City Reconsideration.pdf'/1c. t 01J
("ITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
121 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION — )Hearings Examiner decision on APL2011-0005
File Number: APL2011-0005
Date of Report: December 29, 2011
From: Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner issued his decision related an appeal (APL2011-0005) on
December 22, 2011. The decision dismissed the appeal "because it was not advertised as required by
City regulations." The Development Services Department's position is that the Hearing Examiner
decision was based upon an error in the application of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) and that the notice for a Type II appeal should occur under the provisions of ECDC 20.07.004
rather than ECDC 20.03.003.
In his decision the Hearings Examiner correctly notes that the table for outlining decision framework
[ECDC 20.01.003(B)] provides for appeals of Type II decisions in a public hearing format. The notice
requirements for such an appeal hearing are not those of a regular Type II permit, however. Speaking
directly to these appeals, ECDC 20.01.001(A) states that, "Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type
II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004. " This language is reinforced (verbatim)
in ECDC 20.06.000(C).
The mailing and posting requirements under ECDC 20.07.004(F) specifically state: "The director shall
provide mailed notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003. " The parties
of record as defined in this subsection include:
1. The applicant (in this case Mr. Schmaus and Mr. Bissell)
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application (this was not
required as there was not an application being appealed that would have been subject to a
hearing)
3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open
record public hearing, or to staff if an appeal of a Type 11 decision. (There was not a required
open record hearing and no comment were received).
4. The city of Edmonds.
The very specific provisions of this section do not require a blanket 300 foot mailing of an appeal,
indeed mailing would be limited to the existing parties of record. According to the provisions of ECDC
20.07.004 the City was only required to mail notice to parties of record, which the City did in mailing to
Mr. Schmaus and Mr. Bissell. The City took the additional steps of publishing the appeal hearing on
November 23`d and providing posting of the notice in City Hall, the Library and the City Council
Chambers.
A general rule in applying code language is that if a conflict exists between a general requirement and a
specific requirement, the specific requirement shall apply. Here the conflict appears to be between the
general requirements in ECDC 20.03.003, and the specific requirement listed in ECDC 20.01.001(A) and
20.07.004(F). The City respectfully asks that the Hearings Examiner reopen his review the appeal case
(APL2011-0005) under the provisions of ECDC 20.07.004 as specifically required by ECDC
20.01.001(A) and reverse the decision to dismiss the case for a failure to meet proper mailing procedures.
Respectfully submitted
Leonard Yarberry
Building Official