search icon

Blaine City Zoning Code

Division 1

ADMINISTRATION

§ 17.02.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish administrative responsibilities under the Blaine land use and development code.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.02.020 Title.

This title may be cited as either:
A. 
BMC Title 17;
B. 
City of Blaine land use and development code; or
C. 
Land use and development code.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003)

§ 17.02.030 Application.

A. 
This title shall apply to all lands within the city.
B. 
No use or structure shall be established, substituted, expanded, constructed, altered, moved, maintained, or otherwise changed except in conformance with this code.
C. 
No lot lines shall be changed nor new lots or lot lines created except in conformance with this code.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.02.040 Interpretation and conflict.

A. 
In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this title shall be held to the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
B. 
It is not intended that this title should interfere with, abrogate, or annul any easements, covenants, or other agreements between parties. Where this title imposes a greater restriction upon the use of buildings, land and height of buildings or requires larger spaces than are imposed or required by other resolutions, rules, regulations or by easements, covenants, or other agreements, the provisions of this title shall govern.
C. 
When uncertainty exists as to the location of any regulatory boundaries, such as districts or shoreline environments shown on any official map adopted as part of this title, the following rules shall apply:
1. 
Where district boundaries are indicated as approximately following the centerline of streets, alleys, or highways, the actual centerline shall be construed to be the boundary;
2. 
Where district boundaries are indicated as running approximately parallel to the centerline of the street, the boundary shall be construed to be parallel to the centerline of the street;
3. 
Where boundaries are indicated as approximately following the lot or tract lines, the actual lot or tract line shall be construed to be the boundary;
4. 
Where a regulatory boundary divides a tract in unsubdivided property, the location of the district boundary, unless the same is indicated by the dimensions thereon, shall be determined by use of the scale appearing on such map;
5. 
Regulatory boundaries indicated as following shorelines shall be construed to follow such shorelines, and if the shoreline changes, shall be construed as moving with the actual shoreline;
6. 
Boundaries indicated as following railroad lines shall be construed to be in the centerline of the right-of-way;
7. 
Where a public street or alley is officially vacated or abandoned, the regulations applicable to the abutting property to which the vacated portion reverts shall apply to such vacated or abandoned street or alley;
8. 
If the location of the boundary is still uncertain after applying the rules set out above, the director shall make a determination on the location of the boundary.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007)

§ 17.02.050 Administrative responsibilities.

A. 
Director.
1. 
The director shall have the responsibility for administering the provisions of this title including the interpretation and application of its provisions;
2. 
The director shall make final decisions on all permits and approvals not explicitly delegated to another decision-making body;
3. 
The director shall act as a coordinating agent to ensure that the regulatory process is expeditious. All departments of city government shall cooperate with the director in the exercise of his or her duties relative to land use controls and regulations.
B. 
Hearing Examiner (HE).
1. 
The hearing examiner shall conduct open record hearings and prepare a record thereof, and make a final decision upon the following matters except as provided in subsections B.2 and 3 of this section:
a. 
Subdivisions processed as a Type II-HE permit.
b. 
Project permits that require a variance request;
c. 
Applications for short plat approval when a short plat variance is being requested;
d. 
Applications for zoning or shoreline variances which accompany any of the applications listed in this subsection;
e. 
Appeals from any orders, requirements, permits, decisions or determinations made by the director in the administration of BMC Titles 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17;
f. 
Appeals from SEPA determinations of significance, determinations of nonsignificance, and mitigated determinations of nonsignificance; and
g. 
Revocation proceedings involving all project proposals requiring an open record hearing.
2. 
The hearing examiner shall conduct an open record hearing and prepare a record thereof, and issue a decision for approval or recommendation of shoreline master program conditional use permits and shoreline master program variances. The hearing examiner recommendation on shoreline master program conditional use permits and shoreline master program variances shall be transmitted to the Department of Ecology. A final decision on shoreline master program conditional use permits and shoreline master program variances are issued by the Department of Ecology.
3. 
The hearing examiner shall conduct an open record hearing and prepare a record thereof, and make recommendations to the city council for approval or disapproval of applications made for the project permits listed below:
a. 
Planned unit development permits;
b. 
An application for any of the project permits for which the hearing examiner would normally make a final decision as provided in subsection B.1 of this section, when associated with a planned unit development. The decision on planned unit development permit applications shall instead be in the form of a recommendation to be forwarded to the city council for final approval.
C. 
Planning Commission.
1. 
The planning commission shall review and make recommendations to the city council on proposed amendments to the land use and development code and on proposed new regulations thereunder.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007; Ord. 2728 § 2 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 2811 § 2 (Exh. A), 2012; Ord. 2879 § 1 (Exh. A § 7), 2016; Ord. 2970 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.02.060 Appeals.

Appeals of a final decision or action of the director under this chapter shall be submitted pursuant to BMC § 17.06.180, Appeals.
(Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.04.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to define the types of land use and development code amendments and establish time lines and procedures to be followed when proposals are made for amending or revising the city's land use and development code and official maps.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003)

§ 17.04.020 Types of amendments defined.

A. 
"Standard zoning map amendment"
means a proposed change or revision to the official city of Blaine zoning map that affects a number of properties under various ownerships. A standard map amendment is generally comprehensive in nature, deals with homogenous communities, is geographically distinctive, or has unified interest within the city, such as a neighborhood plan. Rezone agreements may be executed for standard zoning map amendments when determined desirable by the city council.
B. 
"Text amendments"
means a proposed change or revision in the text of this title, the city's land use and development code.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2879 § 1 (Exh. A § 4), 2016)

§ 17.04.030 Initiation of amendments.

Amendments to the Blaine land use and development code and/or to the official city zoning map or shoreline map may be initiated as follows:
A. 
The director may initiate the amendment process by placing the proposed amendment(s) on the review authority agenda;
B. 
The city's review authority may initiate an amendment(s) by majority vote of its members to place an amendment proposal on the review authority agenda;
C. 
The city council may initiate an amendment by approving a resolution to place a proposed amendment(s) before the review authority. The resolution shall be forwarded to the director who, unless directed otherwise by the city council, shall place the amendment on the land use and development code docket to be scheduled for consideration by the review authority;
D. 
A citizen may initiate an amendment(s) and have it placed on the land use and development code docket by making application on a form provided by the director and pay a processing fee pursuant to Blaine's unified fee schedule. The director shall be responsible for the placement of the amendment proposal on the land use and development code docket; and
E. 
Items are moved from the land use and development code docket to the review authority agenda of a scheduled meeting of the review authority by the secretary of the review authority. Amendments may be placed on the land use and development docket at any time during the year.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007)

§ 17.04.040 Initiation of amendments that require a comprehensive plan amendment.

Amendments to the text or official maps of the Blaine land use and development code that also necessitate an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall only be placed on the land use and development code docket if the accompanying comprehensive plan amendment is initiated as provided in Chapter 16.04 BMC. If the necessary comprehensive plan amendment is not initiated by the city council, the land use and development code amendment will not be considered.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003)

§ 17.04.050 Processing amendments.

Amendments to this title shall be processed in the following manner:
A. 
Citizen-Initiated Amendments. For citizen-initiated amendments the director shall evaluate each application for completeness and may request additional information of the applicant. Upon a determination that the application is complete, the proposal shall be processed as set forth in subsection B of this section.
B. 
Processing Amendments.
1. 
The director shall process amendments in the following manner:
a. 
Conduct environmental review under SEPA for each amendment or group of amendments as appropriate;
b. 
Prepare a staff report including findings and recommendations for each initiated text and/or map amendment, or group of amendments, as appropriate; and
c. 
Schedule a public hearing before the review authority and forward the staff report, including the result of the environmental review, to the review authority.
2. 
The staff report required in subsection (B)(1)(b) of this section shall:
a. 
Evaluate the initiated amendment(s) in relationship to the goals, objectives and policies of the Blaine comprehensive plan;
b. 
Consider environmental implications as identified by the city SEPA official; and
c. 
Evaluate compliance with any other special provision as set forth in BMC § 17.04.080.
3. 
The review authority shall receive the staff report and schedule a public comment period to include the date of a public hearing(s) on the amendment.
4. 
At the conclusion of the public comment period, the review authority shall meet to evaluate and deliberate on each amendment in relationship to the following:
a. 
Goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan; and
b. 
Compliance with any other special provisions as provided by BMC § 17.04.080.
5. 
The review authority shall make a recommendation as to whether the amendment should be:
a. 
Approved;
b. 
Approved with modifications; or
c. 
Denied.
6. 
The director shall prepare an agency report containing written findings and the planning commission's recommendation for each amendment or group of amendments, as applicable. The director shall also prepare a draft ordinance consistent with and incorporating the decision and findings of the planning commission; provided, that no draft ordinance is required if the recommendation is not to approve the amendment. The agency report, together with the draft ordinance, if any, shall be forwarded to the city council within 30 days of the planning commission's final decision.
7. 
The city council shall receive the agency report and the draft ordinance, if any, and at its next regular public meeting, set a date for a public meeting, where it shall consider the findings and recommendations of the planning commission and may take any of the following actions on the amendment proposal:
a. 
By ordinance, adopt the amendment;
b. 
By motion, reject the amendment;
c. 
By resolution, remand the proposed amendment back to the review authority, with instructions for its reconsideration; or
d. 
If, after deliberating, the city council believes the public interest may be better served by departing from the recommendation of the review authority, the city council shall conduct their own public hearing on the proposed amendment.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007; Ord. 2811 § 2 (Exh. A), 2012)

§ 17.04.060 Public notice.

