HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2004-00021 Pier, Ramp, Float, Hearing Decision - SHR Reports - 3/8/2005 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Robert Drohmanand Robert FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 Turk OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 Shoreline Substantial Development
6 (SHR2004-00021)
7
8 INTRODUCTION
9 The applicant has requested a shoreline substantial development permit to construct a
10 6' X 60' fixed pier constructed of Douglas fir, 4' X 35' aluminum ramp, and one 8' X
12' float. Total length of the pier is not to exceed 115' from the Ordinary High Water
11 Mark of Hood Canal. The Examiner approves the requested permit subject to the
conditions recommended by staff.
12
ORAL TESTIMONY:
13
14 See transcript. Staff introduced the staff report.Amy Leitman.
15 EXHIBITS:
16 The Examiner adopts the exhibit list submitted by staff, entitled "Case Index Robert
Drohman Robert Turk SHR2004-0020.
17
18
19 FINDINGS OF FACT
20 Procedural:
21 1. Applicant. The applicants Robert Drohman and Robert Turk. The
22 applicant's agent and representative is Amy Leitman, of Marine Surveys and
Assessments.
23
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
24 application on March 8, 2005, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of
Commissioners Meeting Chambers. No one other than County staff and Ms. Leitman
25 testified at the hearing.
{PA0593329.DOC;1/13009.090000/)
Drohman and Turk P. I Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Substantive:
3. Site Description/Proposal. The site contains a single-family residence.
There is currently a float at the site used to moor a boat. The applicant proposes to
construct a 6' X 60' fixed pier constructed of Douglas fir, 4' X 35' aluminum ramp,
and one 8' X 12' float. The total length of the pier is not to exceed 115' from the
Ordinary High Water Mark of Hood Canal. The pier will serve four properties.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is characterized by
residential construction along the south shore of Hood Canal. Waterfront residences
are immediately west of the project site. There is a pier/ramp/float structure
approximately 330 feet to the east and a boat ramp approximately 12 feet to the west.
The photographs on page 31 and 32 of the Biological Evaluation (Exhibit 5) provide
an aerial overview of surrounding development.
5. Adverse Impacts. The Biological Evaluation and the information
provided by staff establish that the proposed structure, as mitigated by the
recommended staff conditions,will have no significant or material adverse impacts on
aquatic habitat or wildlife. As noted in the Biological Evaluation, there is eel grass 15
feet from the end of the pier/ramp/float structure. The Biological Evaluation notes
that boat scour may be possible at low tide. Although there may be some apparently
marginal impacts on eel grass (and its function as salmon habitat), these adverse
impacts are off-set by the fact that the pier will be used for four properties. Pile
driving impacts on spawning salmon are mitigated by limiting pile driving activities
to July 16 through September 14, outside the spawning season.
No adverse view impacts are anticipated given that there appears to be
only one home within the immediate view corridor and the owner of this adjoining
home has not made any objection to the proposed structure.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J) provides the Examiner with
the authority to review and issue a final decision upon Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits.
Substantive:
{PA0593329.DOC;1/13009.090000/1
Drohman and Turk p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
r
2. Shoreline Desi ation. The shoreline designation of the site is Urban
per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. This area is considered a Shoreline
of Statewide Significance; therefore MMC 7.24.010 has application.
3. Permit Review Criteria: MCC 15.09.055(a) requires a substantial
development permit for any substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
MCC 15.09.055(f) requires that applications for substantial development permits be
subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(C) provides that
the Examiner shall base a decision on a substantial development permit application on
the Shoreline Master Program for Mason County ("MCSMP") and the policies and
procedures of Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA"). MCC
7.08 defines a substantial development as any development of which total cost for
market value exceeds $5,000 or any development that materially interferes with any
normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The staff report states that
the proposal will exceed $5,000 in cost and, therefore, requires a shoreline substantial
development permit. The MCSMP is codified as Title 7 of the Mason County Code.
The applicable shoreline policies are quoted and addressed below.
MCC 7.16.010 (Policy No. 1): Piers and docks should be designed and located to
minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
4. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the location of the pier and dock
will have minimal impacts upon views. There is no discernible, material impact on
recreational boat use or fishing. Further, as indicated in the Findings of Fact, the
proposed facility will not have any adverse impacts upon aquatic habitat or wildlife,
and therefore should not have any indirect impacts upon recreational boating or
fishing.
MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 2): Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored,
especially in tidal waters.
5. The proposal provides for cooperative use. The proposed pier will
serve four properties.
MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 3): The type, design and location of docks and piers
should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. Consideration
should be given to shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, adjacent land
and water uses, water quality and the habitat offish and wildlife.
6. As noted previously, the proposed pier/ramp/float structure is
aesthetically compatible to surrounding uses due to its minimal impact on views and
its proposed joint use (thereby precluding the addition of three additional
pier/float/ramp structures. The structure also has design features designed to mitigate
impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, including stops to prevent float grounding and
grating to provide for the passage of light.
{PA0593329.DOC;1/13009.090000/}
Drohman and Turk p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks and piers,
as well as the subsequent use, shall minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish,
wildlife and water quality.
7. As noted previously, impacts will be minimal upon aquatic wildlife
and habitat, which includes fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 2): Docks and piers shall be located, designed
and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of
adjacent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be located at a
minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities
may be located on the property line.
