Proposed amendments to Reasonable Use Exception Code in Olympia presented at another committee

After being recommended by the Planning Commission, Olympia’s Land Use and Environment Committee recommended to the city council amendments to the municipal code relating to the application of reasonable use exceptions during a meeting on Thursday, February 23.

Principal Planner Nicole Floyd explained to the committee that the amendments clarify the difference between reasonable use exceptions and variances, both of which provide property owners relief from land use requirements to better protect their constitutional rights for their properties.

According to the amendments, the variance is a mechanism that allows provisions of the city’s unified development code to be altered on a case-to-case basis and are usually approved when the application of the development code leads to “unusual or unreasonable hardship” for the property owner.

Variance

Floyd explained a case where variance could be approved is for a narrow lot against a geographical feature like a steep slope which limits development further back at the lot. Such a case allows for the construction of a garage in front of the house, which could be bigger than what the municipal code typically allows.

A reasonable use exception is a type of variance that involves the use of the Critical Area Ordinance, first implemented in 1985 and updated in 2005. The amendments state that reasonable use exceptions are applied “when compliance with critical area regulations would result in depriving the property owner of even minimal economic use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions.”

Critical areas include streams, wetlands, important habitat species, geologically hazardous areas, and drinking water protection areas. Floyd explained that reasonable use exceptions could be applied for properties in streams and wetlands.

Reasonable use

The amendments clarify the requirements for a reasonable use exception, which should be the last resort for property owners. Property owners should be able to prove that their proposed land use has less impact than other development alternatives.

Impervious surface coverage, or the area of the property prohibiting water penetration into the underground, should also have a minimum coverage of 2,500 square feet.

Floyd also discussed the application of reasonable use exception for consolidated ownership or when a property owner has multiple adjacent lots. Floyd explained that under the current code, property owners who own multiple adjacent lots can only apply for one reasonable use exception for all their lots.

The amendments change this so that consolidated ownership is only considered when the proposed reduction to the buffer area – or the required distance a development has to be from the critical area — is greater than 75%. This allows the application of a reasonable use exception for each lot, even though an owner may have several adjacent lots, if the reduction to the buffer area is less than 75%.

When the amendments were approved by the planning commission on February 6, committee member Zainab Nejati voted against the proposal, as she was against removing the consideration for consolidated ownership.

The application of reasonable use exceptions is rare, according to documents prepared for the meeting. Floyd said that there have only been three cases where reasonable use exceptions were granted since 2005.