PLN51036 RUE Leshchinsky 092518
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 1 of 11
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In The Matter of the Application of ) No. PLN-51036 RUE
)
Tatiana Leshchinsky )
)
For Approval of a Reasonable Use ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
Exception ) AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a reasonable use exception to allow the construction of a single-family residence
on a vacant lot containing a wetland and associated wetland buffer, adjacent to and south of
15035 Sunrise Drive NE, is APPROVED. Conditions are necessary to address specific impacts
of the proposal.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Hearing Date:
The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on September 13, 2018.
Testimony:
The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing:
David Greetham, Senior City Planner
Tatiana Leshchinsky, Applicant
Don Truscott
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Staff Report, dated September 6, 2018
2. Certification of Public Notice, dated August 31, 2018
3. Notice of Application and Public Hearing, dated July 13, 2018
4. Master Land Use Application, dated October 11, 2017
5. Summary Statement, undated
6. Wetland Delineation, AquaTerra, LLC, dated September 25, 2017
7. Memo from Fire Marshal Assistant Chief Luke Carpenter to David Greetham, dated
March 31, 2018
8. Mitigation Plan, AquaTerra, LLC, dated June 14, 2018
9. Vicinity map, and Site Plan (Sheet A1.0), dated May 23, 2018;
10. Email from Don Truscott to PCD, dated August 2, 2018
11. Memo from David Greetham to Hearing Examiner, dated September 13, 2018
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 2 of 11
12. City PowerPoint presentation (seven slides)
The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based on the testimony and
exhibits:
FINDINGS
Application and Notice
1. Tatiana Leshchinsky (Applicant), requests approval of a reasonable use exception
(RUEX) to allow construction of a single-family residence on a vacant lot containing a
wetland and an associated wetland buffer covering the entire property.1 The property is
located adjacent to and south of 15035 Sunrise Drive NE.2,3 The RUEX would allow for
development of a single-family residence not to exceed 1,200 square feet and a reduced
wetland buffer of 25 feet with an additional 15-foot construction setback. As mitigation
for the proposal, the wetland buffer on-site would be enhanced by removing invasive
species and planting a variety of native plants. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1 and 7
through 9; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 8.
2. The Applicant submitted the RUEX application on March 22, 2018. The City of Bainbridge
Island (City) provided Notice of Application and Public Hearing by mailing notice on July
10, 2018, publishing notice on July 13, 2018, and posting notice on July 17, 2018. The City
received one comment in response to this notice. The comment requests that there be no
construction in the previously disturbed wetland area, inclusion of a septic system in the
development area calculations, and recognition that the property is already being used as
part of adjacent residence. City staff responded to the comment prior to the hearing by
stating that the wetland has been accurately delineated and that City code allows
development, through a RUEX, with lot coverage limited to 1,200 square feet. Exhibit 1,
Staff Report, page 4; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 10.
State Environmental Policy Act
3. The City determined that the proposal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington (RCW) threshold determination
and EIS requirements under WAC 197-11-800(6)(a) and (e).4
1 The Applicant’s Summary Statement notes that the purpose of the application is to ascertain if the lot is
buildable in order to inform prospective purchasers of the property. Exhibit 4.
2 The property is located to the south and adjacent to 15035 Sunrise Drive NE, a lot also owned by the
Applicant. Exhibit 5.
3 The property is identified by tax parcel number 352602-3-026-007. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1.
4 SEPA exemptions include WAC 197-11-800(6)(a), land use decisions for exempt projects, and (6)(e),
land use decisions that grant variances “based on special circumstances, not including economic hardship,
applicable to the subject property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings and not
resulting in any change in land use or density.”
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 3 of 11
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Property
4. The property is designated Residential-1, one unit per acre, under the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. City staff analyzed the proposal for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and identified goals and policies applicable to the proposal,
including: limiting clearing and soil disturbance, promot ing low impact development and
reconciling development and conservation for residential development in R-1
designations; preserving and enhancing the Island’s natural systems, natural beauty, and
environmental quality; encouraging sustainable development; and protecting a nd
enhancing wildlife, fish resources, and ecosystems.5 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1, 4,
and 5.
