HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2006-00022 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 6/2/2006 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR MASON COUNTY
2
3
RE: Don Cline No. VAR2006-00022
4
5 DECLARATION OF MAILING
Variance to build a new house within a
6 Type 1 stream buffer.
7
8 I, Rebecca Hersha, declare and state as follows:
9
On October 2, 2006, 1 deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage properly prepaid, the
10
documents related to the above cited Hearing Examiner Decision and to which this
11
declaration is attached to:
12
Don Cline
13 3204 Cain Rd. SE
14 Olympia, WA 98501
15 Michael Gullett
E 40 Kilmarnock Rd.
16 Shelton, WA 98584
17 1 declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington the
18 foregoing information is true and correct.
19 Dated this 2nd of October, 2006 at Shelton, Washington.
20
21
22 Rebecca Hersha, Planner
23
24
25
DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T"AVE. P.O. BOX 279
SHELTON, WA
360-427-9670 TEL.
360-427-8425 FAX
P.0v coal MASON COUNTY
Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
>854
October 2, 2006
Notice of Decision
Case: VAR2006-00022, a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance.
Applicant: Don Cline
Notice is hereby given that Don Cline who is the applicant for the above-referenced
action, has been granted the variance.
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal
may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations
apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal
process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Rebecca
Hersha, Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x593.
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Don Cline FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
5 MCC 17.01.150 Variance
6 VAR 2006-00022
7 INTRODUCTION
8 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in
9 order to build a 1,700 square foot or smaller single-family residence within a Type 1
stream buffer. The proposed residence would be constructed 95' from the Cranberry
10 Creek. The Examiner approves the project subject to the conditions recommended by
staff.
11
ORAL TESTIMONY
12
13 Rebecca Hersha entered the staff report and exhibits. The applicant, Don Cline,
answered questions. See Transcript.
14
EXHIBITS
15
16 See exhibit list attached to the September 12, 2006 revised staff report.
17 FINDINGS OF FACT
18
Procedural:
19
20 1. Applicant. The applicant is Don Cline.
21 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on September 12, 2006, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
22 chambers, Building I.
23 Substantive:
24
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a 1,700 square
25 or smaller foot single-family residence within a Type 1 stream buffer. As depicted in
Figure 3 of the Habitat Management Plan,the 150-foot stream buffer to the Type 1 in
addition to a 15 foot building set back completely encroaches the subject parcel
{B FP642024.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
leaving no building area. The site contains 3 lots totaling approximately 0.7 acre.
I The applicant will combine the 3 lots before submitting a building permit.
2 The lots are currently unused. The northern 2 lots consist of a mature
conifer forest, shrubs and downed logs. The south lot is mostly unforested.
3 Cranberry Creek, which is a salmon bearing stream, runs through the eastern edge of
the lots and contains clean gravel, large woody debris, a dense canopy cover, and a
4 good pool riffle structure.
5 The proposed residence with attached garage will have less than 1,700
6 square feet of footprint. A septic/drainfield system is proposed to be sited to the north
side of the house, and will be as far from the stream as possible. See Exhibit 7,
7 Figure 3.
8 4. Characteristics of the Area. The property is to the south of Lake Limerick
within the Lake Limerick subdivision. Cranberry Creek runs from north to south
9 through the back of the property, flowing from Lake Limerick to Oakland Bay. In
10 addition to subject lots, the stream travels through several other lots. The majority of
these lots are vacant.
11
5. Adverse Impacts. As noted above and shown in Exhibit 7, both the
12 building and drainfield sites were selected to maximize their distance from the Type 1
stream. Although the site is sloped, the Site Pre-Inspection Report (SP12004-00311)
13 concluded that a geological study prior to development is not needed. See Exhibit 2.
14 Provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and conditions recommended by staff
will mitigate all significant adverse impacts to the environment.
15
16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 Procedural:
18
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the
19 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
20 Substantive:
21
2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Mason County
22 Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural
Residential 5.
23
24 3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt
from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1). As noted on page 2 of
25 the revised staff report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings and by
mail to nearby property owners, WSDFW and the Squaxin Tribe. No comments
were received.
