Jefferson County Unincorporated
City Zoning Code

Given the extensive investment that public agencies and a broad spectrum of the public have made and shall continue to make in Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, it is essential that project review start from the fundamental land use planning choices made in the Comprehensive Plan and regulations. If the Comprehensive Plan or regulations identify the type of land use, specify density and identify and provide for the provision of public facilities needed to review the proposed development and site, these decisions, at a minimum, provide the foundation for further project review unless there is a question of code interpretation. The project review process, including the environmental review process under Chapter 43.21C RCW and the consideration of consistency, should start from this point and should not reanalyze these land use planning decisions in making a permit decision, unless the county finds that the Comprehensive Plan and regulations do not fully foresee site-specific issues and impacts identified through land use project application review.

Comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted by the county under Chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act), sub-area plans, and environmental policies, laws and rules adopted by the county, the state, and the federal government address a wide range of environmental subjects and impacts. These provisions typically require environmental studies and contain specific standards to address various impacts associated with a proposed development (e.g., building size and location, drainage, transportation requirements, and protection of critical areas). When the county applies these existing requirements to a proposed project, some or all of a project's potential environmental impacts may be avoided or otherwise mitigated. Through the integrated project review process described in Articles I through V of this chapter, the administrator shall determine whether existing requirements, including the applicable regulations or plans, adequately analyze and address a project's environmental impacts. Project review generally should not require additional studies and mitigation under Chapter 43.21C RCW where existing regulations adequately address a proposed project's probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Development regulations enable project review through the application of established scientific standards, required studies and standard mitigation measures.

Determination by the Administrator. The administrator shall determine the proper procedure for all development applications. If there is a question as to the appropriate type of procedure, the administrator shall resolve it in favor of the higher numbered procedure type, except as specifically authorized for discretionary conditional use permits under JCC § 18.40.520(2).

Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or processed individually under each of the procedures identified by this code. The applicant may determine whether the application shall be processed collectively or individually. If the application is processed under the individual procedure option, the highest numbered type procedure must be processed prior to the subsequent lower numbered procedure.

Decision-maker(s). The board of county commissioners is the highest decision-maker, followed by the hearing examiner and the administrator. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed in accordance with JCC § 18.40.050.

Administrator. Upon issuance of a determination of completeness as described in JCC § 18.40.110, the administrator shall assign a project planner to the project who will coordinate and be responsible for all phases of development application administration.

SEPA Review. Project review conducted pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, shall occur concurrently with project review. The SEPA review process, including all public comment procedures, is set forth in Article X of this chapter. Nothing contained in Articles I through V of this chapter shall be construed as restricting the need for full environmental review in accordance with Articles VI-C through VI-K of Chapter 18.15 JCC, and Article X of this chapter.

Administrator's Decision to Hold Joint Public Hearings. The administrator may combine any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency on the proposed action, as long as the hearing is held within the county and the requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.

Applicant's Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the public hearing on a permit application be combined as long as the joint hearing may be held within the time periods set forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to a particular schedule if additional time is needed in order to complete the hearings.

Prerequisites to a Joint Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the county, as long as:

Decision. The following decisions are legislative, and are not subject to the procedures in this chapter, unless otherwise specified:

Procedures. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the procedures for the legislative decisions specified in this chapter are set forth in Chapter 18.45 JCC.

Applicability. Whenever a permit or approval in the Jefferson County Unified Development Code has been designated as a Type I, II, III or IV permit, the procedures set forth in Articles I through IV of this chapter shall be followed in project permit processing. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter:

Exemptions. If categorically exempt under SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW, Type I permits shall not be subject to the following provisions contained in this chapter[1]:

Purpose. Preapplication conferences provide a prospective applicant and the county the opportunity to determine if and how the regulations (e.g., critical areas and SEPA) may apply, an opportunity to acquaint the applicant with the requirements of the Jefferson County Unified Development Code, and to discuss, if applicable, how the applicant may modify the scope and design of the project to reduce or avoid restrictions which may be imposed by the county.

When Required. Preapplication conferences are optional. However, preapplication conferences are encouraged for all Type II, Type III, Type IV and Type V project applications and Type I project applications proposing impervious surfaces of 10,000 square feet or more and/or non-single-family structures of 5,000 square feet or more. Additionally, preapplication conferences are encouraged for industrial, commercial, and critical area stewardship plan applications.

Scheduling and Conceptual Design Review. The conference should be held within 21 calendar days of the request and payment of the fee set forth in the most recently adopted DCD fee schedule. The preapplication conference for a new personal wireless facility shall be scheduled at such time the applicant demonstrates that the required notice in JCC § 18.42.070(2) was mailed to all other wireless providers licensed to provide services within Jefferson County. Upon payment of the fee, the applicant shall submit to DCD a preliminary sketch or conceptual design that illustrates the applicant's generalized ideas of the proposal. This should include approximate lot lines, general topography of the site, suggested vehicle access to the site, and provision of utilities. Final drawings are discouraged at this preapplication stage. Additionally, the applicant shall identify all land uses on adjacent properties and all platted and opened roads serving the site.

Information Provided to Applicant. At the conference, the administrator shall provide the applicant with:

Assurances Unavailable. It is impossible for the conference to be an exhaustive review of all potential issues. The discussions at the conference or the information provided by the administrator shall not bind or prohibit the county's future application or enforcement of all applicable laws and regulations. No statements or assurances made by county representatives shall in any way relieve the applicant of his or her duty to submit an application consistent with all relevant requirements of county, state and federal codes, laws, regulations and land use plans.

