A. The building permit Applicant is responsible for payment of the fees authorized by this Chapter in connection with a building permit application.

B. In the event that a building permit is erroneously issued without payment of the fees authorized by this Chapter, the Building Official may issue a written notice to the property owner and occupant advising them of the obligation to pay the fees authorized by this Chapter. Such notice shall include a statement of the basis under which the fees under this Chapter are being assessed, the amount of fees owed, and a statement that the property owner or occupant may appeal the fee determination within twenty (20) calendar days of the date the notice was issued. Any appeals of such a fee determination shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in MLUDC 15.255.130.

A. Type I – Administrative;

B. Type II – Administrative with Notice;

C. Type III – Quasi-Judicial;

D. Type IV – Legislative. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified and processed pursuant to their designation in Table 15.205.020 below:

B. Assignment by Director. Any application for development that is not defined or assigned in Table 15.205.020 shall be assigned a type by the Director or designee based on the most closely related application type. The Director may also determine that the application is exempt from this Chapter. This determination is considered a Type I Unified Development Code Interpretation decision.

C. Consolidated Process for Multiple Permits. In general, if a proposal requires multiple permits with decisions of different types, the higher numbered process type applies to the entire proposal. For more detailed information on consolidating permits, refer to MLUDC 15.210.080.

D. SEPA Review. The SEPA review procedures codified in MLUDC Chapter 15.510, SEPA Regulations, are supplemental and concurrent to the procedures set forth in this Chapter. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Street, Sidewalk, and Special Event Permits. The following permits or approvals are specifically excluded from the provisions of Part 15.200 MLUDC:

B. SEPA Exempt Permits. Building and other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals, categorically exempt from environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits. SEPA Exempt Permits are subject to other approval requirements set forth in the Moses Lake Municipal Code.

C. Other Exemptions. Certain other permits that are not listed here, nor in Table 15.205.020, or that will be created by the City in the future, may be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. The Director shall determine whether such a permit is exempt or should be classified as a specific permit type to be processed under this Chapter. See also MLUDC 15.205.020(B). (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. In General. Type I applications and decisions are based on compliance with specific, nondiscretionary, or technical standards that are clearly enumerated in code.

B. Notice. Type I applications are exempt from notice requirements.

C. Public Hearing. Type I applications do not require a public hearing.

D. Decision Maker. The decision maker for Type I applications is the Director, or designee. Decisions by the Director on Type I applications are Final Decisions and must be in writing which includes the issuance of the permit.

E. Where Appealed. Decisions by the Director on Type I Applications may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. See MLUDC 15.215.020. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. In General. Type II applications and decisions are based on compliance with specific, mostly nondiscretionary, or technical standards that are enumerated in code. Some criteria for approval may involve discretionary elements or may involve the determination of site-specific conditions of approval necessary to meet code requirements.

B. Notice. Type II applications are required to provide public notice in accordance with MLUDC 15.210.050.

C. Public Hearing. Type II applications do not require a public hearing.

D. Decision Maker. The decision maker for Type II applications is the Director, or designee. Decisions by the Director on Type II applications are Final Decisions and must be in writing.

E. Where Appealed. Decisions by the Director on Type II Applications may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. See MLUDC 15.215.020. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. In General. Type III applications and decisions are based on compliance with standards and criteria that involve a greater use of discretionary judgment and application of conditions of approval that are tailored to each specific application. Type III decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record public hearing.

B. Notice. Type III applications are required to provide public notice in accordance with MLUDC 15.210.050 and 15.210.060.

C. Public Hearing. Type III applications require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.

D. Decision Maker. The decision maker for Type III applications is the Hearing Examiner. Decisions by the Hearing Examiner are final actions that must be in writing, and shall include written findings, conclusions, and conditions, if any. The Hearing Examiner may approve, approve with modifications or conditions, or deny the Type III application. Any decision by the Hearing Examiner on a shoreline variance or conditional use permit shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology for final approval in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW.

E. Where Appealed. Decisions by the Hearing Examiner on Type III Applications may be appealed to the Grant County Superior Court. Decisions on shoreline permits may be appealed to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. See MLUDC 15.215.030. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. In General. Type IV applications and decisions are legislative or quasi-legislative in nature, involving the creation, revision, application, or large-scale implementation of public policy. Type IV decisions are made by the City Council, following a public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council, as designated.

B. Notice. Type IV applications are required to provide public notice in accordance with state law, as well as any other requirements based on the specific application criteria.

C. Public Hearing. Type IV applications require a public hearing before the Planning Commission or City Council, depending on the specific application type.

D. Decision Maker. The decision maker for Type IV applications is the City Council. Final Decisions by the City Council must be formalized in writing.

E. Where Appealed. There is no administrative appeal of Type IV decisions, but certain decisions may be appealed to the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board, Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board, or Grant County Superior Court. See MLUDC 15.215.030.

F. Other Matters for City Council. Other matters that come before the City Council for deliberation and decision as a legislative function are not subject to the requirements of this Chapter. This Chapter and the requirements herein shall only apply to applications that are considered a Type IV application and are specifically classified as such. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. In General. The requirements for any individual application for development within the City may be found in this Code and forms that are provided by the Department. Any contradiction or discrepancy shall be resolved by the discretion of the Director to apply the more stringent criteria or requirement.

B. Application Forms Required. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Department, and only on those approved forms that are in use at the time of submittal. The Director shall have the authority to modify the application forms.

C. Submittal Information. All applications shall include the information required in the applicable provisions of this Code, as well as any other information or documentation required by the Department. These requirements may be revised from time to time, either through the formal amendment of the text within in this Code, or through the discretionary revision of forms, checklists, and other document submittal requirements the Department may establish for particular application types. See also, standards for the determination of Counter-Complete in MLUDC 15.215.030.

D. Signature of Owner Required. All land use and development applications shall be signed by the owner(s) of the property.

E. Fees Required. All land use and development applications shall be accompanied by the fee applicable to the specific application type. Fee schedules are adopted by the City Council and are available with the Department but may change from time to time. The fee that applies shall be the required fee in place at the time an application could otherwise be determined to be Counter-Complete per MLUDC 15.210.030.

