The fight to save an undeveloped wooded area in the Tiffany Park neighborhood is not quite over. Requests for reconsideration of the hearing examiner’s decision have been filed by representation for Henley USA, LLC, the developer, and by Tiffany Park Woods Advocacy Group (TPWAG).
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts also issued an order on request for reconsideration II, which limits the new evidence TPWAG might bring forward.
Cairncross and Hempelmann, the firm that represents Henley USA, LLC, filed its request for reconsideration to ensure that technical errors are reviewed and ruled on, as they have not yet received a ruling on an earlier request.
The errors are both typographical – concerning the width of the perimeter landscaping requirement – and errors of fact or law, they claim. Henley is asking the hearing examiner to separate out and clarify the difference of the 10-foot front yard landscaping issue called for by code and the 10-foot buffer for retaining walls along the edge of the property that resulted from the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) appeal.
Henley is also calling for revisions to lists of lots requiring perimeter landscaping buffers because of the lots’ retaining wall heights. The developer takes issue with the discussion of the retaining wall height because that issue was a part of the preliminary plat proceeding, not the SEPA appeals.
TPWAG takes issue with the way the wetlands on the property have been determined, measured and staked.
“The hearing examiner’s decision provides inadequate mitigation for the impacts on the environment and on the surrounding community of applicant’s proposed development to support a (Determination of Non-significance Mitigated) under SEPA,” TPWAG said in their request.
TPWAG is also asking the City of Renton, via the hearing examiner, to exercise its authority to ask for mitigation under SEPA. TPWAG wants an environmental impact statement for the property. They feel it is justified based on significant adverse impacts on the environment they feel are probable. TPWAG also made their case for submitting new evidence.
The hearing examiner in his order said that Henley can choose whether to only address evidence in the record and not new evidence. If Henley chooses to address the new evidence, Olbrechts will rule on whether or not that evidence is admissible.
Both Henley and TPWAG had until 5 p.m., Wednesday to comment on the requests for reconsideration. The hearing examiner has up until 10 days from Wednesday to issue and order. After that, the appellants have up to 14 days to appeal Olbrechts’ order.
