V-12-03 Hearing Examiner Decision.pdfTY OF w . .'
121 5th AVENUE NORTH a EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (425) 771-0220 o fax (425) 771-0221
www,edmondswa.gov
HEARING EXAMINER
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: City of Edmonds Noise
Variance
PLN2012-0003
DAVE EARLING
MAYOR
PR 3 () 2012
PLANNING DEPT,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
C
The Applicant has requested a variance to City of Edmonds noise standards for
temporary nighttime work at nine wastewater lift stations as part of a wastewater lift
station rehabilitation project. The application is provisionally approved, subject to
strict conditions that the Applicant may or may not be able to meet.
The excess noise generated by the project is potentially highly significant. The lift
stations are dispersed throughout the City's residential neighborhoods as identified in
Attachment 3 to the staff report. Overnight noise would reach levels of up to 70
decibels ("dB") on a continuous basis for all evenings over periods of two to four
weeks. ECDC 5.30.040 imposes a limit of 45 dB for the receiving properties in these
residential areas. The variance is a request to exceed City noise standards by 25 dB.
Prior to questions raised by the Examiner at the hearing, the Applicant and the staff
report had provided no information on the noise levels of the project or how those noise
levels could potentially affect receiving properties and their occupants. At the close of
the hearing, there was still virtually no information in the record on how continuous
noise levels that exceed noise standards by 45 dB could adversely affect Edmonds
residents. For this reason the conditions of approval require review by a noise expert
and a finding by the expert that the noise generated by the project will not adversely
affect Edmonds residents. Strict monitoring and time limits are also imposed.
-� Incorporated Axae^¢asi 11, 1890
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORAL TESTIMONY
March 22, 2012 Hearing
Jen Machuga, Edmonds Planner, stated that Edmonds City Code 5.30 establishes the
maximum permissible sound levels in commercial and residential districts in
Edmonds. This application is for a variance from the maximum permissible sound
levels for a wastewater rehabilitation project. The project will include work at 9
existing lift station sites. The locations of the sites are indicated on the map in
attachment 3 of the staff report. The daytime construction activities are permissible
under the provisions of the noise ordinance. However, pumping equipment will need
to be run through the night in order to maintain a certain level of water flow. The
project cannot be completed without being able to maintain these flows. The work
will be done one site at a time. Staff believes the application is consistent with all
variance criteria and recommends approval with 8 conditions.
Rodney Langer, CHS Engineers, stated that at each site the contractor is required to
use the least disturbing method of bypassing sewage. The first choice would be an
electric -powered pump connected to the utility grid, along with a back-up generator.
If an electric pump is not feasible because of the size or flow of the station, the
contractor would use an engine -driven pump. In response to questions from the
Examiner, Mr. Langer testified that the engine driven pump would generate noise in
the 60-70 dB range. This range is standard for sound intonated equipment. Further
backup methods would be used only in an emergency situation and are not required to
be sound intonated. Emergency back-up noise would also be in the 60-70 dB range.
A sound enclosure in the form of a large box could be used to further reduce noise
pollution; however, most of the stations are located in backyards or other areas that
do not provide enough access room for these type of sound -proof structures. It is not
an issue of cost, but an issue of access for enclosing the lift stations.
Alvin Rutledge stated that the timetables for the project have not been clearly
established (referencing page 5 of the staff report). He asked that a finish date be set
for the project and a procedure for granting more time be created. He also asked that
the city consider the affect the noise could have on local business revenue. The city
also needs to consider public safety.
Jen Machuga stated that the work at each station will take longer than 2-4 weeks, but
the nighttime pumping will not take longer than 2-4 weeks. The lift stations are
located primarily in residential zones or adjacent to residential zones.
Rodney Langer stated that the variance is a request to allow equipment to operate 24
hours a day while the bypass operations are occurring. All construction activity will
be conducted during regular hours as dictated by city code. The activities will be
monitored, and the contractors are required to secure the sites from the public using
methods such as barricades. Emergency access will be provided at all times. The
Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property owners have been contacted twice, along with the notices about this hearing.
They will be contacted again with a construction schedule.
The Examiner noted that he needed to have some basis for noise comparison to
understand what noise levels Edmonds residents would be subjected to by the project.
He asked the parties if they would have any objections to his referencing Washington
State Department of Ecology noise charts for this comparison. The parties did not
object and did not need any opportunity to respond to this information.