Public notification of an open record hearing shall be completed in a manner consistent with the public notification requirements contained in BMC § 16.04.120(B).
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2879 § 1 (Exh. A § 2), 2016)

§ 17.04.070 Amendment review schedule.

A. 
Applications for amendments to this title and official maps adopted by this title are accepted throughout the year.
B. 
Applications will generally be processed in the order received; provided, that the department may change the processing order if a different order would result in a more efficient use of staff time and that of the review authority. The date for establishing the processing order shall be the date the application is determined to be complete by the director.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007)

§ 17.04.080 Special provisions.

A. 
Suggesting Revisions to the Blaine Land Use and Development Code.
1. 
Notwithstanding the provisions of BMC § 17.04.030, interested persons, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, may suggest amendments to this title and to the official maps adopted by this title by completing and submitting a suggested amendment application form provided for that purpose by the director.
2. 
The director shall maintain a record of each completed suggested amendment form received. There is no processing fee for submitting suggestions for amendments.
3. 
At least once a year, the director shall review and evaluate suggested amendments. Those suggested amendments that the director considers further the public interest or further the goals, policies or objectives of the comprehensive plan may be initiated by the director as amendment(s) by adding them to the land use and development code docket.
4. 
The review authority and the city council may also review the suggested amendment forms from time to time and may place a suggested amendment on the land use and development code docket in the manner established in BMC § 17.04.030 for that body.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007)

§ 17.04.090 Transmittal of amendments to the state.

Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3) and WAC 365-195-620, the director shall notify and transmit copies of initiated amendments to this title and the official city zoning map to the Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) and other state agencies identified on a list distributed by DOC at least 60 days prior to final adoption. The director shall also transmit a complete and accurate copy of zoning amendments to DOC within 10 days after the enacting ordinance is signed by the mayor.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2811 § 2 (Exh. A), 2012)

§ 17.04.100 Appeals.

Decisions made by the city council for this chapter shall be final and conclusive. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.290 and 36.70A.295, appeals of a final decision by the city council under this chapter may be petitioned through the Growth Management Hearings Board of Western Washington or through direct judicial review.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003)

§ 17.04.110 Fees.

All applicants shall pay fees as specified in the unified fee schedule at the time of application.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003)

§ 17.05.010 Purpose.

This chapter sets forth specific standards providing for city compliance with the concurrency requirements of the State Growth Management Act (GMA) and for consistency between city and county-wide planning policies under the GMA. The GMA requires that the city of Blaine "must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level-of-service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development."
(Ord. 2883 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

§ 17.05.020 Applicability.

A. 
All projects or development activities generating more than 50 trips per peak hour must be reviewed for transportation concurrency.
B. 
The following development shall be exempt from the provisions of this section:
1. 
Any proposed development expected to generate 50 or fewer peak hour vehicular trips;
2. 
Construction of public transportation facilities; and
3. 
Road, street, sidewalk and trail projects undertaken by the city.
(Ord. 2883 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

§ 17.05.030 Level of service standards.

A. 
Level of service (LOS) standard within the city is set at LOS "D" during the peak hour as adopted in the comprehensive plan.
B. 
Intersection LOS is calculated (for both signalized and unsignalized intersections) as per the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.
1. 
If a specific land use typically generates "off peak" impacts, the city may require additional evaluation to determine if additional adverse impact would occur including:
a. 
Weekday a.m. peak hour;
b. 
Weekday peak two-hour, four-hour;
c. 
Weekends.
2. 
Depending on the nature of the impact, a signalization warrant analysis may be performed as per the requirements in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
C. 
Roadways classified as collectors and arterials are evaluated on a standards-based threshold emphasizing adequacy of design standards and safety criteria, not traveler delays. The design standards will be referenced in the following order of precedence:
1. 
City of Blaine development guidelines and public works standards.
2. 
WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines.
3. 
WSDOT Design Manual.
4. 
AASHTO Guidelines.
(Ord. 2883 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

§ 17.05.040 Review process.

A. 
The city shall utilize the following procedures for evaluating all projects or development activities for concurrency, unless the applicant otherwise noted in writing:
1. 
Whenever a reviewing authority is asked to consider the approval of a division of land for sale or the approval of a site plan, the reviewing official shall make a written determination of concurrency in connection with transportation facilities proposed or available for the project.
2. 
Certificate of Concurrency.
a. 
The community development director shall complete a transportation concurrency evaluation at the time a development permit is applied for or during the course of permit review. The review shall include a determination demonstrating that the proposed project meets the level of service standards whereby a certificate of concurrency shall be issued and attached or incorporated to the development permit approval. When a project is determined to have not passed level of service standards the certificate of concurrency shall be conditioned in a manner that satisfies the requirements of this section, or the project shall not be approved.
b. 
The applicant shall provide the city with all information necessary to complete the concurrency evaluation on the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide studies, surveys, traffic counts, engineering review or any other items determined to be necessary for an accurate concurrency evaluation.
c. 
A certificate of concurrency shall be accorded the same terms and conditions as those for the underlying development permit. If a development permit timeline is extended the certificate shall also be extended for the same time duration. A certificate of concurrency shall be valid only for the development permit approved for the same parcel and may be transferable to any new owner(s) of the parcel to which it was issued.
B. 
Transportation concurrency shall be established and determined by comparing trip generation to available system capacity as follows:
1. 
Trip Generation. Traffic calculations shall be based on the trip generation average described within the latest available edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual for the particular type and extent of the development being proposed.
2. 
Available Capacity. The city shall periodically evaluate traffic volumes on a sample set of roadway segments and intersections. Sample set shall be determined by the public works director based on the comprehensive plan and six-year transportation improvement plan. Available capacity shall be determined based on traffic counts in comparison to facility design. Available capacity shall take into account approved development that is not yet contributing trips to the system so that multiple concurrent approvals do not adversely impact LOS goals.
3. 
Concurrency Test. The projected number of trips generated by a proposed development shall be subtracted from existing or new transportation capacity of the impacted transportation facility. If projected demand is less than available capacity, the project is not adverse to level of service standards and shall be issued a certificate of concurrency.
4. 
Development guidelines and public works standards compliance shall be a component of concurrency review. Development standards compliance shall require the following:
a. 
The project makes on-site and frontage improvements, consistent with city standards for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, trails, street trees, and lighting where appropriate, and other roads that are necessary to serve the proposed project consistent with safety and public interest, which may include a fee in-lieu;
b. 
The project makes such off-site facility improvements, not listed on the capital facilities plan, as are necessary to meet city standards for the safe movement of traffic and pedestrians attributable to the project. Where a developer is required to oversize an off-site facility for a project by more than 10 percent of the need generated by the proposed project, the city may consider a developer reimbursement contract as authorized by state law;
c. 
The project makes a contribution to the facilities relating to capacity improvements identified in the adopted six-year traffic improvement program, in the form of transportation facility impact fees calculated pursuant to Chapter 3.80 BMC, as amended.
(Ord. 2883 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

§ 17.05.050 Transportation concurrency mitigation methods.

