HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2018-0031 Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 6/6/2018 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
RE: Rachel Williams
4
5 Development Regulation FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
6
DDR2018-0031
7
INTRODUCTION
8
9 The Applicant requests a variance to MCC 17.03.029(3), which requires an accessory
dwelling unit ("ADU") to be built within 150 feet of a primary residence. The
10 Applicant proposes a 500-foot separation, since building an ADU within 150 feet of
the primary residence would entail building within the buffer of a protected stream.
1 1 The variance is approved.
12 ORAL TESTIMONY
13
Kell Rowen, Mason County planner, summarized the staff report. In answer to
14 examiner questions, Ms. Rowen responded that an existing logging road that will be
used as a driveway will not need to be widened to accommodate the proposed new
15 development.
16 EXHIBITS
17
Ex. 1-4 identified in the staff report were admitted into the record.
18
FINDINGS OF FACT
19
20 Procedural:
21 1. Applicant. The Applicant is Rachel Williams.
22 2. Hearing. A hearing on the application was held on May 27, 2018 at 1:00
23 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room.
24 Substantive:
25
Development Regulation Variance P. 1 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant requests a variance to MCC
1 17.03.029(3), which requires an accessory dwelling unit ("ADU") to be built within
2 150 feet of a primary residence. The Applicant proposes a 500-foot separation, since
building an ADU within 150 feet of the primary residence would entail building within
3 the buffer of a protected stream. The subject property is irregularly shaped and 6.98
acres in area.. The lot is accessed from an easement off the Shelton Matlock Road to
4 the South. Currently the property is developed with a primary residence and garage,
including a well and septic system. See site plan(Exhibit 3).There are two Ns streams
5 that run through the property.
6 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject property is adjacent to developed
7 residential property on the west, south and east and forest land to the north. The area
is characterized by low-density rural residential development in an area zoned as Rural
S Residential 5 off of the Shelton Matlock Road.There are no visible neighbors from the
9 proposed property site.
10 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the
proposal. The Ex. 3 aerial photograph shows that the project site is heavily wooded
such that the added separation of the ADU from the primary residence would not be
visible to adjoining properties. Overall, approval of the variance would be beneficial,
12 since it would avoid the need for constructing within a stream buffer (which would
13 require another variance).
14 6. Necessity of Variance. As shown in the Applicant's site plan,Ex.3,it's not
possible to build an ADU within 150 feet of the existing house without encroaching
15 into a 200-foot stream buffer imposed by the County's Resource Ordinance. The
proposed ADU building site is in one of the few areas on the property that isn't subject
16 to a stream buffer. The proposed site is also served by an existing road that won't have
17 to be further widened for vehicular access. There is no other place on the property the
ADU could be built without necessitating a stream buffer encroachment either by the
18 ADU itself or new driveway improvements to access it.
19 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
20 Procedural:
21
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9)provides the Examiner
22 with the authority to review and act upon development regulation variance applications.
23 Substantive:
24 2. Zoning Designation.ate. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR-5).
25
Development Regulation Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
3. Review Criteria and Application. The variance criteria for the ADU setback
I variance is governed by MCC 15.09.057.Applicable criteria are quoted below in italics
2 and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
3 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
4 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
5 4. An accessory dwelling unit is authorized in the RR-5 zoning district and is
6 therefore considered a reasonable use of property in that zoning district. If the
requested variance is not approved,the Applicant would not be allowed to add an ADU
7 to her property. Complying with the 150 separation would necessitate building within
a 200-foot stream buffer, which is prohibited by the County's Resource Ordinance.
8
MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
9 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
10 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
11 the applicant's own action.
12 5. The need for the variances is completely attributable to the unique features
13 of the property, specifically the stream buffers as identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
14 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other permitted
activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the
15 environment.
16 6. The property is surrounded by single-family homes. As determined in
17 Finding of Fact No. 5 and as conditioned, the requested variances will not create any
significant adverse impacts, which includes impacts to adjacent properties or the
18 environment.
19 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
20 necessary to afford relief.
21 7. The requested variance simply enables the Applicant to build an ADU on
22 her property, a right granted to most other properties in the RR-5 zone. Consequently,
the granting of the variance is not considered a special privilege. The variance is the
23 minimum necessary to afford relief as there is no other area on the property where the
ADU can be located without causing some disturbance of stream buffers or
24 encroachment into lot or septic setbacks.