April 12, 2012
Jen Machuga, Edmonds Planner, stated that the Edmonds Noise Ordinance
establishes maximum noise levels in residential and commercial zones. The
application being presented is for a temporary noise variance for the rehabilitation of
nine wastewater lift stations throughout the city. The construction is exempt from the
noise ordinance, but the requirement to run the equipment through the night to
maintain sewer service requires the variance.
The Hearing Examiner noted that as authorized by the March 22, 2012 hearing
participants he had reviewed a FAQ published by the Washington State Department
of Ecology on "Noise Pollution — for Citizens" for a comparison of the project noise
to everyday noise levels and that 70 dB was the sound generated by a vacuum
cleaner. Darrel Frame, CHS Engineers, confirmed that project noise levels would be
comparable to a vacuum cleaner operating outside. He noted that noise level depend
on the flow that needs to be provided. The primary pump will have a muffler, but a
backup generator is required in case the primary fails. The back-up would be around
65 dB. The access areas are not large enough to put a closure around. Plywood has
been used previously to stifle some sound. The city recognizes that this project is an
inconvenience, but they are attempting to minimize the amount of time it will take by
running the systems at night.
Jeff Carson stated he is the treasurer for the homeowners association surrounding
Pump Station 15. He said there are three residences in the association elevated above
the pump station and, in his experience, generators are quite noisy. He is worried
about sound gravitating upwards to these homes. He asked that the project somehow
be enclosed in order to avoid residents hearing 6 -months of loud noises. There is no
way to know how long the generators really will be running and how much noise they
will cause.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, stated he lives in a busy area with a lot of noise.
He is concerned with the number of stations that are going to be worked on
throughout the city. Station 14 is located at the end of cul-de-sac and is very close to
residences. People like their neighborhoods quiet. The city has not offered any
expertise in the sound levels. He fears that the noise will bother neighbors, but there
will be no way out of moving forward with the project. The city needs to provide
Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I
NA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more information about ways to alleviate the high level of sounds. There need to be
more requirements written in to the decision to protect the citizens.
Alvin Rutledge stated that he believes more notification needs to be given to the
residences surrounding the nine areas that will be affected. The citizens need to be
more aware of what will be happening over the next 14 months. There is no
information about public safety in any of the reports given, and with a 24 hour a day
project, dangerous situations could occur. People could break in to the site or the
homes because the loud noise would cover them.
Jen Machuga stated that staff does not believe a noise study is necessary for the
application. The applicant has provided sufficient information about the volume of
noise that will occur.
Pamela Lemcke testified that the pump -stations already exist so the pump noise will
be no louder. The noise will be from the generators being used to keep the pumps
going. The city is aware that these are residential neighborhoods. Some stations
could have the generators running all night.
Darrel Frame noted that the intended number of project days is 4-6 weeks at each
station. He is unsure if plywood enclosures would make a significant difference. The
next step to noise buffering would be large enclosures that are impractical for the size
of the sites. There is not a feasible alternative power source from the generators due
to public safety, cost, and work being done on the current power sources. A noise
study is not necessary.
Roger Hertrich testified that, in the past, the city has not met projected timelines. He
fears the project will take much longer than expected. The engineers' guess of 2-4
weeks is not a certainty. The city has no expertise on sounds. In his experience, it
takes 2 inches of solid wood with no gaps to block sound from penetrating walls.
Alvin Rutledge stated he wanted clarification about the procedure for the applicant to
be given a time extension for the project. The residents need to be notified if there
will be a time extension for the project.
Jen Machuga noted that the time spent at each water -station will be more than the
amount of time that requires a noise variance. Staff does not wish to require an
additional hearing if the project runs over the estimated timeframe.
Darrel Frame stated that it is not clear if each station will take the same amount of
time, but they are asking for a maximum of 6 weeks for each pump.
EXHIBITS
Attachments 1-11 of the March 15, 2012 staff report were admitted as Exhibits 1-11
into the record at the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted:
Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12. Recording of March 22, 2012 hearing.
13. Re -hearing notices.
14. March 15, 2012 staff report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The Applicant is the City of Edmonds.
2. Hearin. A hearing was initially heard on the application on March 22,
2012. However, some notices for that hearing date erroneously advertised that the
hearings were cancelled on that date. Consequently a rehearing was held on April 12,
2012. The recording of the March 22, 2012 hearing was entered as an exhibit to the
April 12, 2012 hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted both hearings at 3:00 p.m.
at the Edmonds Public Safety Complex in the Council Chambers.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant has requested a variance to the
City of Edmonds' noise standards for temporary nighttime work at nine wastewater
lift stations located throughout the City of Edmonds as part of a wastewater lift
station rehabilitation project. The location of the work is identified in Attachment 3
to staff report. The project would generate noise levels of 60 to 70 dB all night long
for periods of two to four weeks at each of the lift stations. The noise would be
generated by equipment necessary to maintain continuous sewer flows during evening
hours. Work would be done consecutively at each lift station and the rehabilitation of
all 14 stations is anticipated to be completed within 14 months.