(BFP642024.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the
I 150-foot buffer and 15' building setback from the ordinary high water mark required
2 for a Type 1 stream. The buffer requirement is imposed through MCC
17.0 1.11 O(D)(1). MCC 17.01.150 provides that the general variance criteria of MCC
3 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Variance application from
Resource Ordinance requires a Type III review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC
4 15.09.050(C) requires compliance with review criteria for all Type III permit
applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the
5 general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable
6 Conclusions of Law.
7 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
8 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
9 5. Given that the entire lot is encumbered by a resource ordinance buffer and
10 building setback, strict application of the Resource Ordinance would deny the
applicant of a reasonable use. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a
11 reasonable use of residentially zoned property is a single-family home.
12 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
13 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
14 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
the applicant's own action.
15
6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by the Type 1 stream and
16 its buffer, which encumbers almost the entire subject lot.
17 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
18 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the environment.
19
7. Although many parcels along the stream are vacant, the proposed size of
20 the residence is smaller than those in the vicinity. Given the relatively small size of
21 the proposed home, it is anticipated that development of the vacant lots (whether as
permitted or by variance) will also be compatible. According to the Habitat
22 Management Plan ("HMP"),the proposal would require the removal some large trees,
but most of the impact will occur to samplings or brush. The proposed location of the
23 residence along the west side of lots will result in the loss of the fewest mature trees
as possible. Applicant has studied the site and noted which trees will be felled for the
24 project. See Exhibit 8. Conditions that will serve as habitat and nurse logs will be
25 provided on site. HMP does not recommend buffer enhancement because the area
outside the building footprint is already vegetated with mature forest. Staff
recommends, however, that any invasive species be removed from the buffer if and
t B F P642024.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
when they appear. Several "Best Management Practices" conditions for managing
1 construction activities are also provided as conditions to approval. See Exhibit 1.
2 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
3 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
necessary to afford relief.
4
8. Single-family homes are allowed in the Rural Residential 5 zoning district
5 and as noted in the staff report, the proposed residence is smaller that those already in
6 the area. Consequently, the proposed variance does not constitute a grant of special
privilege. Furthermore the applicant is proposing to combine three lots into one, thus
7 reducing the potential of development for the three lots to a single residence. The
location of the residence and septic system is as far from the stream as possible.
8 Therefore,this proposal is the minimum necessary to afford relief
9 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
10 9 As noted previously, the project will reduce the potential for development
11 on 3 lots to a single modestly sized residence located as far away from the stream as
possible. Much of the buffer will remain. As mitigated in the Habitat Management
12 Plan and by staff in the recommended conditions of approval, the project will not
harm environmental resources and therefore the public interest will suffer no
13 substantial detrimental effect.
14 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
15 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
16 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
17 shall not justify a variance.
18 10. But for the resource ordinance, the applicant would be allowed to build a
single family residence on the site. However without the variance, the applicant will
19 not be able to build anything within the resource ordinance buffer. Therefore, the
owner would lack reasonable use of land without the requested variance. The
20 proposal is not inconsistent with any other Mason County Ordinance, Comprehensive
21 Plan, or the GMA.
22 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
proposed development according to the following criteria:
23
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
24 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
25 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
{BFP642024.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation andlor
I neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
2 Comprehensive Plan.
3 As noted above as well as in the staff report, the project is consistent with
the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because it allows single-family residential
4 development in an area that is designated for that purpose. It also meets the
requirement intended in the Mason County Code. As noted previously, as mitigated
5 the project will not harm environmental resources and therefore does not adversely
6 affect public health, safety and welfare, and is in the public interest. As further noted
in the staff report, the development will not lower the level of service for
7 transportation or neighborhood park facilities.
8
DECISION
9
10 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
recommended in the staff report as well as those identified in the Habitat
1 I Management Plan.
12 Dated this day of September, 2006.
13
14
15 1 A. Olbrechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{BFP642024.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
f
. e s
VAR2006-00022 Revised 09/12/06
- 1 -
Mason Countyx�� r `
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Rebecca Hersha, 360.427.9670 ext. 593
RE: Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2006-00022).
HEARING DATE: August 28, 2006
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County Resource
Ordinance Number 77-93. The request for a Variance is for the construction of a 1700 square
foot (footprint) or smaller single-family dwelling unit to be placed within a type 1 stream
buffer, which requires a 150' buffer plus a 15' building setback. The proposal is to construct
the house a minimum of 95' from the Cranberry Creek. Staff is recommending approval of
the proposed residence subject to the provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and
conditions added by staff.
