HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2009-00055 for BLD2009-00421 - DDR Reports a
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 N. Fifth Street/P.O. Box 186, Shelton WA 98584 1 C
360.427.9670 ext. 352 DDR 'W 1 - 7�
Rec'd by
Request for
Administrative Variance for Reduction in the Required Se cks ($115.00)
For administrative review, the minimum variance on a setback request is 5 feet
from the side yard lot lines and 10 feet for front and rear lot lines or any access
easement. Request for further reduction requires a standard variance.
Setbacks are measured from the furthest projection of the structure, including
roof eaves.
Applicant/Owners: 7A)f Cqr-jr-g rn
Mailing Address: grin n E' :Tj2u!: PCU j I'YL - — cA
Telephone : 3 ,O - 522 - o2 LO-I 'A
City: �i'' 1 n _ State: W A Zip: L'1-26Z8
If this reduction is tied to a building permit' lease give permit
case number. BLD o� - �4 2
Parcel.Number(s): dot al-r]S- SO Zoning -J
Site Address: 7;t-A n E r Lkjga l i M+ Q�
Requested variance: Front/ Re /Side Yard (please circle all that apply)
Requested setback variance: .5 ft.
An illustrated site Ulan is required.
Your site plan must show the following: north arrow, abutting street or
easements, set backs to all property lines and existing buildings, slopes, surface
water, wetlands, critical areas, septic, well and driveway. Show all proposed new
development.
The following circumstances must apply:
FRONT AND OR REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS:
1) Existing lots of record as of March 5, 2002;
You must meet one of the following; (Please circle all that apply)
2) One of the following exists on the lot:
a) steep slopes, wetlands, or streams present;
b) soils that restrict building or septic development;
c) lot width at the front yard line of no more than 50 feet;
d) lot size of no more than one-fourth acre;
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI1PAC\VARIANCES\2009
Adminstrative.var.doc Updated: 12-15-2008
a+'
e) existing improvements of buildings, septic systems, and well areas.
SIDE YARD RgUIREMENTS:
1) , Existing lots of record as of March 5, 2002;
You must meet one of the following. (Please circle all that apply)
2) One of the following exists on the lot:
a) steep slopes, wetlands, or streams present;
b) soils that restrict building or septic development;
c) lot width at the front yard line of no more than 50 feet;
d lot size of no more than one-half acre;
e) xisting improvements of buildings, septic systems, and well areas.
Explain how these circumstances preclude a reasonable development proposal
from meeting the setback standard for Rural Residential 2.5, 5, 10, or 20 zones.
• to
r 1 r Qd
GG�
U `
Owner/Agent(please indicate)
Signature and date
Official Use Only
Approved Date t
Denied Date
Reason for denial:
\\CLUSTER]_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN VAC\VARIANCES\2009
Adminstrativc.var.doc Updated: 12-15-2005
STAFF REPORT
September 2,2003
TO: Mason County Planning Manager
FROM: Mason County Planning Department Staff
STAFF: Michael MacSems,Subdivision&Forest Practices Planner
SUBJECT: Request for an administrative variance to the Mason County Development
Regulation 1.04.223JL An administrative variance is applicable when the deviation from
the standard is 10%or less per section 1.05.034.B.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents an evaluation and recommendation for this administrative variance
proposal.
APPIACANT
Jay Griffin
270 NE Trudeau Mt Rd
Belfair,WA 98528
PROPERTY LOCATION
TR 5 of Survey Volume 1,Page 200,located in Section 2,Township 23 North,Range 2
West,WM
Located at 271 NE Trudeau Mountain Road
AREA DISCRIPTION
The property involved is located in a portion of the northeast comer of Mason County
which is zoned Rural-5.
PROJECT DISCRIPTION
Mr.Griffin owns a 9.2-acre parcel in an area of the county zoned Rural 5.Mr. Griffin
says that it has long been his intent to divide his 9.2 acres into two parcels(he bought the
property in 1999).He further states this property is served by water and power.The
history of this parcel,prior to Mr. Griffin's ownership,is sorted and my review of the
parcel file was inconclusive as to the amount of infrastructure currently ork site--
although it is clear that in the past(but not currently)there were two mobile homes on the
property.Under current land use rules Mr. Griffin is prevented fium subdividing his land
as it is not a full 10 acres in size.However the difference between compliance with the
1
I `
r
Development Regulations and his proposal is less than 10%so he qualifies to pursue an
administrative variance.
