Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2002-00036 - VAR Inspections - 7/25/2003 Mason County Department of Community Development Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01) 411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 578, Shelton, WA 98584 Environmental Permit Application Variance from Standards Information: * Mason County may consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards of the Resource Ordinance where strict application of said standards would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. I. 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 these circumstances. 1. The granting of the variance shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and conditions shall be imposed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding conforming uses. 2. The granting of the variance shall not permit the establishment of any use that is prohibited by this Chapter. 3. The granting of this variance must be necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building and the variance as granted by the County is the minimum variance that shall accomplish this purpose. The findings shall fully set forth the circumstances by which this Chapter would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variation. 4. The granting of the variance shall not impair or substantially diminish property values 9f surrounding neighborhood properties. 5. The granting of the variance shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands or buildings in the same designation. Signature Date *BECAUSE THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LOT WITH THE MORE LANDWARD CABIN IS OUTSIDE THE STREAM BUFFER AND STREAM BUFFER SETBACK,APPLICANTS APPEAR TO HAVE AN AREA OF THEIR LOT WHERE THEY COULD EITHER EXPAND EXISTING MORE LANDWARD CABIN,OR REPLACE IT,INSTEAD OF PROPOSING TO DEVELOP IN A STREAM BUFFER. BECAUSE THE MORE LANDWARD CABIN APPEARS TO MEET CURRENT SHORELINE SETBACKS,AND IS OUTSIDE THE STREAM BUFFER AND BUFFER SETBACK, EXPANSION OF THIS STRUCTURE WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESOURCE ORDINANCE AND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THE WATERWARD CABIN IN THE STREAM BUFFER INSTEAD WOULD NEED TO SHOW WHY EXPANSION OF THE CABIN OUTSIDE THE BUFFER WAS NOT POSSIBLE INSTEAD,AND SHOW CONSISTENCY WITH THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS OF THE RESOURCE ORDINANCE.** Several types of planning regulations apply on this site. Where more than one regulation applies,with different setbacks,all applicable provisions must be met,and in the case of setbacks,the greater setback prevails. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM:Site is on the shoreline of Hood Canal,shoreline designation for land within 200 feet of the shoreline is Urban Residential. The Hood Canal shoreline is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Under current saltwater shoreline setback regulations(prior to June 1,2002)part of this small cabin is considered noncomforming to the minimum 15ft shoreline setback. The Shoreline Master Program provides that noncomforming structures cannot be expanded or made to be more noncomforming,so the size,use,and roofline of of the nonconforming portion of your cabin cannot be expanded. From the perspective of the current shoreline regulations,any expansion of the structure would need to be landward of an imaginary line drawn from the location of the 15ft minimum setback point,to the roofline of the next residences on ADJACENT lots. Current shoreline regulations would allow expansion landward of these imaginary lines,if there are portions of the residence that meet that 15ft setback. If no portion of the residence conforms to the 15ft setback,then expansion**OF A NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED PER SMP SECTION 7.13.020.** SHORELINE VARIANCE Application does not guarantee approval. The process includes public notice and notification,public meeting and a public hearing before the Board of Mason County Commissioners, and final review and decision by the Department of Ecology.Please note that this is a different variance process than the one under the Resource Ordinance listed below.All other applicable regulatory provisions must also be met. NEW SALTWATER SETBACKS: Starting June 1,2002 additional setback provisions apply to saltwater shorelines. They are contained in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Chapter 17.01.110 of the Resource Ordinance(F and W). These new provisions are intended to provide buffering to lakes and saltwaters,for similar reasons that streams are buffered. In your case the imaginary line would still be used between adjacent residences on neighboring lots to determine shoreline setback,but because the MINIMUM shoreline setback under the regulation would be a 20ft natural vegetative buffer plus 15ft building setback,totaling 35 feet,the existing cabin at the beach would be considered entirely nonconforming to the setback and could not be expanded without review and approval of a Mason Environmental Permit Variance to the F and W setbacks(see below). Application for a variance involves public notice and notification,public review and a hearing before the Board of Mason County Commissioners. DALBY CREEK is a Type 3 stream In addition to staff personally observing chum salmon spawning in this creek in the fall of 2001,staff has received confirmation from both the State Department of Fish and Wildlife,and the Skokomish Tribe fish biologist Marty Erath that this is a fish bearing stream. Type 3 streams have a 150 foot buffer with an additional 15 ft building setback. It appears that a substantial portion of the site is within the stream buffer and setback, **HOWEVER A PORTION OF THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LOT WHERE THE MORE LANDWARD CABIN LIES,IS OUTSIDE THE STREAM BUFFER.