II. Applicant: Don Cline
III. Date of Complete Application: July 31, 2006
IV. Project Location: Property location is on E. Dartmoor Dr., Shelton, WA 98584. Lots 137,
138, and 139 of Lake Limerick, Division 4. Parcel# 32127-53-00137.
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the area. The property is to the south of Lake Limerick within the Lake
Limerick subdivision. Cranberry Creek runs from north to south through the back of the
property, flowing from Lake Limerick into Oakland Bay. The stream travels through
several more lots, a majority of which are vacant.
B. Characteristic of the site. The site contains 3 lots totaling approximately .7 acre. The
applicant will combine all three of his lots prior to submitting a building permit. All except
a few feet of the entire area lies in the 150 foot stream buffer.
The lots are currently unused and consist of a mature conifer forest, with shrubs and
downed logs, on the north 2 lots. The south lot is mostly unforested. Cranberry Creek, a
salmon bearing stream, runs through the eastern edge of the lots and contains clean gravel,
large woody debris, a dense canopy cover, and a good pool and riffle structure. Per the Site
Pre-Inspection Report (SP12004-003I I Exhibit# 2), the slopes do not warrant a geological
study prior to development.
VAR2006-00022 Revised 09/12/06
-2-
The proposed house with attached garage will have less than 1700 square feet of footprint.
A septic/drainfield system is proposed to be sited to the side (north) of the house(on lot
138) for the purpose of being as far from the stream as possible (Exhibit# 7 Figure 3).
C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for
the site is Rural.
D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5.
VI. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements.
The proposal is exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(c)(i). Notice of Public Hearing
for the Application for a Variance(Exhibit# 3) was publicized in the Mason-Shelton Journal
on 07/31/06 (Exhibit# 4) and at three public places on 07/27/06 (Exhibit#5). In addition, the
Notice of Application was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the proposal, the
Washington State Department of Fish &Wildlife, and the Squaxin Tribe on 07/24/06. A 28-
day comment period followed. No comments were received to date. A Habitat Management
Plan(HMP) (Exhibit# 7) accompanies this Variance application.
VII. Other Permits.
If the Variance is approved,prior to any site work,the proposal will require an approved
Declaration of Parcel Combination. Since this subdivision contains utility and drainage
easements between each lot, the applicant will have to apply for an easement removal before
(or concurrent to) applying for the parcel combination. A County Building Permit shall be
applied for after a Declaration of Parcel Combination is approved.
VIII. 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:
A. 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, with the exception of Title 17, the
Resource Ordinance.
B. 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, and may
be considered to be in the public interest. It is an environmental benefit to combine the
three lots as required for this Variance, since that would reduce the potential
residential use from three home sites to only this one.
C. 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 level of service for
transportation or neighborhood park facilities.
Section 17.01.150 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance addresses Variances From
Standards, the purpose of which is set forth in Section 17.01.150 A. Applicability in Section
VAR2006-00022 Revised 09/12/06
-3 -
17.01.150 B. 2. Review Standards Per Title 15,the Mason County Development Code
(15.09.057). Variances from the bulk and dimension 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;
Type 1 streams require a 150'buffer plus a 15'building setback for a total of 165'per the
Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110 D. 1. The Type I stream buffer encumbers
nearly the entire land ownership. The proposed residential building site is to be as far away
from the stream as possible. Although Mason County requires a 25'front yard(to the
road)setback for Rural Residential 5 zoning, a reduction may be granted to only ten feet.
Since the Lake Limerick Community requires a 20 feet road setback, the applicant will
apply for a Variance from Lake Limericks setback requirements.
The property was purchased with the intention of building a single-family residence.
Without this Variance from the required standards, there is no buildable area.
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 specifically related to this property is the limited lengths of the lots and the
natural feature of the Type I stream.
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 residential size including covered parking(less than 1700 square feet square
feet) is smaller than the other homes in the vicinity. Although, many parcels along
Cranberry Creek are vacant.
According to the Habitat Management Plan, the proposal would require the removal of"a
few large trees, but most of the impact will occur to saplings or brush. However,placement
of the home in the chosen area along the west sides of existing lots 137 and 138 will result
in the loss of the fewest mature trees than could be achieved with any other location on the
property" (Exhibit# 7 p.3). Since receiving the HMP, the applicant has studied the site
and noted exactly which trees will be cut down for the project (Exhibit#8). This includes 7
live trees all of which are less than 13 inches in diameter, 2 large dead fir snags, and one
large mostly deceased hemlock. The snags and dying hemlock will be kept on site to serve
as habitat and nurse logs (see Condition #4).