PROJECT HISTORY
In May of 2003 Mr.Griffin attempted to submit an administrative variance application to
divide this property,on the basis of the property being split by ThAm Mt Road
Trudeau Mt Road is a private mad and as such,his variance application could not have
been approved
On August 13,2003 Mr.Crciffrn submitted his administrative variance application with
the goal of dividinghis 9.2-acre into two lots.At this point Mr.GritSn does not
g parcel
indicate that he a concerned with dividing his property along Trudeau Mt Road and
instead is willing to create either one conforming and one nearly conforming lot or two
nearly conforming lots(approx.4.6 acres each).
EVALUATION
The proposed short subdivision would not conforms to the Mason County Development
Regulations,section 1.04.223.A.The fact that one or both of the resulting lots would be
less than five acres in size is not a concern as the actual minimum lot size in this area is
2-acres.The concern is that a 9.2-acre parcel does not contain enough density to create
two lots.
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL
Approval of a variance request requires a positive finding on all four of the following
items(Dev.Reg. 1.05.035):
A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as
shape,topography,location or surroundings,which circumstances do not apply
generally to other property in the same Development Area;
B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity,but because of
special circumstances is denied to the in question;
sP ProP�Y q n;
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare,or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the
subject property is located;and
D. That the granting of the variance is in substantial harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2
STAFF ANALYSIS
CRITERIA "A"
Asa special c'
spec ucunnstance,Mr.Gruen cites the fact the that his 9.2 acre parcel would be
a full 10 acres if property directly across Bear-C`.v*Dewatto Road were included in his
parcel.This does not seem lice a special ewes to me.Both Mr.Griffin's property
and the property north ofBear Creek-Dewatto Road were platted yeas ago.Mr.Griffin
claims that the eight tenths of an acre that lay directly across Bear Creek-Dewatto Road
are owned by Mum County and is not being wed for any productive parpoae.I have
looked into the situation and can find evidence out the property across Bew Creek—
Dewatto Road is owned by Mason County.Instead it appears to be part of 6.06-acre
parcel owned by a Delores Walton and was created as Lot 2 of Short Plat 1577 in 1986.
The Walton parcel is large enough that if Mr. Griffin could negotiate the sale of eight
tenths of an acre,he could combine it with his property through a BLA and create a
subdividable 10-acre parcel.Regardless of ownership,Mr.Griffin does not say whether
he has attempted negotiate acquisition of enou&property north of Bear Creek—Dewatto
Road,which if successful would make this variance request unnecessary.
The three properties to the west of Mr.Griffin's property would also be tern acres in size
if they could acquire property north of Bear Creek_Dewatto Road. Staff can fun no
hardship here.
CRITERIA"B"
Mr.Griffin is correct in stating that 4aceAnt properties to the north and east were divided
prior to the adoption of the current Mason County Comprdiensive Plan and Development
Regulations.However these properties actually appear to be conforming parcels.To the
south of Mr.Griffin's lies a series of 2.5 acre parcels that we re created in 1980.Because
Mr.Griffin bought his property in 1999,after the adoption of the current land use
regulations,Staff does not feel that the applicant could have had any reasonable
expectation that he could create non-conforming parcels on his property.
Cl?UTERIA"C"
Due to the size of the Proposed lots,it seems unlikely that this Proposal would be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity,
although an Environmental Review would be required for certainty.Issue involved in this
regulation(1.04.223)are not issues of public health and welfare,but of land use densities.
CRITERIA
The granting of this variance would be in substantial harmony with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan if the applicant could have persuasively argued that he had
3
success"y Criteria A&B.But he hasn't,so therefore he has not meet this criteria
either.Again,if Mr.Griffin could obtain eight tenths of an acre just north of Bear Creek
Dewatto Road,this application would be unnecessary.