F. Required Procedures by Application Type. The required procedural steps for applications Type I – Administrative, Type II – Administrative with Notice, and Type III – Quasi-Judicial are generally set forth in Table 15.210.010 below. Type IV applications are processed according to the specific procedural and substantive requirements governing each type of proposal, as well as the general requirements in MLUDC Chapter 15.210.

A. In General. The purpose of a Pre-Application Conference is to provide the City and other agency staff with a sufficient level of detail about the proposed development that enables them to advise the Applicant about applicable Code provisions and other requirements. Sharing of information between the Applicant and the City is intended to identify opportunities for a successful application and generally to improve the quality of development while reducing the time needed to review and complete the processing of the application without substantial revisions or outright denials. However, the conference is not intended to provide an exhaustive review of all the potential issues and does not prevent the City from applying all relevant laws to the application.

B. When Required. Pre-Application Conferences are required for any intended Type II or Type III permits, and for any requests for a Consolidated Permit Process of any types.

C. Pre-Application Waiver. The Director may waive the requirement for a Pre-Application Conference if he or she determines that the impending proposal has few development related issues, involve subsequent phases of an approved development activity, is substantially similar to a prior proposal regarding the same property or property owner, or for any other reason that is within the sound discretion of the Director.

D. Written Request Required. The Applicant must submit a completed Pre-Application Conference request form provided by the City.

E. Fee Required; Deducted from Application Fee. A Pre-Application Conference requires the payment of the applicable fee prior to the scheduling of the meeting. The Pre-Application Conference fee shall be credited towards the total fee required for the official submission of the underlying permit(s) if a permit application is submitted within one year of the Pre-Application Conference.

F. Notice of Pre-Application Conference. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of a written request for a Pre-Application Conference, the City shall mail a written notice to the Applicant stating the date, time, location, and purpose of the Pre-Application Conference.

G. Scheduling. The Pre-Application Conference shall be conducted at least five (5) business days after the notice is mailed but not more than twenty-eight (28) calendar days after the City accepts the written request for pre-application conference. The City shall reschedule the conference and give new notice if the Applicant or Applicant’s representative cannot or does not attend the conference when scheduled.

H. Expiration. A counter-complete application that the City finds is substantially similar to the subject of a Pre-Application Conference must be submitted within one calendar year after the Pre-Application Conference or after approval of waiver of Pre-Application Conference. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Only Counter – Complete Accepted. The City shall only accept an application if it is determined to be Counter-Complete. No parts of an application will be accepted or retained by the City on behalf of an Applicant unless it is part of a complete and accepted application. Applications that are not Counter-Complete shall not begin the timing for a Determination of Completeness under MLUDC 15.210.040.

B. Counter – Complete Defined. An application shall be determined to be Counter-Complete if the Applicant submits a full and complete application packet that includes all the submittal requirements together with fees.

C. Notice. If the City determines the application is counter-complete, the City shall provide written notice that the application is counter-complete and review for completeness under MLUDC 15.210.040 has started. If the City determines the application is not counter-complete, the City shall provide notice that the application is rejected with identification of what is needed to make the application counter-complete.

D. Not a Determination of Completeness. A determination that an application is Counter-Complete does not constitute a Determination of Completeness under MLUDC 15.210.040. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Determination of Completeness. A project application is complete for purposes of this Chapter when it meets the procedural submission requirements of the City, as outlined on the project permit application. Additional information or studies may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequent to the procedural review of the application by the City. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. However, if the procedural submission requirements, as outlined on the project permit application have been provided, the need for additional information or studies may not preclude a completeness determination.

B. Time to Determine. Within twenty-eight (28) calendar days after accepting a project permit application as Counter-Complete, the Department shall notify the Applicant a written determination stating either:

C. Requesting Additional Information. A Determination of Completeness shall not preclude the Department from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of Notice of Completeness, or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur.

D. Timeline for Additional Information Request. If the additional information requested by the Department is not fully submitted within ninety (90) calendar days from the date it was requested, the application shall be rejected and returned to the Applicant with eighty percent (80%) of the application fee. The Applicant may submit a written request for up to a ninety (90) calendar day extension of this deadline, or a date as mutually agreed upon by the Director. The Director may grant a single extension if the Applicant has demonstrated that they are actively working to obtain the requested information.

E. Time to Determine After Additional Information Provided. If the application was determined to be Incomplete with additional information requested, then the Applicant shall provide the requested information before any further review or processing will occur. When an Applicant does provide the requested information, the Department shall provide the Applicant with written determination of whether the application is now Complete or not within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the requested information.

F. Notice of Completeness. If a project application is given a Determination of Completeness, this determination shall be provided to the Applicant in writing as a Notice of Completeness. This Notice may also identify other agencies with jurisdiction over some aspect of the application, but in no way absolves or assumes the responsibility of the Applicant to seek applicable permits from other jurisdictions. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. When Required. A Notice of Application is required for all Type II and Type III applications. No Notice of Application is required for Type I applications.

B. Time to Provide. The Department shall issue the Notice of Application to the Applicant within fourteen (14) calendar days after the Determination of Completeness is provided.

C. Information to be Provided. The Notice of Application shall include, at least, the following information:

D. Timing If Hearing Required. If an open record hearing is required for the requested project permit, then the Notice of Application shall be provided at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the open record hearing.

E. Notice of Application to the Public.

F. Comment Period. The Department shall allow a public comment period of fourteen (14) calendar days for Type II and Type III application. This public comment period shall commence when the Notice of Application is mailed or posted on the subject property, whichever is later. There is no comment period for Type I applications. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. When Required. A Notice of Public Hearing is required for all Type III applications.

B. Time to Provide. The Notice of Public Hearing shall be provided at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the open record hearing.

C. Information to be Provided. The Notice of Public Hearing shall include, at least, the following information, through text or graphic:

D. Notice of Public Hearing to the Public.

E. Combined with Notice of Application. The Department may combine the Notice of Public Hearing with the Notice of Application. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. When Required. A written final decision must be made for every application. A notice of decision is required for all Type II and Type III applications.