VAR2006-00022 Revised 09/12/06 ,
-4-
A. MITIGATION: The Habitat Management Plan does not recommend buffer
enhancement since the area outside the building footprint is already vegetated with
mature forest.
Staff recommends that any invasive species, if they appear, will be removed from the
stream buffer.
B. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: Staff recommends the following
recommendations for construction activities:
• Perform work during dry weather.
• Install silt fencing around the work area to prevent erosion and siltation of the
stream.
• Minimize amount of eroding soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible.
• Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should
occur offsite. Don't store any fuel, lubricants, or hazardous substances outside
overnight in the project area.
• Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
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;
The applicant is proposing to combine three lots into one, thereby reducing total
development potential to one single family residence, which will be modest in size.
Furthermore, the house and septic location is proposed to be as far from the stream as
possible. Therefore, this proposal is the minimum necessary to afford relief.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
The public interest is in the health of the Type 1 stream. The lot combination, the modest
house size, and the preservation of much of the buffer will result in no substantial
detrimental effect.
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.
To some extent, reasonable use of the property depends on the expectation of the landowner
at the time of the purchase. The applicant purchased the property with the expectation to
build a single-family residence, which would be allowed under the zoning code, if it weren't
encumbered by the stream buffer.
The proposal is consistent with all other Mason County Ordinances, the Comprehensive
Plan, and the Growth Management Act,
IX. Conclusion. Based upon the Variance criteria set forth above in Findings 43A and#3B, staff
recommends approval of the Variance as modified with the following conditions:
VAR2006-00022 Revised 09/12/06
-5 -
1. Applicant will combine lots 137, 138, and 139 prior to submitting a building permit
application.
2. The applicant will apply for a Variance from Lake Limerick's setback requirements. If
granted,the applicant will then apply to Mason County for an Administrative Variance to
reduce the front yard setback to 10 feet.
3. Applicant shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation,
other than in the area where the residence is proposed shall not occur, and any areas
disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. Install silt
fencing around the work area to prevent erosion and siltation of the stream. Perform work
during dry weather. Minimize the amount of eroding soils at any given time to the
maximum extent feasible.
4. The two snags and dying hemlock will be left to lie on site to serve as habitat and nurse
logs.
5. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project.
6. The preserved buffer zone shall remain undisturbed by any construction and/or
development activities except those absolutely required for minimal disturbance to
construct the single-family residence. The closest that the proposed house may be to the
ordinary high water mark of Cranberry Creek is 95 feet. There may be a clearing setback
with a maximum width of 10 feet around the house and drainfield footprint. No trees or
shrubs may be cut down outside of this setback,unless they are deemed"danger trees"by a
qualified arborist.
7. Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur
off site. Don't store any fuel, lubricants, or hazardous substances outside overnight in the
project area.
8. Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
9. Invasive species on the property, if they appear, will be removed.
X. Choices of Action.
1. Approve the Variance request.
2. Approve with conditions the Variance request.
3. Deny the Variance request(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section
15.09.090 of Title 15.
VAR2006-00022 Revised 09/12/06
-6-
EXHIBITS
1. Staff Report
2. Site Pre-Inspection Report
3. Notice of Public Hearing for the Application for a Variance
4. Fax receipt from Mason-Shelton Journal Notice
5. Affidavit of Posting Notice
6. Completed Variance Application
7. Habitat Management Plan (with Site Plan)
8. Copy of Email from the Applicant
0. PQ c
w v
c`li.>
¢ 4
N U 2 .B d
� a ° °' vxw °' ,� •x
o C
cc O C A C N
.�.+ U O � U N '� 'D rUn CZ
C vU N V O G 3 ° U ytG
n N aq c c a� p y w s 3
U CE
ro-
CG U c U x c c '^ o a"
es E I— b ° CID
° ° U o a � �
�e --
o ¢ o 3 0 o E > Cd ° n
d o ro n o x b > in. `o
� c w
d F c b F c o
c c w v o a c U
a. °
W U T C
y E o� ° o y U o c O v
z an � U w, �: � ° o
QID
cz
i axi L Y o n. C
° N OCL
b
y c c o a v p LE o
° CIS a � Q ° U
0
lu
c c c
CD
t' O " U c U
Cw y o
I� E U � cd 'O :b U '� N U •b b
olu
a
Qk 7
NCd a o c
F-� U U p U d1" > •� y O O
VI Vl N Y v U N O C° v i U
a� O cad +�-' O. y id ,N '„�, N A.