8. As indicated in the staff report, the proposed structure will be five feet
from the nearest side property line. As noted previously, the pier/ramp/float structure
will have minimal impacts on views and water use.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 4): No pier, dock, or float or similar device
shall have a residential structure constructed upon it.
9. No residential structure is proposed upon the proposed pier facility.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 7): Maximum overall length of a recreational
pier dock facility including floats shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three
feet of water as measured at mean low lower low water on a saltwater or a depth of
five feet as measured from ordinary low water on lakes. The length of any pier or
dock facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from
ordinary high water mark on saltwater and 50 feet on freshwater shore lines.
10. The pier/ramp/float are proposed at a total length of 115', which is the
maximum allowed length of the pier. As noted in the staff report, the the terminus of
the pier will be above the 0.0' lower low water.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 8): Only one dock is allowed per lot.
11. This would be the only pier on the lot.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 9): The width of recreational piers and docks
shall not exceed eight feet.
12. The maximum proposed width is eight feet.
(PA0593329.DOC;1/13009.090000/)
Drohman and Turk p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 10): At the end of a dock or pier, afloat may
be attached. These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a "T"or
"L. " In tidal water, the float shall not exceed 400 gross square feet without a
boatslip (700 square feet for two joint use owners), or 600 gross square feet with a
boat slip (1,000 square feet for two joint use owners).
13. The float surface area is 640 square feet for joint use.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no higher
than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least
an eight foot span between pilings.
14. Pier height is 3' above mean higher high water. The piers are not
proposed to be any closer together than 8' as shown in Figure 4 of the Biological
Evaluation.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 14): The surface of floating structures shall be
a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water.
15. The staff report indicates that the dock satisfies this requirement. This
is not immediately evident from the drawings and the record so condition of approval
will be that the float shall be a minimum of 8"above the surface of the water.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 15): All floating structures shall include
intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide.
16. The project description of the Biological Evaluation proposes to build
float stops and stub pilings to keep the floats at least 12" above the seabed during low
tide.
RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local
interest.
17. The proposal avoids the shading of eel grass beds and minimizes beach
impacts through its design, material configuration and location. Joint use will also
serve to minimize impacts on eel grass. As detailed in the SCUBA survey results of
the Biological Evaluation, eel grass was found during the SCUBA survey, but the
horizontal distance between the water ward extent of the proposed float and eel grass
will be 20'. As noted under the Findings of Fact, some minor propeller scour is
possible. However, since the pier will be used for four properties, the joint use will
eliminate the need for three additional pier structures, which is an overall benefit.
RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
(PA0593329.DOC;1/13009.090000/)
Drohman and Turk p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
18. As mentioned previously, the adverse effects of the adverse
development, including impacts on views and aquatic resources, are minimal.
RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
19. The proposal will facilitate access to the shoreline without any
cognizable significant adverse impact, creating more long term than short term
benefit.
RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
20. As addressed several times before, as mitigated the proposed
development will have no significant adverse impacts upon the resources and ecology
to shoreline.
RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the
shorelines.
21. The proposal does not increase public access, but it doesn't decrease
such opportunities so no additional public access may be constitutionally required.
RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public and the
shoreline.
22. The proposed project may not increase recreational opportunities for
the public, but it also does not in any significantly decrease those opportunities so no
additional recreational opportunities can be constitutionally required. The proposal
does increase private recreational opportunities for the shoreline.
DECISION
The Examiner approves the requested shoreline substantial development subject to
the mitigation measures recommended by staff in the staff report. In addition, the
floating structures shall be a minimum of 8" above the surface of the water as
required by the shoreline regulations addressed above. The proposed joint use shall
be recorded by deed with the proviso (subject to the approval of the Mason County
Prosecuting Attorneys Office) that the joint use may not be subsequently restricted
without the consent of Mason County.
Dated this 22nd day March, 2005.
Phil Olbrechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
{PA0593329.DOC;1/13009.090000/)
Drohman and Turk p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Shoreline Management Act
Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter
From: Mason. County DCo To: wa gt, cf-a f-A nA„t of Eeo rog
P.O. Box 578 ATTN: Shoreline Permit Reviewer
Shelton, PIA 98584 Southwest Regional Office
oxOlympia, PIA 99504
Date of Transmittal: Date of Receipt
(Dept of Ecology)
ZY-pe of Permit: (Indicate all that apply)
Substantial Development X Conditional Use Variance Revision
Other
Local Government Decision: Approval Conditional Approval T Denial
Applicant Information: Applicant's Representative: (If primary contact)
Name: 01)cr f byArnetr) Name: Am!1 LecTY)CI-n
Address: y 3�Z, L-6—\W -1 ��'' �1 t Address: 5-�I SL)aC S (6 LtJMA
DIt ►m i� LOA C1951b Port T tios(M 0,4
Phone(s): Phone(s): (3t-,O) 3S5- 90-73
Is the applicant the property owner: Yes No
Location of Property: (Section,Township and Range to the nearest 1/4, 1/4 Section or latitude and
longitude,and a street address where available)
',il e h o n 3 r) %CJ���s h �1 2 N Cuu, 3(,J -
L_�tSw
Water Body Name: Ht od dno- -1
Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes No
Environment Designation: 0 V Dar)
Description
/I of Project: (Summary of the intended use or project purpose) .
� .
IC Lf X 3 S'
(''I Y7,d, r d 9 ' y- 6 i1C
Notice of Application Date: 91a*q Final Decision Date: '1-)a l0s"
Phone #
By: Ctr��►��� CIGi :