B. Timing of the Decision. A final decision on land use applications shall be within the following time frames after a determination of completeness has been issued:

If the applicant informs the City, in writing, that they would like to temporarily suspend the review of the project, an additional thirty (30) days may be added to the final decision time frame.

If the Department is unable to issue its final decision on an application within the time limits provided in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits cannot be met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision. In determining the number of days that have elapsed after the determination of completeness, the following periods shall be excluded:

C. Fee Collection. The portion of the fee refunded for missing time periods shall be:

D. Writing Required. All final decisions must be in writing.

E. Contents of a Final Decision – Type I. Final decisions for Type I applications may be memorialized and conveyed by the issuance of the requested permit. If the permit is denied, then the decision shall be in writing with a short explanation or basis for the denial, along with the rights and process for appeal, to be transmitted directly to the applicant.

F. Contents of a Final Decision – Type II and Type III. Final decisions for Type II and Type III applications shall be in writing and contain the following information:

G. Notice of Decision. Notice of a final decision may be the transmittal of the final decision with or without a coversheet or additional information. For Type II project permits, the notice of decision may be a copy of the final report, so long as the transmittal includes any SEPA threshold determinations or critical area final determinations if the project was not categorically exempt from such. For Type III project permits, dissemination of the Hearing Examiner’s decision shall constitute a notice of decision. If any of the required contents of a final decision are not included in that document, including especially the rights and process for appeal, then this information shall be included with the transmittal of the final decision.

H. Who Receives Notice of Decision. The notice of decision shall be provided to:

I. Other Requirements. The notice of decision shall provide notice of the decision that also includes a statement of any threshold determination made under Chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), and procedures for administrative appeal, if any.

J. Effective Date of Decision. The effective date of the final decision is the date on which the notice of decision was placed in the mail or sent electronically, whichever is earlier.

K. Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner Decision.

A. Consolidation Optional. A Consolidated Permit Process may be used when there are two (2) or more project permits related to a proposed project action.

B. Consolidation into Single Process. If an Applicant requests a Consolidated Permit Process, and the City agrees, then the proposed permits shall be consolidated into a single application review and approval process that covers all project permits requested by the Applicant. Once consolidated, the Determination of Completeness, Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing (if any), and Notice of Final Decision must include all project permits being reviewed in one cohesive document for each procedural stage.

C. Pre-Application Conference Required. A Pre-Application Conference is required to discuss the potential of a Consolidated Permit Process. This conference topic is separate and distinct from the requirement for Pre-Application Conferences regarding the particulars of any of the underlying permit applications. One Pre-Application Conference may be done that concurrently discusses all proposed permits and the consolidated process in the same meeting, or be separated into different meetings, to be decided at the discretion of the Director.

D. Limit on Number of Hearings. For any Consolidated Permit Process, there shall only one (1) open record hearing and one (1) closed record appeal.

E. Highest Application Type Controls. When multiple application types are consolidated, the procedural requirements for the highest permit type shall apply to the entire Consolidated Permit Process. If the applications are to be processed under the individual procedures option, the highest number type procedure must be processed prior to the subsequent lower numbered process procedure.

F. Type IV Permits Not to be Consolidated. Applications classified as a Type IV proposal shall not be consolidated with Type I, II, or III permit applications. This is done to ensure that the City Council does not make the Final Decision on Administrative or Quasi-Judicial applications.

G. Discretion of Director. The Director, or designee, shall have complete discretion on whether and how to consolidate, or not, application packages in a way that serves the interests of the timely and judicious review and processing of the applications. This includes, especially, the discretion of the Director to require the completion of Final Decisions for Type III and Type IV applications before other applications that could rely on those decisions. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

B. Open Record Public Hearings; When Used. Open Record Public Hearings shall be held for all Type III and Type IV applications.

C. Hearing Procedure. The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The establishment and amendment to hearings procedures shall be within the sound discretion of the Director, or designee, or the Hearing Examiner, as applicable body.

D. Staff Report. At least seven (7) business days before the date of the hearing, the Director shall issue a written staff report and recommendation regarding the application(s), shall make available to the public a copy of the staff report for review and inspection, and shall mail a copy of the staff report and recommendation without charge to the Applicant. The Director shall mail or provide a copy of the staff report at reasonable charge to other parties who request it. If the Director does not issue the staff report at least seven (7) business before the date of the hearing, the Applicant shall be entitled to ask for a continuance without penalty.

E. Ex Parte Communications Prohibited. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issues in a proceeding before them, other than to participate in necessary communications on procedural aspects. The member may receive advice from his or her legal counsel and may communicate with staff members. If a member of the hearing body receives ex parte communications regarding a pending application to be heard by them, then that person shall:

F. Conflicts of Interest, Ethics, Open Public Meetings, and Appearance of Fairness. The hearing body shall comply with and remain subject to the Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers, Chapter 42.23 RCW, the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW, and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Chapter 42.36 RCW, as they may now exist or be lawfully amended hereafter.

G. Consolidating Appeals from Threshold Determinations. In accordance with RCW 43.21C.075, any hearing on the appeal of a SEPA threshold determination or Critical Area determination shall be consolidated with the hearing or appeal of the underlying permit. No more than one appeal proceeding shall be allowed on each procedural determination (the adequacy of a determination of significance/nonsignificance or of a final environmental impact statement). Appeals of procedural issues and of substantive determinations (such as a decision to require particular mitigation measures or to deny a proposal) shall be consolidated as well. This does not apply to:

A. Standing; Who May Bring Appeal. An appeal of a Type I or Type II Decision may only be brought by one of the following:

B. Time to Appeal. An Appeal of a Type I or Type II Decision shall be filed with the Department within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date the final Notice of Decision was mailed.

C. Fees. An appeal will only be accepted if it is accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee. If the applicable fee is not received by the City within the prescribed time to appeal, the appeal shall not be accepted nor considered.

D. Contents of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing and contain the following information:

E. Time to Amend. The Hearing Examiner shall have discretion to allow an appellant up to fourteen (14) calendar days to amend or perfect an otherwise timely filed appeal.

F. Process for Appeal Hearing. An appeal under this section shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner as an Open Record Appeal.

