HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal DNS - PLN General - 12/9/1981 c
I
Z
MASON COUNTY
FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal Convert existing structure to restaurant with
60+ seating capacity.
Proponent Maxie L. McCowan
Location of Proposal SR 300, approximately .2 miles northeast of
Lynch Cove Subdivision and directly adjacent to Gladwin Beach
Road.
Lead Agency Mason Regional Planning Council
This proposal has been determined to not have a significant adverse
impact upon the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C.030
(2)(c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a
completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency.
Responsible Official Ken Stevens
Position/Title Director, Mason Regional Planning Council
Date December 9, 1981 Signature 4
Department of Ecology Date August 18, 1981
Dept. of Social & Health Services
Mason County Health Department
Mason County Sheriff
�o= State Liquor Control Board
Department of Transportation
Re: Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance
For: Maxie L. McCowan
Star Route 2, Box 46
Belfair, Washington 98528
Project: Convert existing structure to .restaurant
with 60+ seating capacity.
Mason County, upon reviewing an environmental checklist and
other data within its files, is issuing a Proposed Declaration of
Non-Significance for the above referenced project (copy enclosed) .
Attached is an environmental checklist and description of the
project.
If there are no objections within 15 days to the proposed
declaration, a final declaration of non-significance will be made
on September 2, 1981
Sincerely,
JWA Ken Stevens
Mason Regional Planning Director
Enclosures.
U� �� � c..
��� ;.
/ .. "� /f/�/1.fi
� j ���'. _
�u'���,
�,
��
"' �.�✓'
G ;�
J,�
�n�� � ��G'� ��� ,,
o - � �
��� ��-v ���� %�%
E.R. No._A--20
Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter
43.21C, RCS , requires all state and local governmental agencies to
consider environmental values both for their own actions and when
licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be
prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality
of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the
agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a
major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you can
with the information presently available to you. Where explana-
tions of your answers are required, or where you believe an ex-
planation would be helpful to government decision makers, include
your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if
necessary. You should include references to any reports or
studies of which you are aware and which are relevant to the
answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions will
help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the
required environmental review without unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to
the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal
for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the
impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is complet-
ed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the
future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be
involved to complete their environmental review now, without
duplicating paper�,7ork in the future.
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local
agencies in the State of t-,Tashington for various types of propos-
als. Tiany of the questions may not apply to your proposal. If a
question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on the
the next question.
ENVIROT,PAENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent (flax. L � � L'o�a.,✓
2. Address and phone number of proponent:
S TgU- )Q T- a2 Lox y4
112 7s- v"y 1(4
3. Date Checklist Submitted
4. agency Requiring Checklist
S. '?ame of Proposal,s if applicable:
5 a
i
' r
b. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including;
but not limited to its size, general design elements, and
other factors that will give an accurate understanding of
its scope and nature) :
�- wo c
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of
the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area
affected by any environmental impacts, including any
other information needed to give an accurate understand-
ing of the environmental setting of the proposal) :
cyav F ti oAL. T-
Estimated. Date for Completion of the Proposal:
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals
Required for the Proposal (federal, state and
local--including rezones) :
Y
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or
further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain:
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the
property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain:
a
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed
regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but
is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the
nature of such application form:
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge
the above information is true and complete. It is understood that
the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance
that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there
be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full
disclosure on my part.
Proponent C6
NOTE: To cover the Environmental Review, a check for $30, made
payable to the Mason
the Checklist at time of submittal. ; 'should accompan
STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Proponents Name: Maxie L. McCowan
E. P. No. 81-27 - - - --
II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Yes No
(1) EaEth. Would the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in X
changes in geologic substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, com- _ g
paction or overcovering of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground X
surface relief features?
(d) The destruction, covering or X
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
(e) Any increase in wind or water X
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion X
of beach sands, or changes in silta-
tion) deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any
bay, inlet or lake?
(2) Air: Would the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration X
of ambient air quality?
Once the restaurant is finished, auto traffic to and from the
site will significantly increase.
-1-
Yes No
(b) The creation of objectionable odors? X
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture X
or temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
(3) Water. Would the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course X
or direction of water movements, in
either marine or fresh waters?