25 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
Development Regulation Variance p. 3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
1
8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the variance will not adversely
affect the environment or adjoining uses while allowing for a reasonable use of the
subject property. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
3
MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
4 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
5 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
6 shall not justify a variance.
7 9. The criterion is met. Although debatable, it is concluded that the Applicant would
otherwise lack a reasonable use of property if the variance were denied due to the
8 flexible nature of the "reasonable use" concept as further described below. The
proposal is consistent with all other development regulations. The proposal is also
9 consistent with the Growth Management Act as it promotes affordable housing while
10 negligibly contributing to the problems of"urban sprawl"that the Growth Management
Act is designed to prevent.
11
It is a stretch of the reasonable use concept to conclude that the Applicant would lack
12 a reasonable use of the property if the variance were denied. The property currently
has a single-family home on a lot that is close to the minimum lot size of the RR-5
13 district. Under most circumstances, the Applicant would be considered to have
14 reasonable use. If the Applicant were requesting to build within a critical area or its
buffer,there would be no question that the Applicant has reasonable use.
15
However,the protection of environmental resources is not at stake for this Application.
16 The 150- foot separation regulation is apparently only designed to mitigate fairly
17 modest aesthetic and/or density impacts. As detailed in the Examiner's RJB
Telecommunications and Mutter variance decisions and as assessed in Buechel v.
18 Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196(1994), "reasonable use" is a flexible concept
as applied in variance criteria involving a balancing of regulatory burden on the
19 property owner verses the public interest at stake in government protection. Given the
relative modest public interest in maintaining 150 separation, what constitutes a
20 reasonable use of property can be scaled up to be more accommodating to the interests
21 of the property owner. The ability to place an ADU on a piece of property is likely
enjoyed by the majority of lot owners in the RR5 zoning district and is often an
22 important and sometimes only means of providing for affordable housing for persons
in need of assistance and support from relatives living in a primary residences. Given
23 these factors, it is appropriate to conclude that a person in need of an ADU would
otherwise lack a reasonable use of property without the ADU if the ADU is denied
24 only because of the 150-foot separation requirement.
25
Development Regulation Variance p.4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Generic Permitting Criteria
1
2 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed
development according to the following criteria:
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
4 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
5 2. Development does not impact the public health,safety and welfare and is in
6 the public interest.
7 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation andlor
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
8 Comprehensive Plan.
9 10. The project complies with all of the County regulations specified in the
10 criteria above except for the setback regulation subject to the variance request. No
subdivision of land is proposed, consistency with health regulations will be assured
11 during building permit review and the proposal is exempt from the State Environmental
Policy Act. Since the proposal has no adverse impacts, it does not impact the public
12 health, safety and welfare. The proposal will not lower level of service standards for
13 transportation and neighborhood park facilities.
14 DECISION
15 The variance is approved.
16 Dated this 6th day of June,2018.
17 (-` J..-
18 Ph�tlihredits
19
Mason County Hearing Examiner
20
APPEAL
21
22 The variance decisions are final and may be appealed to superior court as outlined in
the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
23
CHANGE IN VALUATION
24
25
Development Regulation Variance p. 5 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by
1 this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
2 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. 22
23
24
25
Development Regulation Variance p. 6 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
CASE INDEX
Williams
DDR2018-0031
Exhibit# Date Description
1 May 8, 2018 Staff Report
2 April 9, 2018 Variance Permit Application
3 April 9, 2018 Site plans &Aerial Photo
4 April 30, 2018 Notice of Application and Public Hearing for Variance
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building VIII * 615 W. Alder Street
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670
May 10, 2018
TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Kell Rowen; 360.427.9670 ext. 365; krowen@co.mason.wa.us
RE: Development Regulations Variance (DDR2018-00031) for placing an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) greater than 150 feet from the main residence.
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a proposal for a Variance for placing an approved
ADU greater than 150 feet from the Single Family Residence (SFR). The completed unit
will be 500 feet from the SFR. Staff recommends approval of the Development
Regulations Variance.
II. Applicant. Rachel Williams.
III. Property Location. 7654 W. Shelton Matlock Rd; Shelton, WA 98584.
Parcel #42018-12-90081
Williams DDR2018-00031 Page 1 of 4
IV. Project Description. The proposal is to construct a detached ADU on a 6.98 acre parcel
with an existing SFR that is 500 feet from the proposal. See site plan (Exhibit 3).
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. The 6.98 acre lot is an irregular shape, approximately 500'
wide X 600' deep. The lot is accessed from an easement off the Shelton Matlock
Road to the South. The property is adjacent to developed residential property on the
west, south and east and forest land to the north. Currently the property is
developed with a primary residence and garage, including a well and septic system.
