My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2024-04-08-minutes-public-works-study-session
>
Meetings
>
2024
>
04. April
>
2024-04-16 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
2024-04-08-minutes-public-works-study-session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2024 11:58:52 AM
Creation date
4/11/2024 1:08:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
4/16/2024
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Dept
PW
Item
Approve Minutes
Order
1
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
116716
Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
Pr <br />Audit Re5alts <br />�1C'.'��F.,T Ie- ; �` G . `l,ef <br />r o r <br />il-Lti('J -ir l', <br />Washington law gives local governments two ways to make exceptions to the <br />120-day rule, but does not place many conditions around how they do so. Local <br />governments may: <br />Extend the time frame for specific projects with the agreement of the <br />applicant. In certain cases, the government may ask the applicant to agree <br />to an extension of the 120-day deadline by "a reasonable period of time" <br />However, the law does not define "reasonable" or advise governments how <br />to determine whether a period of time is reasonable. <br />Establish different time frames in their city or county codes for permit <br />types that are known to take more than 120 days. When it does so, the <br />local government must also document why additional time is needed. <br />However, state law does not define what is expected to be included in <br />the documentation, nor the level of local authorization required to <br />implement them. <br />While most governments allowed extensions to permit <br />deadlines for specific projects, none documented their <br />process for doing so <br />Most audited governments extended 120-day deadlines in certain circumstances. <br />For example, when an applicant requested more time from Vancouver, the reviewer <br />agreed to a two -week extension. A Shoreline manager said the city might accept <br />a request for an extension if initiated by the applicant, but said the city does not <br />attempt to initiate extensions because staff believe applicants would be unlikely <br />to agree. <br />Managers from three other audited governments said their reviewers sometimes <br />use extensions. In their view, extensions can help both the applicant and the <br />government, because if the government is held to a hard-and-fast 120-day deadline <br />for a decision, it may be forced to deny the permit simply because it cannot be <br />approved without additional work. That result benefits neither party. An applicant <br />can appeal the denied permit or submit a new application, but either solution costs <br />more time and money from both developer and city. <br />However, none of the governments had policies or procedures in place to ensure <br />extensions are used in a fair and consistent manner. Local governments typically <br />let permit reviewers make the decision on a case -by -case basis to manage their <br />workload. However, without standard procedures, permit reviewers may not apply <br />extensions consistently across all applicants. Furthermore, without clear policies <br />and documentation, the process might appear unfair to the applicants. <br />Growth Management Act Audit Results 124 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.