5. The 1.13-acre property is within the “R-1” zoning district.6 The purpose of the R-2
zoning district is to “provide residential neighborhoods in an environment with special
Island character consistent with other land uses such as agriculture and forestry, and the
preservation of natural systems and open space. The low density of housing does not
require the full range of urban services and facilities.” Bainbridge Island Municipal
Code (BIMC) 18.06.020.B. Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in the R-1 zone
at one unit per acre. BIMC Table 18.09.020. The R-1 base density is 40,000 square feet,
with a minimum lot depth and width of 80 feet. Maximum allowed lot coverage is 15
percent. Setback requirements include front yard setbacks of 25 feet; side yard setbacks
of 10 feet, minimum, and 25 feet, total; and rear setbacks of 15 feet. BIMC 18.12.020.
Two parking spaces are required for each primary dwelling. BIMC 18.15.020. The
proposed single-family residence would meet the parking requirements, as well as the
dimensional standards, with a minimum 10-foot setback on the north property line to
provide the greatest feasible setback from the wetland. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2
and 6.
6. Surrounding properties contain single-family residences. Zoning on the west side of
Sunrise Drive NE is zoned R-1, and property across Sunrise Drive NE to the west is zone
R-2, two units per acre. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2.
Critical Areas
7. The site is undeveloped, with an existing mowed grass area on the northerly portion of
the site. AquaTerra, LLC (AquaTerra) prepared a Wetland Delineation, dated September
25, 2017, and a separate Mitigation Plan, dated June 14, 2018, for the Applicant. The
5 City staff specifically identified the following goals of the Comprehensive Plan as relevant to the
proposal: Land Use Element Goal LU-14 and Environmental Element Goals EN-1, EN-4, and EN-5.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4 and 5.
6 The lot was created by a short subdivision in 1977. Exhibit 12.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 4 of 11
wetland delineation was based on fieldwork conducted on August 9, 2017. AquaTerra
identified a Category III depressional wetland in the southern portion of the property, half
consisting of forested canopy and half consisting of pasture grass vegetation made up of
red alder, iris, salmonberry, buttercup, common rush, and blackberry. No signs of recent
disturbance were noted. AquaTerra determined that the Category III wetland should
receive a buffer width of 60 feet from the delineated edge, with an additional 15 feet of
building setback. BIMC 16.20.140.I.4, Table 5. Senior City Planner David Greetham
testified that a 110-foot wetland buffer would be applied as required by the City’s
amended critical areas ordinance.7 The mitigation plan includes mitigation of temporary
impacts by using standard best management practices including installing appropriate
sedimentation and erosion control where necessary, such as silt fencing, to prevent
materials from entering the wetland and its buffer,8 and keeping noise and artificial light
to a minimum. To mitigate for permanent impacts, invasive vegetation would be
removed and native plants installed. The re-established area would be monitored for no
less than seven years, with plants that do not survive to be replaced at the expense of the
Applicant. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 8; Testimony of Mr.
Greetham.
8. The municipal code provides that wetland buffers must rema in undisturbed or as
enhanced vegetation areas for the purpose of protecting the integrity, function, and value
of wetland resources. Any buffer modification proposed must be through an approved
buffer enhancement plan meeting the requirements of BIMC 16.20.180. BIMC
16.20.140.I. As described above, the mitigation plan includes a buffer enhancement plan.
In addition, the Applicant would provide permanent wetland buffer signage. BIMC
16.20.140.I.6. All mitigation plan plantings would be installed prior to any final building
permit inspection, or an assurance device would be provided. BIMC 16.20.160. The
Applicant would submit a recorded notice to title prior to the issuance of a building
permit, documenting the presence of the wetland, mitigation plans, and the aquifer
recharge protection area. BIMC 16.20.070.G. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 10 through
13; Exhibit 8.
9. The City code identifies aquifer recharge protection areas (ARPAs) as critical areas that
must be protected. BIMC 16.20.100.E.1 requires any proposed development or activity
requiring a site assessment review located within the R-0.4, R-1 or R-2 zone to designate
an ARPA. The ARPA must be documented on a site plan submitted with any future
building permit and recorded on a notice of title prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 12, 15, and 16.