Information Required for All Applications. Applications for project permit decisions shall be submitted upon forms provided by the administrator. A project permit application is complete when it meets the submission requirements of this section. An application shall consist of all materials required by the relevant section of this code or other applicable county ordinance or regulation, and shall also include the following general information:

Commercial, Industrial, Multifamily and Small-Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses – Additional Application Requirements. In addition to the general information required under subsection (1) of this section, development or proposed uses involving commercial, industrial, multifamily, and small-scale recreational and tourist uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC § 18.15.040 shall include a site plan prepared by a civil engineer, architect or landscape architect licensed in the state of Washington that includes or graphically depicts the following information:

Additional Application Requirements. In addition to the information required under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the administrator may require additional information or studies in order for the application to be considered complete. Such information may include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:

Application Requirements in Other Applicable Regulations. Applications for the following land use permits must satisfy JCC § 18.40.100(1), (2) and, if required, (3), and the following provisions of this Unified Development Code and applicable county ordinances and regulations:

All application requirements identified in other code sections that supplement or supersede the requirements of this chapter shall be met before an application is deemed complete.

Waivers. The administrator may waive any specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of any application. In such event, the administrator shall document the waiver in the project file or project log.

Determination of Completeness. Within 28 calendar days after receiving a project permit application the administrator shall mail a determination to the applicant that states either that:

Identification of Other Agencies With Jurisdiction. To the extent known by the county, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project permit application shall be identified in the county's determination of completeness.

Incomplete Application Procedure.

Additional Information Request.

County's Failure to Provide a Determination of Completeness. A project permit application shall be deemed complete under this section if the administrator does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in subsection (1) of this section. Notwithstanding a failure to provide a determination of completeness, the administrator may request additional information as provided in subsection (6) of this section.

Date of Acceptance of Application. A project permit application is complete for purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements in JCC § 18.40.100, as well as any additional submission requirements contained in other applicable provisions of this code. This determination of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken after submittal. When the project permit application is determined to be complete, the administrator shall accept it and note the date of acceptance in the project file. Upon providing a determination of completeness, the administrator shall assign the project to a project planner.

Additional Information. The administrator's determination of completeness shall not preclude the administrator from requiring additional information, that the applicant correct plans or perform studies at any time if new information is required for project review, or if there are substantial changes in the proposed action.

Effect of Project Permit Application Revisions – Substantial Revisions. If, in the judgment of the administrator, the content of an application is so substantially revised by an applicant, either voluntarily or to conform to applicable standards and requirements, that such revised proposal constitutes a substantially different proposal than that originally submitted, the administrator shall deem the revised proposal to be a new application.

Transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected agency and county department for review and comment, including those agencies responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. The affected agencies and county departments shall have 14 calendar days to comment. Affected agencies and county departments are presumed not to have comments if not submitted within the 14-calendar-day period; provided, that the administrator may grant an extension of time if needed. Additionally, in the event that the state agency or agencies involved communicate verbally or in writing intention to waive the opportunity to submit comments, the corresponding state agency comment period shall terminate and be so noted in the case file.

Applications for developments and planned actions subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, shall be reviewed in accordance with the policies and procedures contained in Article X of this chapter. SEPA review shall be conducted concurrently with development project review. The following are exempt from concurrent review:

If a Type II or III procedure is required, DCD shall provide for notice and/or hearing as set forth in Article III of this chapter.

Fundamental land use planning choices made in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, subarea plans, this Unified Development Code and any other applicable development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a proposed project's consistency with this Unified Development Code under JCC § 18.40.140, other applicable development regulations, or in the absence of applicable regulations, the adopted Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or subarea plan(s), shall incorporate the data collected under this section.

During project review, the administrator or any subsequent reviewing body (e.g., the hearing examiner) shall determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in this Unified Development Code or any other applicable development regulations applicable to the proposed project or, in the absence of applicable regulations, the adopted Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or subarea plan(s). At a minimum, such regulations or plans shall be determinative of the:

During project review, the administrator shall not re-examine alternatives to or hear appeals on the items identified in subsection (2) of this section.

The administrator may determine that the requirements for environmental analysis and mitigation measures in this Unified Development Code and other applicable regulations provide adequate mitigation for some or all of the project's specific probable significant adverse environmental impacts to which the requirements apply. In making this determination the administrator shall:

Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the authority of the county to approve, condition, or deny a project as provided in this Unified Development Code or any other development regulations adopted under the authority of Chapters 36.70A and/or 43.21C RCW, including project review under Articles VI-D through VI-I of Chapter 18.15 JCC, and Article X of this chapter.

A proposed project's consistency with this Unified Development Code or other development regulations adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW or, in the absence of applicable development regulations, the appropriate elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan or subarea plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW shall be determined by consideration of:

In determining consistency, the determinations made pursuant to JCC § 18.40.130 shall be controlling.

For purposes of this section, the term "consistency" shall include all terms used in this chapter and Chapter 36.70A RCW to refer to performance in accordance with this chapter and Chapter 36.70A RCW, including, but not limited to, compliance, conformity, and consistency.

Nothing in this section requires documentation, dictates procedures for considering consistency, or limits the administrator from asking more specific or related questions with respect to any of the four main categories listed in subsections (1)(a) through (1)(d) of this section.

For purposes of assisting in determining consistency with the UDC for a particular project permit, the administrator shall also utilize review of the site plan submittal required by JCC § 18.40.100(1)(i) to ensure compliance with the requirements of Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC.

Public notice is not required for Type I projects that are categorically exempt from SEPA. If not SEPA exempt, Type I projects are subject to the notice of application and SEPA notice requirements set forth in JCC § 18.40.160 through § 18.40.220 and Article X of this chapter.

Public notice of the notice of application and of the open record public hearing, if any, is required for all Type II and Type III actions. Published notice is not required for closed record public meetings before the county commissioners (i.e., Type IV approvals of final plats and PRRDs), because no new testimony or evidence is allowed at such meetings or hearings. Mailed notice of closed record public hearings shall be provided to all parties of record.

Public notice is not required for other Type IV actions because no public hearing is held.