CONCLUSIONS
Department of Community Development Staff has reviewed the materials made provided
and can net agree with the applicant that this proposal qualifies for a variance to the
Mason County Development Regulations,section 1.04.223.The fact that his party is
to small to divide into two lots is not unique to his paml.When Mr.Griffin bought the
property in 1999,he should have known that it was not dividable under the current
regulations.Finally,if Mr.Griffin could sequin the eight tenths of an acre lying directly
across Bear Creek Dewatto Road,and combine it with his property through a BLA,this
variance request would be unnecessary.A variance should be a last resort when it is
impossible to other wise make a necessary comply with the ids of the
Development Regulations.The applicant has failed to demonstrate a lack of alternatives
to their proposal or that his proposal is reasonable in the eyes of the Development
Regulations. Staff must recommend denial of this variance application.
Michael MacSelns,Senior Planner Date
4
July 12, 2003
RECEIVED
AUG 13 2003
Mason County MCCO - PLANNING
Dept. of Community Development
P.O. Box 279
Shelton WA 98584
Attn: Mr. Michael MacSems,
Subdivision Planner
Re: Application for Variance
Ref: Mason County development regulations 1.05.030 Variances
Dear Mr. MacSems:
This is in response to your letter dated May 13, 2003 which requests additional rational to
support my request for dividing my approximately 9.2 acre property into two lots. This
could be achieved by dividing the property into one 5 acre lot and one 4.20 acre lot; or by
dividing the property into two lots, both of which would be just under the 5 acres
required by the comprehensive plan.
I. 1.05.035 Findings required for approval of a variance:
A. Special circumstances: The Big Bear Duwatto road cuts through the southwest
corner of the approx. 9.2 acre property reducing what would have been a 10 acre
parcel to its existing size. A small amount of land of about 8/10ths of an acre is
located adjacent to the northwest corner of the subject property. This land is
formed by the curve of Big Bear Duwato Road and is owned by the county and is
of no use to the county. If this property were to be made available for joining to
the subject property owner, both parcels would meet the 5 acre requirement. It
would also put the land on the tax roles. ( see attached plat map)
B. Preservation and Enjoyment: Adjacent properties to the north and east of the
subject property are subdivided into approximately 5 acre and 2.5`acre lots. This
request would be consistent with the existing surroundings. The adjoining
properties were subdivided prior to the development of the existing comprehensive
plan which now restricts the planned use of my property.
C. Detriment to public welfare: The planned use of the property is to build a residence
on the property. The new structure along with an existing barn and pasture would
enhance the overall community. Since the property is also served by a water hook
up and electricity, the desired improvements are a logical goal that will improve the
overall ambiance of the area.
D. In harmony with the comprehensive plan: If the small parcel of land referred to in
"A" above cannot be acquired, the parcel would have to be divided into two parcels
one of which or both being under the 5 acre requirement of the plan but in all other
aspects in substantial harmony with the surrounding properties .
Please consider my application and inform me what other action I must take at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Jay Griffin
270 NE Trudeau Mt. Rd
Belfair,WA 98528
N
N A Gl
W �r
O
N
0'
N �
w A
n
O Cl)
0
0
0
N
N
O
N
N
0
O
O
O
0
v y v O
OWco w
0
y 00 O 0
t0 CP w O O
-4
O O Q h
— % — O O -4
ro 00 AGl
q G of r-
v v -4 (4•
O 0 DW
v w cl
00
Q)0
00
0 cx
0 —
w -0cp
�O
Q 00
W
r
00
414
04�0
0
y
Nw O
\OOy�p p O ` 00 O
�, D
O v.