(b) Chantes in absorption rates, X
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
(c) Alterations to the course or X
flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface X
water in any water body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, X
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction X
or rate of flow of ground waters? -`
-2-
(g) Change in the quantity of Yes No
X
ground waters, X
either through "` "�
direction additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
aquifer_ by cuts or excavations?
(h) Deterioration in ground water X
quality, either through direct in-
jection, or through the seepage of
leachate, phosphates, detergents,
waterborne virus or bacteria, or
other substances into the ground
waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of X
water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
(4) Flora. Would the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, X
or numbers of any species of flora (in-
cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any X
unique, rare or endangered species of
flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of X
fauna into an area, or result in a
barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna?
-3-
(d) Reduction in acreage of any Yes No
X
agricultural crop?
(5) Fauna. Would the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of X
species, or numbers of any species
of fauna (birds, land animals, in-
cluding reptiles, fish and shellfish,
benthic organisms, insects or micro-
fauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of X
any unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of X
fauna into an area, or result in a
barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish X
or wildlife habitat? -`--
(6) Noise. Would the proposal increase X
existing noise levels? --
Increased auto traffic will increase the ambient noise level.
(7) Light and Glare: Would the proposal X
produce new light or glare? ""
More evening traffic and parking lights would emit more
light.
-4-
Ye s No
(8) Land Use. Would the proposal X
result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of an
area?
The site is presently used for a gift shop and storage.
(9) Natural Resources. Would the pro-
posal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use X
of any natural resources?
(b) Depletion ,of any nonrenewable X
natural resource? ----
(10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal X
involve a risk of an explosion or
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset
conditions?
(11) Eopula_tion. Would the proposal alter X
the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population
of an area?
(12) Houw s g. Would the proposal affect X
existing housing, or create a
demand for additional housing?
-5-
(13) Transportation/Circulation. Would Yes No
the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional X
vehicular movement?
Currently there is a small amount of traffic to the site. It
is anticipated there will be two dinner seatings a night of sixty
or more people.
(b) Effects on existing parking X
facilities, or demand for new
parking?
The owner would provide parking on site.
(c) Impact upon existing transportation X
systems?
(d) Alterations to waterborne, rail X
circulation or movement of people and/or
goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail X
or air traffic? ---
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to X
motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedest-
rians?
Some increase of traffic hazards would occur with increased
use of site.
(14) Pub-lic Services. Would the proposal
have an effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
(a) Fire protection? X
-6-
(b) Police protection? Yes NoX
(c) Schools? X
(d) Parks or other recreational X
facilities?
----
(e) Maintenance of public facili- X
ties, including roads? �`-
(f) Other governmental services? X
(15) Energy. Would the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amount of X
fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources X
of energy, or require the develop-
ment of new sources of energy?
The demand for electrical energy would significantly rise
from present usage.
(16) Utilities. Would the proposal result
in a need for new systems, or alterations
to the following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas? X
-7-
(b) Communications systems? Yes No
X
(c) Water?
X
(d) Sewer pr septic tanks? X
The owner is currently working with the Mason County Health
Department on the necessary facilities.
(e) Storm water drainage? X
(f) Solid waste and disposal? X
(17) Human Health. Would the proposal X
result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
Assuming that the restaurant was managed properly no health
hazard would exist.
(18) Aesthetics. Would the proposal X
result in the obstruction of any
scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal re-
sult in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
(19) Recreation. Would the proposal X
result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
-8-
(20) Archeological/Historical. Would Yes No
the proposal result in an alter-
ation of a significant archeological
or historical site, structure,
object or building?
Discussion:
The location of the site is alongSR 300
approximately .2 of
a mile northeast of Lynch Cove subdivision. The driveway to the
site is adjacent to G1 adwin Beach Road . The "Little Red Barn"
currently houses a gift shop and storage. Most of the building is
unused.
The applicant anticipates seating capacity of sixty or more
(depending on Building and Health Department requirements ) and
having two Beatings per evening. He also anticipates a cocktail
lounge and retail liquor sales.