Public notice of Type V legislative actions must be published as described in Chapter 18.45 JCC and as required by state law.

The applicant shall be responsible for all costs of public notice.

The name and address of the applicant or the applicant's representative;

The date of application, the date of the notice of completion for the application, and the date of the notice of application;

The street address location of the project or, if unavailable, a description of the subject property reasonably sufficient to inform the public of its location, which may include a vicinity location (map), the location in reference to roadway intersections, or a written description (rural route box or subdivision lot and block alone are not sufficient);

A description of the proposed project action, use or development and a list of project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any additional studies requested under JCC § 18.40.110(6);

The identification of state, federal or other permits required by other agencies with jurisdiction not included in the application, to the extent known by the county;

The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and the location of where the application and any studies may be reviewed;

The name and phone number of the contact project planner;

A statement of the limits of the public comment period, which shall be 14 calendar days following the date of the notice of application (or 20 or 30 calendar days if the application involves a permit under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, as further set forth in JCC § 18.40.220);

Statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, become a party of record, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights;

A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of the notice of application, of the proposed project's consistency with applicable development regulations and of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation, as provided in RCW 36.70B.040 and JCC § 18.40.140;

The SEPA responsible official shall ensure that SEPA requirements are addressed for all permits issued. This may include a determination that a project is exempt from SEPA or issuance of a SEPA threshold determination. For Type I and II permits, the SEPA responsible official has discretion to utilize the determination of nonsignificance (DNS) process outlined in WAC 197-11-340, or the optional DNS process as outlined in WAC 197-11-355. All notices shall specify if the DNS (WAC 197-11-340) or optional DNS (WAC 197-11-355) process is being utilized. For Type III permits, DNS process pursuant to WAC 197-11-340 should be utilized and the final SEPA threshold determination should be combined with the notice of public hearing. This would allow the appeal of the SEPA to be consolidated with the underlying permit before the hearing examiner.

The date, time, place and type of hearing, if applicable, and if scheduled prior to the date of the notice of application;

A statement of when and where a copy of the application, all supporting documentation and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and applicable development regulations may be available for public inspection; and

Any other information the administrator determines appropriate.

Published Notice. For all Type III permit applications, the administrator shall publish notice in the official county newspaper at least once. The administrator has the discretion to publish Type II permits, when the proposal could impact the general public. Published notice shall include the project's road or street address or location, project description, type(s) of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and location where the complete application and notice of application may be reviewed. DCD also shall allow the general public to review permits online that are subject to public notice.

Posting. For all Type II and III permits, the applicant shall post a notice of application on the property as follows:

Mailing.

Length of Comment Period. The comment period shall be not less than 14 calendar days, nor more than 30 days from the date of the notice of application (RCW 36.70B.110(2)(e)), except as may otherwise be provided for: a 15-day comment period for an open record predecision hearing pursuant to RCW 36.70B.110(3), commenting on preliminary plat applications (i.e., 20 days pursuant to RCW 58.17.095(2)), for commenting on scoping and draft and final environmental impact statements pursuant to WAC 197-11-408 and 197-11-500 and Article X of this chapter, and for commenting on permits under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (see subsection (2) of this section).

Comment Periods for Permits Under the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The content of notice under the SMP shall be identical to the notice set forth in JCC § 18.40.190 except that:

Comments may be mailed, emailed, personally delivered or sent by facsimile. Comments shall be as specific as possible.

The administrator shall receive public comments during regular business hours any time up to and during the open record hearing, if any, or if there is no predecision hearing, prior to the decision on the project permit.

The county may not issue a decision or recommendation on the project permit(s) until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application.

Published Notice. The administrator shall publish a notice of public hearing in the official county newspaper at least one time. This notice shall include (and republish if necessary) the appropriate information from JCC § 18.40.190.

Mailed Notice. The administrator shall send a notice of public hearing to all of the persons entitled to notice, as described in JCC § 18.40.210(3), including any person who submits written or oral comments on the notice of application.

Posted Notice. Posted notice of the public hearing is required for all Type III project permit applications, which shall be posted as set forth in JCC § 18.40.210(2). In addition, notice of Type III preliminary plat actions and proposed subdivisions must be given as set forth in JCC § 18.40.240.

Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat application of a proposed subdivision located adjacent to or within one mile of the municipal boundaries of a city or town utilities shall be given to the appropriate city or town officials, pursuant to RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090.

Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat application for a proposed subdivision located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway or within two miles of the boundary of a state or municipal airport shall be given to the Washington State Secretary of Transportation, who must respond as to the effect of the proposed subdivision on the state highway or airport within 15 calendar days of such notice.

Special notice of the hearing shall be given to adjacent landowners by any other reasonable method the county deems necessary. Adjacent landowners are the owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county assessor, located within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed subdivision. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which lie adjacent to the real property proposed to the subdivided, mailed notice shall be given to owners of real property located within 300 feet of any portion of the boundaries of such adjacently located parcel(s).

As optional methods of providing public notice of any project permits, the county may:

The county's failure to provide the optional notice as described in this section shall not be grounds for invalidation of any permit decision.

The administrator may approve, approve with conditions, or deny (with or without prejudice) all Type I permit applications which are categorically exempt from SEPA without notice (see Tables 8-1 and 8-2 in JCC § 18.40.040 and § 18.40.080(2)). This includes administrative design review of middle housing permits in a UGA. Expedited review process is available for Type I permit applications if the projects are categorically exempt under SEPA and are consistent with adopted development regulations. Type I permit applications that are not subject to public notice and are submitted as complete applications may take priority over other projects.

Type I projects that are not categorically exempt under SEPA shall be subject to the notice of application and comment period provisions of JCC § 18.40.150 through § 18.40.220, and the SEPA notice requirements of Article X of this chapter. The administrator's decision under this section shall be final on the date issued, and may not be appealed to the hearing examiner.