For any project that creates an impact that causes a facility to degrade below a LOS "D," the city shall use the following procedures to review and evaluate mitigation methods necessary to avoid crossing the LOS threshold, or the city shall deny issuance of a certificate of concurrency:
A. 
If mitigation is determined necessary to maintain level of service standards for an impacted transportation facility, the applicant may choose among the following actions:
1. 
Reduce the size of the project until levels of service standards are met;
2. 
Enter into a legally binding development agreement with the city whereby all required improvements will be constructed and completed within six years of the development approval date which also insures that the financing is available to pay for the improvements at time of building permit approval;
3. 
Be subject to a development approval conditioned that the required improvements be completed prior to the issuance of building permits, final plat or site plan approvals associated with the development;
4. 
Propose transportation demand management strategies to reduce vehicle trips generated by the project development;
5. 
Await the city's completion of mitigating improvements if such improvements are underway or planned as part of the city's six-year transportation improvement plan; or
6. 
Any combination of the above.
B. 
Acceptable impact mitigation requires a finding of the following:
1. 
The mitigation contributes to transportation facility performance and established level of service standards;
2. 
The mitigation is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan;
3. 
Any improvements to an intersection or roadway do not shift traffic to other roadway segments or to other intersections where an adverse LOS impact will occur and there is no mitigation being proposed;
4. 
Any adverse environmental impacts of the facility improvements may be reasonably mitigated; and
5. 
The improvements are consistent with the city's development guidelines and public works standards.
(Ord. 2883 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

§ 17.06.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an efficient and expeditious process for the review of land use and development proposals.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003)

§ 17.06.020 Applicability.

The land use review processes in this chapter shall apply to review procedures required under the city land use and development code to make a decision on public and private activities affecting the use of property in the city. These actions may include but are not limited to administrative decisions, enforcement actions, decisions on land division, zoning variances, zoning amendments, site plan reviews and appeals of those actions.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.030 Exemptions.

The following permits or approvals are not subject to the project permit review procedures required under this chapter:
A. 
Legislative actions (Type III-LEG) subject to BMC Title 16;
B. 
Work covered under an approved street excavation or obstruction permit;
C. 
Washington State Department of Transportation projects in the public right-of-way;
D. 
City public works projects in the public right-of-way.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007; Ord. 2728 § 2 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 2811 § 2 (Exh. A), 2012; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.040 Land use final decisions and land use decision types.

A. 
Land Use Decision Categories. Project applications and final decisions shall be categorized as Type I-ADM, Type I-ADM/CC, Type II-HE, Type II-CC or Type III-LEG, and are defined as follows:
1. 
Type I. Type I final decisions are administrative decisions, rulings, and code interpretations and fall under one of two subcategories listed and defined below. Wherever the term "Type I" is used by itself, it shall be constructed to include one or both subcategories of Type I final decisions as authorized under the city land use and development code.
a. 
Type I-ADM. Type I-ADM final decisions are administrative decisions made by the director.
b. 
Type I-ADM/CC. Type I-ADM/CC final decisions are decisions made by the city council based on recommendations by the director and can include preliminary plats up to 99 residential lots, excluding any lots that are reserved for roads, open space, or commercial. Type I-ADM/CC final decisions are closed record decisions based on the record developed by the director.
2. 
Type II. Type II final decisions are quasi-judicial decisions and fall under one of two subcategories as listed and defined below. Wherever the term "Type II" is used by itself it shall be construed to include one or both subcategories of Type II final decisions.
a. 
Type II-HE. Type II-HE final decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the hearing examiner and include permit decisions following a public hearing and quasi-judicial decisions on open record appeals of administrative final decisions.
b. 
Type II-CC. Type II-CC final decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the city council. With few exceptions, Type II-CC final decisions are closed record decisions based on the record developed at an open record hearing held by the hearing examiner. Type II-CC final decisions include, but are not limited to, decisions regarding land use appeals and on certain types of land use approvals.
3. 
Type III-LEG. Type III-LEG final decisions are legislative decisions made by city council and are not subject to the review procedures outlined in this chapter. Type III-LEG final decisions for amendments to city's comprehensive plan are outlined in Chapter 16.04 BMC. Type III-LEG final decisions for amendments to the land use and development code are outlined in Chapter 17.04 BMC.
B. 
Hierarchy of Land Use Decision Types. Land use decision types shall be ranked in order of authority from lowest level to highest as follows: Type I-ADM, Type I-ADM/CC, Type II-HE, Type II-CC and Type III-LEG.
C. 
In the event of uncertainty as to the applicable decision type for a specific permit or approval, the director shall make the final decision.
D. 
Consolidated Review — Applicable Decision Type. Land use proposals undergoing consolidated review pursuant to this chapter, in which more than one decision type applies shall be processed under the highest-level land use decision type applicable to the proposal. This consolidated review requirement does not apply to an appeal of a SEPA threshold determination, the final decision for SEPA appeals is made by the hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 17.80 BMC.
E. 
Determination of Land Use Decision Type. Land use decision types shall be assigned to land use permits and approvals as depicted in Table 17.06.A.
Table 17.06.A
Project Type
Type I-ADM
Type I-ADM/CC
Type II-HE
Type II-CC
Division 1
Building Permit (compliance with Title 17 development standards)
X
Administrative Interpretations
X
Concurrency Review
X
Site Plan Review
X
Building Variance
X
Division 3
Food Truck on Private Property
X
Division 4
Boundary Line Adjustment
X
Lot Consolidation
X
Short Subdivision
X
Preliminary Plat, less than 100 residential lots
X
Preliminary Plat, 100 residential lots or more
X
Final Plat
X
Plat Variance
X1
X2
General Binding Site Plan
X
Specific Binding Site Plan
X
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
X
PUD Master Plan
X
PUD Modification
X
PUD Amendment
X
Division 5
SEPA Exemption
X
SEPA threshold determinations
X
Shoreline exemptions
X
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
X
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
X
Shoreline Variance Permit
X
Critical Areas Review
X3
X4
Land Disturbance Permit
X
Flood Development Permit
X
Division 6
Conditional Use Permit
X
Nonconformance Decisions
X
Home Occupations
X
Bed and Breakfast Business License
X
In-Home Child of Adult Care Business License
X
Accessory Dwelling Units
X
Accessory Structure Setbacks
X
Public Utilities (excluding those in public rights-of-way)
X
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
X5
X5
Essential Public Facilities
X
Manufactured Home Subdivisions
X
Manufactured Home Parks
X6
X7
Division 7
Design Review
X
Sign Permit
X
X8
Temporary Storage Container Permit
X
Notes:
1.
2.
When associated with a preliminary plat or geWhen associated with a boundary line adjustment, short subdivision, or specific binding site plan.neral binding site plan.
3.
For critical areas determination, exceptions and activities allowed in critical areas and their associated buffers, and buffer reduction or averaging of <25% of the standard buffer width.
4.
For buffer reduction >25% of a standard buffer width, critical areas variance or reasonable use exception.
5.
Determined by Facilities Type and Location.
6.
For Specific Binding Site Plan.
7.
For Planned Unit Development.
8.
For conditional sign approval under BMC § 17.122.050 or variance under BMC § 17.122.060.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2970 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.050 Preapplication conference.

A. 
A project proponent may request a preapplication conference with the city prior to submitting a project proposal for review. The purpose of a preapplication conference is to provide an opportunity for the applicant to discuss a project with the city prior to submitting an application. The objective is to better determine submittal requirements and to clarify applicable policy and regulatory requirements prior to formally submitting a project proposal to the city. The result should be a saving in both costs and time for the applicant.
B. 
A request for a preapplication conference shall be made using the request forms provided by the city. The request form contains a list of information to be submitted along with the completed request form. The proponent may include additional information beyond that requested. The requested information and any additional information submitted will be used by city staff to help prepare for the conference.
C. 
Upon receipt of a completed request form, the director shall review the submittal information, determine which city departments should be contacted to have representatives present at the conference and schedule the preapplication conference at a time convenient for all parties.
D. 
Preapplication review does not constitute acceptance of an application by the director or city nor does it vest an application.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.060 Application submittal information.

A. 
Applications for a project permit or other types of land use approvals shall be submitted using forms provided by the city. Applications shall be submitted electronically pursuant to the instructions on the application form.
B. 
As required by RCW 36.70B.070, submittal requirements are listed on the application form. The submittal requirements outlined on the application form are the basis for determining if a particular application is complete.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.070 Receipt of application and determination of completeness.