G. Burden of Proof. The Appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence at least one of the following:

H. Reconsideration.

I. Stay of Decision. An appeal or request for reconsideration stays the underlying decision pending final disposal of the appeal, unless the action ordered in the decision is necessary to protect the public health or safety, or unless the appeal is required to be filed in superior court.

J. Judicial Review Only After Administrative Exhaustion. No person may seek judicial review of any Decision of the City unless that person first exhausts the administrative remedies provided by the City. Any judicial appeal shall be filed in accordance with state law, primarily the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. In General. Appeals of a Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner or City Council are generally not governed by the provisions of this code. Judicial review of land use decisions is controlled by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.

B. Exceptions. Other quasi-judicial bodies hold jurisdiction to hear certain land use decisions, such as the Growth Management Hearings Board or the State Shoreline Hearings Board. No provisions of this code should be interpreted or applied in a way that conflicts with state law regarding judicial or quasi-judicial review of land use decisions.

C. Appealing a Hearing Examiner Decision. A Final Decision by the Hearing Examiner for a Type III application, or from a Final Decision on the appeal of a Type I or Type II decision, shall be appealed to the Grant County Superior Court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. A Final Decision by the Hearing Examiner on a shoreline permit shall be appealed to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW.

D. Appealing a Decision of the City Council. A Final Decision by the City Council shall only be appealed to the appropriate jurisdictional entity charged by state law with hearing such appeals.

E. Stay of Decision. Filing a suit or action in court does not stay the final decision unless and until the court, pursuant to RCW 36.70C.100, issues an order. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

B. Eligibility for Annexation. To be eligible for annexation under this Chapter, the entire subject area must be within an adopted urban growth area and be contiguous with the City boundary. The proposed annexation shall not include sub-portions of any parcel. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Comprehensive Plan. Annexations shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

B. Petitioner Provided Information. The City has the authority to request that petitioner(s) provide information regarding the identified impacts as part of a petition or part of the petition process, require the petitioner(s) to respond to inquiries regarding the impacts, and require the petitioner(s) to conduct any studies necessary to evaluate any of the identified impacts at the petitioner’s cost or to pay for such studies undertaken by the City.

C. Evaluation Criteria. Prior to approval or disapproval of any annexation as allowed by law, the City shall consider the short and long term impact on the City by reviewing, at a minimum, the following:

D. Pre-Annexation Agreement. If it is determined that the existing public services or infrastructure within the proposed annexation area are deficient and do not meet City standards, the petitioner and other property owners within the proposed annexation area shall enter into a pre-annexation agreement to address the deficiencies. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Proposed Zoning Designation. Property within the urban growth area which has proposed zoning designated pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330, as amended, will automatically be zoned in conformance with the land use designation previously prescribed for that property unless the proposed zoning designation is changed as provided herein.

B. Proposed Zoning Designation Inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan; No Designation. Where property does not have a proposed zoning regulation or the proposed zoning regulation is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council upon consideration of the annexation proposal may establish an interim classification for the property. The interim zone shall be consistent with the annexation area’s Comprehensive Plan designation. If an interim Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation is established, it shall be in place no longer than twelve (12) months unless otherwise provided by ordinance. The process for establishing an interim zoning district shall meet the requirements of RCW 35A.63.220. For all property classified in the interim zone, the City shall commence all steps necessary to establish an official zoning classification pursuant to the procedure described in MLUDC Chapter 15.245. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. General Criteria. A Conditional Use Permit shall be approved with conditions only if the Applicant demonstrates that all the following criteria are met:

B. Special Criteria for Industrial Uses (Reserved).

C. Special Criteria for Residential Uses in Nonresidential Zones (Reserved). (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Limit the way the use is conducted, including restricting the time an activity may take place, and imposing any reasonable restraints to minimize environmental effects such as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare, and odor;

B. Establish a special yard or other open space, with specified lot area, location, or dimension;

C. Limit the height, size, or location of a building or other structure(s);

D. Designate the size, number, or nature of vehicle access points;

E. Increase the amount of street dedication, roadway width, or other improvements within the street right-of-way;

F. Designate the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing, or other improvements of off-street parking or truck loading areas;

G. Limit or otherwise designate the number, size, location, and height of lighting and signs;

H. Limit the number and intensity of outdoor lighting or require its shielding;

I. Require screening, landscaping, or other improvement to protect adjacent or nearby property that designates standards for installation and/or maintenance;

J. Require and establish the size, height, location, or materials for a fence;

K. Require protection of critical areas; or

L. Any other reasonable restriction, condition, or safeguard that will uphold the intent of the MLUDC and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or that is used to mitigate any adverse effect upon adjacent properties that would result from the proposed use. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. A change of any applicable condition of approval;

B. A change in use classification as defined in MLUDC Chapter 15.405;

C. A ten percent (10%) increase in dwelling unit density, providing the proposed density does not exceed the maximum density established in the underlying base zoning district;

D. An increase in the approved floor area proposed for nonresidential use by more than twenty-five percent (25%), except for schools, which shall have a threshold of fifty percent (50%) increase in floor area;

E. A change in the operational use deemed to be a possible adverse impact to adjacent properties by the Director. Upon the Director determining that the proposed modification to the Conditional Use Permit is a major modification, the Applicant shall submit a new application to be processed as a Type III application. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Property Within City Limits. The City may, but under no circumstances is required to, enter into a development agreement pursuant to this and Sections 36.70B.170 RCW et seq., with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction.

B. Property Outside City Limits. The City may, but under no circumstances is required to, enter into a development agreement pursuant to and Sections 36.70B.170 RCW et seq., with a person having ownership or control of real property outside of its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or service agreement.

