snohomish County Parcel Map
14. Public hearing notice documentation
15. Statement of S. Bullock, dated November 18, 2008
Issue on Appeal.,
Whether the City incorrectly applied Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
17.40.030.0 to Appellant's property resulting in the determination that the two parcels
have combined into one legal lot, which is not capable of being approved for a lot line
adjustment.
Regulations in Question:
ECDC 20.75.050.A: Lot line adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an
alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not
create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division.
ECDC 20.75.050.!Z Lot Line Ad "ustment Review. All proposals for lot line
adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning manager or his/her
designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall
approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee
certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will:
1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division,
2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum
required by code or make existing nonconforming setbacks of
existing structures more nonconforming than before;
3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for
the applicable zone;
4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a
buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any
requirement of the ECDC.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
Reimer Appeal, No. AR -08-6
page 2of6
ECDC 17.40.030. C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became
nonconforming due to its failure to meet minimum lot size or width criteria, an
undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the same ownership as a contiguous
lot or lots, the nonconforming lot is and shall be deemed to have been combined
with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to create a conforming lot
and thereafter may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, except as specifically provided in
subsection D of this section.
ECDC 17.40.030.D. Exception for Single=Family Dwe--gUnits. An applicant
may build one single-family dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the size
of the lot or parcel if, but only K one of the following exceptions applies:
1. In an RS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold or otherwise
developed as any other nonconforming lot pursuant to the following
conditions and standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not less than the
minimum lot area specified in the table below for the
zoning district in which the subject property is located, and
b. Community facilities, public utilities and roads required to
serve the nonconforming lot are available concurrently with
the proposed development, and
c. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed in order to
create a new buildable lot, and
d. The proposed development of the lot is generally consistent
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Upon consideration of the testimony, arguments, and exhibits submitted at the open record
appeal hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions:
FMINGS
1. Craig Reimer (Appellant) owns the real property at 18607 Olympic View Drive (subject
property) in Edmonds, Washington. The site is composed of portions of three platted
lots, Lots 15, 16, and 7, of the Plat of Edmonds Sea View Tracts recorded in Snohomish
County in March 1906. In title transfer documents, the Appellant's property is described
as two parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B, with separate legal descriptions. Exhibit 6; Exhibit
12. The Snohomish County Parcel map identifies the Appellant's property as a single
parcel. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit .13.
2. The subject property is developed with one single-family residence, built in
approximately 1941. The site was annexed to the City of Edmonds in 1961. The
property has had a Single -Family Residential RS -12 zoning designation since
approximately 1964. The Appellant took possession of the property in 1999. Testimony
of Mr. Lien, Testimony ofMr: Reimer; Testimony of Mr. Bullock.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Reimer Appeal, No. AP -08-6 page 3 of 6
3. The RS-12 zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 80 feet and a minimum lot
area of 12,000 square feet. ECDC 16.20.030.
4. The Appellant obtained a plat certificate from a title insurance company. The plat
certificate contains the following abbreviated legal description of the subject property:
All that portion of Lot 15 and of the southwesterly 60 feet of Lots 7 and 16,
Block C, Edmonds Sea View Tracts, according to the Plat thereof; recorded. in
Volume 3 of Plats, Page 76, Records of Snohomish County, Washington,
lying easterly of the paved highway, together with vacated Olympic Avenue
abutting upon and adjacent.to the south 60 feet of said tract 16 and to all of
said tract 15.
The plat certificate Schedule A identifies the portion of Lot 15 (and adjacent vacated
right-of-way) as Parcel A, and it calls the southwesterly 60 feet of Lots 7 and 16 (and
adjacent vacated right-of-way) Parcel B. Exhibit 6.
5. According to the Appellant's professionally prepared survey, Parcel A is 100 feet in
width, with a total area of 17,448.7 square feet. Parcel B is 60 feet wide with a total area
of 13,135.8 square feet. Exhibit 7.
6. The existing residence straddles the dividing line between the two parcels. The Appellant
applied for a lot line adjustment to reapportion the areas of the two original parcels, in
order to result in two conforming RS -12 lots with the residence located within one lot.
Exhibits 4 and 5.
7. Lot line adjustment is not allowed to create additional lots, but only to reallocate area
between existing lots. Upon review of the lot line adjustment application, Staff
determined that the contiguous parcels under the same ownership had combined by
operation of ECDC 17.40.030.0 because one was non -conforming as to width. As a
result of the combination, the Appellant's property consists of only one lot. Staff advised
the Appellant that in order to create two lots, he could apply for a short plat. Staff offered
to refund the application fees if the Appellant decided to withdraw the lot line adjustment
application. Exhibit 1, page 3; Testimony of Mr. Lien; Exhibit 8.
8. Appellant conceded that the area legally described as Parcel B is nonconforming due to
lot width and that the two parcels were combined by operation of ECDC 17.40,030.C.
Testimony of Mr. Bullock; Exhibit 15.
9. On appeal, the Appellant argued that the City's "deeming" Parcels A and B as
"combined" didn't alter their status as separate legal lots and that the City could
`undeem' them combined. Testimony of Mr. Bullock, Exhibit 11.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
ReimerAppeal, No. AP -08-6
page 4 of 6
10. Alternatively, the Appellant argued on appeal that his property qualifies for the single-
family residence exception to combination of contiguous nonconforming lots in common
ownership established in ECDC 17.40.030.D.1. Exhibit 11; Testimony of Mr. Bullock.
