Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPI2001-00044 - SPI Inspections - 4/6/2010 F �Ps01%.STA o� MASON COUNTY C ,N DEPTARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i o T Planning Division 'oJ N Y aoy P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 1864 (360)427-9670 Shoreline Inspection April 06, 2001 BILL CARTER 11810 NE 140TH ST KI RKLAN D WA 98034 Case No.: SP12001-00044 Parcel No.: 322245000029 Project Description: Determine setbacks for possible future development of two shoreline lots. Also considering placement of garage structure on landward side of Northshore Rd. Dear Applicant: As part of this department's review of your permit application, a Shoreline Inspection (SPI) was performed on your property. Below you will find comments made regarding the proposed development and its critical values. In some cases, setbacks for development from shorelines, steep slopes, streams, and wetlands must be included in your specific proposal; these setbacks are included as part of the comments listed below. This information is based on County and State regulations as they exist to date. These regulations may change and may affect the requirements for development of the subject property. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 363 if you have questions. Sincerely, Scott Long ecker Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 04/06/2001 1 of 3 SP12001-00044 Shoreline Inspection 04/06/2001 Case No.: SP12001-00044 Comments: A site visit was made on 4/3/2001 to parcel # 32224 50 00029 for the purpose of determining critical areas and setbacks for future development or re-development of two shoreline lots. The above mentioned parcel has a single family residence. The applicant is considering purchasing the already developed lot along with an undeveloped lot to the West. The shoreline designation for this area is Urban Residential, and the comprehensive plan land use designation is rural. The minimum shoreline building setback on an Urban shoreline is 15 feet, however any residential development more than 30 inches above average grade would need to be behind the common line setback. This common line setback is found by drawing an imaginary line between the waterward drip lines of the two adjacent residences. The purpose of this is to avoid impacting views of the shoreline. By using this technique and considering the sideyard building setback of 5 feet various building envelopes were measured on the two waterfront lots. If both lots were used to expand the existing residence, using the common line setback the total build able area would be approximately 89 feet long, parallel to the shoreline, by 36 feet wide on the East side, by 49 feet wide on the West side. If the empty lot were to be developed the building envelope would be approximately 39 feet wide parallel to the shoreline, by 49 feet deep on the East and West sides. There was a concern about a possible stream that may impact future development of the undeveloped lot to the West of the existing residence. There are culverts that empty onto the beach near this site. One of the culverts appears to be in place to drain ground water that could cause the existing bulkhead to fail. The other culvert starts from the North side of Northshore Rd. Water enters this culvert at a catch basin in the road ditch that is in place to handle storm drainage. There is a small drainage to the NW of the empty lot, however there was no visible water in the drainage. By comparing DNR stream typing maps to the parcel map for this area it appears that the nearest type 5 stream is at least 300 feet from this property, which at this time would not impact development of the property. The applicant was also interested in placing a garage on the landward side of Northshore Road. It appears that there is sufficient room to do this. This structure would need to maintain the minimum 10 foot setback from the drain field on this side of the road. Due to the slope on the landward side of the road 04/06/2001 2 of 3 SP12001-000" a Shoreline Inspection 04/06/2001 Case No.: SP12001-00044 (approximately 30% on average) a geological assessment would be needed prior to excavation and/or development of this portion of the property. Enclosed please find the Landslide Hazard Area chapter of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Page 10 explains the requirements for a geo. assessment. As for the possible garage on the North side of Northshore Road a question was asked about building setbacks. The building setbacks on County Road. Per the Mason County Dept. of Public Works the building setback is 10 feet from the property line / road right of way. In these situations the property owner needs to identify their own property line to ensure this 10 foot setback is met. A variance may be applied for with the Mason County Building Dept. to build within this 10 foot setback, however no building can occur within the County right of way itself. As for parking, at least one parking space is needed for each residence per the Mason County Parking Standards, Ordinance No. 815. 