° U o°n E x c o ° c N
E
4 C
Cd
3 ro ° o _c o o aw S
5CIS V"
a� � c •c 3 •U s � ° x °�' a� � °' c a w � c 3
cd in. c cli WEv
U L]" C O Lz. O DU � C � 'O U
to lu
y .� 'b w s., C U cd N ° 7 U > C
w al o ° .2
o ° c � aci O C av o �"U ro r4
Gz, cv o g w E o 3 o >
C E ,�, a o o E cG E _ ro
w .a � �
F-
o E Un a, c o > 'U E c°'i Ca .� °
't �.e aCi w" 'C N Q"v O
G, & N `C U c b ❑ w p bA
E °
�O C U U
v) F� m ° d axi ° E ° H °� Fes- 0 2 Z .c
�%0V cook MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Shelton (360) 427-9670
Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that Don Cline, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed
an application for a Variance.
The request for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for the
construction of a 2700 square foot single-family residence within a type 1 stream buffer.
Property location is on E Dartmoor Dr., Shelton, WA 98584. Lots 137, 138, and 139 of Lake
Limerick, Division 4.
Date of complete application: July 25, 2006.
The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110 D. 1., Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas, which details type 1 stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150,
Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal
requires a Habitat Management Plan, and Hearing Examiner approval.
Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application
should notify in writing of their interest by 1:00 P.M. September 12, 2006:
REBECCA HERSHA
C/O MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed
project on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers,
Bldg. I, 411 N. 5" Street, Shelton, WA.
Please contact Rebecca Hersha of the Mason County Department of Community Development at
(360) 427-9670, ext. 593, with any questions or comments on this development and variance.
A decision of this application for a variance will be made within 120 days of the date of the
complete application.
07/31✓2006 10:36 FAX Q 001
x** TX REPORT **
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 3382
CONNECTION TEL 94269399
SUBADDRESS
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME 07/31 10:35
USAGE T 01'05
PGS. SENT 3
RESULT OK
FAXCOVER SHEET
TO: The Mason County Journal FAX #: 426-9399
FROM: Mason County Planning Department FAX #: 427-8425
21 j'T
DATE: July 05, 2006
Please publish the attached:
Notice of Public Nearing
On the following day:
August 16, 2006
Please keep the affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning
Department to pick up from your office, and send 1 copy to the following:
Don Cline
3204 Cain Rd. SE
Olympia, WA 98501
Please send a bill for the publication to Don Cline (above).
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON ss.
I' < " do hereby certify that I posted copies of
the attached
on -,27 day of 20 D6 in
public places as follows:
one at
one at o7
i i 0i9 l'`
one at
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Noticb this �7 da
y
of l/ , 20 7.
By:
Address:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON ss..
Subscribed and sworn to me this LZ: day of _742591k,Now-
C� , 20
ORA
:s Nota Public fo e t e of Washington
;u '''�j Residing at �7 �2
Commission Expires j
���'�iii��FV1iAS1•H�NG
/►►ri nm
- THECOMPANY
C OOT
Wetland and Wildlife Consulting Services
416 S. Washington
Olympia, WA 98501
(360) 352-9897
FAX(360) 352-9911
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
. FOR THE
CLINE PROPERTY
Mason County Tax Parcel No. 32127-53-00137
Mason County Case No. SPI2004-00311
JULY 2006
Prepared for:
Don Cline
3204 Cain Road SE
Olympia,WA 98501
<y 0f wetja�a�r
prepared by:
O♦♦O
(D 1
S. Shanewise,PWS
Senior Ecologist
Clinjuly06hmp
CONTENTS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Introduction............................................................................I
Methods..................................................................................1
A Results
Existing Conditions............................................................2
ProposedUse .....................................................................2
�* Impact Assessment.............................................................3
Recommendations..............................................................3
Figure 2. Existing Plat Map
Figure 3. Site Plan Schematic
INTRODUCTION
- This Habitat Management Plan has been prepared to address the construction of a single-
family home within the outer portions of a 150-foot buffer for a Type 1 stream. The
proposal is to combine three existing Lots into a single Lot, and then place the home in
the corner of the property furthest from the stream. A variance to the stream buffer would
still be required because the 165-foot dimension protecting the stream (buffer plus
building setback) encumbers the entire site. Functional impacts to the stream from the
proposed variance would be minimal because remaining buffer occurs as fully vegetated,
mature coniferous forest habitat. Indeed, the proposal to eliminate two legal Lots should
be viewed as an environmental benefit that will prevent the building of two additional
homes within this same property footprint. No mitigation compensation is proposed
because the remaining buffer can not be functionally improved with plantings. Besides,
,. the economic loss of turning three buildable Lots into one should be preclude additional
expenses for compensation, especially since the proposal will actually result in a potential
net benefit to the environment by eliminating two home sites.