The administrator may approve, grant preliminary approval, approve with conditions, or deny (with or without prejudice) all Type II permit applications, subject to the notice and appeal requirements of this article and Article III of this chapter. The administrator shall issue written findings and conclusions supporting all Type II decisions.

Type II administrative decisions shall become final subject to the following: an applicant or party of record may appeal the decision to the hearing examiner for an open record hearing, as further set forth in Article V of this chapter.

The hearing examiner shall review and make findings, conclusions and a decision on all Type III permit applications and appeals listed under subsection (3)(b) of this section.

For Type III actions, the administrator shall prepare a staff report on the proposed development or action summarizing and considering timely public comments, summarizing and considering recommendations of county departments and affected agencies or special districts, and evaluating the development's consistency with this Unified Development Code, adopted plans, and regulations. The staff report shall include proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for disposition of the development application.

Upon receiving a recommendation from the administrator or notice of any other matter requiring the hearing examiner's attention (e.g., an appeal of a Type II administrative decision), the hearing examiner shall perform the following actions as appropriate:

The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing on all Type III development proposals and appeals listed under subsection (3)(b) of this section. Notice of the hearing examiner hearing shall be in accordance with JCC § 18.40.230.

In the hearing examiner's decision regarding Type III actions and appeals of Type II administrative decisions, the hearing examiner shall make written findings and conclusions.

The board of county commissioners shall make a decision after reviewing Type IV actions during a regularly scheduled meeting.

In its decision, the board of county commissioners shall make its decision by motion, resolution or ordinance, as appropriate.

Finality. All administrative interpretations made pursuant to Article VI of this chapter and Type II and III project permit decisions under this code shall be final unless appealed pursuant to Article V of this chapter.

Finding and Conclusions. Each final decision of the hearing examiner and, in the case of certain Type V decisions, as more fully set forth in Chapter 18.45 JCC, the board of county commissioners shall be in writing and shall include findings and conclusions based on the record.

Notice of Final Decision.

Timing of Notice of Final Decision. In order to meet the following time periods outlined in Chapter 36.70B RCW, as amended, applicants are required to submit more detailed and thorough applications, obtain discretionary approvals for their projects, and have received approvals from other department or agencies besides DCD. The permit applications as classified in Table 8-1 should be processed within the following time periods after the applicant files a complete application, subject to JCC § 18.40.100:

Calculation of Time Periods for Issuance of Notice of Final Decision. In determining the number of calendar days that have elapsed since the determination of completeness, the following periods shall be excluded:

The time limits established in this chapter do not apply if a project permit application:

Effective Date. The final decision of the administrator, hearing examiner, or board of county commissioners shall be effective on the date stated in the decision, motion, resolution or ordinance; provided, however, that the appeal periods shall be calculated from the date of the decision, as further provided in JCC § 18.40.330 and § 18.40.340.

A land use application shall be null and void if the applicant fails to submit the requested additional information under JCC § 18.40.110, within 180 calendar days from the department's request or within a time period as specified by the hearing examiner. Land use applications expired under this section shall forfeit all application fees.

The administrator may grant one or more 180-day extension(s) of time for land use application(s) that:

The administrator may review a land use application(s) and make any necessary corrections to the application(s) expiration date caused by inaccurate and/or missed data entries. Documentation of such corrections shall be made part of the file's written record.

Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for vesting of land use applications and permits under this title, consistent with state law.

Applicability.

Vesting of Applications.

The hearing examiner may suspend, revoke, or modify a Type I, II, or III land use permit or approval after a notice of noncompliance to the affected parties, a recommendation from the administrator, a public hearing consistent with the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure, and with written findings when:

Type I Permits. Decisions of the Administrator on Type I permits and decisions regarding the appropriate permit process to be used for discretionary conditional use permit applications (i.e., "C(d)" uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC § 18.15.040) under JCC § 18.40.520, are not appealable to the hearing examiner.

Type II Permits.

SEPA Decisions.

Time to File Judicial Appeal. The applicant or any aggrieved party may appeal from the final decision of the administrator or hearing examiner to a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner consistent with state law. All appellants must timely exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing a judicial appeal.

Service of Appeal. Notice of appeal and any other pleadings required to be filed with the court shall be served by delivery to the county auditor (see RCW 4.28.080), and all persons identified in RCW 36.70C.040, within the applicable time period.

Cost of Appeal. The appellant shall be responsible for the cost of transcribing and preparing all records ordered certified by the court or desired by the appellant for the appeal. Prior to the preparation of any records, the appellant shall post an advance fee deposit in an amount specified by the county auditor with the county auditor. Any overage shall be promptly returned to the appellant.

Who May Request Interpretation. Any person may request a written interpretation of the provisions of this code. Additionally, the administrator may issue an interpretation on the administrator's own initiative.

The administrator may require that any request that seeks interpretation of more than four UDC sections be broken down into smaller requests, each requiring the standard fee. The administrator may limit the code interpretation to what is deemed necessary to clarify the section and may decline responding to requests that are deemed excessive or onerous or those that ask hypothetical questions.

Submittal Requirements. Any person requesting an interpretation of this code shall submit a written request specifying each provision of the code for which an interpretation is requested, why an interpretation of each provision is necessary, and any reasons or materials in support of a proposed interpretation. The applicant shall pay the fee set forth in the most recently adopted DCD fee schedule or an administrator's interpretation.

Factors for Consideration. In making an interpretation of the provisions of this code, the administrator should consider the following, as applicable:

Conflicts with Other Regulations. Where conflicts occur between the provisions of this code and the Jefferson County building code, Chapter 15.05 JCC, or its successor ordinance, or other regulations of the county, the more restrictive shall apply. If any conflict between the land use districts map and the text of this code ensue, the text of this code shall prevail.