** Development within the stream buffer requires a Habitat Management Plan which includes proposed mitigation for impact,and review and approval of a Mason Environmental Permit Variance(see below). The HMP is also reviewed by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe. CATEGORY I WETLAND The saltwater wetland adjacent to the shoreline is a Category I wetland,with a buffer of 125 feet with an additional 15 foot building setback. As you agreed this has high habitat value. Encroachments into a wetland buffer may be allowed where they have the minimum inpact possible. The approach is always avoidance,mitigation,compensation for impact(enhancement). This is reviewed through a Mason Environmental Permit,with a wetland report addressing mitigation. In cases where there is already a MEP variance process occurring,the wetland mitigation plan can be reviewed within the MEP variance's HMP. FLOODPLAIN At least a portion of the site closest to the shoreline is within the Zone A floodplain of Hood Canal. Construction in floodplains requires elevation of the first habitable floor at least 2ft above grade,and elevation certification. MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT VARIANCE(MEP variance) Portions of your activity would appear to need review under a MEP Variance,with a Habitat Management Plan with proposed mitigation. Specific variance criteria must be met,and application does not guarantee approval. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area chapter which includes provisions for content of a Habitat Management Plan,and variance procedure are enclosed. The process requires public notice, public review,a public meeting before the Planning Commission,and a public hearing before the Board of Mason County Commissioners. Note that the shoreline permit variance process and the MEP variance process are different and require separate application and review. enclosures: Fee Schedule Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Chapter(includes R.O.variance process and criteria) Wetland Chapter Mason Environmental Permit Variance application Shoreline Substantial Development Variance application,with Variance criteria. Flood Ordinance Building permit application PERMIT No.: �N\kV DATE RECEIVED: MASON COUNTY 4TERIM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � RESOURCE ORDINANCE (Chapter ID `J 411 N.5TH Street/P.O. Box 578,Shelton, a 98Sg 1 MCC) 4 Ma c-' �� ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APP ICATION SON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE ❑ VARIANCE -f570,co i The purpose of the Interim Resource Ordinance Is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas a is under the authority of Chapters 36.34, 36.70A, 39.34,58.17,76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW. nd PLEASE PRINT FEE:5110.00 1• Owner:_W( 1/11 a►n Site Address y 3 t- s � -- Owner Mailing Address: !a /� ,� City: (4 h ion State: w / Ctiy. `` �`"� /�' `�`` State: c — TJ 9 2 G 7 7 Phoney*)s yP-ss2-Z Fire iD�stricct#�z 2� Ue a Holder. �. P: Address: Ao a,,Y io 2,y SIGNATURE: --__ ,ten /� City: Vi, Nuys State: 64 2. Parcel Number: 3_2 7 33 _ So _ o cc)c) y Legal description:_A 11 -f G,, Parcel Size: �.� � CiCV [c 3. cTCC�jUN T GLcIgy� ZZ/rAl "_ c � � �•, a R ., 3. Directions to Site:' Fve,Y, sh e �-,-, ' fi-aceed fe ,fie c H 1--------------- E�� 00 o 4. State what sections required a permit: Long-Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060; Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.06e —Inholding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062; Chapter 17.01.080; X Wetlands, 17.01.070; Critical Aquifer Recharge, Aquatic Management Areas, Chapter 17.01.110. Chapter 17.01.090; Se,Landslide Hazard Areas, 17.01.100; Frequently Flooded Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, 17.01.104. —_ ismic Hazard Areas, Chapter 17.01.102; 5. Identify current use of property with existing improvements: , �s► _ � 'd u,► � t t c75 4, s 1( aid i-e 6• Identify and describe the proposed project, Including the of materials to be used,con principal dimensions, and other pertinent Information (Attach additional sheets If needed) struction methods, tIPS'f c� roni' wcr �; w are s rI ll F.cr l 11111, , hcq se eic�cl't►a e s s -E{,{t ��e 0 r'ci n, T� L`4.C. C r•7 r S 1,J �r «" 7. Any water on or adjacent to property:Saltwater K Seasonal Runoff Other _, E — Lake River pond, Wetland_ 8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area? Yes No',5� _ 9. If septic is located on project site, Include records. Connect to septic? Community Septic? zse,, eanN� ,`n� se Public Water Supply? Well?� 10. Type of Job: New_Add_.