C. Nature of City Action. The decision of the City Council to approve or reject a request for a new development agreement, a modification to an existing development agreement, or an extension of an existing development agreement, shall be a discretionary, legislative act and an exercise of the City’s police power and contract authority. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Contents. Development agreements shall set forth the development standards and other provisions that shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement. A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide services, infrastructure, or other facilities. For the purposes of this Section, “development standards” include, but are not limited to:

B. Development Standards. A development agreement shall be consistent with applicable development regulations to the fullest extent possible; provided, a development agreement may allow development standards different from those otherwise imposed under the MLUDC in order to provide flexibility to achieve public benefits, respond to changing community needs, or encourage modifications which provide the functional equivalent or adequately achieve the purposes of otherwise applicable City standards. Any approved development standards that differ from those in the code shall not require any further zoning reclassification, variance from City standards or other City approval apart from development agreement approval, except that no deviation from critical areas or shoreline management regulations shall be permitted. The development standards as approved through a development agreement shall apply to and govern the development and implementation of each covered site in lieu of any conflicting or different standards or requirements elsewhere in the MLUDC. Subsequently adopted standards which differ from those of a development agreement adopted by the City as provided in this Chapter shall apply to the covered development project only where necessary to address imminent public health and safety hazards or where the development agreement specifies a time period or phase after which certain identified standards can be modified. Building permit applications for property subject to a development agreement shall be subject to the building and construction codes in effect when the building permit application is deemed complete.

C. Unauthorized Fees Prohibited. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to authorize the City 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 law. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. General. Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A development agreement and the development standards in the agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or that part of the build-out period of the project specified in the agreement, and the project may not be subject to an amendment to a zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation or a new zoning ordinance or development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.

B. Vesting. Under subsection (A), a development agreement provides an alternative to vesting rights provided for under the MLUDC. A development agreement shall reference by ordinance or code provision the land use regulations under which the project described in the development agreement is vested.

C. Concurrency. A development agreement shall be compliant with the requirements of MLUDC Chapter 15.250, Concurrency.

D. Modifications. The City shall reserve authority in each development agreement to impose new or different regulations only if necessary, and to the extent necessary, to address a serious threat to public health and safety.

E. Building Permits. Building permit applications for property subject to a development agreement shall be subject to the building and construction codes in effect when the building permit application is deemed complete. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. No Deadline for Final Decision. Development agreements are not “project permit applications” as defined in RCW 36.70B.020. Therefore, there is no deadline for processing a development agreement. If an Applicant requests that the City execute a development agreement as part of its approval of a project permit application, the Applicant must agree to sign a written waiver of the deadline for issuance of a final decision of the project permit application and a waiver of, so that the development agreement may be processed.

B. Development Agreement Associated with Permit Application. A development agreement may be submitted for review in conjunction with a land use and development permit for the underlying project. The development agreement application may be consolidated for processing with the underlying project permit application or other application for approval, provided, however, a separate open public hearing shall be held before the council on the development agreement and shall not be consolidated with the open hearing for a Type II or III application, pursuant to MLUDC 15.210.080(E). Any development plan accompanying the development agreement shall be subject to the applicable project permit process set out in this title.

C. Determination of Completeness. The application shall not be deemed complete until a draft development agreement has been prepared and a development proposal conforming to the parameters of the development agreement and meeting all pertinent requirements has been submitted.

D. Final Decision. The development agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to any final decision being issued on the application.

E. Public Hearing. The City Council shall make the final decision whether to approve a development agreement by ordinance or resolution after a public hearing. The duly noticed public hearing shall be held in accordance with RCW 36.70B.200. All costs associated with the public notice for the public hearing shall be borne by the Applicant. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Permit Process Type. An Administrative Variance is a Type I Permit and must comply with all applicable provisions of MLUDC 15.205.040 and MLUDC Chapter 15.210.

C. Criteria for Approval. The Director may approve, or approve with any reasonable conditions, an Administrative Variance only if the Applicant demonstrates all the following:

A. Permit Process Type. A Quasi-Judicial Variance is a Type III Permit and must comply with all applicable provisions of MLUDC 15.205.070 and MLUDC Chapter 15.210.

B. Criteria for Approval. The Hearing Examiner may approve, or approve with any reasonable conditions, a Quasi-Judicial Variance only if the Applicant demonstrates all the following:

C. Conditions for Approval. In approving a Quasi-Judicial Variance, the Hearing Examiner may impose any reasonable condition that is crafted to accomplish or satisfy a criterion for approval, or that will otherwise serve to ameliorate negative effects that the variance may cause. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Application for Amendment. Any interested person, including citizens, Hearing Examiners, staff of other agencies, and Planning Commission and City Council members, may submit an application for an amendment of the comprehensive plan or a development regulation. An application for an amendment of the comprehensive plan that is related to a site-specific proposal must be filed by the property owner or authorized representative.

B. When Applications May Be Submitted.

C. Application Requirements. A complete application for an amendment to a development regulation shall consist of the following materials. Applications that do not include the information required in this Section shall not be processed.

A. Preliminary Docket. A preliminary docket shall be maintained by the Director, which shall consist of the following:

B. Planning Commission Recommendation on Final Docket. The Planning Commission shall hold a noticed public hearing to accept public comment regarding the suggested amendments on the preliminary docket. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission shall prepare a report and recommendation identifying those suggested amendments that it is recommending for consideration by the City Council during the annual amendment process. The Planning Commission’s recommendation shall be based upon the perceived need, urgency, and appropriateness of each suggested amendment. The Planning Commission’s report and recommendation shall also include those proposed amendments resulting from its periodic assessment as applicable.

C. City Council Adoption of Final Docket. The City Council shall review and consider the Planning Commission’ report and recommended final docket. The City Council may adopt the Planning Commission’s recommended final docket without a public hearing; however, in the event that a majority of the City Council decides to add or subtract suggested amendments, it shall first hold a public hearing. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. General Requirements. Notice of any public hearing on an application for an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation shall be given by one publication in the official newspaper of the City at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing and by posting a copy of the notice of public hearing on the City’s website.

B. Contents. The public notice shall include the following:

C. Site Specific Proposals. For site-specific map amendments, the Applicant shall provide public notice of the public hearing by posting a minimum of one sign or placard on the site or a location immediately adjacent to the site that provides visibility to motorists using adjacent streets. The Director shall establish standards for size, color, layout, design, wording, number, placement, and timing of installation and removal of the signs or placards. All costs associated with the public notice shall be borne by the Applicant. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Planning Commission Public Hearing and Recommendation. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the applications included on the Final Docket and shall make a recommendation to the City Council on each proposed amendment to deny, approve, or approve with conditions or modifications, using the criteria set forth below, as applicable.