See site plan (Exhibit 3). There are two Ns streams that run through the property. To
meet setbacks from existing well, septic system and streams, the proposed ADU
location is the best location on site, as recommended by the Planner after discussion
with the property owner, thus the requirement for the development regulations
variance to locate greater than 150-feet.
B. Characteristics of the area. The area is characterized by low-density rural residential
development in an area zoned as Rural Residential 5 off of the Shelton Matlock
Road. There are no visible neighbors from the proposed property site.
C. Shoreline Designation. Not Applicable.
D. Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural and the zoning is Rural Residential 5.
VI. SEPA Compliance. Project is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i).
VII. Other Permits/Approvals. The proposal will require Mason County Building Permit for
the construction of the ADU. ADU's are considered a Type II review (MCC 15.09.030
A.6.) and no longer require Hearing Examiner approval.
Vill. Analysis.
A Comprehensive Plan Review: Type III review for permit applications require that the
Hearing Examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development
Code, adopted plans and regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal
according to the following criteria:
1) The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8
and 16. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and
meets all the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code.
2) The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and
is in the public interest. The development proposal will not impact the public
health, safety or welfare.
Williams DDR20 1 8-0003 1 Page 2 of 4
3) The development does not lower the level of service of transportation
and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards
established within the Comprehensive Plan. The development proposal will
not lower the LOS for transportation or neighborhood park facilities.
Variance Criteria
Mason County Development Regulations address Variances, the "Purpose" of which is
set forth in Section 17.05.031. Section 17.05.035 addresses "Findings Required for
Approval of a Variance" per Title 15, the Mason County Development Code (15.09.057).
Variances from the bulk and dimensional requirements of the Development Regulations
may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written findings compliance
or noncompliance with the variance criteria.
Findings.
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by County regulations;
The strict application of the 150 foot maximum setback of the proposed ADU to the
existing SFR would require the necessity of a Resource Ordinance Variance to
construct within a stream buffer. An additional 350 feet for a total of 500 foot
setback to the SFR would avoid both stream buffers.
2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of
the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the
applicant's own actions;
The hardship is directly related to the lots natural features, constrained by the
streams on the property.
3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in
the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the
environment;
The proposed ADU meets all of the other ADU criteria and standard Development
Regulations and is compatible with other permitted activities in the area. The
increase of 350'from the SFR will not cause adverse effects.
4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not
enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to
afford relief;
Williams DDR20 1 8-0003 1 Page 3 of 4
Although this is new construction, the regulations allow ADUs to be greater than 150
feet when converting existing structures, so there are similarly established ADUs in
the County and this does not grant a special privilege. The additional 350 feet is the
minimum distance required to construct the ADU.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
The proposal will not cause detrimental effect. The parcel is large enough to
accommodate the increase of 350 feet without impacting any neighboring property.
6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of
the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive
Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,
and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a
variance.
An ADU is a reasonable and allowed use of the property. Without the granting of the
Development Regulations Variance, a Resource Ordinance Variance will be required.
This is unreasonable given the alternative to increase the setback distance, which has
no detrimental effect to the environment or neighboring properties.
The proposal is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development
Regulations (with the exception of the proposed increased setback from the SFR), the
Growth Management Act and all other county ordinances.
Project Analysis:The project conforms to the variance criteria.
IX. Conclusions. As designed the project is consistent with the Mason County Development
Regulations with exception to MCC 17.03.029 C. Staff recommends approval of the
Variance request to increase the distance to a total of 500 feet and avoid both stream
buffers.
X. Choices of Action.
1. Approve.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny with prejudice (reapplication of resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
4. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Section 15.09.090 of Title 15.
Williams DDR2018-00031 Page 4 of 4
MASON COUNTY Mason County Permit Center Use:
COMMUNITY SERVICES
DDR 20IP) - 00031
Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health
615 W.Alder St.—Bldg.8,Shelton,Wa 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.352♦Fax:(360)427-7798 Date Rcvd
Development Regulations Variance: $1,320 V�o
Public Hearing: $2,330 4PR O9
❑ Mason Environmental Permit with Habitat Management Plan Review:$1,500 61.5 ?018
Applicant will also be billed for advertising costs.
A/der Sit
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Mason County Code Title 15,Section 15.09.057 VARIANCE CRITERIA states that variances from the bulk and
dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations(zoning regulations)may be
allowed if written findings show compliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that
each of the criteria is met. A public hearing accompanies Variances and application for a Variance does not
guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special"exception to the rule".