�<_Ah_Repair Demolition ._.,_Other This permit is granted pursuant to the Interim Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC)and nothing In this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Interim Resource Ordinance. The permit maybe rescinded pursuant to the event the permittee fails to comply with the cond/tlons of this ordinance. LL how tho fcllowl.�na�,�e sit�lan ensions Flood Zones Structures Fences Setbacks Driveways nes Shorelines Plans Topography stem Wells Improvements Easements Indicate Directional by (N,S,E,W,etc.) Flanking Street In relation to plot plan APPLICANT TO DRAW SITE PLAN BELOW 101"-f,e see eL)L-c,L ck e�L APPLICANT TO DRAW TOPOGRAPH BELOW: 4 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEETr o00 96 L f �R� PIPE N +�8�•0000 • • 1 I i 0000 00 gA-t IDN f fouN 5 (� Q 'jfA Egg ` House Vj 517E 9 o I (PRMOus Q O -- Q �ff�, O S►re ) � ` CAQIN I w TREET,�o, bY eR � alb - �' -- hoc 6 KP 0/ / - $33--� / f2ig� ►- - - -. "44 ---w ' oRAllo / J I V L t,., William 81 Theresa Abrams N W V 6983 e. Hwy ios R (~ wi. Union/ WA 98S92 05/24,2002 14:08 FAX 5804262926 Foster&Williams a 02 wo�c =-OW W0#AD IAfM41m) H(XIpF M' DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ti4:r;rr Planning: Environmental Health: Building Plan Review: ------------------ -------------- Occupancy Group: Fire Marshal: -------------- Other -- -_ Conditions: :..::...... -------------- 4 I ----------------------- - - TOTAL FEES: P ON-sTA MASON COUNTY y c �� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT "s ° �__ Planning Division ~ O T z P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 �oJ y �,oY (360)427-9670 1864 NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION WILLIAM ABRAMS 15 BLUE HORIZON LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 Parcel No.: 322335000004 Project Description: MEP VARIANCE to stream buffer setback: expand existing small shoreline cabin in stream buffer and saltwater wetland buffer as follows: 186sf on south side (approx 12x16ft), and add (21 x22) 462sf 2-car garage on landward side. Portion of proposed site including cabin proposed for expanison is in buffer to Type III stream known as Dalby Creek, and in buffer of Category I estuarine wetland associated with the creek. Dear Applicant: You have submitted a permit application (case no. VAR2002-00036) for proposed construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I have determined that the contents of the application are incomplete or do not provide enough detail for review. Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County within 180 days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on the proposed development shall take place. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295 if you have questions. Sincerely, Yvonne Dettlaff Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 1 of 2 VAR2002-00036 Your application for a Resource Ordinance Variance was received on May 31, 2002-: -- After reviewing the Variance application, the Habitat Management- Plan dated July 8, 2002 , and the Shoreline Inspection Report dated May 29, 2002 , our office needs additional information to process this variance request . Scott Longanecker of Mason County planning spoke with Bill Abrams on July 28, 2003 and discussed the peG s ]y of a better site plan. /l./W 4' ) The drawn site plan should include the entire lot dimensions (include lot dimensions across the street) , all existing structures, property lines, roads, septic system, and driveways . Also, the site plan should include current and the proposed square footage of the existing house, shed and carport (can include covered porches) . Checking property measurements during a site inspection on July 25, 2003 , it was determined that a small garage could be located southwest on your property, Since your proposed house and garage expansion appears 'modest, you should be aware of the Mason County Resource Ordinance allows remodeling, repair or change of use to an existing building within its existing footprint plus or minus 10 percent . If your expansion exceeds only 10% within the existing footprint (second story allowable, but not to exceed 35 feet in height) , the permitting process could be quicker. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues, please contact me at (360) 427-9670 ext . 295 NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Case No.: VAR2002-00036 Comments: Your application for a Resource Ordinance Variance was received on May 31 , 2002. After reviewing the Variance application, the Habitat Management Plan dated July 8, 2002, and the Shoreline Inspection Report dated May 29, 2002, our office needs additional information to process this variance request. Scott Longanecker of Mason County planning spoke with Bill Abrams on July 28, 2003 and discussed the need of a better site plan. The drawn site plan should include the entire lot dimensions (include lot dimensions across the street), all existing structures, property lines, roads, septic system, and driveways. Also, the site plan should include current and the proposed square footage of the existing house, shed and carport (can include square footage on covered porches). After checking property measurements during a site inspection on July 25, 2003, it was determined that a small garage could be located