04/06/2001 3 of 3 SP12001-00044 MASON COUNTY VD 0 1 1 3"7 1 lbo 411. SHORELINE PRE-INSPECTION APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT $70.00 Fee Required 1. Clwner: �Ct�.��i_��l/.t� f' Applicant: Site Address: rd 3 7 1 4A Applicant Address: 44 14 ALE Owner Address: City: /, ,ra��;�,c�% St-&&-zipT City: _st-q'l;- Zip. Phone: L&6) 2 g"z 5� Phone: ( ) 2. Parcel No. 3` 22,4 -50- Legal Description: : , 44 3. Purpode of Pre-Inspection: 4. Use of Building: 5. Is there any type of water on or adjacent to property?: saltwater _ Y lake river ._ pond wetland seasonal runoff other stream _ seasonal creek Directions to Site:_ �f ,,�, .1 00'i4rr� �f ►�. If the information is incomplete, then Mason County must disclaim any errors resulting from deficiencies in the original application. Pre-inspection reports remain valid only until development changes occur in the vicinity which affect the lot evaluated in this inspection. LApplicant Signature: Date: .--Cl -U/ Return application to: Department of Community Development,Planning Division P.O. Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 P'.ease include a $70.00 check or money order payable to Mason County Treasurer FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Accepted by: Date: y e ifidistratee belovO the proposed building site in relation to water & property lines: Departmental Review (For Office Use Only) Planning Department Findings: (9/11/2008)Jim Scholz- Re: Carter-Sweeney-Lund PRF Page 1 From: Jim Scholz To: Carter, Bill (A. W.) I /� CC: Jim Scholz Date: 9/11/2008 9:21 AM Subject: Re: Carter-Sweeney-Lund PRF Mr.Carter, �-- I have looked over the attached paperwork,as far as I can tell it all looks in order and since Monty Cobb has agreed to sign off on it then I will also agree. As far as the remainder of the process goes after talking with another senior planner it is my understanding it works like this. It is your responsibility to submit(take in)all the signed paperwork(the three deed restrictions,and the joint use agreement)to the auditors office for execution and recording.You then send me a copy of all these official documents with those in hand I can then sign off on the planning end of the permit.I will look over the remaining paperwork early next week and do a site inspection on Wednesday the 17th when I am out in the field to get a more complete understanding of the whole development hopefully can sign off by next Wednesday if al paperwork is in order. Thanks, Jim >>> "Carter, Bill (A.W.)" <CarterB(?bpbworld.com> 9/10/2008 4:50 PM >>> . Jim, here are the documents that were reviewed by Monty Cobb. They are Ilse the same as the ones I sent you on 6-23-08. It took me quite a while to get caught up after vacation and traveling. Sorry I didn't get this to { a you last week. P !. Since Monty has approved them we will proceed to get them signed and notarized over the weekend(if everyone is available). If so I hope to �'1j? oe�_)j get the executed documents to you next week. I assume the you will then file them and then release the building permit for review. The wording in the final shoreline hearing documents states that the mitigation has to be complete prior to issuing a building permit. I i t'` u -_ assume that the building permit will be processed and we will be notified when it is ready to be issued. We will then do the mitigation and have you out for an inspection. Please confirm if that is your understanding of the process to be followed. NOTICE:This communication and any attachments("this message")may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).Any unauthorized use,disclosure,viewing,copying,alteration, dissemination or distribution of,or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message,delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. (9/2/2008)Jim Scholz- FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Page 1 t From: "Carter, Bill (A. W.)" <CarterB@pbworld.com> To: <jimsc@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 8/29/2008 1:36 PM Subject: FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Jim, please see the email string below. Jeff Sweeney, my neighbor here has been in contact with Monty Cobb and as indicated below would agree to accepting our proposed documents. I will call to discuss how we are to proceed. -----Original Message----- From: Sweeney, Jeff[mailto:Jeff.Sweeney@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 3:21 PM To: Carter, Bill (A. W.) Cc: Karen Sweeney Subject: FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Importance: High Bill: FYI, this is good news. Do you think we can still make the window? Thanks, Jeff 425 383 5441 -----Original Message----- From: Sweeney, Jeff Sent: Thursday,August 28, 2008 2:37 PM To: Monty Cobb Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Thank you very much Monty for your help! We really appreciate it! Let me know you thoughts and if you happen to hear from Jim and I will let you know if I hear anything. Thanks, Jeff 425 383 5441 -----Original Message----- From: Monty Cobb [mailto:MontyC@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:14 PM To: Sweeney, Jeff Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) I have advised him that what you ask for is a minor modification which can be done in-house and does not require returning to the hearing examiner(it can be done through the hearing examiner but does not need to). Let me know if you don't hear from him soon Monty (9/2/2008)Jim Scholz- FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Page 2 >>>"Sweeney, Jeff' <Jeff.Sweeney@T-Mobile.com> 8/28/2008 1:55 PM >>> Monty: Thanks for getting back to me. He has not. I contacted him at the end of June/early July and he stated he could not answer my questions and suggested I speak with you. Thanks, Jeff 425 383 5441 -----Original Message----- From: Monty Cobb [mailto:MontyC@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:46 PM To: Sweeney, Jeff Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Jeff Has Jim Scholz gotten in touch with you? Monty Monty Cobb, Chief Civil Deputy Mason County Prosecutor's Office PO Box 639, Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext 417 >>> "Sweeney, Jeff'<Jeff.Sweeney@T-Mobile.com>8/14/2008 4:47 PM >>> Thanks Monty! I am a bit concerned as the contractor who drives piles is only in the Canal for a bit longer and we do want to miss the window of opportunity. Do you have an idea on timing? Thanks again, Jeff 425 383 5441 -----Original Message----- From: Monty Cobb [mailto:MontyC@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:37 PM To: Sweeney, Jeff Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Jeff I haven't forgotten you, I've just been under deadline for growth management briefing. Monty Monty Cobb, Chief Civil Deputy Mason County Prosecutor's Office PO Box 639, Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext 417 (9/2/2008)Jim Scholz- FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Page 3 >>>"Sweeney, Jeff' <Jeff.Sweeney@T-Mobile.com> 8/4/2008 9:28 AM >>> Monty: I am following up with you up as you requested on the above matter. Per the below,we spoke on July 16th. You suggested that you would review this matter and try to call me back the week of July 25th. You had said that if I did not hear back from you by July 25th to call you back. I did not hear back, so I tried calling you the following Monday July 28th and left a message requesting a return call. I did not hear back that week, so I am writing to request a response. I know you are busy, but please let me know when would be a good time for us to speak and I will make myself available. I appreciate your assistance and attention to this matter. Thank you, Jeff In support of T-Mobile Real Estate & Facilities Jeffrey R. Sweeney I Integrated Strategic Account Director Johnson Controls Inc I Global WorkPlace Solutions 12920 SE 38th St I Bellevue WA 98006 D: 425 383 5441 1 M: 425 829 3829 1 F: 425 484-6200 www.johnsoncontrols.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This Electronic Mail (e-mail)contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is sent. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or telephone. WARNING: JCI is acting solely in the capacity of soliciting, providing and receiving information and proposals and negotiating the same on behalf of its principals. Under no circumstances, whatsoever, does JCI have any authority to bind its principals to any item or terms contained herein. JCI makes no representation or warranty, express, implied or otherwise that acceptance of any item or terms contained herein will guarantee acceptance of such by its principal in any formal, binding document. No parties shall be bound to any terms, conditions or agreements, whatsoever, contained herein until the appropriate parties execute a formal legally binding agreement.-----Original Message----- From: Sweeney, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:44 PM To: montyc@co.mason.wa.us Subject: FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Monty: Thank you again for returning my call today with your busy schedule. Attached as promised is the email that we spoke about from Jim Scholz, who is the Planner with Mason County as well as a copy of the proposed (9/2/2008)Jim Scholz FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Page 4 documents. As you suggested, I will wait to hear from you and if I do not by the end of next week, I will call again. My contact info is attached below for your convenience. Thank you again, Jeff In support of T-Mobile Real Estate & Facilities Jeffrey R. Sweeney I Integrated Strategic Account Director Johnson Controls Inc I Global WorkPlace Solutions 12920 SE 38th St I Bellevue WA 98006 D: 425 383 5441 1 M:425 829 3829 1 F: 425 484-6200 www.johnsoncontrols.