A. 
Receipt of Applications. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070(2), applications are required to meet all submittal requirements and must be complete at the time of submittal. Applications shall be submitted electronically pursuant to the instructions on the application form. The director shall note the date of receipt of the application, assign a permit number and assess permit fees pursuant to the city's unified fee schedule and inform the applicant of the required fees by mail, email or hand delivery. A request for payment of the applicable fees will be made electronically. Receipt of an application does not constitute approval of the proposal or land use action, nor does it signify that the director has determined the application is complete.
B. 
Determination of Completeness. Within 28 calendar days following receipt of the application and payment of all application fees to the city pursuant to the city's unified fee schedule, the director shall review the application materials and determine whether the application is procedurally complete. An application shall be determined to be procedurally complete when all assigned application fees are paid in full and the director determines that the application meets the procedural submission requirements as outlined on the application form.
C. 
Complete Applications. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070(1), for applications determined to be procedurally complete, the director shall provide the applicant with written notice that the application is complete. The notice of complete application shall be mailed, emailed, or hand delivered to the applicant. To the extent known by the director, the notice of complete application shall identify other agencies of local, state, regional or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the application.
D. 
Incomplete Applications. For applications determined to be incomplete, the following applies:
1. 
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070(1), the director shall provide the applicant with written notice by mail, email, or by hand delivery that the application was determined to be incomplete. The notice of incomplete application shall be postmarked or hand delivered no later than 28 calendar days from the date the city received the application form, and payment of all assigned application fees. The director shall include in the notice of incomplete application a description of the outstanding information or items that are needed to complete the application.
2. 
The applicant shall have 60 days from the date on the written notice of incomplete application to submit the requested information to the director.
a. 
If the applicant does not submit the necessary information in writing within the 60-day period, or any extension thereof, the director may mark the application as void and take no further action on the application. If voided, the city shall provide a notice of voided application by mail, email, or hand delivery to applicant or applicant's agent.
b. 
Prior to the expiration of the initial 60 day period afforded to applicant, the applicant may make a written request to the director for an extension of time to submit the required materials. Upon the director's finding that the applicant has made a substantial effort to provide the necessary application materials, the director may grant additional time, up to a total of an additional 90 days, to submit the required information.
3. 
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070(4), upon receipt of additional information, the director shall have 14 days to make a new determination that the application is procedurally complete or incomplete.
a. 
If the application is determined to be procedurally complete, written notice shall be provided to the applicant in the manner specified in this chapter.
b. 
If the application is determined to be incomplete, the director shall mark the application as void and provide applicant with notice that the application remains incomplete and what additional information is necessary to complete the application. The notice shall identify the reason(s) for the determination. In such a case, a new application with new fees will be required for the project and a new application date assigned.
E. 
Additional Information. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070(2), a determination of completeness of an application shall not prevent the director from requiring additional information or studies that may be necessary to demonstrate compliance with city regulations.
1. 
The city may provide a written request to the applicant outlining the specific additional information required by the city to further process the application.
2. 
An applicant shall have 60 calendar days from the date on the written request for additional information to submit the requested information to the city. Any request for additional information that goes unanswered for more than 60 days by the applicant will result in the city adding 30 days to the time periods listed in this chapter for the city to issue a final decision for each type of project permit. The city shall include in all written requests for additional information a statement that the applicant's non-responsiveness for 60 consecutive days will result in 30 days being added to the time for city review.
3. 
If the applicant does not submit the requested information to the city in writing within 60 calendar days from the date on the written request for additional information, or any extension thereof, the director may mark the application void and take no further action on the application. If voided, the city shall provide a notice of voided application by mail, email, or hand delivery to the applicant or applicant's agent.
4. 
Prior to the expiration of the initial 60-calendar-day period afforded to applicants, the applicant may make a written request to the director for an extension of time to submit the required materials. Upon the director's finding that the applicant has made a substantial effort to provide the necessary application materials, the director may grant additional time, up to a total of 90 additional days, to submit the required information.
F. 
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.070(4)(a), a project permit application shall be deemed complete if the director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete by 5:00 pm on the 28th day following the date of the director's receipt of an application submittal, including payment of all assigned application fees, or within 14 days following submittal of additional information requested in a notice of incomplete application, as provided in this section.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.080 Vesting of applications.

A. 
Applications shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in BMC Title 13 and this title in place on the date an application is deemed procedurally complete pursuant to this chapter. No application for a project permit or other land use approval will be considered vested until a notice of complete application has been issued to the applicant by the director stating that the application is complete, or the application has been automatically deemed complete under the time periods listed in this section. The director's issuance of a written notice of complete application as provided in this chapter, issuance of a written notice that an application is incomplete, or the failure of the director to provide such a written notice of completeness in the time frame as provided in this chapter shall be a final determination of whether an application is vested pursuant to this chapter. Substantial compliance with the requirements of this chapter by the city shall be deemed sufficient to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete, including the delivery of notification of such decision to an applicant.
B. 
Supplemental information requested by the city or offered by an applicant after vesting of a complete application shall not affect the validity of the vesting for such application unless the director determines that the new information was needed because applicant provided incorrect information and the new information materially affects the final decision on the application.
C. 
An applicant-requested modification occurring either before or after issuance of the permit shall eliminate vesting only when such modification would result in a substantial change in a project's review requirements, as determined by the director. Under such a condition, the modified application will be deemed a new application. Examples of a substantial change include modifications resulting in a different type of decision, i.e., Type I to Type II or a change requiring a new SEPA threshold determination. Modifications that reduce the scope of a proposal or reduce environmental impacts would not be considered a substantial change.
D. 
Modifications required by the director to a pending application or provided by an application, other than those set forth in subsections B and C of this section, shall not be deemed a new application and shall not affect vesting.
E. 
Building permits that may subsequently be required to construct or complete a vested land use project shall be considered new applications under the building code and shall be subject to the edition of the building code in place at the time of the submission of a complete building permit application.
F. 
Nothing herein shall restrict the director's authority to impose conditions on project permits pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW and WAC 197-11-600.
G. 
Nothing herein shall be construed to restrict the director's ability, to the extent otherwise permitted by law, to apply new regulations to a project permit or project permit application upon a finding that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
H. 
If an application for an approved subdivision (short subdivision, preliminary plat, or binding site plan) seeks an extension from the deadline for expiration, the City may impose additional or altered conditions, requirements and regulations on any plat, if the approving authority deems it necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.
I. 
Nothing herein shall be construed to imply, allow or require vesting to any fees or charges, including, but not limited to, application fees, administrative fees or charges, appeal fees and reimbursement charges. Fees due shall be those fees in effect on the date the fee is paid as adopted by the City Council.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2900 § 1 (Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.090 Land use decision time periods.

A. 
Type I-ADM Land Use Final Decisions.
1. 
Type I land use final decisions for a proposal that does not require public notice shall be issued within 65 days of the date of the written notice to the applicant that the application is complete.
2. 
Type I land use final decisions for a proposal that require public notice shall be issued within 100 days of the date of the written notice to the applicant that the application is complete.
B. 
Type II Land Use Final Decisions. Type II land use final decisions, other than appeals, which require public notice and a public hearing, shall be issued within 170 days of the date of written notice to the applicant that the application is complete.
C. 
In determining the number of days that have elapsed after an application is determined to be complete, the following time periods shall be excluded:
1. 
Any period during which the applicant has been required by the director to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional information required to further process the application as set forth in this chapter. Such period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the date the director receives the additional information; or
2. 
Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 17.80 BMC; or
3. 
The period of time during which an administrative appeal affecting the proposal was heard and decided upon subject to the time limitations of BMC § 17.06.180E and F; or
4. 
Any period in which the applicant has not met public notification requirements of BMC § 17.06.100; or
5. 
Any period of time mutually agreed upon in writing by the applicant and the director.
D. 
The time limits and refund requirements in this section shall only apply to project permits or project permit applications as defined by RCW 36.70B.020. The time limits established by subsections A and B of this section shall not apply if the application for a land use decision:
1. 
Requires an amendment to the city comprehensive plan or the city code; or
2. 
Involves the siting of an essential public facility; or
3. 
Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete.
E. 
Except for the refund of application fees as required in RCW 36.70B.080, the city shall not be liable for damages for failure to make a final decision within the time limits established under this section.
F. 
Above and beyond the requirements of subsections A through E of this section, all permit applications shall be valid for one year from the date of the written notice that the application is complete. If a final decision by the review authority is not made within this time, the application shall become null and void unless an extension is granted. The review authority may grant a maximum of two one-year extensions at the timely request of the applicant upon the determination by the City that the applicant can establish that a reasonable good faith effort to complete the project application was undertaken during the time that the application was pending. Each one-year extension shall be considered independently.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007; Ord. 2728 § 2 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 2811 § 2 (Exh. A), 2012; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.095 Public notices – Costs.

A. 
The cost of all providing the public notices required by this title shall be paid by the applicant. These costs include, but are not limited to, newspaper publication costs, mailing costs, and costs for posting. The applicant shall either pay these costs: (i) to the city at the time of submission of the application fees; (ii) directly to the provider if different than the city; or (iii) as a reimbursement to the city. Any reimbursement owed to the city shall be paid by the applicant within 14 calendar days following the city transmitting an invoice for such costs to the applicant. Public notice fee amounts are listed in the unified fee schedule adopted by the city.
B. 
In the event that notice or publication fees for a required notice were not paid to the city along with the initial application fees, the city does not waive the right to collect such fees during the permit review process. Payment of all public notice fees is required prior to issuance of any subsequent affiliated development permit.
(Ord. 2763 § 2 (Exh. A), 2010; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.100 Notice of application requirements.