7 Ordinance 2018-09, adopted April 23, 2018. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6.
8 The Mitigation Plan refers to “stream,” but the Hearing Examiner assumes that “wetland” was meant.
Exhibit 8, page 3.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 5 of 11
Reasonable Use Exceptions
10. The City code provides for a reasonable use exception (RUEX) where the City’s critical
areas ordinance (Chapter 16.20 BIMC) would deny all reasonable use of the property;
where there are no reasonable alternatives with less impact to the critical area or its
required buffer; where the proposal minimizes the impact through mitig ation sequencing;
where the proposed impact is the minimum necessary; where the inability to derive
reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the Applicant; where the
proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for residential
development; where the proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare on or off the property; and where any alterations are mitigated.
BIMC 16.20.080.
11. The Applicant submitted a summary statement addressing the criteria for a RUEX under
BIMC 16.20.080. The project narrative suggests that the proposal would meet the criteria
for a RUEX because, based on the AquaTerra Wetland Delineation, t he wetland and
wetland buffer cover most of the property leaving no place to build a house outside of the
wetland buffer. Exhibit 5.
12. City staff also analyzed the proposal for compliance with the RUEX criteria from BIMC
16.20.080 and generally concurred with the Applicant’s assessment . Staff specifically
noted:
The wetland and the 110-foot wetland buffer cover the entire property. Buffer
modification of up to 25 percent of the required width would not create a
buildable area. There are no alternatives to a RUEX. The Applicant would not be
able to develop a 1,200 square foot residence without the requested RUEX.
The project avoids impacts to the wetland by locating the development within the
buffer and outside of the wetland itself. The project would minimize impacts by
locating the development as far away from the wetland as possible, in a portion of
the buffer with low function that has previously been mowed.
The proposed impact has been minimized by locating the septic drainfield on an
easement on the adjacent lot to the north. A driveway would be constructed
directly to Sunrise Drive NE to the east to help mitigate impacts on the wetland
and buffer.
The inability of the Applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the
result of the actions by the Applicant, or the Applicant’s predecessor.
The proposed total lot coverage would not exceed 1,200 square feet.
The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or
welfare on or off the property.
The proposal would include compensatory mitigation for permanent buffer
impacts through removal of invasive species and landscaping with native plants
around the development as well as protection of the buffer with signage.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 6 of 11
The wetland delineation report and mitigation is based on best available science
and would adequately compensate for impacts to the critical area, resulting in no
net loss of critical area functions and values. Additional plantings, however,
would be required and a revised mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, and
contingency action plan must be submitted to the City at the time of any building
permit review.
The future development of the property is not anticipated to result in a cumulative
negative impact on surrounding developed land.
The proposal is consistent with other applicable BIMC regulations and standards.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7 through 10.
Written Comment
13. In addition to the public comment noted in Finding 2, the City received a written
comment from the Bainbridge Island Fire Department noting that the proposed use is
acceptable to the Fire Marshal’s office and that the proposed project must comply with all
provisions of the fire code. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 15; Exhibit 7.
Hearing Testimony
14. Senior City Planner David Greetham testified generally about the property and the
process of reviewing the proposal. At the outset of the hearing, he submitted Exhibit 11,
a City memo to the Hearing Examiner requesting an amendment to the recommended
conditions, and Exhibit 12, a copy of his PowerPoint presentation. He noted that the
wetland and buffer cover the entire lot and that the request to allow the construction of a
single-family residence on the lot is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning.
He noted that the request to allow a 1,200 square foot residence would be located 10 feet
from the north property line, as far from the wetland as possible. Septic drainfields
would be located on the property to the north as approved by Kitsap County Health. A
1,200 square foot residence is equivalent to others in the area and the maximum the
BIMC allows through a RUEX. Testimony of Mr. Greetham.
15. Applicant Tatiana Leshchinsky testified that she agrees with the conditions, but does not
want a wetland buffer fence on the property because of its negative visual impact and
because it may impede wildlife movement. In response, Mr. Greetham referenced his
memo (Exhibit 11) request ing that Condition 3, requiring installation of a split-rail fence
along the outer edge of the wetland buffer, be deleted and that the first sentence of
Condition 4 be deleted and replaced with “Wetland signs indicating the pr esence of a
protected wetland buffer shall be placed on posts along the outer edge of the reduced
wetland buffer, with maximum 30-foot spacing between signs.” Exhibit 11; Testimony of
Ms. Leshchinsky.