METHODS
Field Review
Field review was performed on 10 June 2006. All areas of existing Lots 137, 138 and
139 were inspected.
Stream Location
The numbers associated with the stream buffer and the proposed variance to this
dimension were based on a Mason County measurement of the stream being
approximately 162 feet east of the southwest corner of Lot 137. (Borden, January 2005)
CLINE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
' THE COOT COMPANY - 1 -
RESULTS
N EXISTING CONDITIONS
Type 1 Stream
The northern boundaries of this property(Lots 137, 138 and 139)parallel Cranberry
Creek, a Type 1, salmon-bearing stream. Stream channel conditions adjacent to this
property are excellent, with clean gravel, lots of large woody debris, a dense, multi-
layered canopy of shoreline vegetation and good pool and riffle structure to the channel.
Type 1 streams require a 150-foot buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback.
Mature Forested Buffer
Nearly all of this property lies within the buffer area for Cranberry Creek. Existing
habitat consists of mature conifer forest, with downed logs and a good shrub layer. The
tall tree canopy provides excellent afternoon shading of the stream channel.
PROPOSED USE
Single-family Home
W The property owner intends to build a single, mid-sized home on site. The current plan is
�. to squeeze in the home site within the southwest corner of Lot 137, which represents the
furthest point from the stream channel anywhere within the entire property. However, a
variance to the stream buffer and building setback will be required because essentially all
of the property is either within the 150-foot buffer or the additional 15-foot setback. The
dimension of the proposed home site is approximately 45 x 60 feet. After applying an
administrative variance there remains additional required setbacks of 10 feet from the
" road frontage plus 5 feet from the "side yard" (west) property boundary, therefore, the
stream buffer will need to be reduced to approximately 105 feet at the minimum point
and 85 feet at the maximum. This area of buffer reduction will extend across all of the
east side of Lot 137, and whatever portion of Lot 138 is needed for the septic system.
Combine Three Separate Lots
The proponent intends to do a Boundary Line Adjustment that will convert three legal
Lots into one, combined Lot. This action will eliminate the potential for two additional
home sites that would be potentially allowed through Reasonable Use Exemptions.
CLINE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
THE COOT COMPANY -2-
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Minor Tree Removal
The footprint of the proposed home site will require the removal of a few large trees, but
most of the impact will occur to saplings or brush. However,placement of the home in
the chosen area along the west sides of existing Lots 137 and 138 will result in the loss of
the fewest mature trees than could be achieved with any other location on the property.
Eliminates Two Additional Home Sites
The proposed action will eliminate significant potential stream impact from future
development within the property. Combining the three existing Lots into one preserves
an additional 50 feet or so of stream buffer width that would have to be used for the septic
system if both it and the home were confined to a single lot (septic and home would be
side by side on a perpendicular axis to the stream rather than a parallel one). And, most
importantly,this same situation would apply to the other two existing Lots, resulting in a
significant increase in stream buffer loss over what will occur from a single site on the
combined Lots.
4�
RECOMMENDATIONS
Allow Proposed Home Site
The proposal to combine the three existing Lots into a single Lot with placement of a
single-family home with septic in the property corner furthest from Cranberry Creek
should be allowed as presented. This proposal will preserve an adequate, maximum,
forested buffer available along the creek while still affording the minimum legal use of
the land required by law.
Require Adjacent Drain Field
The drain field for the septic system should be situated adjacent to the home site to
minimize disturbance to the forested habitat. Positioning the drain field away from the
home site would require additional clearing of forest to connect the two separated areas
with piping.