A. 
The director shall ensure that a notice of application is published or posted for each of the land use decision types in accordance with this section. The director shall provide any required notice to the newspaper designated by the city council. The applicant shall post notice of application and meet other notification requirements as determined by the director. Table 17.06.B provides a summary of notice requirements.
Table 17.06.B
Notice Requirements
Type I-ADM with SEPA
Type I-ADM/CC
Type II-HE and CC
Required Timing of Notification
Within 10 days of determination of completeness
X
Within 14 days of determination of completeness
X
X
At least 14 days prior to a hearing
X
Required Methods
Post notice at City Hall
X
X
X
Post notice on city's website
X
X
X
Erect sign(s) on subject property
X
X
X
Publish in newspaper designated by city council
X
X
X
Mail notice to adjacent owners (within 300 feet)
X
X
Required Contents
Applicant name
X
X
X
Date of application
X
X
X
Date of completeness
X
X
X
Brief description of project
X
X
X
List of project studies or other required approvals
X
X
Time frame for filing comments
X
X
X
Requesting a notice of any required hearings
X
Date, time, and place of hearing
X1
X2
Requesting a notice of final decision
X
X
Notice of the right to appeal and to whom
X
X
X
Optional determination of nonsignificance
X
X — Required
Notes:
1.
Type I-ADM/CC notices shall include notification that no public hearing will be held on the application unless a person files a request with the director by letter within 21 days of the notice of application date.
2.
If a hearing date is not set when issuing a notice of application, a separate notice of public hearing shall be distributed at least 10 days prior to the hearing date.
B. 
Type I-ADM Applications with SEPA Review. A notice of application for a Type I-ADM project permit not exempt from a SEPA threshold determination shall comply with the notification and content requirements provided in this chapter and Chapter 197-11 WAC.
C. 
Type I-ADM/CC and Type II Applications. A notice of application for Type I-ADM/CC and Type II project permit applications shall be provided through publication, mailing, and posting of the subject property. A notice of application shall contain the following information:
1. 
The name of the applicant and date of application;
2. 
Date of the notice of application and date application was deemed procedurally complete;
3. 
A brief description of the project, a list of project permits or other approval requests included in the application and a list of any studies requested by the city;
4. 
A summary of procedures and a deadline for filing comments, requesting notice of any required hearings, receiving decisions and any appeal procedure;
5. 
The date, time, place and type of hearing, if known at the time notice is provided;
6. 
If applicable, a statement that the optional determination of nonsignificance ("DNS") process is being used and that the public comment period may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the project; and
7. 
Type I-ADM/CC notices shall include notification that no public hearing will be held on the application unless a person files a written request with the director within 21 days of the notice of application date.
D. 
Posting a Notice of Application. When posting a notice of application on the property, the following shall apply:
1. 
A notice of application shall be posted no later than one day after the date of publication. The director shall determine the location and number of signs necessary to ensure that adequate public notice is provided;
2. 
Sign(s) shall be posted and maintained by the applicant until a final decision is made on the application, when it shall be promptly removed by the applicant;
3. 
Signs shall be at least one and one-half feet by two feet in size.
4. 
Posted notice signs are provided by the City and shall be made available to the applicant at least one day prior to the date of the notice of application.
E. 
Publishing a Notice of Application. A notice of receipt of an application shall be published once in a newspaper officially designated by the City Council for such purposes within the City.
F. 
Mailing a Notice of Application. When mailing the notice of application, the following shall apply:
1. 
A notice of application shall be sent by the applicant by first-class United States mail to:
a. 
Property owners of record as shown in the records of the Whatcom County assessor's office in the area within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the site;
b. 
Those persons who requested a mailed notice of application pursuant to BMC § 16.04.130;
2. 
Notice shall be placed in the mail no later than the date of publication of the notice;
3. 
If the site adjoins a state highway, a notice of application shall be mailed to the State Department of Transportation;
4. 
If a site adjoins another jurisdiction, a notice of application shall be mailed to that jurisdiction; and
5. 
Mailed notice shall be considered supplementary to posted and/or published notice and be deemed satisfactory despite the failure of one or more owners to receive the mailed notice sent to addresses of record.
G. 
Time Limits for Notices of Applications. Notice for Type I-ADM/CC and Type II applications shall be sent for publication, mailed and posted within 14 days following the director's determination that the application is procedurally complete. A public comment period of 14 days shall be provided, unless a longer period is required by state law or this code. The public comment period shall commence on the date of publication.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2673 § 2, 2007; Ord. 2879 § 1 (Exh. A § 11), 2016; Ord. 2970 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.110 Notice of the open record hearing.

A. 
Notice of the open record hearing shall be as follows:
1. 
A notice of the hearing providing the location and a general description of the proposed project shall be published at least 10 days prior to the hearing date in a newspaper officially designated by the City Council for such purposes;
2. 
A written notice of the hearing shall be mailed to any person, agency, or organization that requests in writing notice of the hearing during the public comment process provided for in BMC § 17.06.100; and
3. 
A written notice of the hearing shall also be provided to any person who has requested, in writing, to receive notice of all land use applications encompassed by this chapter.
B. 
The applicant shall be responsible to pay for or reimburse the city for the cost of publication of the public hearing notice. The city shall either include the public notice fees along with the fees assigned at the time of application or provide written notice of such fees to the applicant prior to publication.
C. 
If the posted notice of application required under BMC § 17.06.090 does not include the time and date of the hearing, a notice of the hearing shall be added to the posted notice of application at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.120 Notice of final decision.

Notice of a final decision shall be as follows:
A. 
Notice of a Type I-ADM final decision will be provided by first class United States mail to the applicant and any person, agency, or organization who, prior to rendering the decision, requests in writing notice of the decision, and for decisions with SEPA threshold determinations, any person or agency entitled to notice pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 or 197-11-355, as applicable; and
B. 
Notice of Type I-ADM/CC and Type II Final Decisions. Not later than seven working days following the rendering of a written decision, copies of the decision shall be mailed or emailed to the applicant and to other parties of record in the case. The city shall provide a notice of final decision to the Whatcom County Assessor's office as required by RCW 36.70B.130.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.125 Mineral resource land notification.

A. 
The city shall provide a notification to applicant proposing construction or development that requires a land use or building permit on lands within 500 feet of designated mineral resource lands that reads as follows:
1. 
All development permits and building permits issued for land within 500 feet of designated mineral resources lands designated by Whatcom County shall contain a note stating:
The property is near mineral resource lands whereupon a variety of commercial activities may occur that are incompatible with residential development for certain periods of limited duration, and an application might be made for mining-related activities, including mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting, transporting, and recycling of minerals.
(Ord. 2827 § 2 (Exh. A), 2013; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.130 Final decision procedural requirements.