16. Don Truscott testified that he lives across the street from the subject property. He
inquired about the buffer location and mitigation, expressing particular concern about the
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 7 of 11
impact and efficacy of signs. Mr. Greetham responded by referencing the Site Plan to
show where the signs would be placed. He also referred the mitigation plan submitted by
the Applicant and noted that native vegetation would be planted to enhance the existing
buffer and that the proposed location of the residence would have the least imp act on the
wetland. Following Mr. Greetham’s testimony, Mr. Truscott did not express further
concerns. Testimony of Mr. Truscott and Mr. Greetham.
Staff Recommendation
17. The City staff recommend approval with conditions. Exhibit 1, Staff Report pages 13
through 15.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction
The Hearing Examiner has authority to hear and approve, approve with conditions, deny, or
remand a request for a reasonable use exception. BIMC 2.14.030; BIMC 2.16.100; BIMC
16.20.080.E.
Criteria for Review
Criteria for review and approval of reasonable use exceptions are as follows:
1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the
property;
2. There is no reasonable alternative to the proposal with less impact to the
critical area or its required buffer;
3. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with
mitigation sequencing (BIMC 16.20.030);
4. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to
allow reasonable use of the property;
5. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is
not the result of actions by the applicant, or of the applicant’s predecessor,
that occurred after February 20, 1992;
6. The proposed total lot coverage does not exceed 1,200 square feet for
residential development;
7. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare on or off the property;
8. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance
with mitigation requirements applicable to the critical area altered;
9. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with
the best available science and results in no net loss of critical area
functions and values;
10. The proposal addresses cumulative impacts of the action; and
11. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
BIMC 16.20.080.F
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 8 of 11
The criteria for review adopted by the City of Bainbridge Island City Council are designed to
implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In
particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to
ensure consistency with City development regulations, considering the type of land use, the level
of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040.
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. With conditions, the proposal would comply with the reasonable use exception
criteria of BIMC 16.20.080.F. The City provided reasonable notice and opportunities to
comment on the application. The City determined that the proposal was exempt from
SEPA review. A wetland and wetland buffer covers all of the Applicant’s lot such that
strict application of the City’s critical areas ordinances would deny all reasonable use of
the property. Neither the City nor public comments suggested any alternative uses for the
property. The Applicant is proposing lot coverage of 1,200 square feet. The Applicant
submitted a wetland delineation and a mitigation plan setting out mitigation sequencing
that would minimize the impact on critical areas. The mitigation plan also determined
that the proposal would be the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the
property. The lot w as created in 1977, prior to the adoption of the City’s critical area
ordinances, and is not the result of any action of the Applicant.
Public comment was received concerning the mitigation plan. No evidence, however,
was presented that the proposal would pose an unreasonable threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare on or off the property. The Applicant’s mitigation plan contains
monitoring and contingency plans, along with enhancement of the remaining wetland
buffer. The City determined that the wetland delineation and mitigation plan are based
on the best available science and would result in no net loss of critical area functions and
values. The mitigation plan addresses the cumulative impacts of the proposed
development and determined that there would be no negative cumulative impacts if the
request was approved.
Conditions are necessary, including those to ensure that a minimum 25-foot non-clearing
native vegetation buffer be retained between the wetland and the proposed residence with
an additional mini mum 15-foot construction setback from the buffer edge; that a revised
wetland mitigation plan be submitted to the City prior to final building inspection; that
the proposed residence would meet all setback and height requirements for the zoning
district; that a maintenance assurance device would be provided prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy; that the amount of lighting on the exterior of the residence be
limited to the minimum necessary; that the Aquifer Recharge Protection Area be
documented on a site plan; that the Applicant record a notice of title regarding the
presence of the wetland, mitigation plan, and ARPA prior to the issuance of a building
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 9 of 11
permit; and that any future building permit comply with all provisions of the adopted fire
code. Findings 1 – 17.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a reasonable use exception to
allow the construction of a single-family residence on a vacant lot containing a wetland and
associated wetland buffer, adjacent to and south of 15035 Sunrise Drive NE, is APPROVED,
with the following conditions:9
1. A minimum 25-foot non-clearing native vegetation buffer shall be retained between the
wetland and the proposed residence, with an additional minimum 15 -foot construction
setback from the buffer edge. All remaining area with the exception of the proposed
access drive shall be designated as wetland buffer on the site plan submitted with the
future building permit. Construction activity shall remain outside of the minimum 15-
foot construction setback from the buffer edge.