The DCD administrator's decision on a request for an interpretation shall include the name of the applicant, the description of the subject proposal, the language of the provisions of this code subject to interpretation, the explanation of the DCD administrator's interpretation, and any other necessary information reasonably related to the proposal.

Response to Written Request. The administrator shall mail a written response to any person filing a written request to interpret the provisions of this code within 90 days of having received the request or as soon as reasonably practicable; provided, however, that when a request is made by a permit applicant while a project is pending and after a determination of completeness has been issued, the permit applicant must agree to waive the time frame required under Article IV of this chapter to allow for preparation of the interpretation, and any changes to the project that the interpretation might require.

Time Limitation. An interpretation of this code remains in effect unless and until rescinded in writing by the administrator, or superseded by a formal amendment under JCC § 18.45.090.

Enforcement. An interpretation of this code issued in accordance with this article may be enforced in the same manner that any provision of this code is enforced (see JCC Title 19). All written interpretations of this code, with a current index of such interpretations shall be maintained by DCD and made available for public inspection.

Site development review shall be required prior to land disturbing activity or any development activity; submittal of any development permit application, on-site sewage system permit application pursuant to Chapter 8.15 JCC, land use permit application, or land division permit application, or prior to any process to adjust property boundaries, including condominimization.

Any landowner or their representative who wishes to make application for development shall use the site development review process to determine whether their site is a legal lot of record and buildable. No development application may vest until the site development review is completed.

Properties that meet base density per JCC § 18.12.050(1)(b)(i) or the provisions of JCC § 18.12.070(4) shall be required to submit a site development review permit application prior to submittal of any development permit application in accordance with JCC § 18.12.070(5). The site development review process will evaluate the potential siting for development consistent with all applicable requirements of this title.

Site development review is not required for the following:

Any repair requiring an emergency permit under JCC Title 8 or 15, or this title, or in circumstances that qualify as an emergency constituting an immediate public health and safety hazard, in the opinion of the director, does not require site development review prior to executing the repair to alleviate the hazard. The director at their discretion may require the applicant to apply for site development review after the fact.

Each application for site development review shall include:

Any landowner or representative who applies for site development review under this article and is proposing a commercial, industrial, small-scale recreational and tourist use, or multifamily residential use listed as a "Yes" use in Table 3-1 in JCC § 18.15.040 (or classified as such by the administrator), may be required to submit information in addition to the specific submittal requirements of JCC § 18.40.100(1) through (4), where determined by the administrator to be necessary for the site development review application.

The administrator may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for site development review.

Review Procedures. When the administrator determines that an application is technically complete, as defined in JCC § 18.40.110, the application shall be processed as a Type I permit.

Referral and Review of Application. The administrator shall transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to affected agencies and county departments for review and comment.

Site development review permits shall be approved upon showing that all of the following have been satisfied:

The submittal of additional information may be required by the department to determine whether site development review may be approved, or as a condition of approval. Additional information includes, but is not limited to the following: a critical areas study, special flood hazard area information, stormwater review, roads and utility review, a water availability statement, and soil logs and other applicable information necessary to determine compliance with the Jefferson County department of public health regulations regarding on-site septic disposal.

An approved site development review shall not constitute vesting of development regulations or specific site features or improvements (e.g., wells, septic systems, stormwater drainage facilities, etc.). Any site with an approved site development review shall not be immune from changes in county, state, or federal laws which are enacted or have an effective date after the date of approval affecting the performance and implementation of the associated use or development.

Approval under this section does not constitute authority to commence any development or building activity until such time as final authorizing permits are issued. Approval of a site development review permit application does not vest the proposed use or development. The approval certifies the suitability of a site for the proposed use or development at the time of application processing only.

Minor modifications to a previously approved site development review under this article may be requested by the applicant and approved by the administrator subject to the provisions for Type I decisions; provided, that the modification does not involve any of the following:

Before approving such an amendment, the administrator shall make written findings and conclusions documenting the following conditions:

Modifications that involve the circumstances described in subsection (1) of this section, or exceed the criteria set forth in subsection (2) of this section, shall be processed as a new site development review application.

The application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted to DCD on forms provided by the department, along with the appropriate fees established under the most recently adopted DCD fee schedule. The application shall include all materials required pursuant to JCC § 18.40.100.

The administrator may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of an application.

Applications for uses listed as an administrative conditional use permit (i.e., "C(a)") in Table 3-1 in JCC § 18.15.040 shall be processed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Article IV of this chapter.

Applications for uses listed as discretionary conditional use permits (i.e., "C(d)") in Table 3-1 in JCC § 18.15.040 shall, at a minimum, be processed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Article IV of this chapter. However, in accordance with this subsection, the administrator may on a case-by-case basis refer a discretionary conditional use permit application to the hearing examiner to be processed according to the procedures for Type III land use decisions established in Article IV of this chapter.

Applications for uses listed as a "C" in Table 3-1 in JCC § 18.15.040 shall be processed according to the procedures for Type III land use decision established in Article IV of this chapter.

The county may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use permit (i.e., uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC § 18.15.040 as "C(a)," "C(d)" or "C") if all of the following criteria are satisfied:

In instances where all of the above findings cannot be made, the application shall be denied.

The administrator may consider applications for modifications of lawfully established conditional uses and developments approved under this code and conditional uses in existence on December 18, 2000, when the application proposes to bring the existing use substantially closer to compliance with the standards of this code. The administrator may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the modification application. A site plan conforming to the provisions of this chapter and Article II, Project Permit Applications (Type I – IV), of this chapter shall accompany the application showing the location, size and type of modification proposed by the applicant.

Modifications may be approved by the administrator under Type I review procedures; provided, that the cumulative modifications of the approved use shall not exceed the following limitations:

All proposed uses, structures and site improvements (and modifications thereof) shall comply with the development standards of this code.