A. 
Type I Decision Procedures.
1. 
Type I-ADM decisions are administratively issued by the director. The decision of the director shall be based on staff reports, agency reports, comments received during the review period, the requirements of the BMC, and all other relevant facts and information needed to determine compliance.
a. 
The director's decision shall be as follows:
i. 
Approval;
ii. 
Disapproval specifying reasons for disapproval; or
iii. 
Grant preliminary approval subject to conditions and completion of specified improvements.
b. 
Type I-ADM decisions may be administratively appealed to the hearing examiner as provided in BMC § 17.06.180. If no timely administrative appeal is filed with the city, then the director's decision is the final decision for Type I-ADM.
2. 
Type I-ADM/CC final decisions are decisions issued by City Council based on a recommendation from the director. The decision of the City Council shall be informed by the staff report with recommendation provided by the director, comments received during the review period, the requirements of the city code, and other relevant facts and information needed to determine compliance.
a. 
After the City receives a complete application for a Type I-ADM/CC land use, the director shall prepare a consolidated staff report with recommendation to the city council. The staff report shall address the proposed development or action, summarizing the comments and recommendations of City departments, affected agencies, special districts, and public comments received within the applicable comment period; and include the results of the consistency review conducted pursuant to this chapter.
b. 
If a public hearing on a Type I-ADM/CC application is requested as provided in this section, the application shall transfer to the provisions for Type II-HE decision procedures in this chapter.
c. 
There is no administrative appeal for a Type I-ADM/CC final decision. A Type I-ADM/CC final decision is subject to judicial appeal per BMC § 17.06.190.
B. 
Type II Decision Procedures. Procedures for Type II final decisions are as follows:
1. 
After the director deems an application complete, the director shall schedule a date for an open record hearing decision before the appropriate hearing body based on the type of decision under consideration and provide notice as set forth in BMC § 17.06.100;
2. 
The Director shall coordinate and assemble the review of other City departments having an interest in the Type II decision and shall prepare a consolidated staff report;
3. 
The staff report shall be made available to the applicant and parties of record by the distribution of a notice, and made available for public inspection. The staff report will:
a. 
Address the proposed development or action, summarizing the comments and recommendations of City departments, affected agencies, special districts, and public comments received within the comment period for the notice of application; and
b. 
Include the results of the consistency review conducted pursuant to BMC § 17.06.160.
C. 
Open Record Hearing Requirements. For a Type II final decision requiring an open record hearing:
1. 
The hearing body shall not hold an open record hearing sooner than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of application;
2. 
The City shall hold no more than one open record hearing; and
3. 
The hearing body shall have the power to administer oaths, preserve order, and to issue summons for and compel the appearance of witnesses and production of documents and materials.
D. 
Type II Final Decisions.
1. 
The hearing body shall render a written decision within 14 days of the conclusion of an open record hearing unless a longer period is agreed to in writing by the applicant;
2. 
The decision shall include findings based upon the record and conclusions that support the decision;
3. 
Such findings and conclusions shall set forth the manner by which the decision or recommendation would be carried out and conform to the City's comprehensive plan, other adopted policies and objectives, zoning, and this chapter;
4. 
A final decision of the hearing body may be to grant, deny, or grant with such conditions, modifications, and restrictions as the hearing body finds necessary to make the application compatible with the environment and ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan, shoreline master program, State Environmental Policy Act,[1] the city code and other ordinances found applicable. Examples of the kinds of conditions, modifications, and restrictions which may be imposed include, but are not limited to, additional setbacks, screenings in the form of fencing or landscaping, restrictive covenants, easements, dedications of additional rights-of-way, performance bonds, and measures to mitigate identified adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action;
[1]
Editor's note: See Chapter 43.21C RCW and WAC 197-11-600.
5. 
Not later than seven working days following the rendering of a written final decision, the city will mail or email copies of the decision to the applicant and to other parties of record in the case and notice shall be published, by the director, once in a newspaper officially designated by the city council for such purposes; and
6. 
All written Type II final decisions shall include notice of the right to an appeal of the final decision, if such appeal is allowed, and the manner and the time limits under which an appeal may be filed. There is no administrative appeal for a Type II final decision. Type II final decisions are subject to judicial appeal as provided in BMC § 17.06.190.
7. 
The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of publication of the notice of final decision. A final decision notice fee shall be included in the fees assigned at the time of application or prior to publication.
E. 
Content of Decision.
1. 
When public notice of decision is not required under this chapter, the decision may be represented by the director's stamped approval of the requested permit application, plan sets, site plan, drawings, certificate or other document.
2. 
When a public notice of decision is required under this chapter, the decision must be in writing and include:
a. 
A statement of the applicable criteria and standards from the City Code other applicable law;
b. 
A statement of the facts showing the application does or does not comply with each applicable approval criterion and the assurance of compliance with applicable standards;
c. 
The reasons for the decision or the recommendation to approve or deny the project permit or appeal;
d. 
The SEPA threshold determination, if applicable; and
e. 
Any conditions or modifications deemed necessary.
3. 
Any decision by the city council must be by resolution or ordinance.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2811 § 2 (Exh. A), 2012; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.140 Integrated SEPA procedures.

A. 
An application for approval shall comply with the notification requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 197-11 WAC, and Chapter 17.80 BMC.
B. 
Except for a determination of significance (DS) and except as otherwise expressly allowed by RCW 36.70B.110, the director shall not issue a threshold determination until the expiration of the public comment period for the notice of application.
C. 
For applications utilizing the Optional DNS Process, a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) or mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS) for an underlying permit processed as a Type I-ADM decision shall be issued at the same time that the decision is made on the underlying permit.
D. 
If the City has made a determination of significance ("DS") under Chapter 43.21C RCW prior to the issuance of the notice of application, the notice of the DS shall be combined with the notice of application and the scoping notice.
E. 
For Type I final decisions for which a DS is issued, a decision on the application shall be made no sooner than seven days and no later than 14 days after issuance of the final EIS.
F. 
For Type I-ADM/CC and Type II final decisions, the SEPA threshold determination shall be issued at least 15 days prior to the open record hearing scheduled for the application and no later than 90 days after an application is determined complete, unless additional supporting information regarding potential environmental impacts are requested by the director in order to make the determination.
G. 
The public comment period following the notice of application as provided in BMC § 17.06.090B shall constitute the integrated comment period under the optional DNS procedure set forth in WAC 197-11-355.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.150 Consolidated permit review.

A. 
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.120, the Director may, during the initial intake review or upon request integrate and consolidate the review and decision on two or more project permits for the same site, subject to this chapter, that relate to the proposed project action.
B. 
A determination of completeness, notice of application, and notice of final decision must include all project permits being reviewed through the consolidated permit review process.
C. 
The consolidated permit review may combine an open record hearing on one or more permits with an open record appeal hearing on other permits.
D. 
The Director shall be the designated permit coordinator for consolidated review.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.160 Consistency review by agencies.

A. 
Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.040(1), each project permit application shall be reviewed by the director to determine consistency with the adopted comprehensive plan and development regulations.
B. 
Consistency shall be determined by consideration of the following four project characteristics in relationship to adopted comprehensive plan policies and development regulations:
1. 
Type of land use;
2. 
The level of development, such as units per acre or other measure of density;
3. 
Infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to serve the development; and
4. 
The character of the development including, but not limited to, design features and critical area impacts.
C. 
Applications for proposals that will affect drainage, roads and/or public utilities shall be referred to the public works department. The public works director shall notify the director that the proposed roads, utilities, drainage facilities, and other improvements can or cannot conform to adopted development standards and the application complies with the concurrency requirements.
D. 
For applications with legal descriptions that have not been prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the state of Washington, the director shall, in such manner as he or she deems appropriate, establish the adequacy of legal descriptions.
E. 
The conclusions of a consistency determination by the director shall be documented in the project permit decision or staff report to the hearing body responsible for a final decision on the proposal.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.170 Variances.

A. 
The Hearing Examiner shall have the power and duty to authorize a variance from the terms of the area and dimensional regulations of this title when the request is consistent with the public interest and where, due to special conditions, literal enforcement of the provisions of this code would result in unnecessary hardship.
B. 
Except where a chapter within this title identifies more specific variance criteria for a particular type of variance, a variance from the terms of this title shall be granted by the hearing examiner when a written application for a variance is submitted demonstrating all of the following:
1. 
That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district;
2. 
That literal interpretation of the provisions of this division would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this division;
3. 
That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant;
4. 
That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this division to the other lands, structures or buildings in the same district;
5. 
That the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; and
6. 
That granting of the variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
C. 
No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district, and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts, shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.
D. 
The following steps are required for consideration of a variance:
1. 
Notice of public hearing shall be given consistent with the timelines established in this chapter;
2. 
The Hearing Examiner shall hold an open record hearing addressing the variance request in conjunction with related permit applications or project proposals;
3. 
The Hearing Examiner shall make findings that all of the requirements of subsections B.1 through B.6 of this section are met or make finding required by variance criteria specified in other chapters within this title;
4. 
The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision consistent with the requirements of this chapter.
E. 
In granting any variance, the Hearing Examiner shall set the expiration date of the variance at 12 months after the date that the applicant has received the final permit or approval necessary for establishment or construction of the variance condition. If establishment or construction of the variance conditions has not commenced within this 12-month period, or any extension thereof, the variance shall automatically expire and the applicant must reapply for a new variance. The hearing examiner may extend the initial 12-month period by one six-month period upon written request and evidence that the applicant intends to activate the variance within that time limit.
F. 
Under no circumstances shall the hearing examiner grant a variance to allow a use not permitted under the terms of this title in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of this division in the district. Variances shall be limited to the area and dimension requirements of this division.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2692 § 3(3), 2008; Ord. 2728 § 2 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 2970 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.180 Procedures for administrative appeals.