B. Comprehensive Plan Review Criteria. The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations shall be reviewed under the following criteria to develop findings and conclusions to support a recommendation:

A. SEPA. If an application for an amendment to the development regulations is submitted outside of the annual comprehensive plan amendment process, SEPA shall be performed on the application as set forth in MLUDC Chapter 15.510. If applicable, the City shall notify the Washington State Department of Commerce of its intent to adopt the proposed amendment(s) to the comprehensive plan or development regulations at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to final adoption.

B. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held before the Planning Commission with notice provided as set forth in MLUDC 15.240.050.

C. Planning Commission Recommendation. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council, using the criteria set forth in MLUDC 15.240.080(B), as applicable.

D. City Council Action. The City Council will review the Planning Commission recommendations and the criteria set forth in MLUDC 15.240.080(B) and take action on each proposed amendment to the development regulations. Council may reject or accept in whole or part the Planning Commission’s recommendations. All amendments shall be approved by ordinance by the City Council. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Area-Wide Rezone. Legislative approval of land reclassification in an area. An “area-wide rezone” is a change in the Official Zoning Map.

B. Site-Specific Rezone. A reclassification of a parcel of land from one zoning district to another, allowing a change in the range of permitted uses on a specific piece of property. A “site-specific rezone” is a change in the Official Zoning Map. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Area-Wide Rezone Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on a proposed Area-Wide Rezone and shall make a recommendation to the City Council based on the criteria set forth in this Chapter.

B. Site-Specific Rezone Hearing. The Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing on a proposed Site-Specific Rezone and shall make a recommendation to the City Council based on the criteria set forth in this Chapter.

C. City Council Action. The City Council will review the recommendation of the Planning Commission or Hearing Examiner and the criteria set forth in this Chapter and take action on the proposed Area-Wide or Site-Specific Rezone within one hundred twenty (120) days of the filing of a complete application as determined under MLUDC 15.210.070. All rezones shall be approved by ordinance by the City Council. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The proposed rezone is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and MLUDC;

B. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the surrounding community;

C. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community; and

D. The proposed rezone:

A. No Impact Developments. Applications for development which creates no additional impacts on any concurrency facility or service are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. Such development includes, but is not limited to:

B. Exempt Permits. The following development permits are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter:

C. Application Filed Before the Effective Date of this Chapter. Complete development permit applications that have been submitted before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter.

D. Pre-existing Use Rights. Development permits that were issued before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter shall be considered to have capacity as long as the accompanying development permit is valid. 4

E. Single-family Homes and Duplexes. Building permits for single-family homes and duplexes are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter.

F. Interior Renovations. Interior renovations that only add one additional dwelling unit are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter.

G. Accessory Dwelling Units. All accessory dwelling units, as defined in MLUDC Chapter 15.110 are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter.

H. Transportation Facilities and Services of Statewide Significance. See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(C). (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Applicant’s Role. The Applicant shall provide the City with information necessary to complete the concurrency evaluation on the proposed development. It shall be the responsibility of the Applicant to provide studies, surveys, traffic studies, engineering review, or any other items determined to be necessary for an accurate concurrency evaluation.

B. Department’s Role. The concurrency review will be performed during the processing of the underlying development permit. The Department shall provide the overall coordination of the concurrency review by notifying the facility and service providers, including but not limited to the Public Works Department, of all applications requiring a concurrency review. The Department shall also notify the facility and service providers of any expired or extended development permits.

C. Service Provider’s Role. All facility and service providers shall be responsible for maintaining and monitoring their available and planned capacity by conducting the concurrency review, for their individual facility, for all applications requiring a concurrency review as set forth in MLUDC 15.250.030; reserving the capacity needed for each application; accounting for the capacity for each exempted application which uses capacity as set forth in MLUDC 15.250.020(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G); notifying the Department of the results of the reviews; and reinstating any capacity for an expired development permit, or other action resulting in an Applicant no longer needing capacity which has been reserved. Facility and service providers shall annually report to the Department the total available and planned capacity of their facility or services as of the end of each calendar year. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Concurrency Standard. Development applications that would result in a reduction of a level of service below the minimum level of service standard shall not be approved. For transportation, available and planned capacity will be used in conducting the concurrency test.

B. Sufficient Capacity Result. If the capacity of concurrency facilities is equal to or greater than the capacity required to maintain the level of service standard for the impact from the development application, the concurrency test is passed. A certificate of capacity will be issued according to the provisions of MLUDC 15.250.070.

C. Insufficient Capacity Result. If the capacity of concurrency facilities is less than the capacity required to maintain the level of service standard for the impact from the development application, the concurrency test is not passed. The Applicant may:

A. Issuance. A certificate of capacity shall be issued at the same time the development permit is issued and upon payment of any fee or performance of any condition required by a service or facility provider.

B. Nontransferable. A certificate of capacity shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. A certificate of capacity is not transferable to other land, but may be transferred to new owners of the original land.

C. Expiration. A certificate of capacity shall expire if the accompanying development permit expires or is revoked. A certificate of capacity may be extended according to the same terms and conditions as the accompanying development permit. If the development permit is granted an extension, so shall the certificate of capacity. If the accompanying development permit does not expire, the certificate of capacity shall be valid for three years from issuance of the certificate.

D. Unused Capacity. Any capacity that is not used because the Applicant decides not to develop or the accompanying development permit expires shall be returned to the pool of available capacity.

E. Change in Proposed Development. Any change in the proposed development requiring the submittal of a new or amended development application shall require a new concurrency review based on the new or amended development application. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The City committed a technical or mathematical error; or

B. The Applicant provided alternative data that was rejected by the City. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Service Area. The City shall collect impact fees, based on the fee schedule in Section 15.255160, from any Applicant seeking a building permit from the City. The City hereby establishes, as the service area for impact fees, the City of Moses Lake, including all property located within the corporate City limits and all property annexed into the City. The scope of the service area is hereby found to be reasonable and established based on sound planning and engineering principles, and consistent with RCW 82.02.060, as described in the rate study.