Any proposed modification that does not meet all the requirements of this subsection shall not be approved through this process, but shall be reviewed through the current review procedures as outlined by this chapter.

Decisions to administratively approve modifications shall be administered through a consistency review of development permits in accordance with this code and any previous conditions of approval.

Increase requirements in the standards, criteria or policies established by this code;

Stipulate an exact location for the conditional use on the subject property as a means of minimizing hazards to life, limb, property damage, erosion, landslides or traffic;

Require structural features or equipment as a means of minimizing hazards to life, limb, property damage, erosion, landslides or traffic; or

Contain restrictions or provisions deemed necessary to establish parity with uses permitted in the same zone with respect to avoiding nuisance generating features in matters of noise, odors, air pollution, wastes, vibration, traffic and physical hazards.

A conditional use permit automatically expires and becomes void if the applicant fails to file for a building permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date (the date of the decision granting the permit) of the permit unless the permit approval provides for a greater period of time.

Extensions to the duration of the original permit approval are prohibited.

The department of community development shall not be responsible for notifying the applicant of an impending expiration.

The use for which the approval was granted has been abandoned for a period of at least one year;

Approval of the permit was obtained by misrepresentation of material fact; or

The permit is being exercised contrary to the terms of approval.

The application for a variance shall be submitted to DCD on forms provided by the department, along with the appropriate fees established under the most recently adopted DCD fee schedule. The application shall include all materials required pursuant to JCC § 18.40.100.

The administrator may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of an application.

Minor and Major Variances Distinguished.

Minor Variances. Applications for minor variances shall be processed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in JCC § 18.40.270.

Major Variances. Applications for major variances shall be processed according to the procedures for Type III land use decisions established in Article IV of this chapter.

The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the subject property is located;

The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the land use district in which the subject property is located;

The granting of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and land use district in which the subject property is located;

The special circumstances of the subject property make the strict enforcement of the provisions of this code an unnecessary hardship to the property owner;

The special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant; and

The variance is consistent with the purposes and intent of this Unified Development Code.

The provisions of this code establishing allowed, conditional, discretionary and prohibited uses within the various land use districts (i.e., Table 3-1 in JCC § 18.15.040);

The density provisions of this code;

The procedural or administrative provisions of this code; or

Any provision of this code which, by its terms, is not subject to a variance.

A variance approval automatically expires and becomes void if the applicant fails to file for a building permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the date of the decision granting the variance unless the variance approval provides for a greater period of time.

Extensions to the duration of the original variance approval are prohibited.

The department of community development shall not be responsible for notifying the applicant of an impending expiration.

SEPA Rules – Adoption by Reference. The county hereby adopts by reference the SEPA rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC. The SEPA rules must be used in conjunction with this article. This article contains uniform usage and definitions of terms under SEPA and the SEPA rules.

The county adopts by reference the definitions in WAC 197-11-700 et seq., as supplemented by Chapter 18.10 JCC.

Environmental values are considered in making land use and agency decisions, and reasonable alternatives and conditions are identified and implemented to mitigate (as provided in this article) the adverse environmental impacts of proposed actions on the environment;

Adequate and timely environmental information is gathered and provided to decision-makers, and procedural delay and duplication is avoided; and

Opportunity for public involvement is included in the decision-making process.

The responsible official shall be the administrator.

For those proposals for which the county is the lead agency, the responsible official is vested with authority to and shall make the threshold determination, determine an exemption (if any), supervise scoping and preparation of any required environmental impact statement (EIS), administer the SEPA rules and this article, and perform any other functions assigned to the "lead agency" or "responsible official" by the SEPA rules.

The responsible official shall be responsible for the written comments of the county in response to a consultation request:

The department of community development (DCD) shall maintain all documents required by Chapter 40.14 RCW (Preservation and Destruction of Public Records) and make them available in accordance with Chapter 42.56 RCW (Public Records Act).

The county department receiving application for or initiating a proposal that includes a non-exempt action shall determine the lead agency for the proposal under WAC 197-11-050 and WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, unless lead agency has been previously established.

When the county is lead agency, the responsible official shall supervise compliance with threshold determination requirements. If an EIS is required, that official shall supervise preparation of the EIS.

When the county is not lead agency, the county shall use and consider the determination of nonsignificance (DNS), mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MDNS), or final environmental impact statement (FEIS) of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. Unless required under WAC 197-11-600 no DNS or EIS in addition to that issued by the lead agency shall be prepared. The county may, however, conduct supplemental environmental review under WAC 197-11-600.

If the county receives a lead agency determination that appears inconsistent with criteria contained in WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Objection must be made to the agency that made the determination and must be resolved within 15 calendar days of receipt of the determination, or the county must petition the Department of Ecology for lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the 15-calendar-day period. The responsible official may initiate any such petition on behalf of the county.

Any county department making lead agency determination for a private proposal shall require sufficient information to identify all other agencies with jurisdiction over the proposal.

Initiation of Review. The county's SEPA process begins when a permit application is submitted to the county, or when the county proposes to take an official action as defined in WAC 197-11-704.

Limitations on Actions during SEPA Process. Until the responsible official issues a final DNS or FEIS and the SEPA appeal period has lapsed, the county shall not take any project action (issuing permits, approvals, etc.) on a nonexempt project, or take any nonproject action (decisions on policies, plans, programs, etc.), that would have an adverse environmental impact or would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.

Categorically Exempt Levels.

Categorically Exempt Actions. Actions categorically exempt under subsection (1) of this section do not require review under this article or the preparation of an environmental impact statement, and may not be conditioned or denied under SEPA, except as provided in WAC 197-11-305 and subsection (3) of this section.

Use of Exemptions.

Use of Existing Documents and Analyses. Procedures for the use, adoption, or incorporation of existing documents and analyses are provided in WAC 197-11-600, 197-11-610, 197-11-630, and 197-11-635.