Type of Variance Requested:
Development Regulations ❑ Subdivisions and Plats
Applicant Name�t l h Q JA) I 1 J&rn 5 Email -nu)}/'o se to i4J caa� Uw rn(il l�►,
Mailing Address I(P454 l l� cS he RC� ���/ (—Its t'i(�1 1
Phone Number 1 (3�0) ggS-- 2 { CL� Phone Number 2( 1
Site Address _7& -n
Tax Parcel# 4a o 1.9 - /a -
Legal Description Lo+ ! o-f S P 300 5- PIN N l v N
Property Owner Names / 1 g
Project Description 56444 cc. CY& Me' /
On a separate piece of paper,please address the following:
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist.
Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to the
�C I V C D
APR 0 9 2018
Rev.August 2017
615 W. Alder Street
a. That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly
interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations;
b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the
property of the applicant,and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape,size,or natural
features and the application of the County regulations,and not,for example,from deed restrictions or the
applicant's own actions;
c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not
cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment;
d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other
properties in the area,and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief,
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance
shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,Development Regulations,Resource
Ordinance and other county ordinances,and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
shall not justify a variance.
#of Pages Attached:
Applicant(s)Signature 1 W Date
Rev.August 2017
Publication Cost Agreement
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant.Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees
have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant.The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant
directly.
I/WE understand that I/WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I/WE
understand that is MY/OUR responsibility. I/WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for
it to be considered as complete.
alli
Signature of Property Owner Date Print Name
OR
Signature of Applicant Date Print Name
Rev. August 2017
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor.
2rrGn CiLinn
7 4'2- e,-I
rk>I t J`�9 c'SS14
0-v�-Y k Lc4o e n
S hP--1-40-n L6 �) 913��v
01IX o►-d r tck-arc~5
35/1 w She 14m, iY L-41
5hl /4-crn w A 09S
tc�j t m n 4-55ct)berc
7<,�,,,S7Z) Lt) 6hfcl4ev) I 10C kc1
rY)a yL kC i►n be r Co
S)U N" top gnsy
RECEIVED
Application for Variance as for an Accessory Dwelling Unit APR C 5
no
,,,a
Williams z 1
7654 W Shelton Matlock Rd 615 W.Alder Strast
Shelton, WA 98584
The intent of this ADU is to provide a permanent, affordable home for myself, as well as a handicap
accessible home for my mother
My debt ratio is currently too high to qualify for second mortgage, because of the mortgage on this
property. My family members that live in the house are unable to co-sign on the mortgage, in order to
relieve my responsibility.The house is only 1338 sq ft, and there isn't enough room for me to move in.
I've been unable to find a new home I can qualify for, and no one wants to rent to me with an indoor
dog the size of a horse! So, I have been living in a 5th wheel trailer next to the house while I figure out a
solution.
My mother lives in the house, she is on oxygen, and her health is failing. It is necessary for me to live
close enough to help her on a daily basis, and will soon need to live with her in order to help her move
around, and keep an eye on her at night. The house is not handicap accessible, and has proved very
difficult for her to maneuver through the hallways. Trying to get her to the car is often too much for
her, and she winds up cancelling her doctor appointments because she can't make it. I fear she will need
medics,and they will have to struggle to get her out of her bedroom in order to get her to the hospital,
as they did with my brother. I looked into remodeling the house, but it would take major renovation for
minimal results, and still wouldn't provide adequate living space for me. So, I feel the only option at this
point is to build an ADU that will meet both of our needs.
In order to adhere to the seasonal stream setbacks, and work with the slopes, I built the current house
on the far South East corner of the property. There is no room to build within 150' of the current
residence and adhere to development regulations. Although this parcel is 7 acres, the only option for an
ADU on this piece of property is near the North West corner, approximately 500'from the current
residence.
I am proposing a small house with one bedroom big enough for my mother and myself. It will be
adequate for no more than 2 people; a 621 sq ft stick built with a 213 sq ft loft. This house will be energy
efficient, create a minimal footprint, and will not be inhabited by anyone that doesn't already live on
this property.The site is on the highest point of the property, at least 180'from the seasonal streams,
and at least 100'from any neighboring properties.