11. The City argued that the exceptions to lot combination in ECDC 17.40.030.D.1 do not
apply to the subject property because subsection D.1 speaks only to nonconformity based
on lot size (not width), while subsections ECDC 17.40.030.A, B, and C all refer to both
lot size and width. Thus, argued the City, `width" was intentionally excluded from the
exceptions provided in subsection D. Testimony of Mr. Lien, Exhibit 1, page S.
12. The Appellant testified that he would prefer to do a lot line adjustment rather than obtain
short plat approval because it is simpler. Testimony of Mr. Bullock Testimony ofMr.
Reimer.
13. The most recent amendment to ECDC Section 17.40.030 was in 1997. Thus, the rule
requiring combination of contiguous parcels under the same ownership in the event of
nonconformity as to size or width has been in effect since before the Appellant purchased
the property. The two parcels were combined into one parcel prior to his taking
possession. ECDC 17.40. 030 [Ord 3153 § 1, 1997; Ord 3024 § 1, 1995, Ord. 2936 § 1,
1993; Ord. 2292 § 1, 1982].
14. Notice of application and notice of hearing were published, posted, and mailed to
residents and owners within 300 feet of the site, consistent with the notice provisions of
the Community Development Code. Exhibit 1, page 7; Exhibit 14.
15. Public comment at the hearing related to the following: whether in 1999, smaller lot sizes
would have been approved; questions as to how many other cases like this there have
been in the City; whether the Appellant is aware that the easements involved in his
property may affect his property taxes; and a question as to whether the creation of a
second lot would affect school district bus service and/or student safety. Testimony of
Mr. Rutledge.
16. Staff identified one other case of an appeal of a determination that two lots had combined
due to nonconformity since 1996 (File No. AP -96-51). However in that case, the alleged
second parcel was only eight feet in width, which distinguishes the 1996 matte_ r from the
instant situation. Testimony of Mr. Lien; Testimony ofMr: Bullock.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction•
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals of City interpretations of the
text of the Edmonds Community Development Code pursuant to ECDC 20.105.010.A.2.
Criteria for Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.105.030.0, the Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing on
the appeal consistent with ECDC Title 20.91 and shall base the decision on the appeal on
the same criteria as are set forth in the code for the original staff decision appealed from.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of -Edmonds Nearing Examiner
ReimerAppeal, No. AP -08-6
page 5of6
Conclusions Based on Findinus:
1. The two parcels owned by the Appellant combined, functionally becoming one legal lot,
on the date that the combination provision and the current RS -12 developmentt standards
were both in effect on the land. The record indicates that RS -12 zoning was in effect on
the property no later than 1964. The most recent amendment to the nonconforming lot
provisions was in 1997, which means the current regulations were in effect prior to the
Appellant's purchase of the property. Contrary to the argument offered by the
Appellant's representative, "combination" has exactly the effect of removing the status as
separate legal lots. Because only one legal lot remains, lot line adjustment is not
applicable. The Appellant can achieve the desired property division and arrangement via
short plat. Findings Nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, and 13.
2. Read together with subsections A, B, and C, it is notable that nonconformity due to width
is present in the first three subsections and omitted from subsection D. Further, in the
instant case, in order to transform former Parcel B into a separate lot without destroying
existing housing stock, Appellant requires a lot line adjustment. The exception provided
in subsection D.1 does not state that reorganization of existing parcel boundaries may be
employed in order to achieve compliance with the criteria for the exception. Because of
these two factors, considered in a light most favorable to the Appellant, it is arguably at
best ambiguous whether ECDC 17.40.030.D.I provides an exception in the instant
situation. In the case of ambiguous municipal zoning ordinances, deference to the
interpretation of the administrative official charged with application and enforcement of
the zoning code is appropriate. Pinecrest Homeowners' Assn v Glen A. Cloninger &
Assoc., 151 Wn.2d 279, 290 (2004). Based in the foregoing, the Examiner concurs that
the exception for single-family residence does not apply to the instant case. The
Appellant is not significantly prejudiced by this outcome, because the desired end can be
legitimately achieved through the short plat process. Findings Nos. 2, 3, 5, b, 11, and 13.
DECISION
Appellant did not satisfy his burden of proof by successfully showing that the staff interpretation
that the two parcels were effectively combined by ECDC17.40.030.0 was wrong. Based on the
preceding findings and conclusions, the appeal must be DENIED.
Decided this 5h day of December 2008.
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Ir!G ""119111
Findings, Conclusions, and Decaron
City of Fjdmonds Hearing Examiner
Reimer App ,A No. AP -08-6
page 6 of 6
1nc.1S911
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-4220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPELLANT )
)
Craig Reimer )
Decision on Reconsideration )
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. AP -08-6
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional
services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner
services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. That on December 5, 20081 did serve a copy of the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision in case
No. AP -08-6 upon the following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail:
Craig Reimer
18607 Olympia View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98025
Clerk ofthe Edmonds City Council
121- 5t' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Steve Bullock
21402 – SIP Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121 -Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct:
DATED THIS day of e' _ P2008 a ^ Washington.
&— ARk—c=
Sharon A. Rice
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
C. �g9\3
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Anyperson wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should
contact the Planning Division of the Development Services DWartment for further. procedural
information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10)
working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the
attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person -holding an ownership interest in a tract of
land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite
specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
APPEALS
Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to
Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has
submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the
hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Section 20.105.020(A) requires appeals
to be in writing, and to state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the
date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or
her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the.decision to be wrong.
Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development
Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal
must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
TRUE LDIITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed
before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a
.decision on the reconsideration request is completed Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his or her
decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was
stopped For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of the appeal period, an individual
would have nine more days in which to file an appeal aftw the Dearing Examiner issues his decision on
the reconsideration request.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner, request a change
in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan