HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2009-00053 Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 8/31/2009 August 31, 2009
Notice of Decision
Case: DDR2009-00053
Applicant: Pacific Northwest Salmon Center
Notice is hereby given that Pacific Northwest Salmon Center, who is
the applicant for the above-referenced Mason County Special Use
Permit, has been granted approval of that Special Use Permit. The
request was reviewed on August 11, 2009 by the Mason County
Hearing Examiner and approved pursuant to the Mason County Title
1.05.044 Special Use Permit review, specifically to establish an
educational learning center on two parcels (24 acres) of designated
Agricultural Resource Lands near the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The
proposal was subject to SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 (1).
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
Allan Borden, Senior Planner with Mason County Dept. of Community
Development at 360-427-9670 x365.
H9WORMPermit Reviews\Decision coversheet.doc
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2 U w
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner D
3 Z c
4 RE: Pacific Northwest Salmon Center FINDINGS OF FACT,
5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
Special Use Permit#DDR2009-00053 FINAL DECISION
6
7 INTRODUCTION
8 The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit in order to convert an existing
9 residence into classroom space and an existing bam into office space for purposes of
public education on endangered fish. The Examiner approves the application subject
10 to the conditions recommended in the staff report.
I I ORAL TESTIMONY
12 Allen Borden—Mason County Staff
13 Mr. Borden began by entering Exhibit 13, a Department of Ecology Letter dated
14 August 4, 2009; Exhibit 14, a letter from Greg Landrom dated August 10, 2009; and
Exhibit 15, an email from the Hearing Examiner on August 8, 2009. Mr. Borden
15 stated that he believed that the project met the requirements for the special use permit,
but voiced concerns regarding the SEPA review. The concern involved not knowing
16 the full scope of the proposal; essentially that not all elements of the project were
17 reviewed under the SEPA checklist, thus not producing a fully accurate
determination. Specifically Mr. Borden had concerns about a grant (Ex. 12) the
18 Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group has applied to fund a wetland restoration
project on an adjoining parcel. This project would restore some prime salmon
19 habitat. The SEPA review did not include the wetland restoration project. Mr.
Borden noted that a SEPA review is intended to review the full scope of a project, not
20 just individual phases. His desire was for the Hearing Examiner to remand the case
21 back to the applicant, to provide all of the necessary information regarding the full
extent of the project. However, he did point out that it has been asserted that some of
22 the other phases of the project that give rise to concern have not been finalized and
may at some point be undertaken by other groups on separate pieces of property. If
23 this were the case, those separate projects would require full permitting and review
24 process, at which point the necessary SEPA review could be undertaken instead.
25 In rebuttal, Mr. Borden addressed the concerns regarding increased impacts of the
new use of the site. Cumulative impact effect is a subjective review, and there is no
standard rule for review of potential use of land usage when transferring from purely
agricultural uses to educational facilities on those lands. In regards to further
Special Use Permit P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
�PA0739F71_DOC;1 A 13009.900000A)
environmental review regarding further development associated with the land or
I project, the review that will be required upon any further proposed usage would be
2 sufficient to move on with the current SEPA review. Additionally, he believes that
separate SEPA reviews can be done for this project and the potential watershed
3 restoration project, because they are on separate properties and are not part of the
same plan.
4
David Mann—Attorney for Pacific Northwest Salmon Center
5
6 Mr. Mann began by giving a brief overview of the project. There are currently two
aspects of the project: the first is to convert a current barn on site to a classroom
7 space, and the second is to convert the current residence to office space. These are
the only aspects of the project at this time, and the farm land will remain farmed. In
8 regard to Exhibit 12, a grant from the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group for
some work on the adjacent property, the project could or could not happen, but is
9 more of a long-term proposal rather than a planned aspect of the current proposal for
10 the Salmon Center. Even if the project does happen, the projects are not
interdependent, in that one can proceed without the other. And the current plan of
t I altering the current structures has no relation to the other plan, which is no more than
a long-range proposal.
12
In his rebuttal, Mr. Mann addressed Mr. Van Buskirk's comments. He believes that
13 much of the concerns are a result of confusion regarding the extent of the project and
14 continued use of the property as agricultural farm. The project will not include
parking lots, overnight accommodations, or anything beyond the renovations of the
15 two buildings that have been proposed. Unfortunately the other ideas were prior
possibilities that ended up on a public website that have only caused confusion for the
16 public regarding the actual intended use of the property. In regards to what is allowed
for agricultural uses and what has been done in the past, the letter from Mr. Johnson
17 goes into detail in that regard. As to what he believes are uses allowed by the Mason
18 County Code, the proposal is essentially maintaining past uses and stays well below
the level of uses that appear to be allowed. There has also been traffic analysis
19 completed, and it is possible that approximately four more vehicle trips would be
made a day. But it is also important to evaluate that the farm will be used in a much
20 more environmentally sustainable manner, and in that sense will have a lower impact
21 than the past use.
22 Fred Barrett—President of Pacific Northwest Salmon Center
23 Mr. Barrett Entered Exhibit 16, four 8 X 10 photos, and Exhibit 17, a letter from Jack
Johnson. Mr. Barrett gave the background of the Pacific Northwest Salmon center,
24 regarding their role in the community and environmental stewardship, specifically
25 pertaining to sustainable salmon farming. He also gave a brief overview of the
proposal, and the future use of the site as an educational facility for children, from
elementary through high school, college research organizations, and the community,
as well as office space for the organization. Additionally, the farm will be maintained
Special Use Permit p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0739871.DOC;1 A13009.900000A
as a demonstration of agricultural best practices and will be maintained as a farm.
I For clarification, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is a separate entity
2 from the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center, and the dike grant project they have
proposed is completely separate from the current project. The written testimony from
3 Mr. Johnson, the prior owner of the property, demonstrates the history of the farm in
the past as a source of educational and outdoor experience for generations of children,
4 as well as outdoor enthusiasts that travel the trails along the property. Mr. Mann
Barrett also urges approval of the application and believes that their use of the
5 property would produce less impact on the land than traditional agricultural practices.
6 Mr. Barrett reconfirmed that many conceptual plans were put forward in the past, but
7 that the only plan for this property is to convert the barn and residence. Unfortunately
some of the confusion has arisen because of statements made on public websites
8 regarding prior proposals.
9 Will Langmack—Architect for Pacific Northwest Salmon Center
10
Mr. Langmack prepared the site plan and did the architectural work for proposed
11 conversion. He gave a brief overview of the site, including sizes and proposals for
the buildings, access, fire safety, and water supply. Mr. Langmack also stated that
12 other permits will be required for the change of use of the current structures,
13 including building permits. Also, the plan does not include any addition of
impervious space on the site.
14
Neil Werner—Hood Canal Enhancement Group
15
Mr. Werner addressed the grant for a dike received in 2008, for property owned by
16 the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The grant is a standalone
I project that is not related to, or reliant upon, the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center on
the adjacent property. As part of conceptual planning for the project, all previously
18 proposed designs for the project were presented, although they do not necessarily
represent the plans for the site in the future. Additionally, the parking lot that has
19 been mentioned as a parr; of their proposal is not part of any planning for the site and
was rather a preliminary plan for the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center that was
20 subsequently abandoned. As such, there is no plan for a parking lot on either site in
21 the future.
22 John Bolender—Mason Conservation District, District Manager
23 Mr. Bolender gave a brief overview of the Mason Conservation District and its
history. The group became involved in the project by a request of the Pacific
24 Northwest Salmon Center to assist in addressing the resource opportunities and
25 concerns on the property. The group concluded that the agricultural resources could
be changed and increased as a result of altered agricultural practices. It is the opinion
of the group that the educational center would have a positive effect on the
agricultural practices on the property, in regards to sustainability and agricultural
Special Use Permit p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
PA0739871.DOC;1113009.90i)000A)
efficiency. Additionally, the proposal will not increase adverse impacts on the
I property, but rather would give rise to positive impacts in the community as a result
2 of agricultural education.
3 Ann Whitman—Mary Theler Center Wetlands
4 Ms. Whitman read a statement from the board of her organization. Essentially, the
group has trails visited and used by over 200,000 visitors every year. They encourage
5 expansion and cooperation of their trails with other groups and sites, if those
6 partnerships are positive for the environment and the visitors. Although they are not
scientists or wetlands specialists, they see a positive impact from the proposed
7 project.
8 Bob Simmons—Director of WSU Mason County Extension Office
9 Mr. Simmons' group encourages and assists people in putting research based
10 knowledge to work in people's everyday lives. The WSU Extension encourages the
diversification of the agricultural use of the project, as it will benefit both economic
11 and environmental sustainability of the farm. The group will be available to the
Salmon Center for consultation in the future regarding agricultural use of the
12 property, and how best to manage it from that standpoint. Additionally, they believe
the project will be beneficial, because it provides a valuable teaching center as well as
13 further public access to existing trails. Overall the project will be beneficial to the
14 County as a whole.
15 Frank Kenny—North Mason County Chamber of Commerce
16 Mr. Kenny relayed the message of the Chamber, and their unanimous vote to support
the Salmon Center as a valuable asset to the community.
17
18 Ken Van Buskirk—Neighbor
19 Mr. Van Buskirks believed that the community would benefit from seeing the long-
range plan for the project, as well as to be aware of the cumulative impacts of the
20 whole project. His concern regarding the project is that the conceptual plans for the
current portion of the project take a significant portion of agricultural land out of
21 commission, and that needs to be taken into consideration.
22 EXHIBITS
23
Exhibit 1: Staff Report dated July 30, 2009
24 Exhibit 2: Application for Special Use & Supplemental Information
25 Exhibit 3: Project Vicinity Plan
Exhibit 4: Map of Belfair UGA and Adjacent Area Zoning
Exhibit 5: SEPA
Exhibit 6: Notice of Application
Special Use Permit p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
tPA0739871 DOC I U 3009.900000\
Exhibit 7: Affidavit of Posting
I Exhibit 8: Septic Change of Use Justification
2 Exhibit 9: PNWSC Traffic Analysis
Exhibit 10: Wetlands Inventory Map
3 Exhibit 11: Comments from Ken Van Buskirk
Exhibit 12: Application Materials for State Recovery Funds
4 Exhibit 13: DOE letter dated August 4, 2009
Exhibit 14: Letter from Greg Landrom dated August 10, 2009
5 Exhibit 15: Email from Hearing Examiner to Allen Borden dated August 8,
6 2009
Exhibit 16: Four 8 X 10 photos
7 Exhibit 17: Letter from Jack Johnson
Exhibit 18: Email from Hearing Examiner to Allen Borden dated August 12,
8 2009
9 FINDINGS OF FACT
10 Procedural:
11
1. Applicant. The applicant is the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center.
12
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
13 on August 11, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
Meeting Chambers. The Hearing Examiner left the record open for one week to
14 determine if further SEPA review was necessar
y, with the understanding that the
15 record may be left open for public comment on any additional SEPA review. The
Examiner concluded the next day, August 12, 2009, that no further SEPA review was
16 necessary and closed the record at that time.
17 Substantive:
18
3. Site/Proposal Description. The property consists of two parcels, 24 acres
19 in size, and part of a group of five parcels that have been in agricultural use for many
years, and were designated Agricultural Resource Lands in April of 1999 and June of
20 2000 (Exhibit 4). The property is generally flat, with berms, dikes, and roads through
the property that have been used to grow and cut hays and grasses as part of the farm.
21 Part of the Mary Theler Trail Center is located to the west. The buildings present on
22 the site are a residence, barn, and outbuildings, wells, and septic systems for the
buildings. The applicant proposes converting the 4,460-square-foot residence and the
23 4,227-square-foot barn for educational/classroom space and for offices. The classes
will at most be comprised of approximately 30 students. No further renovations or
24 construction are proposed or planned.
25 4 Characteristics of the Area. The Lynch Cove area of Hood Canal is to the
west of the subject property. Washington Department of Wildlife lands are to the
south, west, and north of the property. The Mary Theler Wetlands Project is located
farther to the south and southwest, and its trail alignments are situated to the west of
Special Use Permit p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0739871 DOC;1\13009900000A)
the property. Along State Route 3 there is a manufactured home park, church, and
I library. Other residential land uses occupy pockets of areas between existing
2 commercial land uses.
3 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There is no evidence in the record of
any significant adverse impacts. The proposal is for the conversion of two currently
4 existing buildings to serve the functions of the educational resource center. No
further construction is to take place as part of the project, including no roads, parking
5 lots, or further structures. Since the classrooms will be limited to about 30 students
6 and the offices will only have a handful of employees, staff has determined that the
project will generate 15 pm peak hour trips, which is four more than would be
7 generated by the current land use. See staff report and p. 6 of Ex. 9. Given these
factors, the Examiner finds that the project will not create any significant adverse
8 impacts.
9 There appears to be some confusion and/or disagreement on the scope of this project
10 and hence its impacts. The special use approved by this decision only authorizes the
proposal as described in the application, i.e., a classroom for about 30 students and
11 some office space. Any construction beyond that described in the subject application
is not authorized by this decision. As noted in the conclusions below on SEPA
12 review, the wetland restoration project is not a part of this project and its impacts will
be assessed independently if and when the project moves forward.
13
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
14
15 Procedural:
16 1, Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J) provides the
17 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon Type III decisions such as Special
Use Permit applications.
18
2. Notice of Application. According to staff, public notice procedures were
19 followed in accordance with Section 1.05.052 of the Development Regulations and
Section 15.07.010 of Mason County Title 15. Affidavits of publication, posting
20 notice, and mailing notice have also been provided (Exhibit 6)
21 WAC 197-11-055 (2) Timing of review of proposals: The lead agency shall prepare
22 its threshold determination and environmental impact statement (EIS), if required, at
the earliest possible point in the planning and decision-making process, when the
23 principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably
identified.
24 (a) A proposal exists when an agency is presented with an application or has a goal
25 and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of
accomplishing that goal and the environmental effects can be meaningfully evaluated.
(i) The fact that proposals may require future agency approvals or environmental
Special Use Permit p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0739871 DOC;1A13009.900000A}
review shall not preclude current consideration, as long as proposed future activities
I are specific enough to allow some evaluation of their probable environmental
2 impacts.
(4) Applicant review at conceptual stage. In general, agencies should adopt
3 procedures for environmental review and for preparation of EISs on private
4 proposals at the conceptual stage rather than the final detailed design stage.
WA 197-11-060 (3) Proposals: (b) Proposals or parts ofproposals that are related
5 to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be
6 evaluated in the same environmental document. (Phased review is allowed under
subsection (S).) Proposals or parts of proposals are closely related, and they shall be
7 discussed in the same environmental document, if they: (i) Cannot or will not
proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of proposals) are implemented
8 simultaneously with them; or(h) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and
9 depend on the larger proposal as their justification or for their implementation.
10 3. Necessity of Additional SEPA Review. The wetland restoration project
does not need to be incorporated into the SEPA review of the subject application.
11 The projects are sufficiently independent to justify separate SEPA review. As noted
in the SEPA regulations quoted above, to avoid misleading, piecemeal environmental
12 review which is defined too narrowly, closely related proposals must be evaluated in
the same environmental document. Case law demonstrates that the degree of
13 relationship between projects is defined by how dependant the projects are upon each
14 other. In Gebbers v. Okanogan County PUT)No. 1, 144 Wn. App. 371, 183 P.3d 324
(2008), the court held that the potential rebuilding of an existing transmission line in
15 10 to 15 years was independent of the proposal to construct a new transmission line,
even though the proposed and existing lines would serve as alternate power routes to
16 each other. The court concluded that a proposed new transmission line had
17 independent utility and was not dependent on the rebuilding of the existing line, i.e.,
the new line would function whether or not the existing line were rebuilt.. Similarly,
18 in an unpublished case, Manza v. Shoreline Hearings Board, 128 Wn. App. 1023
(2005), the court rejected the argument that SEPA review of shoreline permits for
19 proposed modifications of a dock and bulkhead, which did not include an earlier
proposed owner-built single-family home and sewage septic tank, constituted
20 impermissible piecemealing of a proposal. The court reasoned that the home and
21 sewage holding tank were not dependent in any way on approval of permits for the
proposed dock and bulkhead modifications. Thus, separate SEPA review of the latter
22 was proper.
23 Here the projects are sufficiently independent that separate SEPA review is justified.
The Pacific Northwest Salmon Center is separate from the restoration project. It is
24 located on a separate parcel and will be developed by a separate applicant. The
25 subject project and the wetland restoration are mutually independent; each can move
forward without the other. In addition, the funding on the restoration project has not
been secured and is likely not at a stage in the design that it would be easy to identify
the environmental impacts and meaningfully evaluate them.
Special Use Permit p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
PA0739871 DOC,I A13009900000A)
1 Substantive:
2 4. Zoning Designation. The subject site is designated as Agricultural
3 Resources Land by the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. Because the property is
outside of the Belfair Urban Growth Area there is no zoning. Adjacent to the project
4 area, the shoreline designation along Lynch Cove is Conservancy Environmental.
5 5. Review Criteria and Application. The review criteria for a Special Use
6 Permit application are governed by MCDR 1.05.044, which are laid out below with
applicable conclusions of law. This project requires a special use permit because
7 Mason County Development Regulation 17.03.020 provides that educational learning
centers on properties designated Agricultural Resource Lands require special use
8 review. 17.03.020 also has additional requirements for educational learning centers,
which are addressed below. Also, all Type III decisions are subject to MCC
9 15.09.055(C) and that provision is quoted and addressed below as well.
10
MCDR 1.05.044(A): That the proposed use will not be detrimental to public health,
11 safety and welfare.
12 6. The public health, safety, and welfare will not be detrimentally impacted
13 by this project. Because this will become a public facility, it will bring increased and
improved public access to public lands, as well as access to the adjoining Theyer
14 Trails. The access roads and parking areas already exist, and according to the traffic
plan provided by the applicant, only four extra car trips per day are expected to the
15 site than during its previous use. Additionally, the septic designer for the project has
asserted that the existing on-site wastewater treatment system will be sufficient for
16 the project. The learning center will also provide agricultural education that will
17 increase public awareness of sustainable agricultural practices which could
potentially provide more sustainable farming opportunities for the community.
18
MCDR 1.05.044(B): That the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the
19 intent of the comprehensive plan.
20 7. As discussed at length in the Staff Report, the proposed use is consistent
21 and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The educational center
will provide opportunities to initiate educational programs for both the immediate
22 Belfair community, as well as to bring surrounding areas to Belfair for learning
experiences. Additionally, the proposal works toward the County goal of protecting
23 resource lands, supporting the environment, encouraging outdoor education,
providing passive recreation, preservation and use of open space, and growth to the
24 local tourist economy. The proposal also increases access to publicly owned natural
25 resource lands, protects existing public access to shorelines, and provides increased
access to adjoining recreational trails. Also, the project allows not only for increased
public access to public lands and recreational facilities as well as outdoor educational
Special Use Permit P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
�� (PA0739871.GOCJQ3009900000A}
opportunities, but allows for the continued use of agricultural land for agricultural
I purposes.
2 MCDR 1.05.044(C): :That the proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions
3 at the site that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent
properties in the community at large.
4
8. The proposed use will not introduce any hazardous conditions at the site
5 that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures. All building and all utilities
6 will meet both Mason County and State of Washington standards and requirements,
as a requirement for approval of building permits. Additionally, it is likely that the
7 improved farming management will decrease the levels of hazardous materials being
8 introduced into the environment than during its previous use.
MCDR 1.05.044(D): That the proposed use is served by adequate public facilities
9 which are in place, or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in
10 the County's Capital Facilities Plan.
I I 9. The proposed land use will be a public facility. The development will
follow Mason County Code for construction and occupancy, and according to the
12 staff report, no demand for services requiring new capital facilities projects are
13 anticipated as a result of the project. The necessary roads and other necessary
facilities are currently in place to serve the project. As such, the project is served by
14 adequate public facilities which are currently in place.
15 MCDR 1.05.044(E): That the proposed use will not have a significant impact upon
16 existing uses on adjacent lands.
17 10. The proposed use will not have a significant impact upon existing land
uses on adjacent lands. The use will continue to be that of a functioning farm, which
18 is the same use that currently exists, with the addition of educational facilities to be
used occasionally and a small number of offices. According to the traffic study that
19 was submitted by the applicant, only four additional pm car trips will be made to the
site than under the previous use. Additionally, the project will allow for greater use
20 of the existing trail system along the west portion of the property. The other
21 surrounding uses are well screened and separated from the property and will not be
impacted.
22
MCDR 1.05.044(F): (located outside the urban growth area, that the proposed use
23 will not result in the need to extend the urban services.
24 11. The property is located to the west of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. As
25 noted by staff, there is no need to extend urban services, as the existing well and
septic systems will provide the needed services for the new public facility.
Special Use Permit P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0739871 DOC,I A 13009.90000m}
Educational Learning Center Review
1
2 MCDR 17.06.010: "Educational learning center" means a facility dedicated to
environmental and resource education and research. This land use would be
3 permitted on lands designated for long term agricultural use in urban growth areas
with a special use permit. This land use would be permitted on agricultural resource
4 lands with a special use permit, using the special use permit criteria and meeting the
standard that the proposed land use shall have no more cumulative impacts than if
5 the land remained in traditional agricultural production.
6 12. As discussed previously, the project includes the change in use of a
7 residence and a bam to office and classroom space, for the purpose of enhancing
public knowledge and appreciation for the values of wild salmon and related
8 ecosystems health, as well as for best management practices for agricultural land use.
In order to effectively teach about environmental stewardship, it was necessary for
9 the educational facilities to be located on land that could be studied and used for
10 demonstration of those principles.
11 In regards to cumulative impacts, the proposed use consists of staff occupying the
existing house and garage for administrative and educational research purposes,
12 which requires minimal renovations and upgrades. The existing barn will be
upgraded to commercial code for use as part of the educational learning center, which
13 will hold small classes and educational programs for groups of about 30 students on a
14 needed basis. As a purely traditional agricultural use, the land could likely be used
for intensive operations such as livestock/animal production, wholesale and retail
15 nursery operations, orchards, kennels, or stables. According to the staff report, all of
these uses would bring in considerably more people, noise, chemicals, and long term
16 harm to the land than the proposed use. Additionally, as noted by the letter from the
previous owner, Jack Johnson, the prior farming of the property included heavy
17 equipment and the operation of a construction business which included further heavy
18 equipment and chemicals on the property. The new use will be utilizing best
management practices to demonstrate that environmental stewardship can be both
19 sustainable and economically beneficial for agricultural purposes. As such, based on
the proposal, the proposed use will have no more cumulative impacts on the land than
20 were previously in use and will certainly have fewer impacts than some of the other
21 permitted agricultural uses permitted in Mason County on similarly situated parcels
of land.
22
Type III Review
23
MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
24 proposed development according to the following criteria:
25 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
Special Use Permit P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0739871 DOC;lU3009900000A)
13. As indicated by staff, this development does not conflict with the
1 Comprehensive Plan. Review of Educational Learning Centers on Agricultural Lands
2 is through this Special Use Permit. The proposal meets the intent of Mason County
Code Title 6, as there is adequate and appropriate septic and water service currently
3 provided for the project. Upon submittal of a Building Permit, further evaluations
will be made to ensure that the Code is sufficiently met in regards to building
4 standards. The project is consistent with Title 8 as there is no new construction to
take place, and the proposal is located far from streams, shorelines, wetlands, and
5 landslide areas. Title 16 does not apply as the proposal does not involve subdividing
6 or changing boundary lines.
7 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
8
14. As discussed previously, this project will have no discernable significant
9 adverse impacts on public health, safety and welfare as conditioned. The proposal
10 will provide safe access to the property and the proper water and septic are provided.
Additionally, the property will serve as a public facility operating as an educational
11 center for natural resources in the vicinity, which serves the public interest.
12 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
13 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
14
15. As indicated in the staff report, the proposal will not lower the level of
15 service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum
standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The project will provide
16 further access to public lands and adjoining existing trail systems. The provided
17 traffic study also shows minimal additional traffic will result from the proposal, and
will not lower the level of service regarding transportation to the neighborhood.
18
DECISION
19
The Hearing Examiner approves the requested Special Use Permit for the proposed
20 Pacific Northwest Educational Center.
21
22 Dated this 27 h day of August, 2009.
23
24 4i101'brechts
25 Mason County Hearing Examiner
Special Use Permit P. l 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PAO739871 DOC,1 A 13009.900000A}
LOIS SCOTT
ASSESSOR
THE MASON COUNTY ASSESSOR DARRYLCLEVELAND
CHIEF DEPUTY
PLEASE SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
REGARDING YOUR MOBILE HOME
Owners Name: -ZACIe, �?nj=j&150(V TeIe A-Q 5-::5 a
Mailing Address C 2t( :TnptlLS 2oAIO
Previous Owners Name d Address
N ,q
Description of Mobile Home: ( Information is on your registration certificate)
Make e-I6CQ-rY Size ay X fi0 -------
Year 19 !F Seriai N A.Wr i3� cr vCT
Year Purchased 14)9 Price (Less furniture d sales tax) $ a
If In Mobile Home Park:
Name of Park: Al 1A Space $
If NOT in Mobile Home Park.
Do you own the land on which the home is placed? YES -A _-NO
?N64eas ~%. C' + Rai N T.Y2 AcT
Real Property descriptionza-h 35 1 -42 Tp 23A/ R I-
Owner of Land if you are NOT the Owner: Al h __
Brief direction to location: nl?IVtW&Y 061 21 �)*dT' R T
-rmP EAlf1 oG npScCLt Rof�� (�ECFE}GR_
Date Mobile Home Entered Mason County:
Date you anticipate moving Mobile Home to another location: to-6
If moved from a Mobile Home Park give:
Name of Park:. & 16 Space k
Your home will be placed on the rolls of Mason County. We would appreciate a
prompt reply. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions
at all . '
Very truly yours,17
/
Helen Glaser
Personal Property Department
40we—rs;ignature Date