A. 
Type I-ADM and Type I-ADM/CC Final Decisions. Type I final decisions, when provided in writing, shall be final and conclusive unless a complete administrative appeal application packet, including appeal fee paid in full, is filed by the applicant, or any aggrieved party, as defined in this title, in the manner set forth below:
1. 
Appeal Application. Submittal of a completed city administrative appeal application that includes a written statement of the matter being appealed and the basis for the appeal;
2. 
Appeal Application Submission. The appeal application shall be submitted to the director by email, mail, or hand delivery and shall be accompanied by a fee pursuant to the city's unified fee schedule by 4:30 pm on the 14th day following the issuance of the formal written decision. The deadline for submission of the administrative appeal application packet and payment of the appeal fee in full is jurisdictional and an administrative appeal application received after 4:30 pm on the 14th day after the notice is issued, or such other appeal period as provided for in the notice, is considered untimely and will not be accepted for review, regardless of when the appeal was mailed or postmarked.
3. 
Who May Appeal. Only an applicant, the owner of property to which a land use decision is directed, or an aggrieved party may appeal a land use decision under Title 17 BMC or permit decision under Titles 13 and 15 BMC.
4. 
Dismissal of Appeal. The hearing examiner or other hearing body may summarily dismiss an appeal without a hearing when such appeal is determined by the hearing examiner to be without merit on its face, frivolous or brought merely to secure a delay, or that the appellant does not meet the requirements of subsection A.3 of this section or otherwise lacks standing to appeal. The hearing examiner's dismissal, if any, shall occur within 14 calendar days of the filing of the appeal.
5. 
The appeal of a Type I decision shall be an open record appeal.
B. 
Type II Final Decisions. Type II final decisions shall be final and conclusive unless a timely judicial appeal is filed with the Whatcom County superior court pursuant to BMC § 17.06.190.
C. 
The timely filing of an administrative appeal shall stay the effective date of the decision until such time as the administrative appeal is heard and decided or is withdrawn. The burden of proof regarding modification or reversal shall rest with the appellant.
D. 
Within seven days following the close of the appeal deadline, the director shall provide notice as to whether the appeal was accepted for review and whether the appeal met the code requirements for a timely appeal. If the director determines that the requirements to file an appeal are satisfied, the appeal will be forwarded to the hearing examiner or other hearing body for scheduling. If the director determines that the requirements to file an appeal are not satisfied, the director may reject the filing and refund the appeal fee less administrative fees as set forth in the city's unified fee schedule. The director may refer an appeal application to the hearing examiner, or other hearing body, for a determination on standing to proceed with an appeal or other issues raised in BMC § 17.06.180A.4. The director's decision to reject an appeal filing may also be reviewed by the hearing examiner pursuant to the hearing examiner rules regarding summary dismissals.
E. 
Unless waived by the parties to an appeal, a final decision on the administrative appeal shall be rendered no later than 120 days after the timely filing of an appeal.
F. 
Shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances are appealable to the Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 17.81 BMC and not as administrative appeals provided in this chapter.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2970 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.190 Appeals to the Whatcom County superior court.

A. 
Appeals of the final decision of the city, including land use decisions or administrative appeal decisions of the hearing examiner, shall be made to Whatcom County superior court within 21 days of the date the decision or action became final by filing both a petition for review in the Whatcom County superior court and serving the petition on all necessary parties in conformity with the requirements of the State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
B. 
Notice of the judicial appeal and any other pleadings required to be filed with the court shall be served to the City Clerk, the Director, and City Attorney within the applicable time period. This requirement is jurisdictional.
C. 
The cost of transcribing and preparing all records ordered, certified by the court or desired by the appellant for a judicial appeal shall be borne by the appellant. The appellant shall post with the city clerk prior to the preparation of any records an advance fee deposit in the amount specified by the city clerk. Any overage will be promptly returned to the appellant.
D. 
No land use decision or other permit decision shall be deemed a final decision by the City and subject to judicial appeal until all available administrative appeals of the decision allowed by City code have been completed. Failure of a person to exhaust administrative remedies and timely comment and file an administrative appeal, if such is available, of a land use decision or other permit decision is jurisdictional and shall preclude further administrative or judicial review of the decision.
(Ord. 2554 § 3, 2003; Ord. 2970 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.06.200 Fees.

A. 
All building, land use and development fees are defined in the city's unified fee schedule, which is established by the city council under the recommendation of the Finance director. Applications are not reviewed for completeness until all application fees are paid.
B. 
All fees specified in the unified fee schedule shall apply and are required to be paid at the time of application, unless a different time for payment of the fee is set forth in the unified fee schedule, or a fee deferral agreement is approved by the city council.
C. 
The fees set forth in the unified fee schedule shall apply regardless of whether such fee is specified in a particular section of the city code.
(Ord. 2728 § 2 (Exh. A), 2009; Ord. 26-3046, 6/8/2026)

§ 17.07.010 Intent.

The intent of this chapter is to provide a mechanism for evaluating and approving proposed land use activities and construction projects in the city which require a minimum of up-front expenditure on the part of the applicant. The review utilizes a basic site plan, basic floor plan, and basic exterior elevations submitted by the applicant to determine compliance with city zoning and other development policies and regulations, as well as identifies public improvements that may be required. The site plan review process is designed to coordinate and communicate the various requirements of the city to the applicant in a consolidated manner, and provide the applicant with guidance in the preparation of more detailed civil engineering drawings, and/or building construction drawings. In addition, where provisions of the city code require that certain street frontage improvements be constructed in advance, provisions in this chapter are intended to provide the city with the flexibility to accept a no protest to future LID for street frontage improvements in lieu of constructing the improvements on a case-by-case basis as determined by the city and upon the request of an applicant.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

§ 17.07.020 Applicability.

A. 
Site plan review is a Type I administrative decision, and is required in addition to any other permit review and approvals required by the city or other agencies. However, site plan review should be conducted, to the extent possible, concurrently with any permit and environmental review process required by city code.
B. 
Site plan review and approval under this chapter shall be required prior to the approval or use of land for commercial, multifamily residential, industrial, or public purpose, including associated activities or structures.
C. 
Site plan review, as provided for in this chapter, is required for new construction, substantial improvements to existing buildings, and changes in use which increase associated requirements such as parking or storm water management requirements.
D. 
Based on the type of land use and/or the scale and complexity of the proposed project, the director may, upon the written request of the project proponent, at his/her discretion, waive the requirement for site plan review or waive one or more of the required elements of a complete application as described in BMC § 17.07.030. The request for a waiver must be made on forms supplied by the city and accompanied by the applicable fee. Any request for a waiver must specify each provision of the code that is requested to be waived and the basis for the waiver, otherwise no such waiver shall be deemed to have been issued. The waiver is effective for one year from the date of issuance.
E. 
Site plan review, as provided for in this chapter, is not required for the following:
1. 
One- and two-family residences.
2. 
Alterations, additions or remodels of one- and two-family residences.
3. 
Shops, garages, sheds, decks, porches or similar structures intended to serve one- and two-family residences.
4. 
Manufactured homes.
5. 
Signs.
6. 
Plats, short plats, binding site plans, and boundary line adjustments.
7. 
Accessory dwelling units.
8. 
Other minor land use or construction activity, as determined by the community development director.
F. 
The site plan review process, as provided for in this chapter, may be required by the community development director to provide for the detailed review of development applications that may have been previously approved at a conceptual level, such as planned unit developments or conditional use permits, but have not received any land disturbance permit, building permit, final plat approval or other similar development approval.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

§ 17.07.030 Contents of complete site plan review application.

Site plan review application forms shall be provided by the community development services department. Site plan review shall commence upon submittal of a complete site plan review application, together with accompanying documents and plans as follows:
A. 
Survey and Legal Description.
1. 
A survey by a certified surveyor with the state of Washington that contains a complete legal description of the property and descriptions of any easements or other encumbrances that may impact the development or use of the property. In limited circumstances where setbacks to property boundaries are not in question, the community development director may accept a title report in place of a survey.
2. 
The completeness and accuracy of this information is the responsibility of the applicant.
B. 
Site Plan.
1. 
Applicant name and address.
2. 
A project summary box including, at a minimum, the following information: legal description; assessor's parcel number(s); site address; city zoning; site area; lot coverage; building gross floor area; square footage of activity areas by use; number of parking spaces; and impermeable surface area.
3. 
Vicinity map, north arrow, and scale indicated.
4. 
Property lines with corners and dimensions shown.
5. 
Easements and rights-of-way.
6. 
Existing and/or proposed frontage improvements.
7. 
Existing and/or proposed utilities, including storm water facilities.
8. 
Existing buildings and structures, including structures on adjacent lots within 10 feet of the property line.
9. 
Proposed structures including setbacks from property lines.
10. 
Existing and/or proposed ingress and egress, including dimensions of driveways and curb cuts.
11. 
Existing and/or proposed parking and loading areas including number of spaces (including handicap spaces), dimensions of spaces, aisle widths, etc.
12. 
Other existing and/or proposed physical improvements on the site such as fences, signs, area lighting, landscaping, etc.
13. 
Natural features such as significant stands of trees, streams, wetlands, steep slopes, etc.
14. 
If the site is not basically level, a concept plan showing existing topography and proposed grading.
15. 
Phasing plan, if applicable.
16. 
Design review information pursuant to Chapters 17.120 and 17.121 BMC, if applicable.
C. 
Floor Plan and Building Elevations.
1. 
Building elevations with exterior dimensions.
2. 
Floor plan with dimensions and square footages of identified use areas by type.
3. 
Location of doors and windows.
4. 
Interior walls and partitions.
D. 
SEPA environmental checklist if the project is subject to SEPA review.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011; Ord. 2879 § 1 (Exh. A § 5), 2016)

§ 17.07.040 Site plan review and approval procedures.

