My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4-8-2024_PW SS Briefings (3)
>
Meetings
>
2024
>
04. April
>
2024-04-08 1:30 PM - Public Works Study Session
>
4-8-2024_PW SS Briefings (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2024 2:30:55 AM
Creation date
4/4/2024 3:55:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
4/8/2024
Meeting title
Public Works Study Session
Location
BoCC Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Local governments could improve their permit review process by setting <br /> standard policies for when it is appropriate to use deadline extensions,and clearly <br /> communicating the policy with applicants. <br /> Only one established a longer time frame for a specific <br /> permit type <br /> Our review of each government's development regulations found that they <br /> generally did not specify different timeframes for permits that were known to <br /> require more time to process.Bellingham specifically established a 180-day <br /> timeframe for simple rezoning applications.Some managers at other governments <br /> said they were not aware state law offered there this option to set longer time <br /> frames.If local governments do not document the known additional time needed <br /> for certain permit types,permit applicants have less predictability for how long the <br /> process takes,a key Growth Management Act goal. <br /> two!alu(I'It(:C-(`? C?C v(—"C"�1.L`i�C M-, Ct 1. c��?�}ro'pl"[e�kt[\,'r (j"""'d <br /> vkralv(�r to eliminate pefLnit dn-ad[l1bes- en--U_-G-'LY <br /> Although state law allows for reasonable deadline extensions,two governments <br /> chose to waive deadlines entirely.Richland and Snohomish County managers <br /> said that during the audit period,with agreement from the specific applicant, <br /> they waived the deadline rather than extending it for a specific amount of time. <br /> However,by asking to waive a deadline entirely,the government may be placing <br /> undue pressure upon the applicant to agree,out of concern that their application <br /> will be denied if they do not do so.For example,a representative of the building <br /> industry testified at a legislative committee hearing that builders feel pressure to <br /> accept longer review times when the local government initiates the process. <br /> Richland reviewers initiated waivers at the time of application for about six months, <br /> according to a planning manager.The manager said the city ceased the practice in <br /> May 2022.The manager said the current process is to ask applicants for deadline <br /> extensions on a case-by-case basis. <br /> Snohomish County reviewers asked applicants to agree to waivers for about <br /> 30 percent of the approximately 600 land use permits processed between 2019 <br /> and 2022.Snohomish was the only local government that provided data on the <br /> frequency of waivers.County reviewers typically initiated deadline waivers after <br /> their first review by sending a waiver form(illustrated in Exhibit 9 on the following <br /> page)to the applicant with the request for corrections or additional information. <br /> One manager said the county instituted this process to avoid having to issue a denial <br /> when the review reaches the 120-day deadline.The form specifically mentions <br /> allowing the county to review the application beyond the 120-day deadline. <br /> Growth Management Act Audit Results <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.