HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1431 - Denying a variance from the sewer moratorium ordinance as it relates to the proposed plat of Meadowcreek,'--~....
t:'.~•.,
·xc;~
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Marysville,Washington
RESOLUTION NO./43'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE DENYING A VARIANCE
FROM THE SEWER MORATORIUM ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED
PLAT OF MEADOWCREEK.
WHEREAS,on February 26,1990 the city of Marysville enacted
Ordinance 1763 imposing a temporary ban on new sewer connections
to the city's sewer system as a result of a capacity crisis;and
WHEREAS,Section 5 of Ordinance 1763 provides for variances
from the ban in certain unique cases;and
WHEREAS,R/L Associates,Inc.and Richard H.Mietzner
("Applicants")applied for a variance from sections 1 and 3 of
said Ordinance as the same apply to the Proposed Plat of Meadow-
creek,and a public hearing on said variance application was held
by the City council on June 25,1990;and
WHEREAS,the city council entered the following Findings of
Fact:
1.An application for the Preliminary Plat of Meadowcreek
was first filed in 1988.Said application was denied by the city
Council on August 7,1989 by the passage of Resolution 1369.The
basis for denial was the project's failure to comply with City
Codes and Ordinances and the inadequacy of its environmental
review under SEPA.
2.On September 22,1989,the Applicants submitted a new
Preliminary Plat application.The application was not complete.
On October 12,1989,the staff informed the Applicants that they
would have to submit a wetlands study and a revised site plan
before the project could be reviewed under SEPA.
3.On December 11,1989 the Applicants submitted a revised
application and EIS Checklist.At that time,the Staff commenced
its review of this complex project.On January 4,1990,the
staff held a second technical review meeting with Applicants and
explained that there were many environmental problems with the
project that had not yet been addressed or resolved.Because of
these problems,additional review time was required prior to
making a SEPA determination.
4.On January 16,1990,the City Planner,Michael Corcoran
(the "Responsible Official"),issued a Mitigated Determination of
Resolution - 1
Non-Significance.This document was eight pages long;it iden-
tified nine adverse environmental impacts that would result from
the proposed project;and it identified 16 mitigation measures
that would be required to make the project environmentally
acceptable.
5.On January 25,1990,the Applicants submitted a letter
responding to the MDNS.Said letter objected to all 16 of the
mitigation measures and requested that the project proceed to a
public hearing without revision.
6.On February 9,1990,the Applicants met with City staff
to discuss the MDNS in detail.The Applicants conceded that many
of the mitigation measures were appropriate after all,and
indicated that they would revise their project proposal accor-
dingly.The Applicants asked for additional clarification on
mitigation measures relating to Diking District No. 3 impacts and
Marysville School District impacts.The City obtained such
clarification from said districts,in writing,about two weeks
thereafter.The staff and Applicants reached impasse on a major
mitigation issue relating to filling and replacing wetlands.
Moreover,the staff notified Applicants that the city had just
learned that it was facing a sewer crisis that might result in a
moratorium on all new developments.
7.On February 13,1990,the Department of Ecology issued
a Notice of Violation to the City relating to violations of
federal and state regulations and standards relating to the
city's waste water treatment facility.The City was given 30
days to adopt a satisfactory program to bring the facility into
compliance and to protect the environment.
8.On February 26,1990,the city enacted Ordinance 1763,
which imposed a temporary moratorium on new sewer connections and
adopted a SEPA policy requiring the issuance of a Determination
of Significance for any new or pending development projects that
had not yet reached public hearing stage.
9.The Applicants were fully informed of the city's sewer
crisis and attended and participated in the pUblic hearing on
Ordinance 1763.
10.On March 9,1990,the Responsible Official for the city
wrote to the Applicants,officially notifying them of Ordinance
1763.In compliance with said Ordinance,the Responsible
Official withdrew the MDNS previously issued for the Meadowcreek
project and issued a Determination of Significance.Such a
determination requires the preparation of an EIS relating to the
disposal of sanitary wastes by the 85 homes proposed for the
project.The EIS must be in final form before the project can
proceed to its first public hearing.
Resolution - 2
"l .10
;:-!", •
----------
11.The 90-day time limit for processing preliminary plats
(RCW 58.17.140)had not expired for the Plat of Meadowcreek
before the passage of Ordinance 1763 and the issuance of the DS.
Once a DS is issued,the 90-day time limit is tolled during the
period of time that it takes to prepare an EIS.Appellants have
not yet commenced the preparation of an EIS.
12.There is no statutory time limit for processing a
rezone application.The Meadowcreek project may not be approved
without a rezone to the PRD 9600 zoning classification.No
public hearing on the rezone had been scheduled prior to the
passage of Ordinance 1763 and the issuance of the DS.
13.Applicants argue that a hardship was imposed on them
by the issuance of,and their reliance upon,a written statement
by the City utility Department on September 28,1989 stating that
water and sewer would be available for the Meadowcreek project.
That statement was complete and accurate to the best of the
City's knowledge at the time it was written.However,shortly
thereafter the City became aware of new information relating to
the status of its sewage treatment facility and of the enforce-
ment actions which the Department of Ecology is threatening to
take.The suddenness and severity of the City's sewer crisis is
not a unique hardship to the Applicants,but applies equally to
all landowners and developers.
14.The addition of 85 new homes in the Plat of Meadowcreek
to the city's sewer system would result in a significant genera-
tion of sewage effluent under the circumstances of the current
sewer lagoon crisis.Moreover,approximately 1,000 more resi-
dential lots in the greater Marysville area are similarly
situated and would use this case as precedent for demanding
connection rights.The cumulative effect of these sewer connec-
tions would violate state and federal water quality regulations
and the terms of the Consent Order between the city and DOE dated
May 29,1990 with respect to BOD,TSS,flow limitations and
dilution ratios.Moreover,the cumulative effect of said
effluent would be materially detrimental to public health,
welfare and the environment until such time as the city's waste
water treatment facility is upgraded.High levels of BOD and
suspended solids,and a low dilution ratio in Ebey Slough,result
in oxygen depletion which jeopardizes the health of fish and
shellfish in the receiving water,and potentially result in
higher bacterial levels which jeopardize human health.
WHEREAS,on the basis of the foregoing Findings,the City
Council concludes that the Applicants have failed to prove the
existence of anyone of the grounds for a variance to Ordinance
1763 as stated in section 5 of said Ordinance;
Resolution - 3
•
<,<<,
•.l'.,'••
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS:
The variance application of R/L Associates and Richard H.
Mietzner relating to the application of Ordinance 1763 to the
proposed Plat of Meadowcreek is hereby DENIED.
Any party aggrieved by this Resolution shall have a right to
file an Application for Writ of Certiorari in Snohomish County
superior Court;provided,that the Application must be filed and
served within 20 days after the date of this Resolution.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR THIS
~DAY OF -r-...I v ,1990.,
CITY OI~~~YSVILLE
Mayor
Resolution - 4