A -
-N 0 CA
00 00
O
O 0
o N a
0 A N
0
N n N
^� A Cl
A p 0 0�
N co
A 0 = (Al
Su
L a r_ a Lot
N � Atip M
3�C
A t
Lift
W
IN
5 /1
0
i i •
6
VY
J?44�� Z � lu
.,/ w •asp- �i•�s�m/ -47738'
10
13fet rz ;' Y
Al OV4641.44 _
N
{Nd i1 G1
O
N r
N O�j
W �
O n
0
0
i 0
O
N
N
W
� O
i N
I` N
O
I
O
0
O
0
H O
O U a
(� (� 00 CD 0
�0
O C
a O O N 0
O 0 -
_ y _ O
_ O -4 to
N 0 U
ODy 00 �-
p O U 000 t n(M
Cl)
Ch0
v v 00
U U
O 0 4 4A
O w
C ao
W 00
k,,1 ar
ti A o 0 0
ioh
LA
4�° o N.. a
100
10
°9.1 ', r 1010 O n
-4 N CP O
O
\°O�'0 NW OO p
V
i
_N 00
00 00 O
O
N
o w N
0
N n N
\ N d Q
a O 0 o�
O 00
MASON COUNTY '
. ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE.TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The purpose of this application is to provide a means of altering the requirements of the
Mason County, Development Regulations (Ordinance # 82-96) in sped& instances where the
strict application of these regulations would deprive a property of privileges'enjoyed by other
properties which are similarly situated, due to special features or constraints uuique'to the
property involved. No variance shall be granted to permit the establishment of a use
otherwise prohibited within the development area in which the property of concerned is
located, except as provided in Mason County Code 1.05.036(B). Applications for such
variances shall not be accepted for processing or review.
Applicants Name fAy /�, G'/11F�/� Telephone # (360 ) '7 /-42,45 -'-
Mailing Aftess
b o
Site Address
Tax Parcel # US 0-2
Legal Descripti nr
7Nf Sl✓ �! 7'�lier �!� / ANO �/�iL S,� % � TIC /S�w � 1�..f�if� �`L �/Z-
a)= i d/ ,4/ "N Se4 . 7'`u R ..2 3 Al /9 2 w
On a'separate piece of paper please state your reasons for seeking a Variance. Describe any
special cummstances applicable to the subject property such as shape, topography, location
or surroundings, which circumstances do not apply generally to other properties in the same
Development Area. Explain why a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity, but because
of special circumstances is denied to the parcel in question. Please note that when reviewing
your applicatioq,Qie._Board of County Commissioners will need to'determine that a variance
will not be'niate&lly detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to the-property or
improvements in the.vicinity in which the subject property is located; and that the variance
request is or is not in substantial harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant's Signatures
cT9y /� � c82�l�iClsf
A fee of$4e.00 is PeLy le aeon submission.Tim applicant will also be billed for all advatistng coat.
Acceplanot by die County of dds application does not guarantee approval.
Ij
f i
CC)
co
O.
S .-
'r!
d c
RS I 0 '
_ O N �
r O O
ti 9 P4 ch
ccN v,tii
_ A +A' H c
A.
•rl
0 W N
o
o bo
4-4
00 o
w
Id
Cd Id
,�-I o
op,
0.4 o
41
o
•.�i t
V b
09
1 U O
L .`:- b ° rlj,
ci +> H
t ) � +� p
N In CA
a a ,
ri � a
L n ,
7 H 4-2
W N
H -P
� N o
I N
aZ u�tiIrbo
a
7SO '�� �3r ¢>
,ter :..��• 1 � �� ` s ••���_ y,
J:� • •Jim � � � � -n'f!.i�f��•� .a ��� ,
•y a t' n to i� aF•
l/1.'/. Cw m �,
0
0
v
h� .
MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS May S,2M
H
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing
will p= 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 UWE understand that is MY/OUR responsibility. 1/WE
must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be
considered as complete.
it o
DATE REC Ell VED
AUG 14 2003
E R WSW 00.RXM DEFT
10
eg?IC�AWIT
+ P .
. STAFF REPORT
September 2,2003
TO: Mason County Planning Manager
FROM: Mason County Planning Department Staff
STAFF: Michael MacSems,Subdivision&Forest Practices Planner
SUBJECT: Request for an administrative variance to the Mason County Development
Regulation 1.04.223.A.An administrative variance is applicable when the deviation from
the standard is 10%or less per section 1.05.034.B.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents an evaluation and recommendation for this administrative variance
proposal.