B. Timing of Collection. All impact fees shall be collected from the Applicant prior to issuance of the building permit based on the land use categories in MLUDC 15.255.160. Unless the use of an independent fee calculation has been approved by the Director, or unless a development agreement entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 provides otherwise, the fee shall be calculated based on the impact fee schedule in effect at the time a complete building permit application is filed.

C. Applicant Information. The Applicant shall submit all information requested by the Department for purposes of determining the impact fee rate pursuant to MLUDC 15.255.040

D. Mixed Use. For mixed use buildings or developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use based on the applicable unit of measurement found on the Citywide fee schedule.

E. New Subdivisions. For building permits within new subdivisions approved under MLUDC Chapter 15.315, a credit shall be applied for any dwelling unit that exists on the land within the subdivision prior to the subdivision if the dwelling unit is demolished. The credit shall apply to the first complete building permit application submitted to the City subsequent to demolition of the existing dwelling unit, unless otherwise allocated by the Applicant of the subdivision as part of approval of the subdivision.

F. Single-Family. At the time of issuance of any single-family detached or attached residential building permit, the Applicant may elect to have the impact fee payment deferred until the building permit is completed or eighteen (18) months after issuance of the building permits, whichever occurs first. The impact fee due and owing per subsection C of this section shall be paid prior to building permit final inspection, building permit final occupancy, or eighteen (18) months after the date of building permit issuance, whichever is applicable. Applicants electing to use this deferred impact fee process shall grant and record a deferred impact fee lien against the property pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 and pay an administration fee with each respective building permit prior to issuance of such building permit. Deferral Applicants are limited to twenty (20) deferrals annually.

G. Credit Request. Applicants may request that a credit(s) for impact fees be awarded for the value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer, to facilities that are identified in the City’s Capital Facilities Plan and that are required by the City as a condition of approving the development.

H. Issuance of Building Permit. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the City shall not issue any building permit unless and until the impact fee has been paid.

I. Development Agreement. The payment of impact fees may be delayed through a development agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 36.70B RCW and MLUDC Chapter 15.230, provided the following criteria are met:

A. Fire Impact Fees.

B. Changes in Use or Tenancy. When an impact fee applies to a change of use permit, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the land use category of the new use, less any impact fee previously paid for the land use category of the prior use. For the purposes of this provision, a change of use should be reviewed based on the land use category provided in the Rate Study that best captures the broader use of the property under development. Changes in use or tenancy, if consistent with the general character of the building or building aggregations (i.e., “industrial park,” or “specialty retail”) should not be considered a change in use that is subject to an impact fee. Further, minor changes in tenancies that are consistent with the general character of the included structure, building, or previous use should not be considered changes in use subject to an impact fee. If no impact fee was paid for the prior use, the impact fee for the new use shall be reduced by an amount equal to the current impact fee rate for the prior use. Vacant buildings shall be assessed as if in the most recent legally established use as shown on a locally owned business license or development permit documents.

C. Mixed Use. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use, based on the applicable measurement in the impact fee rates in the City of Moses Lake Fee Schedule.

D. Timing of Assessment and Collection. Impact fees shall be determined at the time the complete application for a building permit or a permit for a change in use is submitted using the impact fees then in effect. A complete application shall be determined pursuant to MLUDC 15.210.040. Impact fees shall be due and payable before the building permit or permit for a change of use is issued by the City. Except if otherwise exempt, the City shall not issue the required building permit unless or until the fire impact fees are paid.

E. Documentation of Credit Required. Fee payers allowed credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application or an application for a permit for a change of use shall submit, along with the complete application, a copy of the letter prepared by the Director, or Fire Department official setting forth the dollar amount of the credit allowed. Impact fees, as determined after the application of any credits, shall be collected from the fee payer no later than the time a building permit or permit for a change of use is issued. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. If, in the judgment of the Director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in the fee schedule accurately describes the impacts resulting from issuance of the proposed building permit, the Applicant shall provide to the Department for its review and evaluation an independent fee calculation, paid for by the Applicant. The Director may impose on the proposed building permit an alternative impact fee based on the independent fee calculation. With the independent fee calculation, the Applicant shall pay to the Department an administrative processing fee provided for on the Citywide fee schedule.

B. If an Applicant requests not to have the impact fees determined according to the fee schedule, then the Applicant shall submit to the Director an independent fee calculation, paid for by the Applicant, for the building permit. The independent fee calculation shall show the basis upon which it was made. With the request, the Applicant shall pay to the Department the administrative processing fee of five hundred dollars ($500) unless a different fee is provided for on the Citywide fee schedule.

C. An Applicant may request issuance of a building permit prior to completion of an independent fee study; provided, that the impact fee is collected based on the fee schedule in MLUDC 15.255.160. A partial refund may be forthcoming if the fee collected exceeds the amount determined in the independent fee calculation and the Department agrees with the independent fee calculation.

D. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the Capital Facilities Plan used to prepare the fee schedule are correct, the Director shall consider the documentation submitted by the Applicant but is not required to accept such documentation which the Director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternative, require the Applicant to submit additional or different documentation. The Director is authorized to adjust the impact fee on a case-by-case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the building permit, and/or principles of fairness.

E. Determinations made by the Director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner subject to the procedures set forth in MLUDC Chapter 15.215. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The following building permit applications shall be exempt from impact fees:

B. Unless otherwise established in this section, the Director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development for a proposed building permit falls within an exemption of this Chapter or in the MLUDC. Determinations of the Director shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in MLUDC 15.255.130. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. To the extent the project will add, increase, or expand the gross floor area of an existing building; or

B. For which a certificate of occupancy has been issued and the impact fees have been paid, but the tenant land use is changed before the space is occupied; and

C. Provided further, that this section applies only to the use, renovation, or remodeling of existing structures, and does not apply to redevelopment projects or other projects in which existing structures are replaced or substantially redeveloped. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. An impact fee account is established for the fees collected pursuant to this Chapter and shall be entitled the “Fire Impact Fee Account.” Impact fees shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in the special interest-bearing account. Funds withdrawn from this account shall be used in accordance with the provisions of MLUDC 15.255.110. Interest earned on impact fees shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose for which the impact fees were collected.

B. On an annual basis, the Finance Director shall provide a report to the Council on the account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.

C. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within ten (10) years of receipt, unless the Council identifies in written findings an extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the City to hold the fees beyond the ten (10) year period pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(3). Under such circumstances, the Council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten (10) years of payment (or where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to MLUDC 15.255.080), the current owner of the property for which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of the fee. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first-in, first-out basis.

B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants.

C. Property owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the Director within one (1) year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later.

D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within the one (1) year period shall be retained by the City and expended on the appropriate public facilities.

E. Refunds of impact fees under this Chapter shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the City.

F. If the City terminates the impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this Chapter. The City shall publish notice of the termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail to the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one (1) year after the second publication. At the end of one (1) year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, but must be expended for the appropriate public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within the account.

G. The City shall refund the impact fee paid plus interest to the current owner of property for which the impact fee had been paid, if the development was never completed or occupied; provided, that if the City expended or encumbered the impact fee in good faith prior to the application for a refund, the Director may decline to provide the refund. If, within a period of three (3) years, the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development, the owner can petition the Director for an offset. The petitioner shall provide receipts of impact fees previously paid for a development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof. The Director shall determine whether to grant an offset, and the determinations of the Director may be appealed pursuant to the procedures in MLUDC 15.255.130. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Pursuant to this Chapter, impact fees may be spent for fire protection facilities and fire protection system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development, including, but not limited to, architectural and/or engineering design studies, land surveys, land acquisition, engineering, permitting, financing, administrative expenses, relocatable facilities, capital equipment, construction, site improvements, necessary off-site improvements, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs and other expenses which could be capitalized, and which are consistent with the City’s Capital Facilities Plan.

B. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered on a first-in, first-out basis.

C. Impact fees may be used to recoup costs for system improvements previously incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed system improvements.

D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of system improvements, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that system improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this Chapter and are used to serve the new development. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The fee schedule will be amended to reflect changes to the Capital Facilities Plan incorporated and adopted by the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments to the schedule for this purpose shall be adopted by the Council.

B. The fee schedule shall be indexed to provide for an automatic fee increase each January 1st beginning in the year 2025. The June-to-June West Census Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) will be used to determine the increase in fees for each year to reflect increased project costs. In the event that the fees are increased during the preceding calendar year due to changes to the Capital Facilities Plan pursuant to subsection A of this section, the fees will not be indexed the following January. The Finance Director shall compute the fee increase and the new schedule shall become effective immediately after the annual fee increase calculation.

C. A new rate study shall be updated every three (3) years, unless the City determines that circumstances do not warrant an update.

D. Council shall review the efficacy of this Chapter every three (3) years to determine whether any changes are needed. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. An appeal of an impact fee imposed on a building permit may only be filed by the Applicant of the building permit for the subject property. An Applicant may either file an appeal and pay the impact fee imposed by this Chapter under protest or appeal the impact fee before issuance of the building permit. No appeal may be filed after the impact fee has been paid and the building permit has been issued.

B. An appeal shall be filed with the Hearing Examiner on the following determinations of the Director:

C. An appeal, in the form of a letter of appeal, along with the required appeal fee, shall be filed with the Department for all determinations by the Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. Appellant has the burden of proof with respect to the points raised on appeal and has the burden of establishing that the Director’s determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence or was clearly erroneous. The letter must contain the following:

D. The fee for filing an appeal shall be set forth in the adopted Moses Lake Fee Schedule.

E. Within twenty-eight (28) calendar days of the filing of the appeal, the Director shall mail to the Hearing Examiner the following:

F. The Hearing Examiner shall review the appeal from the Applicant, the Director’s memorandum, and the record of determination from the Director. No oral testimony shall be given, although legal arguments may be made. The determination of the Director shall be accorded substantial weight.

G. The Hearing Examiner is authorized to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the decision. The Hearing Examiner may, so long as such action is in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter, reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or modify the determination of the Director, and may make such order, requirements, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have the powers which have been granted to the Director by this Chapter. The Hearing Examiner’s decision shall be final.

H. The Hearing Examiner shall distribute a written decision to the Director within fifteen (15) business days.

I. The Department shall distribute a copy of the Hearing Examiner’s decision to the appellant within five (5) business days of receiving the decision.

J. In the event the Hearing Examiner determines that there is a flaw in the impact fee program, that a specific exemption per MLUDC 15.255.050 should be awarded on a consistent basis, or that the principles of fairness require amendments to this Chapter, the Hearing Examiner may advise the Council as to any question or questions that the Hearing Examiner believes should be reviewed as part of the Council’s review of the fee schedule as provided by Section MLUDC 15.255.120.

K. The Hearing Examiner’s final decision is subject to appeal to the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Grant County, pursuant to the rules and regulations set forth in the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The building permit Applicant is responsible for payment of the fees authorized by this Chapter in connection with a building permit application.

B. In the event that a building permit is erroneously issued without payment of the fees authorized by this Chapter, the Building Official may issue a written notice to the property owner and occupant advising them of the obligation to pay the fees authorized by this Chapter. Such notice shall include a statement of the basis under which the fees under this Chapter are being assessed, the amount of fees owed, and a statement that the property owner or occupant may appeal the fee determination within twenty (20) calendar days of the date the notice was issued. Any appeals of such a fee determination shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in MLUDC 15.255.130.

C. If a property owner or occupant fails to appeal the issuance of a fee notice under subsection (B) of this section, or if the property owner or occupant’s appeal is unsuccessful, the City is authorized to institute collection proceedings for the purpose of recovering the unpaid impact fees. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Account Established. The cost of administering the fire impact fee program includes an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the amount of the total fire impact fee determined from the base fees. Administrative fees shall be deposited into a separate administrative fee account within the impact fee account(s). Administrative fees shall be used to defray the actual costs associated with the assessment, collection, administration, and update of the impact fees.

B. Refunds, Waivers, and Credits. Administrative fees shall not be refundable, shall not be waived, and shall not be credited against the impact fees. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)