Curtis Cushman of All American Geotechnical, Inc took a soil sample on the proposed building site and
indicates it is a perfect site for building. We discussed the need to keep the 50' green buffer on the
North side of the house, due to the slope. It is already well established, but I intend to plant additional
trees along the slope to reduce noise from the train and race track. I am prepared to provide a
Geological report upon request.
James Medcalf of Active Underground has also visited the site, and is confident he can create a gravity
flow septic design for this house. It is expected to be a small, basic design that will have minimal impact
on the surrounding environment, and no impact to the health or safety of my neighbors, or general
public.James has a great deal of experience, and will also be providing his services for the excavating,
backfilling, utility line installation and road building.
There is an old logging road that makes a loop through the back of this property,that was here when I
bought it 20 years ago. It includes a vehicle access crossing built over the seasonal creek. I have
continued to keep the road somewhat maintained, in order to be able to access the property by vehicle.
I am proposing to use part of this access road to build the new driveway. I also have an easement
through 7652 Shelton Matlock Rd that provides emergency access to this site.
The back portion of my property has been virtually unusable to me, due to the location of the various
slopes and streams. As much as I enjoy owning my own little forest to walk in, and providing a home for
animals, I would very much like to be able to use a little more of it. I intend to keep my impact at a
minimum, and keep the large greenbelt for wildlife.This proposed ADU will be consistent and
compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. There will be a maximum of two cars parking at
this house, and they will be fully operational at all times.There will be no structures built outside of
permits, substandard structures, or junk cars stored at this residence.
In conclusion, my current living condition is extremely inadequate. I bought this property with the intent
that my family and I would live and die here. I try to be very responsible towards the environment, my
property, my family, and my neighbors.
Your consideration in this matter is sincerely appreciated.
il.t.X rr��0
I
}`t,,� .�.,�_ 1 It ,1G ' � �'� ..�c...� ."s.4i-^%.�Sf-�^a l� '�•-'
F 1-- �, _.r� �' �� lei. �'�•
�-ter;.+G�,r -- -�•\ ���zi
A4f _ v5
.10
rD
&fit
o
-� (YI
Z l L x 1A
0
F
IONS
sL
Cr,s o add o�� } �
V
It O.A
io
�a1���e► tJ1A ��'n'
s 'MalAf
S i
kz
OV
L6�£
'7 a)l.C�.--�? "! ?� flfEdJ�l► .CJi+�J: .CBS
1
—
r..._1
{ r
LTJ
'�' ` {/�v�►'�Stlb15�� �E3�r'OOW� i �
F,
X iVIh ,roc n
�} 1 �
I 30x4�
U1 aj
' j }
00
Wxi4Q i ti ,
�( f
i
RECEIVED _ ! r:
APR 0 9 2018
t�.
615 W. Alder Street 101 kliaA*-5
f � I
i I •
• I l�x 20
-t►A-V)2
i
4XIA --
�`� .tee+,' IYf''w�r'� y /j"� +� �•, _�,•� �t � .
- r x ''��y`vVV�r�V' tom? s - / 1, ,+ • ��,
tok
AV
me
ep
At
*`
ow ',.,�"` � yam'� V•'
40
r
PAW w
�Jk Are
♦ W5 � E
• R
♦�. F e
? r= Y
e,
AT
Y}`� T� I
• a
live
r ,o GKR� 0 4,
- _
10
l
� 1
3
SO, e E`sn Digital�lobe, �Mye Ea,?ill ,---g iaphis , CN}S/, irbus DS,
Alit;_ _ A.
USDFaUSG�, ero�F2kD, I N,a e IS User Cow unit,
MASON COUNTY
' COMMUNITY SERVICES
Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS VARIANCE AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that Rachel Williams has filed an application for a Development Regulations
Variance number DDR2018-00031 for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The
Variance is requested to increase the maximum 150' distance from the main residence to 500' due to
the existing development including septic and drainfield and the presence of jurisdictional streams on
the property.
Site Address and Project Location: 7654 W. Shelton Matlock Rd; Shelton,WA 98584
Parcel Number:42018-12-90081
Date of Application: April 9, 2018
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearings Examiner regarding the proposed project
on Wednesday, May 23,2018 at 1:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers Building I, 411 North Fifth
Street, Shelton, WA. If special accommodations are needed, contact the Commissioners Office, (360)
427-9670.
Any person desiring to express their views or to be notified of the action taken on the application should
come to the public hearing on May 23, 2018 or send comments to Kell Rowen, Land Use Planner, Mason
County Community Services, 615 W. Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 or krowen@co.mason.wa.us.
The proposal is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i).