No Mitigation Compensation
No mitigation compensation should be required for this proposed variance to the stream
buffer. The undisturbed buffer that will remain is fully vegetated with a mature forest
habitat that would derive little or no benefit from any additional plantings. Furthermore,
adding additional mitigation compensation expense on top of the loss of economic value
to the property from combining three existing Lots into one should be considered
inappropriate given the environmental benefit that will accrue from this action.
CLINE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
THE COOT COMPANY -3 -
I AKI.LEPRECHAUN'
O,
IZ
BALN10' RAY eILL� �E �~ ST. ANDREwS DR ` EMERALD
CT C�7 g Q LAKE
40
/ y
TLAND\ ) DIY TO I ___ -_— W
RD
T
s :1 21
z \ LAKE Mug zb
H w�Y
LIMERICK TENSY , Y
wwsocK OR
TI r
PL
_...._.__.._ -- r
-- —
I-I-4-1-+)_+-
a PROJECT
EPL AREA
.� Fss+ 3 d� D i c
- = -
1 _ ? Y..
,d O
Ir
2 U
CRANBERRY � ¢
i
M�ycE�W�AJ�J w GREENVIEW' LN ,__'
--. �_.....________- _____________ O
LWEWDOD LN
DR CARRIE AN14 z
O � /
MARLN LN AIN0 CT
'�—'J
pAM00`NPL RAINBOW „pP� ��5 CATFISH PL —_� V
LAKE h �� OAKLAND ; Q
CLINE PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
T
N
Lots 137, 138, 139, Div 4, Lake Limerick
Mason County - All locations approximate � �
rww w.+ri.■rw
FIGURE 1
O 0 0 00 5 o
FIGURE 2 - CLINE ti $
EXISTING PLAT MAP h 193to 0
`'M \ � �� Q��0�• ��, � �
h o\ S
�,•
$ p
c0 �t LO OJ
146 �C��?;. 195 o h �� � �5 0
o �ti c� v
.r y O 1 u�: 4.E v 3 c o C' 222
V
r.�,• tiJ J N v C
�J
•� �`� $ 145 ti o b „� fit' / 20 DQA�H"E EASEl,
196
144 197 �.�'
'h /3� ' i o 221
� •� �_.r Td:"
1p
143 E �' ! � V b198
° ,� ►7
p• 1; � E. ' h i
toy `i g a• �'� 142
2! 'E ' • ae � It! A
1
Lk '00
. 199
141
s 201.19 •� `o! �,�•dl'or .����\e•�ooP •Cb' 3a" M V` N�,S*
8 fn M sic
5 83 �,y
123 .N ;� Q >;7•IS'j,• 201 a•�• • °. s 51r� .
�4 5
o a .� � rt. •� 3.
N a7• ►a'n-w ti
`^ 139
� 2OS•a4' `a�
124 - 4.`
(3 ts.3>,' a 8 202 o.3a•5� O6 .i ^ 3 k
f. _ o qa c 8 �s.53• S �.
_ Zo3 a5' 218
rah
5 37'3a'4a•
137 14•
126 204 $ ' �a ea 217
w 136 •s�• 5 a3 ti�'sz• o
;t-W
12 o is o 23j�s a 205 . � 216
• ..' •w u 'Do' ' 1r°.a ,2dbit41 136" Ns'f•4s'ae`yH • ham;
ff ;
Nil i0�t"11�{- � _ - ;-_ �ttty�• '"` S ,� a� jZ�•- �.
j 3C•� < � �' ���� •� , ter. �, � .. � � !• �....
21
/ STREAM
CRANBERRY CREEK
225 LM
� 162'
148 4.92 85' I
�t 138 4.56 1 1.92 1444.37
\ 45' HOME
DRAINFIELD HOMESITE 1
i i \ V 10' YARD
SETBACK
so 1o.se .�. eo 7.ss-----.�
HOME YARD
Z SETBACK
1" _ ~40'
- all locations approximate -
FIGURE 3 CLINE
SCHEMATIC -
PROPOSED HOME SITE
(9/7/OE' Rebecca Hersha -VAR2006-00022 tree species Page 1
From: "Don Cline" <dgcline@comcast.net>
To: <Rebecch@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 9/6/2006 5:40 PM
Subject: VAR2006-00022 tree species
Rebecca,
I inventoried the sizes of the tree species that will have to be removed for the project and have indicated
all that are over 5"diameter. No mature trees need be removed.