Planned Actions.

Submittal of Environmental Checklist.

Review of Project Impacts. The responsible official shall review the checklist, other information about a project, and the applicable regulations to review the environmental impacts of the project and make a threshold determination. In making this review the responsible official may determine:

Threshold Determination. The "threshold determination" is the decision regarding whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the project shall have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on an element of the environment. A threshold determination is required for any proposal that meets the definition of an "action" under WAC 197-11-704 and is not categorically exempt, a planned action, or subject to WAC 197-11-600(3). The responsible official shall make and publish the threshold determination for public comment as provided in JCC § 18.40.780:

Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS). The responsible official may issue a MDNS as provided in this subsection and in WAC 197-11-350, based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to or clarifications of the proposal made by the applicant.

The responsible official shall provide for prompt and coordinated review by government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific probable significant adverse impacts arising from the project that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level. The county may clarify or change features in their own proposal, and may specify mitigation measures in their DNSs, as a result of comments by other agencies or the public or as a result of additional agency planning (see WAC 197-11-350).

Durations of comment periods are as provided in JCC § 18.40.780. At the end of the comment period the threshold determination becomes final unless retained, modified, or withdrawn, and the appeal period begins.

Preparation of EIS.

The DNS and checklist, or FEIS, for non-exempt proposals shall accompany county staff recommendations to any appropriate decision-making body (e.g., the hearing examiner).

The county shall not take any action on the project permit application until the SEPA appeal period has lapsed.

Any appeal of the final SEPA determination shall be heard as provided in JCC § 18.40.810.

The county may attach conditions to a permit or approval for nonexempt actions pursuant to WAC 197-11-660; provided, that:

The county may deny a permit or approval for nonexempt actions pursuant to WAC 197-11-660; provided, that:

The county designates and adopts by reference the following county plans, ordinances and policies as the basis for exercise of county authority pursuant to this article:

When the responsible official makes a threshold determination and issues a DNS or MDNS under WAC 197-11-340(2), the lead agency shall not act upon a proposal for 14 days after the date of issuance. The responsible official shall send the DNS and environmental checklist to agencies with jurisdiction, the Department of Ecology, and affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal, and shall give notice as set forth in JCC § 18.40.210.

As an alternative, the responsible official may utilize the "optional DNS process" pursuant to WAC 197-11-355. Under this process, where the county is the lead agency for a project and the responsible official has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely, it shall use a single integrated 14-day comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. When the "optional DNR process" is used, there is no second comment period following issuance of the DNS or MDNS.

If the county issues a DEIS under WAC 197-11-455(5), FEIS under WAC 197-11-460, or SEIS under WAC 197-11-620, notice of availability of the documents shall be given by publishing notice in the official county newspaper; by notifying groups which have expressed interest in a certain proposal being considered; by notifying the news media; by sending notice to agency mailing lists; and by other means deemed appropriate by the responsible official.

The applicant shall be responsible for all costs of the public notice requirements under this article.

Comment periods begin with the publication of notice as provided in this section. Comments must be received within:

A DNS or MDNS becomes final at the end of the comment period unless the determination is modified or withdrawn by the responsible official. Appeals of a SEPA threshold determination shall follow procedures in JCC § 18.40.810.

Notice for public hearings shall be given consistent with this section and JCC § 18.40.230, and may be combined with other notice(s).

If a public hearing on the proposal is held under some other requirement of law, the hearing shall be open to consideration of the environmental impact of the proposal, together with any environmental document that is available. This does not require extension of the comment periods for environmental documents.

In all other cases a public hearing on the environmental impact of a proposal shall be held whenever one or more of the following situations occur:

Whenever a public hearing is held under subsection (2) of this section, it shall occur no earlier than 15 calendar days from the date the DEIS is issued, and not later than 50 calendar days from its issuance. Notice shall be given as set forth in JCC § 18.40.780(6).

Whenever a public hearing is held under subsection (2) of this section, it shall be open to discussion of all environmental documents and any written comments that have been received by the county prior to the hearing. A copy of the environmental document shall be available at the public hearing.

Comments at public hearings should be as specific as possible (see WAC 197-11-550).

The county may hold informal public meetings or workshops. Such gatherings may be more flexible than public hearings and are not subject to the above notice and similar requirements for public hearings.

Public meetings held under Chapter 36.70B RCW may be used to meet SEPA public hearing requirements so long as the requirements of this section are met. A public hearing under this section need not be an open record hearing as defined in RCW 36.70B.020(3).

Actions identified as categorically exempt from SEPA under JCC § 18.40.750(1) shall remain exempt under SEPA even when located in one or more of the critical areas classified, designated and mapped under Chapter 18.22 JCC. A threshold determination shall not be required for actions identified as categorically exempt.

Actions located in one or more critical areas that are categorically exempt from review under this article, and which require issuance of a permit or approval under this code or any other applicable county ordinance or regulation, shall be reviewed, and as necessary, conditioned or denied to assure consistency with the protection standards contained in Chapter 18.22 JCC.

Appeal of a Threshold Determination for a Type I Permit Decision. Threshold determinations on Type I permit decisions may not be appealed administratively to the hearing examiner.

Appeal of a Threshold Determination for Type II Permits – Open Record Hearing. The decision of the responsible official on Type II permits making a threshold determination of a DNS or MDNS, approving a proposal subject to conditions, or denying a proposal under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to JCC § 18.40.280, Chapter 2.30 JCC, and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure for an open record appeal hearing. Any such appeal must be filed within the time limits of JCC § 18.40.330(2)(b), and must be consolidated with any appeal on the underlying Type II permit decision.