Work at each station will result in temporary disconnection of electrical and
mechanical equipment used to move wastewater through the station and the pressure
pipe ("force main") downstream of each station for improvements and equipment
replacement. The contractor will be required to maintain continuous sewer service at
all stations, using temporary power supply and/or pumping equipment as appropriate
to the site conditions and his reasonable and efficient methods. The contractor will be
required to use temporary pumps and power supplies for continued service. He will
also be required to have redundant pump and power supply equipment at each site.
The duration of each temporary equipment operation is anticipated to be between two
and four weeks, but may be longer if construction or unanticipated conditions warrant
an extension. The force main at some stations will be replaced, necessitating use of
temporary force main piping from the station to the point of discharge (typically a
sewer manhole). The rehabilitation work will take place during normal construction
hours, within the constraints of the noise ordinance. The exception will be the use of
temporary equipment for continuous sewer flows, which will need to be in service
over night.
Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. Characteristics of the Area. All stations are in residential areas, with
proximity to residential units ranging from less than 20 feet to over 100 feet.
5. Adverse Impacts. No reasonable inferences can be made on the impacts
of the requested noise levels to adjoining property owners. Until the Examiner made
inquiries the Applicant and staff did not provide any information on how much noise
the project would generate. In any request for a variance to noise standards, the noise
level of the proposal should be the first bit of information and how it affects adjoining
property owners the second. In the absence of this key information, further
evaluation is necessary and strict monitoring requirements and time frames must be
imposed to ensure that the proposal will not adversely affect Edmonds residents.
Although the Applicant did provide some information on the noise level of the project
during the hearing, that information was not entirely clear. In the March 22, 2012
hearing Rodney Langer, an engineer for the Applicant, testified that the proposal
would involve noise levels of 60 to 70 dB. It was somewhat unclear, but apparently
the equipment that would be used on a continuous basis would operate in this noise
level and emergency back-up equipment, which would only be rarely used, would
operate within this range as well. A different engineer, Darrel Frame, spoke on
behalf of the Applicant at the April 14, 2012 hearing. He confirmed from Examiner
inquiries that this noise level generated by the equipment was similar to the noise
generated by a vacuum cleaner. He also testified that the back-up equipment would
generate noise levels of 65 dB and didn't identify the dB level of the regular
equipment. Given that the Applicant has the burden of proof in meeting permit
criteria and the absence of any concrete information in the application or other written
materials on the noise levels generated by the project, it is determined that the noise
generated by the proposal will reach levels of 70 dB.
The only frame of reference for assessing acceptable noise levels in the administrative
record for this project is the Edmonds noise ordinance itself. ECDC 5.30.040, in
conjunction with ECDC 5.30.050(A), sets the evening noise levels within residential
areas at 45 dB at the property line for evening hours. ECDC 5.30.050(A) allows 55
dB levels to be maintained for "existing stationary equipment used in conveyance of
water by a utility", but the temporary equipment that necessitates the variance does
not qualify as "existing stationary equipment" and it is debatable whether the
conveyance of sewer flows is covered by an exception that applies to the conveyance
of water flows. In short, the 70 dB proposed by the Applicant for evening hours is 25
dB higher than what is legislatively determined to be acceptable night noise levels in
Chapter 5.30 ECDC. Since decibel levels are logarithmic', the increase in noise
proposed by the Applicant is more than 300 times louder than that allowed by
Edmonds noise regulations.
1 According to the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary.
Variance
p. 6 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
On paper, by decibel standards, the requested variance is huge. However, it is
recognized that the energy levels of noise, which relate to decibels, do not correlate
directly with human perception of noise. The noise generated by the proposal is
unlikely to be perceived as 300 times louder than the maximum noise levels set by the
noise ordinance. Further, the noise generated by the noise generating equipment
presumably only generates up to 70 decibels at the location of the equipment and
these noise levels could potentially be significantly reduced by the time they reach the
property lines of adjoining property owners. Finally, there is the testimony of the
public works staff that they do not believe the noise levels of the equipment to be
unreasonably high.
On balance, although there is a very minor amount of evidence to suggest that the
noise levels generated by the proposal may not adversely affect adjoining property
owners, that modicum of evidence is nowhere near sufficient to alleviate the
reasonable concerns raised by such a large departure from City noise standards.