Please refer to the Coot Company HMP Figure 3 schematic for my discussion below.
Within the DRAINFIELD section:
Only one tree needs to be removed, a 6" diameter cedar that is midway down and about 5 feet off the line
between the drainfield section and theTiorresite section. There are 3 larger, more mature trees within the
drainfield section near the buffer line towards Cranberry Creek. They will not be disturbed since the
drainfield will be placed as close to the homesite and 10'yard setback sections as possible and should not
extend outside of the Western half of the drainfield section. The 3 trees are a 22" Fir, a 26" Fir, and a 28"
Cedar.
Within the 10'YARD SETBACK that runs North-South:
There will be a 20' driveway that runs through the setback from Dartmoor Drive into the NW corner of the
homesite section. That will require removing 4 trees: a 5"alder, a 9.5"alder, a 6.5"cedar, and an 8"
cedar. --
Within the HOMESITE section:
Approximately 15 feet South of the NW corner and 20 feet in, 2 living trees will have to be removed: a 13"
maple anda 7" maple. Also within the homesite section are a 13"dead Fir snag and a 22"dead.Fir snag
both of which have snapped off and are with woodpecker holes. There is also a 15" Hemlock that
is 3/4 dead from the top down that alsoshoal a removed. I propose falling the snags and the dying tree
and letting them decompose within the bu er zone toward Cranberry Creek. There is a 36"cedar that will
not be disturbed near the NE corner of the homesite section.
If you need anything further, please call me. I took pictures of the site and all trees that need to be
removed. I will be at the Hearing to answer any questions.
Don Cline
357-5468
cell 791-7134
044
JLK CU
3 ears
l
ryMo,K�
2! k"0//8// 0
Mason County W &6 aL)e'?'2
Department of Community Development
Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01)
411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
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. Application for
a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for,a special
exception to the rule. The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the
specific variance criteria listed below. Please state how the variance request satisfies
all of the following criteria.
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
1. Reduce Type 1 stream buffer from 150ft to approximately 105ft and 85ft.
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
2. The applicant owns 3 adjacent lots with a north boundary paralleling Cranberry Creek.
All three lots are fully encumbered by the 150ft stream buffer. A variance`from the buffer
setback is required for the placement of a single family homesite.
Variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or
the Development Regulations (zoning regulations)may be allowed as follows. The
M"St document with written findings compliance or nanco li a with +
he
variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following
criteria are met:
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;
1. Strict application of the 150ft setback would prohibit reasonable use of the property.
Because the required set back encumbers the entire 3 lots, any development would be
prohibited.
\\CLUSTERl HOME SERVER\HOME\NCRAZR\My DocumentsTorms and Templates\Mason
Countymep variance.doc
r
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;
2. Prior to the county's adoption of the 2002 critical area protection ordinance and stream
buffer setback,the applicant would have been free to develop each of the 3 lots. No other
hindrances to development were identified at the site.
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;
3. As proposed in the F MP, a boundary line adjustment will combine the 3 lots into a
single lot, and a single family homesite will be placed in the farthest comer from the
creek. Functional impacts to the stream would be minimal because the remaining buffer
occurs as fully vegetated forest habitat. The proposal to eliminate 2 lots should be viewed
as an environmental benefit, and a benefit to adjacent property owners, by preventing the
building of two additional homesites. The lot to the north of the applicant is developed
with a homesite, and the lot to the south has been fully cleared for development.
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;
4. The property occurs within the old plat of Limerick Lake. Many lots within the plat
occur as single family homesites. Furthermo
re, it is likely most undeveloped
qualify for reasonable use exemptions and develop as single family homesites in the uld
future. Allowing the applicant to build a single family homesite on the comb'
would not constitute the granting of a special privilege. combined 3 lots
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
5. Combining the 3 lots should be considered a public benefit.
\\CLUSTERl HOME_SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DocumentsTorms and Templates\Mason
Countymep variance.doc
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.
6. Without the variance to allow for a single family homesite, the applicant would be
unable to make use of any of the 3 platted lots. This would not be a"mere loss in value"
but a complete loss of use of the property.
Signature Date
\\CLUSTERl HOME_SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DocumentsTorms and Templates\Mason
Countymep variance.doc