Please contact Kell Rowen of the Mason County Planning Department at(360)427-9670 ext. 365, or at
the address listed above, with questions regarding this permit application.
Public Health Community Development
(Community Health/Environmental Health) (Permit Assistance Center/Building/Planning)
cn 1 Alder Street—Shelton WA 98584
415 N.6 Street—Shelton,WA 98584 6 5 W.A de
Shelton:360-427-9670,Ext.400 Shelton:360-427-9670,Ext.352
Belfair.360-275-4467,Ext.400 Belfair:360-275-4467,Ext.352
Elma:360-482-5269,Ext.400 Elma:360-482-5269,Ext.352
I�
From: Shelton-Mason County Journal <jlegals@masoncounty.com>
To: Kell Rowen <krowen@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 4/30/2018 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Public Notice
Hi, Kell. The cost is$180 and the legal number is 1212. The proof is below.
Linda
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS VARIANCE AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that Rachel Williams has filed an application for a Development Regulations
Variance number DDR2018-00031 for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit(ADU). The
Variance is requested to increase the maximum 150' distance from the main residence to 500' due to the
existing development including septic and drainfield and the presence of jurisdictional streams on the
property. Site Address and Project Location: 7654 W. Shelton Matlock Rd; Shelton, WA 98584 Parcel
Number: 42018-12-90081 Date of Application: April 9, 2018 A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the
Mason County Hearings Examiner regarding the proposed project on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:00
p.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers Building I, 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, WA. If special
accommodations are needed, contact the Commissioner's Office, (360) 427-9670. Any person desiring to
express their views or to be notified of the action taken on the application should come to the public
hearing on May 23, 2018 or send comments to Kell Rowen, Land Use Planner, Mason County
Community Services, 615 W. Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 or krowen@co.mason.wa.us. The proposal is
SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). Please contact Kell Rowen of the Mason County Planning
Department at (360) 427-9670 ext. 365, or at the address listed above, with questions regarding this
permit application.
1212 May 3 1t
Your legal number is your confirmation that we have received your public notice information. The total due
for the run date(s) scheduled is also noted.
Enclosed is a proof of your notice. If we do not hear from you by the deadline, we will assume it is
correct. Deadline for public notices is each Monday by 5pm (or previous Friday when there is a holiday
the following week). Publication is each Thursday.
One (1) signed, notarized affidavit will be mailed to the purchaser within 5 business days of the final day
of publication; additional or replacement copies are charged $30 each. Please note: each public notice
"legal") is processed in the order received. Identical public notices that are re-sent are subject to being
run and billed an additional time; please do not re-attach your original public notice in any future
correspondence relating to it except upon our request.
For quality control, limit to 1 (one) public notice, in Word format per email. If sent in more than one
attachment, please confirm with clear instructions.
Thank you,
Legals Department
Shelton-Mason County Journal
PO Box 430, Shelton, WA 98584 360-426-4412
legals@masoncounty.com
Est. 1886 •The adjudicated newspaper of record for Mason County.
> On Apr 30, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Kell Rowen <krowen@co.mason.wa.us> wrote:
> <Notice of App.docx>
• ► �-3� os . 2 3.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS VARI-
ANCE AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that Rachel Williams
has filed an application for a Development
Regulations Variance number DDR2018-
00031 for the construction of an accessory
dwelling unit(ADU). The Variance is request-
ed to increase the maximum 150' distance
from the main residence to 500'due to the ex-
isting development including septic and drain-
field and the presence of jurisdictional streams
on the property. Site Address and Project Lo-
cation:7654 W. Shelton Matlock Rd;Shelton,
WA 98584 Parcel Number: 42018-12-90081
Date of Application: April 9, 2018 A PUBLIC
HEARING will be held by the Mason County
Hearings Examiner regarding the proposed
project on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 1:00
p.m. in the Commissioner's Chambers Build-
ing 1, 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, WA. If
special accommodations are needed,contact
the Commissioner's Office, (360) 427-9670.
Any person desiring to express their views or
to be notified of the action taken on the ap-
plication should come to the public hearing
on May 23, 2018 or send comments to Kell
Rowen, Land Use Planner, Mason County
Community Services, 615 W. Alder St, Shel-
ton, WA 98584 or krowen@co.mason.wa.us.
The proposal is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-
11-800(1)(b)(i). Please contact Kell Rowen of
the Mason County Planning Department at
(360)427-9670 ext.365,or at the address list-
ed above,with questions regarding this permit
application.
1212 May 3 1t
I