Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1787 - Denying a utility variance for the Ralph G. Monty and Mary Ann Monty Properties located at 167th Street and Smokey Point Boulevard Arlington Washingto) /I-~ /-~ CITY OF MARYSVILLE Marysville,Washington RESOLUTION NO./7 a A RESOLUTION OFTHE CITY OF MARYSVILLE DENYING UTILITY VARIANCES FORTHE RALPH G.MONTY AND MARY ANN MONTY PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 167TH STREET AND SMOKEY POINT BOULEVARD,ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON. WHEREAS,on December 14,1995 Ralph Monty applied for a utility variance for 14 sewer and 14 water connections for property located at 167th Street and Smokey Point Boulevard, Arlington,Washington,under file number UV 95-020;and WHEREAS,on December 14,1995 Ralph Monty applied for three sewer and three water connections for separate property located at 167th Street and Smokey Point Boulevard,Arlington, Washington,under file number UV 95-021;and WHEREAS,on January 8,1996 the Marysville City Council held a public meeting to review the variance applications and to consider information provided by City staff,the applicant,his legal representative and other interested parties,all of which is incorporated by this reference;and WHEREAS,consideration of the variance applications was continued to the Marysville City Council meeting of February 12, 1996 in order that the applicant could inquire with the City of Arlington concerning its willingness and ability to provide sewer and water utility services to the applicant's property;and WHEREAS,by letter dated February 12,1996 legal counsel for the applicant requested that the matter be continued;and WHEREAS,the matter was rescheduled for March 4,1996;and WHEREAS,at the March 4,1996 Marysville City Council meeting the Council received additional written and verbal information from the applicant and his attorney,a written and verbal report from City staff,and information from other interested persons,all of which is incorporated by this reference;and WHEREAS,as a result of all of the information provided and considered by the Marysville City Council,it makes the following findings with respect to each of the variance applications filed under file numbers UV 95-020 and UV 95-021: 1.The applicant's property is outside of the Marysville city limits and within an area known as the "Smokey Point Annexation"which was approved by the Boundary RESOLUTION - 1 Imv/monty.res Review Board for Snohomish County of Arlington on December 5,1995. is subject to a pending appeal in Court. for annexation to the City However,the annexation Snohomish County Superior 2.The property is within the City's Rural Utility Service Area ("RUSA")and Critical Water Study Plan ("CWSP") boundaries and is within the joint Arlington-Marysville urban growth area established by Snohomish County. 3.The applicant's variances are subject to MMC 14.01.030 relating to applications for utility service, which reads in pertinent part as follows: The owner of any property desiring to connect to the City water or sewer system shall personally apply for the connection on such forms as may be prepared and made available by the City Utility Department.No such application shall be deemed accepted or granted by the City,and no vested rights to utility service shall accrue,unless and until all prerequisites for approval,as specified by ordinance or resolution,are complied with in full and to the satisfaction of the City.For properties located outside of the city limits,the provisions of Chapter 14.32 MMC (RUSA Code)shall apply. 4.The applicant's variances are also subject to MMC 14.32.040,which provides the criteria for utility connections within the city's RUSA boundary.MMC 14.32.040(2}requires as a condition of receiving city utilities that the property be suitable for ultimate annexation to the city and that the property owner sign a petition to annex the property to the city or sign an annexation covenant to annex to the city in the future. Such provisions are mandatory.MMC 14.32.040(2}reads as follows: A property applying for a utility connection must be suitable for ultimate annexation to the city based upon its proximity to the city,the long- range plans of the City to annex that area,the proposed use of the property,the potential urbanization which will result from the use,and the environmental and economic impact of such urbanization and the annexation of the property into the city.The owner of any property granted utility connections shall sign a petition to annex the property to the city,and may be required to obtain similar petitions from other property owners in the immediate vicinity so as to compose a logical extension of the city's boundaries.In the event that the property granted utility RESOLUTION -2 /mv/monty.res • connections is not then contiguous to the city limits,the City may waive the requirement for an annexation petition and may allow the owner, instead,to sign a covenant agreeing to petition for and/or consent to an annexation of the property immediately upon the same becoming contiguous to the city limits or upon it being included within a larger annexation proposal.The covenant shall be binding upon the owner,its heirs,successors and assigns,and shall be construed as a covenant running with the land.It shall be recorded in the records of the Snohomish County Auditor prior to connection of the property to the utility system. 5.The applicant's property is not contiguous with the Marysville city limits. 6.Prior to the application for utility service,the applicant signed a petition for annexation of the subject property to the City of Arlington.The petition was approved by the City of Arlington and the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. 7.Because of the applicant's decision to sign a petition to annex to another city,the applicant is unable to execute a valid annexation covenant to Marysville as required by MMC 14.32.040(2).The applicant requests a variance from this requirement. 8.The provisions of MMC 14.32.040(8)also apply to the applicant's request for utilities.MMC 14.32.040(8) reads as follows: City utilities will not be offered for properties which have other practical and feasible sources for such services. 9.The City requested that the applicant request a letter from the City of Arlington as to whether it would provide water and sewer service to the applicant's property. The applicant's legal counsel stated that he did not make such inquiry as he felt that such request begged the issue. 