To the west of the site are two lots with residences .
Approximately 1/4 mile on Gladwin Beach Road is the site of the
proposed 24 unit Scenic Shores Development. Two residences exist
to the east. The applicant owns the nearest residence and intends
to remove it from the area.
The site is 2-3 acres in size, the majority of which will
remain as open space. The applicant intends to provide parking
behind the present building and to the northeast.
A well exists at the site. The applicant is obtaining a well
site approval from the Mason County Health Department.
It is anticipated that this project would not have a signifi-
cant environmental impact. A proposed declaration of non-signifi-
cance is being circulated.
/N,o
Sta f Planner s Signature
-9-
SJAT�O�
C 9
JOHN SPELLMAN —
�P
Governor �y oy" DONALD W %10O5
Dire(tor
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206)753-2800
D
August 28, 1981 S EP Q 1 1981
REGICN.�\ PLANNING
Mr. Ken Stevens
Mason Regional Planning
Director
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, Washington 98584
Dear Mr. Stevens:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed declaration of
nonsignificance for conversion of an existing structure to the Red
Barn Restaurant as proposed by Maxie McCowan.
Our main concern relates to sewage disposal. Information is needed
on the soils and water table in this area to determine the suitability
of sewage disposal by septic tank/drainfield.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Jim Krull of our Southwest
Regional Office at 753-1045.
Sincerely,
Barbara J. Rrtchie
Environmental Review Section
BJR:llc
cc: Mr. Jim Krull
� 3
JOHN SPELLMAN
Y:
Governor t��.tir O>,.� ��` �i�:_��,, ,
d
S I ATE OF�VASHINGTC)N
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of District Administrator • 5720 Capitol Blvd.k 7--1 1, Tur;4vaier. Washington • P.O. Box 9327, Olympia, Washington 9850-4
September 3, 198
M E U E
0
D
Mr. Ken Stevens, Director S E P U 9 1981
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, WA 98584 • -A' PLANNING
C.S. 2333 SR 300 MP 1.07 Vic.
Proposed Restaurant: Maxie L. McCowan
Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance
E.C. File No. ME-1-48
Dear Mr. Stevens:
We have reviewed the proposal as it relates to the Department's existing
or proposed transportation facilities and have the following comments:
In the interest of safety and operational consideration to the general
traveling public, the Department is limiting access to the State High-
way System wherever possible. Therefore, we will require that all
access to SR 300 for the proposed restaurant be via the easement which
intersects the highway at the northwesterly corner of Tract 1. The
existing road approach which is located adjacent to the Gladwin Beach
Road intersection is not to be used for access to the restaurant
because of conflicting traffic movements that would be created by the
restaurant traffic.
An application for the permit which will be required in order for
the easement road approach to serve the restaurant may be obtained
from the State Highway Superintendent located at 4590 State Highway
No. 3 S.W. , Port Orchard, WA 98366, telephone 478-4664. The Super-
intendent will determine what must be done to upgrade the easement
road approach so it can provide safe access to the highway for the
restaurant. One of the conditions of the road approach permit will
be that the existing approach which is adjacent to the Gladwin Beach
Road be removed.
Advertising signs for the restaurant, which are visible from the
State highway, must comply with the State Scenic Vistas Act of
1971. Contact Don Hicks at 753-7226 if there are questions con-
cerning the signing regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal. If there are any
questions regarding our comments, please contact me at 753-7260.
Very truly yours,
ARM:bs A.R. MORRELL, P.E.
RAM/RLA District Admi 's rator
cc: D. Taylor
J. Timmis
Public Trans. & Plan. B A. MATTILA, P.E.
KF-01 _. Asst. District Location Engineer
i
)()I 1N SPI LI MAN -R
Governor ',' U('ANf (3(k(tilsON
�4'(relor`
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of District Administrator • 5720 Capitol Blvd.k T-1 1, Tumwater, Washington • P.O.Box 9327, Olympia, Washington 985(4
September 3, 198
M
E @ E 0W E
D
Mr. Ken Stevens, Director $EP U 9 1981
Mason Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, WA 98584 RCC�C)NAL PLANNING
C.S. 2333 SR 300 MP 1.07 Vic.