Appeal of a Threshold Determination for Type III Permits – Open Record Hearing. The decision of the responsible official on Type III permits making a threshold determination of a DNS, approving a proposal subject to conditions, or denying a project under SEPA's substantive authority may be appealed to the hearing examiner pursuant to JCC § 18.40.280, Chapter 2.30 JCC, and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. The open record public hearing on the SEPA appeal shall be before the hearing examiner, who shall consider the appeal together with the decision on the project application in a single, consolidated hearing as further set forth in Article IV of this chapter.

Appeals of Threshold Determinations for Type V Actions. Threshold determinations of the responsible official on Type V decisions (other than a DS) may not be appealed to the hearing examiner.

Limitations on Appeals for All Types of Permits. When a threshold determination results in a DS it shall not be appealable. In addition, issues relating to the adequacy of the EIS and other procedural issues may not be appealed under this article.

Who May Appeal. An applicant or other party of record, as defined in Chapter 18.10 JCC, may file a SEPA appeal as provided in this article.

Time to Appeal Administrative Decisions. A written statement appealing the threshold determination must be filed within 14 calendar days after the notice of decision is issued.

Form of Appeal. A person or group appealing the decision of the responsible official shall submit a written appeal in the form and manner set forth in Chapter 2.30 JCC and the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure.

Scope of Review. The hearing examiner shall affirm, modify or reverse the responsible official's decision, and shall enter findings and/or conclusions into the record to support the decision. In making the decision, the hearing examiner shall give deference to and afford substantial weight to the decision of the responsible official.

Judicial Appeals. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075, if there is a time period for appealing the underlying permit decision, appeals under this article shall be commenced within such time period. The county shall give official notice stating the date and place for commencing an appeal.

Violations and Penalties. The administrator is authorized to enforce the provisions of this article whenever he or she determines that a condition exists in violation of this article or permit issued hereunder. All violations of any provisions of this article, incorporated standard or permit issued pursuant to this article are made subject to the provisions of JCC Title 19, which provides for voluntary correction, notice and orders to correct the violation, stop work, and assessment of civil penalties.

Public Nuisance. All violations of this article are determined to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and are public nuisances, and may be corrected by any reasonable and lawful means, as further set forth in JCC Title 19.

Alternative Remedies. As an alternative to any other judicial or administrative remedy provided in this article or by law or ordinance, any person who willfully or knowingly violates or fails to comply with any stop work order issued pursuant to JCC Title 19 is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished as set forth in JCC § 19.10.020(2). Each day such violation or failure to comply continues shall be considered an additional misdemeanor offense.

Discretion to Enter Development Agreement. A development agreement is an optional device that may be used at the sole discretion of the county, except a development agreement shall be required for applications for master planned resorts in accordance with JCC § 18.15.126 and major industrial developments in accordance with JCC § 18.15.605.

Who May Enter. The property owner(s) and the county shall be parties to a development agreement; provided, that if a proposed development is within an adopted municipal UGA, the applicable town or city shall also be a party to the agreement. The following may be considered for inclusion as additional parties in a development agreement: contract purchasers, lenders, third-party beneficiaries and utility service providers.

Content of Development Agreements. A development agreement shall be prepared by the applicant and shall set forth the development standards and other conditions that shall apply to and govern the development, use and mitigation of the property subject to the agreement.

When Development Agreements May Be Approved. A development agreement may be entered into prior to, concurrent with or following approval of project permits for development of the property.

Consistency with Unified Development Code. The development standards and conditions set forth in a development agreement shall be consistent with the applicable development regulations set forth in the Unified Development Code, except in the case of a master planned resort (which requires a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment), where adopted standards may be modified by the development standards contained in the agreement, so long as all project impacts have been adequately mitigated. However, the minimum requirements related to the protection of critical areas in Chapter 18.22 JCC may not be varied by adoption of any development agreement.

A development agreement shall include, but need not be limited to, one or more of any of the following types of development controls and conditions:

A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. Project applicants and governmental entities may include provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities.

Development agreements shall:

A development agreement shall be initiated by a written request from the property owner to the administrator of the department of community development. The request should describe the project and the specific reasons why the project is suitable for a development agreement. The request should identify the development standards set forth in JCC § 18.40.840 that the applicant is requesting to be included in the development agreement and any other reasonable information requested by the county.

If the administrator determines in his or her discretion that a development agreement should be considered by the county, the property owner shall be so informed, except that development agreements shall be required for the approval of master planned resorts in accordance with JCC § 18.15.126 and for the approval of major industrial developments in accordance with JCC § 18.15.605.

When a development agreement is being considered prior to project permit approvals, the property owner shall provide the county with the same information that would be required for a complete application for such project permits in order for the county to determine the development standards and conditions to be included in the development agreement.

When a development agreement is being considered following approval of project permits, the development standards and other conditions set forth in such project permits shall be used in the development agreement without modification.

The county shall only approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing and after notice of the hearing has been given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The board of county commissioners, as the legislative authority for the unincorporated area of Jefferson County, acts upon the recommendation of the administrator and the Jefferson County prosecuting attorney's office. The board of county commissioners may, in its sole discretion, approve the development agreement (see Table 8-2). If the development agreement relates to a project permit application, the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to the appeal of the decision on the development agreement.

An approved and fully executed development agreement shall be recorded with the county auditor.

A development agreement is binding on the parties and their successors, including a city that assumes jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area covering the property subject to the development agreement.

A development agreement shall be enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement.

A development agreement shall govern during the term of the agreement all or that part of the development specified in the agreement and may not, unless otherwise agreed to in the development agreement, be subject to an amendment to a local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new local government land use ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.

Permits issued by the county after the execution of the development agreement shall be consistent with the agreement.

Nothing in RCW 36.70B.170 through 36.70B.200 and Section 501, Chapter 374, Laws of 1995, or this chapter is intended to authorize the county to impose impact fees, inspection fees, or dedications or to require any other financial contributions or mitigation measures except as expressly authorized by other applicable provisions of state law.