Since the adverse impacts of a noise variance are a determinative consideration in
variance approval, the insufficiency of evidence in this application would normally
merit denial. However, in this case it is possible to craft conditions of approval that
will assure that as administered the variance will not adversely affect neighboring
residents. In order to move forward, the City will need a written opinion from a
qualified specialist in noise impacts that the proposal will not unreasonably interfere
with the sleep of adjoining property owners or create any adverse health impacts. All
properties that may potentially be subjected to noise exceeding City noise standards
will need to be notified of the noise generating work in advance and be provided a
contact number to share any concerns or complaints. City staff shall forward a report
of all complaints to the Mayor and City Council within five days of receipt of each
complaint.
6. Feasibility of Additional Noise Reduction. The Applicant testified that the noise
generating equipment is already noise attenuated (except for the back-up equipment)
and that the next step in noise reduction would be placing the equipment in an
enclosure. The Applicant noted that this was not feasible because there was
insufficient space on the lift station properties and easements to provide for this type
of enclosure. There is no evidence to the contrary on this testimony and it is
reasonably likely that tracts and easements for lift stations will not contain a
significant amount of excess space to accommodate enclosures. For these reasons it
is determined that placing the equipment in enclosures is the next step in noise
attenuation and generally there is insufficient existing space available to the
Applicant to accommodate enclosures to mitigate against noise. However, the record
contains no information on the feasibility of acquiring temporary easements from
adjoining property owners to accommodate the need for additional space. Adjoining
owners may be more than willing to grant the easements to reduce the noise,
especially if the easements would not require the removal or alteration of any existing
structures or landscaping.
Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
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-
A.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designations. The areas in which the lift station work will be
conducted are zoned residential.
3. Review Criteria and Application. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5,
the project will generate night time noise levels up to 70 dB in residentially zoned
areas 2. ECDC 5.30.040, in conjunction with ECDC 5.30.050(A), limits noise levels
to 45 dB in residentially zoned areas during the between the hours of 10:00 pm and
7:00 am. As noted in the staff report, the noise generated by the 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 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. Applicable
criteria are quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
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
such requirement cannot be achieved because of special circumstances rendering
immediate compliance unreasonable in light of economic or physical factors,
encroachment upon an existing noise source or because of nonavailability of feasible
technology or control methods.
4. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the enclosure of the equipment is the next
noise attenuation measure available for the project and the space limitations of the
existing tracts and easements that accommodate the lift station do not make it feasible
for the Applicant to take this next step. However, temporary easements to expand
space may be available to the Applicant. The standard quoted above is based upon
reasonableness, which necessarily involves a balancing of adverse impacts upon
property owners verses the burden on the Applicant to achieve compliance. If the
noise expert required by the conditions of approval is able to conclude that the project
ECDC 5.30.040 imposes the 45 and 55 dB levels for noises originating from properties in
residentially zoned districts that are received in residentially zoned districts. Exhibit 6 shows that both
the originating (source) and receiving properties at all nine lift stations are residentially zoned. The
staff report does not that the source properties for two of the site is unzoned right of way. It is unclear
whether these unzoned properties would be considered residential under the noise ordinance, but the
project would violate any night time noise level that would apply under ECDC 5.30.040.
Variance p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will not adversely affect property owners in the vicinity of the project as required by
the conditions of approval, it is concluded that the Applicant has adequately
demonstrated that it has done all it can to reasonably comply with the City's noise
standards as required above. However, if the noise expert cannot conclude that the
project will not adversely affect property owners, further investigation into the
feasibility of acquiring temporary easements and/or alternative noise mitigation
measures would have to be explored in a reapplication for the noise variance.
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.
5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, work that exceeds City noise standards
will take four to six weeks at each lift station. As conditioned, the variance is granted
for up to six consecutive weeks at each lift station with provision for a two week
extension granted by City staff.
ECDC 20.85.010: No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this
section can be made.
ECDC 20.85.010.A(1) — Special Circumstances: That, because of special
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
the vicinity with the same zoning.
a. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
uses as set forth in ECDC / 7, 00 030 and environmental factors such as
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
b. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal
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
factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same
property;
6. The special circumstance of the proposal is the location of the lift stations
in residential areas. As can be inferred from the City's comprehensive plan, the lift
stations cannot reasonably be located elsewhere and the rehabilitation work is
reasonably necessary to provide an essential public service.