southwest on your property. Since your proposed house and garage expansion appears modest, you should be aware of the Mason County Resource Ordinance allows remodeling, repair or change of use to an existing building within its existing footprint plus or minus 10 percent. If your expansion exceeds only 10% within the existing footprint, the processing time for your permit could be expedited. Second story is allowable if you build 15 feet forward from the high water mark. The July 8, 2002 habitat management plan (HMP) lacked the required information described in the Mason County Ordinance, specifically the possibility of listed species or critical areas within your project. To expedite your application, our office has requested a site specific species list from U.S. Fish and Wildlife. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues, please contact me at (360) 427-9670 ext. 295 2 of 2 VAR2002-00036 Your application for a Resource Ordinance Variance was received on May 31, 2002 . After reviewing the Variance application, the Habitat Management Plan dated July 8, 2002 , and the Shoreline Inspection Report dated May 29, 2002, our office needs additional information to process this variance request . Scott—bonganecker of Mason County planning spoke with Bill Abrams on. . July 28, 2003 and discussed the need of a better site plan.` , The drawn site plan should include the entire lot dimensions (include lot dimensions across 'the street) , all existing structures, property lines, roads, septic system, and driveways . Also, the site plan should include current and the proposed square footage of the existing house, shed and carport (can include square footage on covered porches) . After checking property measurements during a site inspection on July -25, 2003 , it was determined that a small garage could be located southwest on your property. Since your proposed house and garage expansion appears modest, you should be aware of the Mason County Resource Ordinance allows remodeling, repair or change of use to an existing building within its existing footprint plus or minus 10 percent . If your expansion exceeds only 10% within the existing footprint, (second story allowable, but not to exceed 35 feet in height) the processing time for your permit could be expedited. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues, please contact me at (360) 427-9670 ext . 295 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 July 12, 2002 William and Theresa Abrams 15 Blue Horizon Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 RE: Mason Environmental Permit Variance: application no. VAR2002-00036, variance to stream buffer and setback from Type III stream known as Dalby Creek. Site location: 6893 E State Highway 106, Union. Building permit associated with project: BLD2002-00722, expand existing single family residence and add garage. Dear Mr. and Ms. Abrams: This letter is being sent to you regarding the variance application and building permit application listed above. Staff is currently reviewing your application materials in relation to the applicable planning regulations. The information below addresses questions relating to the application, and requests additional information in order to continue our review. I. We initially understood from your biologist that you intended to remove the second residential structure on the site. Mr. Daley now indicates that you do not intend to do so. Since Mr. Daley has indicated that he made recommendations based on removal of the second residential structure, we have requested that the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the project be revised accordingly (see #4). 2. Your site plan for the building permit application does not show all the structures on the property (e.g. the second residential structure is not shown, see above). Please revise to show the other structures on site, including their setbacks from property lines and each other. 3. In your supporting narrative for the buffer variance you indicate that the older cabin located outside the buffer could not be expanded because a corner of it crosses the property line. For clarification, the portion of the older cabin which is conforming to code sideyard setbacks could be expanded. It is the portion that is nonconforming to code sideyard setbacks which could not be expanded. 4. A draft of the HMP revisions has been provided to staff—based on revisions it appears that the balance of the property not already developed (including land outside the existing stream buffer and setback) would be designated by you as stream buffer, with some enhancement plantings. If it is your intent to increase the buffer to cover your entire parcel, please include this in your revised variance justification narrative. Once we have the information requested, review of your application will continue and staff will perform a field visit to site verify the project information. Prior to this review, the site will need to be staked to show the location of the proposed addition and garage. When you respond, please let staff know if you wish to be present, so we can schedule accordingly. Sin %eily, a Pam Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Environmental Permit Application Variance from Standards Information; 1. Describe the specific modifications from the terms of the Chapter required: To expand our house which is considered non-conforming. To be allowed to replace an old existing garage and storage shed by expanding an existing house landward and away from source of buffers. The house was built by parents in conformance with rules at the time and on the same site as a previous cabin which had stood there since 1930. Because of changes to the regulations,the house is now considered non- conforming. The proposed improvement would condense three separate structures into one structure and improve the appearance of the property tremendously. The other two structures are currently in the buffer and their removal would be an improvement to the habitat and to the neighborhood. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. 1.The subject property has been in the family continuously for over 80 years-- since the 1920's when great-grandfather built the waterwheel. The existing structures were built by previous generations in compliance at the time. Consolidation of 3 separate structures would be of benefit to the habitat and to the neighborhood. 2. They chose to build the structures where they sit today and they have not been expanded. Numerous cabins,however,have been demolished along the saltwater already. We demolished a cabin which was next to this house and just as close to the water.Nothing has been built into a buffer but the buffers have expanded over the structures. 3. The only structure outside buffers is a very old tiny cabin which cannot be expanded because of legal restrictions by terms of its easement over the property line onto the neighboring property. This restriction prohibits any alteration of the existing structure. 4. Even if it were legally possible,expansion or replacement of the 80 year old, 400 sq. ft. cabin would require destruction of large,mature trees and other vegetation and require moving an existing driveway into a stream buffer because of the angle of the property line and the proximity to State Hwy 106. 5. Financial hardship and deprivation of use by owners of the primary house would result if they could not make the house suitable for living full-time as retirees. We are not financially able to remain in our current home or to absorb the cost of constructing a completely new home while preparing to retire on a limited income. In addition, our developing health problems and age require that all areas of the house be clean,warm, and safely accessible without obstacles, multiple steps,and so that a wheelchair can be used in the future. By attaching the garage and storage area,the owners could remain as elderly retirees on a small income,which is what they planned when they accepted the property. They did not know about the new regulations and have put every effort into preparing this application when they were informed since their retirement is at stake. 3-1: On this cove,there are many non-conforming properties but these same properties have already been improved with larger and more modern homes close to the water. Our family has been slow to change any of the historically tiny cabins besides demolishing them one by one. No new construction has taken place for decades. Because of this,the proposed changes would be increasing our compatibility with the upgraded neighbors, some of whom have multiple large homes on their properties. As it is,the structures we seek to replace are real eyesores in the neighborhood and many levels below the standard of this community. 3-2 No new use is requested. Residential use only which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 3.3 The proposal is the minimum necessary to provide the garage,utility, and storage space in exchange for the demolition of two structures in the buffer. The proposed construction is in the direction west and landward, away from the buffers,and will not require any removal of vegetation as it expands onto a gravel driveway. Instead it frees up approximately 100 sq. ft. for return to natural plantings and frees the view of ugly clutter. It will have no detrimental effect but a very positive one. 3.4 The granting of this variance will actually improve the property values of the surrounding properties because of the removal of the extremely ugly old buildings and the new plantings of attractive native grasses and shrubs. One building is currently covered with black plastic and the other is in disrepair. The exchange of these for an addition behind the present house will be an enormous improvement in the looks of the property. 3.5 Since the surrounding neighborhood properties are already improved and upgraded,they have already enjoyed the opportunities to do so. By waiting so long, our property has lagged behind the neighborhood and we request only to bring our property up to try and approach the higher quality of structures already present on the cove. Since we are on the edge of the buffer and because a house has been on that same site since 1920,we are certain that no one would feel this was a special privilege. By allowing us to improve the appearance of this property and to maintain it better by living on it,the view would be greatly improved for everyone in the community,those around the cove and those passing on the road.