Proposed Restaurant: Maxie L. MCCowan
Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance
E.C. File No. ME-1-48
Dear Mr. Stevens:
We have reviewed the proposal as it relates to the Department's existing
or proposed transportation facilities and have the following comments:
In the interest of safety and operational consideration to the general
traveling public) the Department is limiting access to the State High-
way System wherever possible. Therefore, we will require that all
access to SR 300 for the proposed restaurant be via the easement which
intersects the highway at the northwesterly corner of Tract 1. The
existing road approach which is located adjacent to the Gladwin Beach
Road intersection is not to be used for access to the restaurant
because of conflicting traffic movements that would be created by the
restaurant traffic.
An application for the permit which will be required in order for
the easement road approach to serve the restaurant may be obtained
from the State Highway Superintendent located at 4590 State Highway
No. 3 S.W. , Port Orchard, WA 98366, telephone 478-4664. The Super-
intendent will determine what must be done to upgrade the easement
road approach so it can provide safe access to the highway for the
restaurant. One of the conditions of the road approach permit will
be that the existing approach which is adjacent to the Gladwin Beach
Road be removed.
Advertising signs for the restaurant, which are visible from the
State highway, must comply with the State Scenic Vistas Act of
1971. Contact Don Hicks at 753-7226 if there are questions con-
cerning the signing regulations.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal. If there are any
questions regarding our comments, please contact me at 753-7260.
Very truly yours,
ARM:bs A.R. MORRELL, P.E.
RAM/RLA District Admi 's rator
cc: D. Taylor
J. Timmis
Public Trans. & Plan. B I.A. MATTILA, P.E.
KF-01 Asst. District Location Engineer
9T•
)OHN STILLMAN '
Governor DUANE
Secretary
STATE C►E WASHiN(;TON
[DEPARTMENT OF TRAM-SPORTATION
Office of District Administrator • 5720 Capitol Blvd KT-1 t, Turnwater, Washington • P.O.Box 9327, Olympia, Washl"Wton 1)l35(N
September 119 1981
l�J U L5 D
Maxie L. McGowan
Star Route 2 Box 46 S t P 14 'H81
Belfair, Washington 98528
SR 300 C.S. 2333 � G G��.'�L PLANNING
Belfair St. Park to Belfair
Mi i c Post 1 nQ
Road Approach Request
Dear Mr. McCowan:
We have reviewed your application to enlarge the existing approach
to the Red Barn Gift Shop to accomodate traffic generated by a restau-
rant and other businesses. Because of the proximity to Gladwin
Beach Road and the anticipated traffic volume to your revised business,
we do not believe that this is a proper location for the enlarged
business.
Therefore, we do not concur in the request and have advised Mason
County Planning Department of the need to relocate the driveway easterly
to the center of the 60 foot easement and the removal of the driveway.
Upon our receipt of a new application, fora enclosed, we will issue
a Type D commercial approach to your new business at Mile Post 1.12
which will require removal of the existing approach within 30 days
Of completion of the new. We realize that this causes a revision
to your plan, but it will provide the best access and minimum traffic
conflicts on State Route 300.
Please call ine at 753-7215 after September 21, 1981 if you have any
questions on this approach.
Very truly yours,
A. R. MORRELL
District Administrator
?By-:- JOHN B. TIMMIS
trict Utilities Engineer
ARM/clv
JBT
Attachments
cc: D. Taylor
Mason County Planning Council ..-y-�"
Mr. Ken Stevens, Director
Dick Anderson P.O, Box 186
Shelton, WA 98584
� a � s Jr
- cL
tn
05
� o
T
� u
P
0 0 '
i
O � I
' lz -- U
00
sr�,N Z
red e-
V Ila
0
s
r - '
0
3SO
Noo
- BEiKG N-
\ w
Q�
E
� MENT- L IN
r,� s vs)e o. 1 NIA R
Z_
C.VANS-E S
a
/ o
a
r
ys .I0 Q i _SNORT PLAT
� o;= G 0v. Lor Z 3,5
tom-O TIOV% oc THE SJ NI
�G,• MANGE i WEST W• M .