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
upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
7. As noted in Conclusion of Law No. 6, the variance is necessary to support
the provision of an essential public service. Under similar conditions the variance
Variance P. 9 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
would likely be granted for other essential public services as well. The variance does
not constitute a grant of special privilege.
ECDC 20.85.101(C) — Comprehensive Plan: That the approval of the variance will
be consistent with the comprehensive plan;
8. 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
health and that measures should be taken to preserve a quiet environment. The
conditions of approval of this decision, in requiring an expert noise assessment and
monitoring, further the noise objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
ECDC 20.85.010(D) — Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which
the property is located;
9. ECDC 16.10.000(B)(4) provides that one of the purposes of all residential
zones is to keep residents free from noise. The strict conditions of this variance
decision maintain the freedom from noise.
ECDC 20.85.010(E) — Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or
conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
same zone;
10. As conditioned, the variance will not be significantly detrimental to public
health, safety and welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
ECDC 20.85.010(F) — Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the
minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
11. As determined in the Findings of Fact, the Applicants have provided as
much noise mitigation as they reasonably can (through noise attenuation of the
primary equipment) under the circumstances and the variance is limited to the time
necessary to complete the project. The criterion is satisfied.
DECISION
The variance application is provisionally approved subject to the following
conditions:
Variance P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I -!
25
The Applicant shall hire a qualified noise expert to evaluate the noise impacts of
the project. The noise expert shall have professional training and at least five
years of experience in assessing noise impacts and the adequacy of noise
mitigation. To maintain some degree of independence, the noise expert shall be
hired by and report to Edmonds planning staff as opposed to public works staff.
The noise expert shall determine whether noise generated by the project that
exceeds City noise standards will adversely affect the occupants of the receiving
properties subjected to the excess noise. The excess noise will be considered to
adversely affect these occupants if it unreasonably interrupts their sleep or
adversely affects their health or otherwise unreasonably interferes with the quiet
enjoyment of their property. If the noise expert cannot conclude that the
occupants are unaffected, the variance shall be deemed denied without
prejudice.
2. If the Applicant is able to comply with Condition No. 1, the Applicant shall
provide written notice to all occupants of property who will potentially be subject
to noise from the project that exceeds City noise standards. The notice shall
apprise the occupants of this variance decision and approximately when lift
station work is scheduled that affects them. The notice shall state that the
occupants may contact the City if the noise creates any problems for them. The
notice shall provide a City contact number for this purpose. A report of any
complaints made for noise generated by the project will be provided to the Mayor
and City Council. The report(s) shall be submitted within five business days of
each complaint.
3. Work that exceeds City noise standards shall not exceed six consecutive weeks
for each lift station. A two week extension may be granted by City staff upon
confirmation by the noise expert that the additional work will not adversely affect
property occupants as outlined in Condition No. 1 above.
4. As required by ECDC 5.30.120(D), nothing in this variance decision shall be
construed as authorizing a public disturbance noise prohibited by ECDC 5.30.130,
including noises covered by ECDC 5.30.130(C), which is identified as
" ffJrequent, repetitive or intermittently continuous sounds made in connection
with the starting, operation... of any... internal combustion engine."
Dated this 27th day of April, 2012.
Phi A. Olbrechts
Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
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
This decision is final and only subject to appeal to superior court as governed by
Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeal deadlines are short (21 days from issuance of the
decision) and the courts strictly apply the procedural requirements for filing an appeal.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Variance
p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I, Phil Olbrechts, make the following declaration:
I am a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, not a
party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein.
2. On the 28th day of April, 2012, I mailed, via First Class U.S. Mail, a true
and correct copy of the Final Decision of the above captioned matters as follows:
PLN20120003 (Edmonds) and PLN2012004 (Kancyugowski):
Diane Cunningham
1215 th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
PLN2012004 (Kancyugowski):
Kamila and Miloslaw Kanczugowski
23811 77th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Daniel Kanczugowski
2381177 th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Russell and Loretta Olson
2390077 Ih Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Michael Cimino and Mary Clara Horrigan
7707 238th PL SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Jennifer Fillmore
{PA0827324.DOC;1\13041.900000\ }
7632 238" PL SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Sarah S. Mixson and Oshuna Oma
23807 77th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
PLN20120003 (Edmonds):
Roger Hertrich
1020 Puget Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jim Carson
7735 168" PL SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Pam Lemcke
City of Edmonds
121— 5" Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Rodney Langer
CHS Engineers, LLC
12507 Bel -Red Rd, Suite 101
Bellevue, WA 98005
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Granite Falls, Washington, this 28th day of April, 2012.
Phil lbrechts
{PA0827324.DOC;1\13041.900000\ }