2. Prior to commencing any construction activity, the Applicant shall have the wetland
buffer temporarily fenced from areas of construction activity. The fence shall be made of
durable material and shall be highly visible. The fence shall be inspected as part of the
building permit. The temporary fencing shall be removed once the construction activity
is complete and replaced with permanent fencing (see Condition 4, below).
3. A split-rail t ype fence shall be installed along the outer edge of the wetland buffer prior to
final building inspection. The rails shall be high enough to allow small mammals and
wildlife to pass through. The fence shall be indicated on the building permit applicatio n
and in place prior to final inspection on the building permit .
4. A minimum of two signs indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be
placed on the fence, prior to final inspection on the building permit . Wetland signs
indicating the presence of a protected wetland buffer shall be placed on posts along the
outer educe of the reduced wetland buffer, with maximum 30-foot spacing between signs.
Signs shall be made of metal or a similar durable material and shall be between 64 and
144 square inches in size.
5. Activities within the wetland buffer shall be limited to buffer enhancement as described
in the June 14, 2018 Mitigation Plan prepared by Aqua Terra, LLC, and as amended in
accordance with Condition 6, below.
6. The Applicant shall mitigate impacts to the on-site wetland and its buffer through
landscaping with native plant s and removal of invasive species. Prior to final building
9 This decision includes conditions designed to mitigate impacts of this proposed project as well as
conditions required by City code.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 10 of 11
inspection, the Applicant shall submit a revised wetland mitigation plan including
mitigation goals and objectives, performance standards, maintenance and monitoring
measures and contingency actions. The mitigation plan shall be in substantial
compliance with BIMC 16.20.180 – Critical Area Reports – and may incorporate
previously completed reports for the subject property and use guidance provided in
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 2 - Developing Mitigation Plans (Version
1, March 2006, Publication #06-06-011b). The mitigation plan shall provide sufficient
information, clarity and detail to demonstrate the proposed mitigation actions and
maintenance and monitoring measures are adequate to achieve established mitigation
goals and objectives. At a minimum, the June 2018 plan prepared by Aqua Terra LLC
shall be amended to depict all areas north of the wetland and outside of a maximum 15 -
foot construction setback around the residence and access drive as native vegetation
buffer. The amended plan shall also include additional native vegetation enhancement at
a minimum 1:1 ratio, equivalent to the square footage of buffer encroachment for the
future access drive and 15-foot construction setback area. The Department of Planning
and Community Development shall approve the revised wetland mitigation plan as part
of the building permit review and plantings shall be installed prior to final building
permit inspection.
7. Pursuant to BIMC 16.20.160, a maintenance assurance device shall be provided prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a period of seven years. The maintenance
surety applicable to a compensation project shall not be released until the director
determines that performance standards established for evaluating the effect and success
of the project have been met.
8. If the performance standards in t he mitigation plan are not met, a contingency plan shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development for approval.
Any additional permits or approvals necessary for contingency actions shall be obtained
prior implementing the cont ingency plan.
9. To reduce impacts to the wetland, the Applicant shall limit the amount of lighting on the
exterior of the residence to the minimum necessary, shall install motion sensor lights to
the side of the house facing the wetland, and record a co venant to limit the use of
pesticides on the properties.
10. The proposed residence shall meet the setback and height requirements for the R -1
zoning district.
11. The ARPA (Aquifer Recharge Protection Area) shall be documented on a site plan
included with the building permit application.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Bainbridge Island Hearing Examiner
Leshchinsky Reasonable Use Exception, No. PLN51036 RUE
Page 11 of 11
12. The Applicant shall record a notice of title of the presence of the wetland, mitigation
plan, and ARPA prior to the issuance of the building permit.
13. The creation or replacement of more than 5,000 square feet of hard surfaces shall require
that a Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) be prepared by a licensed civil engineer in the state of
Washington and demonstrate compliance with all applicable Minimum Requirements 1
through 9 of the City’s adopted stormwater manual at the time of the building permit
application. If dispersion trenches are utilized as an option for stormwater management,
they may be installed within the 15-foot construction setback but shall remain outside of
the outer edge of the designated wetland buffer.
14. New access to the City of Bainbridge Island right -of-way shall be improved to the
standard paved residential driveway approach detail DWG. 8-170.
15. The future building permit shall comply with all provisions of the adopted Fire Code.
Decided this 25th day of September 2018.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Sound Law Center