Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities And Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses applicant on missing fire‑marshal documentation and revised sewer allocation
Summary
During cross‑examination the board and opposing counsel flagged that fire‑marshal documentation was not in the public packet and that a revised MSD sewer allocation submitted recently increased the project from 106 to 107 units; staff said TRC reviewed the fire‑marshal comments but the internal spreadsheet was not in the materials online.
Opposing counsel pressed planning staff on whether required submittals were provided 30 days before an evidentiary hearing. Counsel noted the fire‑marshal box on the checklist was not checked and said the county packet did not include the fire‑marshal documentation. Staff replied the fire marshal reviewed the application in the technical review committee and that staff has internal TRC comments; those internal spreadsheets are public records on request but are not typically printed as a hard copy in the packet.
The cross‑examination also identified a revised sewer allocation that modified the number of units from 106 to 107 in supplemental materials that had been posted online more recently. Planning staff agreed the updated MSD allocation was part of the application and that the updated numbers were available in the supplemental documents on the county website, but acknowledged paper copies were not provided in the board's printed packet.
