17.114.130 Exception – Reasonable use.
(1) If the application of this chapter or Chapters 17.115 through 17.135 SMC would deny all reasonable economic use of the subject property, the city shall determine if compensation is an appropriate action, or the property owner may apply for an exception pursuant to this section.
(2) Exception Request and Review Process. An application for a reasonable use exception shall be made to the city and shall include a critical area identification form; critical area report, including mitigation plan, if necessary; and any other related project documents, such as permit applications to other agencies, special studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW) (SEPA documents). The planning director shall prepare a recommendation to the hearing examiner based on review of the submitted information, a site inspection, and the proposal’s ability to comply with the reasonable use exception criteria in subsection (4) of this section.
(3) Hearing Examiner Review. The hearing examiner shall review the application and conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of SMC 17.80.230(2)(c). The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the proposal’s ability to comply with all of the reasonable use exception review criteria in subsection (4) of this section.
(4) Reasonable Use Review Criteria. One or more of the following criteria for review and approval of reasonable use exceptions may apply:
(a) The application of this chapter or Chapters 17.115 through 17.135 SMC would deny all reasonable economic use of the property;
(b) No other reasonable economic use of the property has less impact on the critical area;
(c) The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property;
(d) The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or its predecessor;
(e) The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site;
(f) The proposal will result in no net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; or
(g) The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
(5) Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the application.
(6) This section shall not be applied within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). (Ord. 1419 § 13, 2016; Ord. 1373 § 21, 2014; Ord. 1164 § 4, 2004).