After issuance of written approval by the city, the site plan is intended to establish the spatial relationships between all the various elements of a development project. All subsequent plans or requests for approval submitted to the city subsequent to site plan approval, including but not limited to landscape plans, civil construction drawings, and/or building plans, must be consistent with the approved site plan, or an amendment to the site plan review approval must be filed. Any issuance of a building permit that is not based upon an approved site plan shall be deemed invalid. For these reasons, while associated construction drawings may be submitted concurrently with a site plan review application, they are generally not reviewed prior to approval of the site plan. The site plan review and approval procedures include:
A. 
Submittal of a complete site plan review application consistent with the provisions of BMC § 17.07.030.
B. 
All site plan review applications shall be submitted concurrently with or prior to the submittal of building permit or land disturbance permit applications. Site plan review shall be coordinated with the review of associated development applications to the extent practicable.
C. 
Following the submittal of a complete site plan review application, the community development services department shall circulate the materials to pertinent city departments and public agencies. The pertinent city departments and public agencies shall review the application for compliance with city zoning, environmental review requirements, and development policies, plans, and regulations that may be applicable to the proposed project.
D. 
The community development services department may conduct preapplication review upon request. Such preapplication requests shall be submitted on forms provided by the community development services department, and scheduled for review in the same manner as complete site plan review applications.
E. 
After considering comments from pertinent city departments and public agencies, the approving authority shall complete a site plan review response letter indicating any revisions and/or additions to the site plan that are necessary in order to achieve compliance with city standards and requirements. In addition, the site plan review response letter shall clearly indicate which conditions of approval must be completed prior to issuance of building permits, and which conditions of approval must be completed prior to issuance of occupancy certificates. The letter shall be mailed to the applicant.
F. 
The applicant shall make any required revisions and/or additions to the site plan, including right-of-way improvements and nonmotorized transportation improvements identified through the review process and return it to the community development services department for final approval and stamping.
G. 
The community development director shall approve the site plan when it is determined that the plan is consistent with the Blaine comprehensive plan, zoning, and development regulations by issuing a notice of decision pursuant to BMC § 17.06.120. The director shall distribute stamped approved copies of the site plan to the applicant, public works department, building division, fire district, and other persons, departments, or agencies as appropriate.
H. 
No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any building until such time as all required conditions of approval have been completed, except that temporary certificates of occupancy may be issued upon the posting of a bond or other suitable financial surety adequate to insure the completion of all required conditions of approval.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011; Ord. 2970 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021)

§ 17.07.050 Improvement requirements.

The project proponent shall ensure that all improvements are constructed to the specifications of an approved plan set and are consistent with the Blaine Municipal Code, comprehensive plan, and the public works guidelines and development standards. All improvement requirements are the responsibility of the project proponent and must be inspected prior to acceptance by the city.
A. 
The level of on-site and right-of-way improvements are divided into two categories: minor improvements and major improvements. Minor improvements shall not exceed any of the following thresholds. All other improvements are considered major improvements including residential development.
Minor improvements shall not exceed any of the following thresholds:
1. 
Three thousand five hundred square feet of new commercial or industrial buildings;
2. 
Five thousand square feet of existing building(s) converted to new occupancy type of a greater impact or more intensive use;
3. 
Five thousand square feet of new impervious surface.
B. 
Minor improvements shall construct only the minimum street frontage necessary to serve the development by improving adjacent substandard public infrastructure. In circumstances where the public health, safety or general welfare is potentially compromised, the community development director may require additional public infrastructure or site improvements.
1. 
The city may accept a no protest to LID agreement for street frontage improvements, not including public utilities. The no protest to LID agreement shall be:
a. 
Approved by the public works director; and
b. 
Recorded with the Whatcom County auditor prior to issuance of building permits.
C. 
Major improvements shall construct all the public infrastructure necessary to serve the development including but not limited to adjacent right-of-way improvements, utility extensions, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes, street lighting and street trees. Substandard roadways shall be improved to meet the minimum standard as defined in the development guidelines and public works standards. Provisions for parks, open space and trails shall be provided as consistent with the comprehensive plan, park and recreation plan and nonmotorized transportation plan.
1. 
In limited circumstances where the applicant can demonstrate that there is no significant enhancement to the public health, safety and general welfare through the construction of street frontage improvements, the city may accept a no protest to LID agreement in lieu of constructed street frontage improvements provided:
a. 
Streets improved to the minimum standard are not adjacent to the project or in the immediate vicinity, as determined by the public works director; and
b. 
The no protest to LID agreement is approved by the public works director; and
c. 
The no protest to LID agreement is recorded with the Whatcom County auditor prior to issuance of building permits.
2. 
If a no protest to LID agreement for street frontage improvements is acceptable to the city as requested by the proponent, then the following additional requirements shall apply to major improvements to facilitate construction of future street improvements by the city:
a. 
The proponent shall complete a vertical and horizontal engineering profile to the satisfaction of the public works director to the nearest intersections on the primary frontage; and
b. 
The proponent shall complete a full engineering street design to the satisfaction of the public works director along the primary frontage and connecting to the nearest intersection.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

§ 17.07.060 Nonconforming structures.

Nonconforming structures shall not have their level of nonconformity increased through approval of a site plan review.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

§ 17.07.070 Completion or performance bond.

A performance bond or a security satisfactory to and accepted by the city in writing in the amount of 150 percent of the value of the incomplete required improvements may be posted in lieu of installation of improvements; such bond or other security shall based on an estimate prepared by a licensed engineer in the state of Washington, and must be recommended for approval by the public works director and approved by the city council. The performance bond or other security shall specify exactly what improvements are covered and a time schedule for completion. The performance bond or other security may be released upon completion and acceptance of all improvements and the posting of a maintenance bond for two years at 10 percent of the value of the performance bond or other security. Prior to approval and acceptance of the performance bond, the project proponent shall submit a performance bond processing fee to the city as may be set forth in the city's applicable rates and fees schedule.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

§ 17.07.080 Amendments to an approved site plan.

All amendments to an approved site plan shall be processed in the same manner as identified in BMC § 17.07.040, except that, depending on the extent or complexity of the amendments, the community development director may waive one or more elements of the procedures identified in BMC § 17.07.040. Upon approval and stamping of an amended site plan, the community development director shall distribute the amended site plan in the same manner as identified in BMC § 17.07.040(H).
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

§ 17.07.090 Expiration of an approved site plan.

An approved site plan shall be valid for one year from the date of approval, after which it shall expire and be considered null and void. The following exceptions may be granted:
A. 
The approved site plan may be extended once for an additional period not to exceed one year upon written request of the applicant which includes the reasons for the requested extension. The written request shall be submitted to the community development director and postmarked prior to the date of the expiration of the approved site plan in order to be considered. The director shall grant such requests only upon a showing by the applicant that he is likely to resolve outstanding issues which have precluded initiation of the project by the submittal of a building permit application.
B. 
If a complete building permit application or a complete land disturbance permit with stamped engineering drawings for the proposed project is submitted within one year of the date of approval of the approved site plan, or the expiration date as approved under subsection (A) of this section, the approved site plan shall expire on the same date as the building permit or land disturbance permit expires, if that should occur.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011; Ord. 2811 § 2 (Exh. A), 2012)

§ 17.07.100 Fees.

The fee for site plan review shall be as provided in the city's fee ordinance. Any and all additional costs associated with the review of the application, including city costs associated with retaining consultants to provide third-party review of the application, shall be paid by the applicant prior to the time the cost is incurred. The community development director may require the applicant to deposit funds with the city to be used to pay for necessary third-party review.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

§ 17.07.110 Other permits and approvals.

Nothing in this chapter shall preclude or eliminate the need to obtain other permits or pay fees in accordance with any other requirements identified in this code.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

§ 17.07.120 Appeals.

Appeals of a final decision shall be submitted pursuant to BMC § 17.06.180, Appeals.
(Ord. 2787 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)