,r
APPLICANT
Jay Griffin
270 NE Trudeau Mt Rd
Belfair,WA 98528
PROPERTY LOCATION
TR 5 of Survey Volume 1,Page 200,located in Section 2,Township 23 North,Range 2
West,WM
Located at 271 NE Trudeau Mountain Road
AREA DISCRIPTION
The property involved is located in a portion of the northeast comer of Mason County
which is zoned Rural-5.
PROJECT DISCRIPTION
Mr. Griffin owns a 9.2-acre parcel in an area of the county zoned Rural-5.Mr. Griffin
says that it has long been his intent to divide his 9.2 acres into two parcels(he bought the
property in 1999).He further states this property is served by water and power.The
history of this parcel,prior to Mr. Griffin's ownership,is sorted and my review of the
parcel file was inconclusive as to the amount of infrastructure currently on site--
although it is clear that in the past(but not currently)there were two mobile homes on the
property.Under current land use rules Mr. Griffin is prevented from subdividing his land
as it is not a full 10 acres in size.However the difference between compliance with the
1
1
Development Regulations and his proposal is less than 10%so he qualifies to pursue an
administrative variance.
PROJECT HISTORY
In May of 2003 Mr. Griffin attempted to submit an administrative variance application to
divide this property,on the basis of the property being split by Trudeau Mt Road.
Trudeau Mt Road is a private road and as such,his variance application could not have
been approved.
On August 13,2003 Mr. Griffin submitted his administrative variance application with
the goal of dividing his 9.2-acre parcel into two lots.At this point Mr.Griffin does not
indicate that he is concerned with dividing his property along Trudeau Mt Road and
instead is willing to create either one conforming and one nearly conforming lot or two
nearly conforming lots(approx. 4.6 acres each).
EVALUATION
The proposed short subdivision would not conform to the Mason County Development
Regulations, section 1.04.223.A. The fact that one or both of the resulting lots would be
less than five acres in size is not a concern as the actual minimum lot size in this area is
2-acres. The concern is that a 9.2-acre parcel does not contain enough density to create
two lots.
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL
Approval of a variance request requires a positive finding on all four of the following
items(Dev.Reg. 1.05.035):
A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as
shape,topography,location or surroundings,which circumstances do not apply
generally to other property in the same Development Area;
B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity,but because of
special circumstances is denied to the property in question;
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare,or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the
subject property is located; and
D. That the granting of the variance is in substantial harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2
9
STAFF ANALYSIS
CRITERIA "A"
As a special circumstance,Mr. Griffin cites the fact the that his 9.2 acre parcel would be
a full 10 acres if property directly across Bear-Creek Dewatto Road were included in his
parcel. This does not seem like a special circumstance to me.Both Mr.Griffin's property
and the property north of Bear Creek-Dewatto Road were platted years ago.Mr. Griffin
claims that the eight tenths of an acre that lay directly across Bear Creek—Dewatto Road
are owned by Mason County and is not being used for any productive purpose. I have
looked into the situation and can find no evidence that the property across Bear Creek—
Dewatto Road is owned by Mason County.Instead it appears to be part of a 6.06-acre
parcel owned by a Delores Walton and was created as Lot 2 of Short Plat 1577 in 1986.
The Walton parcel is large enough that if Mr. Griffin could negotiate the sale of eight
tenths of an acre,he could combine it with his property through a BLA and create a
subdividable 10-acre parcel.Regardless of ownership,Mr. Griffin does not say whether
he has attempted negotiate acquisition of enough property north of Bear Creek—Dewatto
Road,which if successfiil would make this variance request unnecessary.
The three properties to the west of Mr. Griffin's property would also be ten acres in size
if they could acquire property north of Bear Creek—Dewatto Road. Staff can find no j
hardship here.
CRITERIA`B"
Mr. Griffin is correct in stating that adjacent properties to the north and east were divided
prior to the adoption of the current Mason County Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations.However these properties actually appear to be conforming parcels. To the
south of Mr. Griffin's lies a series of 2.5 acre parcels that were created in 1980.Because
Mr. Griffin bought his property in 1999,after the adoption of the current land use
regulations,Staff does not feel that the applicant could have had any reasonable
expectation that he could create non-conforming parcels on his property.