10.MMC 14.32.040(9)applies to the applicant's request for utilities.MMC 14.32.040(9)reads as follows: utilities will not be granted where such service, and the City's regulation thereof,would create a conflict with another municipal jurisdiction or utility district.utilities will not be granted where the annexation of the property would be legally impossible because of conflicting jurisdictions. RESOLUTION - 3 Imvjmonty.res i 1 11.In the event the Smokey Point annexation becomes final,annexation of the applicant's property would be legally impossible. 12.The provisions of MMC 14.32.050 relating to utility implementation rules apply to the applicant's utility request.Specifically,MMC 14.32.050(3)applies to this request and reads as follows: Utility service to properties within a ULID,or to other properties with preexisting contractual commitments from the City,is contingent upon compliance with MMC 14.32.040(1)through (5).The remaining subsections of MMC 14.32.040 shall not apply to such properties. 13.The applicant argues that his participation in ULID No. 1 exempts him from the requirements of MMC Chapter 14.32 and specifically MMC 14.32.040(2),which requires as a condition of receiving utilities the execution of an annexation covenant in favor of Marysville. 14.While ULID No.1 was adopted as a financing mechanism for construction of some of the sewer lines in the vicinity of the applicant's property,it did not preclude the adoption of other rules for the connection to City utilities. 15.The provisions of MMC 14.32.050(3)specifically require properties within a ULID to comply with MMC 14.32.040(1)through (5),which include the annexation covenant requirement. 16.The provisions of MMC 14.32.060(4)establish the criteria for granting variances from the provisions of MMC Chapter 14.32,the City's RUSA Code.MMC 14.32.060(4)reads in pertinent part as follows: The City Council is authorized to issue such variances only if it is found that a literal enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships.No such variance shall be authorized unless the Council finds that all of the following facts and conditions exist: (a)That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity; (b)That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial RESOLUTION - 4 Imv/monty.res 6 j property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity; (c)That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public interest,welfare,or the environment; (d)That the granting of such variance will not be inconsistent with the long-range plans of the city utility system,or jeopardize utility availability for properties within the city limits. 17.Prior to the applicant's signing an annexation petition in favor of Arlington,he had developed other properties outside of the Marysville city limits which are served by Marysville sewer and water utilities.On prior occasions,the applicant has signed annexation covenants in favor of Marysville.The applicant was aware of such requirement prior to execution of the annexation petition in favor of Arlington.The applicant's inability to sign a valid annexation covenant to Marysville or to be able to comply with MMC 14.32.040(2)is due to his own action in executing an annexation petition to Arlington. 18.The present outstanding City indebtedness for the City's utility system is approximately $26,000,000.That debt is secured solely by the citizens residing within the Marysville city limits and not those citizens or utility customers residing outside of the Marysville city limits. One purpose of the City's RUSA Code requirement for annexation or execution of an annexation covenant to Marysville as a condition of receiving utilities is to preserve the public interest and welfare of the citizens of Marysville by ultimately annexing those properties which are served by Marysville sewer and water utilities. 19.In light of all of the above findings,the variance applications do not meet the variance criteria of MMC 14.32.060(4)(c),which require a finding that the authorization of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public interest,welfare or the environment.Authorization of utility connections to the applicant's properties without execution of a valid annexation covenant to Marysville would conflict with the long-range plans of the City's utility system which is to annex areas served by Marysville utilities.The public interest and welfare of the citizens of Marysville is best served by annexation of areas served by Marysville utilities as Marysville citizens are obligated to secure the outstanding indebtedness of the utility.The public interest and welfare of the citizens of Marysville are not served where the City serves utilities to properties over which it will not have ultimate municipal authority to RESOLUTION - 5 Imv/monty.res ", control such matters as permitting,zoning,planning and growth,all of which can have impacts on the City's water and sewer utility. 20.The applicant's variance also does not meet the variance criteria of MMC 14.32.040(4)(d),as the granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the long-range plans of the City's utility system,which is to serve utilities only to properties which are ultimately suitable for annexation to Marysville and which do not conflict with another municipal jurisdiction.See MMC 14.32.040(9).The inability to execute an annexation petition or annexation covenant in favor of Marysville is inconsistent with the long-range plans of the City utility system.Such inability could also jeopardize utility availability for properties within the city limits,since absent the ability to annex, the City would have no ultimate control over permitting, zoning,planning and growth in the area of the applicant's property. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: Based upon the above findings,the applicant's variance requests under file numbers UV 95-020 and UV 95-021 are hereby DENIED. Any party aggrieved by this resolution shall have the right to file a land use petition under the Land Use Petition Act in Snohomish County Superior Court;PROVIDED,that the petition must be filed and served on all necessary parties within twenty-one (21)days of the date of this Resolution. ~ASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this ;S~day of March,1996. CITY OF MARYSVILLE By-f)/JJA(uJL$1"--__ ATTEST: BY¥~CLERK Approved as to form: By~rU~ -CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTION - 6 Imv/monty.res