HomeMy WebLinkAboutHalverson ltr3 Denis Law CltY Of
Mayor � `�S �j
� �, 1>
� �
♦ � '.�- ♦
♦ r
�+I�,�,.``l.
City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC
September 13, 2016
Ivana Halvorsen
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
18215 72"d AV S
Kent, WA 98032
Subject: Request for Reconsideration Objection & HEX's First Order on Request
for Reconsideration for Elliott Farms Preliminary Plat (LUA-15-000242)
Dear Ms. Halversen:
I have attached the following:
1) Request for Reconsideration Objection filed by Jami Balint of Murray Franklyn,
dated September 12, 2016; and
2) Hearing Examiner's First Order on Request for Reconsideration, dated
September 13, 2016.
If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me or Clark Close, Senior
Planner at (425) 430-7289.
� Sincerely,
, .
� � �� l v �
��� Meg�n Gregor, CMC
� D�e ut Cit Clerk
p Y Y
cc: Hearing Examiner
Clark Close, Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Sabrina Mirante,Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (12)
1055 South Grady Way• Renton,Washington 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516• rentonwa.gov
r r � � �
September 12,2016
Mr. Phil Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
Re: Request for Reconsideration for Elliott Farms Preliminary Plat
LUA—15—000242
Dear Mr.Olbrechts,
I am in receipt of the Request for Reconsideration filed by Leland and Joanne Gregory in the above-
referenced matter. On behalf of the Applicant, I'm writing to object to the Request far Reconsideration
as an improper attempt to re-open the record. Though present at the hearing,the Leland's did not
testify,nor did they provide written comment,and they are now attempting to improperly use the
process for reconsideration to do what the��failed to do when the record was open. The Leland's
request contains information and arguments that are not part of the record,and there is no reason to
believe such information was not available to the Lelands had they desired to submit it prior to the close
of the record.
A request for reconsideration cannot be used to submit new eti idence; rather, a party requesting
reconsideration has only limited grounds for mak'rng such request as set forth in Renton Municipal
Code section 4-8-100.G.9, namely that the Hearing E�miner's decision is based on an erroneous
proeedure, errors of law or fact,error in j udgment,or the disco�-ery of new evidence which could not be
reasonably a�ailable at the priar hearing. The Leland's request for reconsideration does not fit into any
t 44�0 of the categories set forth in RMC 4-8-100.G.9, and as such should be denied. Allowing the I,elands to
submit new information and arguments after the close of the record violates the procedures established
Bel-Red Road by the City of Renton for preliminary plat applications,and will substantially prejudice the applicant.
Beilevue, ��.j'�eCt�lllly�
' t��� ��'�. ' ....
Washington ° J�� , "
,f.' a.. `� .
Jam��alint
9aoo; General Counset
425.644.2323
CC:
fa��425.E43.3475 Clark Close, Senior Planner
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
hr.p:l�www.murrayfranklyn.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
RE: Elliott Farms )
10 ) FIRST ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
11
Preliminary Plat ) �CONSIDERATION
LUA 15-000242, ECF, PP, SA-H, MOD�
12 )
)
13 )
14 WHEREAS, Leland and Joanne Gregory submitted a request for reconsideration dated
15 August 25, 2016 and received by the City on September 7, 2016, and
16 WHEREAS, Jami Balint, applicant's attorney, submitted an objection to the request
for reconsideration dated September 12, 2016,NOW, THEREFORE,
17
Findings:
18
19 1. The Gregory Request for reconsideration is based upon several assertions of fact that
do not appear to be contained within the administrative record. These factual
20 � assertions include comments that address drainage onto the Gregory property, a
� photograph not admitted into evidence, the location of the Gregory's septic drain
21 field, and a city approved channelization plan.
22 Conclusions:
23
l. All requests for reconsideration must be limited to evidence that was admitted into
24 the administrative record. New evidence cannot be considered except under very
limited circumstances. RCW 36.70B.050(2) provides that city and county land use
25 permit review procedures can only authorize one open record hearing per project
26 permit application or consolidated project permit application. The purpose of this
requirement is to provide for a more efficient permitting system by preventing
RECONSIERATION - 1
1 decision makers from holding one new hearing after another ad infinitum as new
factual issues occur and also to prevent public confusion about when to participate in
2 an on-going series of public hearings. See RCW 36.70B.010. For these reasons, once
3 a hearing is closed, any new evidence would be considered a prohibited second
hearing. RMC 4-8-100(G)(9) recognizes this limitation by noting that
4 reconsideration may be based upon "the discovery of new evidence which could not
be reasonably available at the prior hearing". There is nothing to suggest that any of
5 the new evidence included in the Gregory request for reconsideration was not
reasonably available to them at the time of the hearing. The new evidence included in
6 the Gregory reyuest for reconsideration was not timely provided prior to the close of
� the hearing and cannot be considered at this time.
g 2. Jami Balint argues in the September 12, 2016 objection that the Gregory's don't have
standing to file for reconsideration because they did not provide verbal or written
9 comment on the application prior to the close of the hearing. RMC 4-8-100(G)(9)
10 authorizes "[aJny interested person" to file for reconsideration. This is in stark
contrast to provisions such as RMC 4-8-110(E)(3) that expressly limit standing in
11 various types of land use actions to parties who have participated in a prior land use
proceeding. Given the broad and plain meaning of "[aJny interested person", it is
12 concluded that the Gregory's can file a motion for reconsideration even though they
may not have provided written or verbal comment prior to the close of the hearing.
13
14 3. Although the Gregory's request for reconsideration is largely based upon new
evidence, it is recognized that the City's regulations do not clearly restrict new
15 evidence in a motion for reconsideration. Some allowances must be made for the fact
that local land use hearings need to be accessible to the general public and that the
16 general public cannot be reasonably expected to have a detailed understanding of
Chapter 36.70B in order to effectively participate. In this regard the Gregory's will
1� be given another opportunity to revise their request for reconsideration to limit it to
1 g evidence admitted into the record. It is recognized that this is likely not possible for
their stormwater and septic system arguments, but they may be able to appropriately
19 express their traffic concerns based upon the maps and traffic analysis contained in
the record.
20
21 Based upon the findings and conclusions above, it is NOW ORDERED as follows:
22 1. The Gregory's may submit a revised request for reconsideration by 5:00 pm,
23 September 19, 2016. The revised request must be received by the Renton City
Clerk's office by that deadline. The request may be sent by email to
24 ('1,ltna u [Zc:nic>n��ti.tTuti. If the Gregory's choose to not submit a revised request for
reconsideration that conforms to this order, their currently filed request shall be
25 denied forthwith by a second written order of the examiner.
26
RECONSIERATION - 2
1 2. Any evidence used in the Gregory's motion for reconsideration must be based upon
evidence admitted into the administrative record. All exhibits used must be clearly
2 identified by page and exhibit number. Any testimony relied upon must be clearly
3 attributed to the speaker. No evidence will be considered by the examiner unless its
source is clearly identified as required by this paragraph.
4
3. Upon receipt of a timely filed revised request for reconsideration that conforms to the
5 terms of this order, the examiner shall forward the request to the City and Applicant
for response and give the Gregory's an opportunity for reply.
6
� DATED this 13th day of September, 2016.
g �..�-�.�..�'� �''._. .'
9 Wu`f A.Ulbrechts
10 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RECONSIERATION - 3