;
CRITERIA"C"
Due to the size of the proposed lots,it seems unlikely that this proposal would be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity,
although an Environmental Review would be required for certainty. Issue involved in this
regulation(1.04.223)are not issues of public health and welfare,but of land use densities.
CRITERIA "D"
The granting of this variance would be in substantial harmony with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan if the applicant could have persuasively argued that he had
3
s
successfully met Criteria A&B. But he hasn't, so therefore he has not meet this criteria
either.Again,if Mr.Griffin could obtain eight tenths of an acre just north of Bear Creek
Dewatto Road,this application would be unnecessary.
i
CONCLUSIONS
Department of Community Development Staff has reviewed the materials provided and
can not agree with the applicant that this proposal qualifies for a variance to the Mason
County Development Regulations,section 1.04.223.The fact that his property is too
small to divide into two lots is not unique to his parcel.When Mr. Griffin bought the
property in 1999,he should have known that it was not dividable under the current
regulations.Finally,if Mr. Griffin could acquire the eight tenths of an acre lying directly
across Bear Creek Dewatto Road,and combine it with his property through a BLA,this
variance request would be unnecessary. A variance should be a last resort when it is
impossible to other wise make a necessary proposal comply with the standards of the
Development Regulations. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a lack of alternatives
to their proposal or that his proposal is reasonable in the eyes of the Development
Regulations. Staff must recommend denial of this variance application.
°1�Z /Cl3
Michael MacSems, Senior Planner Date
4
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360 482-5269
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th )
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 9WN
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
The Mason County Department of Community Development hereby denies a variance
from Mason County Development Regulation 1.04.223 sought by Jay Griffin on tax
parcel 22302-75-00050 to divide his 9.2-acre parcel into two lots.
County staff on 9/2/03 signed a staff report detailing the criteria needed for approval and
the reason for a denial.
Any party seeking an appeal has-14 days from the date of this notice to submit a written
appeal. Any appeal should be directed to the Clerk of the Board of Mason County as
provided in 15.11.020 Mason County Development Code.
!d 3
S&& Date
H.-My DocumentsiFINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONDev Regs Var.doc.mms
MASON COUNTY Shefton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360)275-4467
Manning Elma (360)482-5269
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 278 Shelton,WA 88584
NOTICE OF FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Name of Variance Applicant:Jay Griffin
Mason County Department of Community Development hereby informs all interested
panties that a request for an administrative variance to section 1.04.223 of the Mason
County Development RegulaGtions on tax parcel 22302-75-00050 has been denied an
administrative variance to divide a 9.2 acre parcel into two lots.
County staff on 912/03 signed a staff report detailing the criteria needed for approval and
the reason for a denial.
Any party seeking an appeal has 14 days from the date of this notice to submit a written
appeal.Any appeal should be directed to the Clerk of the Board of Mason County as
provided in 15.11.020 Mason County Development Code.A appeal application should be
accompanied by a check for$650,payable to the Mason County Treasurer.
Staff Date
r
H.•IMy DocumentsWOTTCE OF FINAL ADMINISTRA77VE DECISIONDe
f MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Pknning
Mason County'Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98564
(360)427-9670 Beffair(360) 275-4467 Elma (360)482-5269 Seattle (206)464-6968
Jay Griffin
P.O. Box 257
Port Orchard, WA 98366
I
May 13,2003
Dear Mr. Griffin,
I am in receipt of your variance request,but unfortunately I must return it to you. I do
recall our telephone conversation(though not in detail),but I find that the application is
not complete enough for the County to make a determination on your case.
Please resubmit your application with the following information:
I
Please provide a written argument describing in detail why you feel that you qualify for a
variance per section 1.05.035 of the Mason County Development Regulations.There are
four points that you need to address and they are in section 1.05.035 (enclosed and
highlighted).
By carefully examining the various attachments and your letter,it appears that the current
size of your property is 9.20 acres and that you wish to end up with a 4.25 acre and a 4.95
acres parcel. This is an important detail and I want to be sure that I understand this
correctly.
Please call me at ext 571 if you have further questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael MacSems
Subdivision Planner