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This Electronic Mail (e-mail)contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is sent. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or telephone. WARNING: JCI is acting solely in the capacity of soliciting, providing and receiving information and proposals and negotiating the same on behalf of its principals. Under no circumstances, whatsoever, does JCI have any authority to bind its principals to any item or terms contained herein. JCI makes no representation or warranty, express, implied or otherwise that acceptance of any item or terms contained herein will guarantee acceptance of such by its principal in any formal, binding document. No parties shall be bound to any terms, conditions or agreements,whatsoever, contained herein until the appropriate parties execute a formal legally binding agreement. -----Original Message----- From: Carter, Bill (A. W.) [mailto:CarterB@pbworld.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:50 PM To: Jim Scholz Cc: Sweeney, Jeff;Amy Leitman Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Jim, attached are the revised Declaration Restrictions and the Joint Use Agreement. Your comments in the email below have been incorporated as follows: All documents now are to be notarized. I was not sure if you meant only to have the Joint Use Agreement notarized or all documents. I put it on all just to be sure. In the Joint Use Agreement I have included the applicable items from the "Original Hearing Examiner's Decision Part B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions of the Final Decision"as requested. You asked (9/2/2008)Jim Scholz- FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006 00027) _ _ Page 5 that each property owner have a separate agreement. Since this is an agreement between the property owners I is necessary that all sign the same agreement. Note that this is the agreement that has already been accepted by the Corp of Engineers. All three Declaration of Restrictions are attached, and the property description have been added to each. Only one was submitted originally because the wording of each is identical. Restrictions in the Hearing Examiners Decision from Part B. (1 & 3)are included. also spoke to our Amy Leitman, or Biologist, and she said that Barbara Robinson had advised here that we could apply for a reconsideration on the Buoy issue, and she will be proceeding with that. For the time being the buoys are included in the Deed Restrictions and will be easy to leave or remove at the last moment. If you have any questions please give me a call at 206 909 7568. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Scholz[mailto:JimSc@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:52 PM To: Carter, Bill (A. W.) Cc: Jim Scholz Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Mr Carter, Per your request I have reviewed the Agreement Regarding Joint Use Over Water Structure pertaining to the SHR 2006-00027) permit that you sent me. After discussions with some of the senior members of the planning staff I have come up with this: First, each of the three parities would need to have there own Notarized Agreement to sign and the legal description of there corresponding parcel would need to be attached to that document. Second, it is necessary to include in the Joint Use Agreement Document under each of the corresponding areas the items from Original Hearing Examiner's Decision Part B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions of the Final Decision that pertain to that condition in the Joint Use Agreement. Third, as for the Declaration of Restrictions Document, I see that you have only one and that the document pertains to only the Sweeney's parcel and restrictions on that parcels. Once again I would need three different Declaration of Restrictions Documents for each corresponding parcel and I would also want to see in those restrictions the same ones that were handed down in the Hearing Examiners Decision from Part B. (1 & 3). Those are the items that I would need to be added to this document before I would approve it. (9/2/2008)Jim Scholz-FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006-00027) Page 6 These are in fact the requirements and the restrictions of the final decision of the Hearing Examiner's Decision pertaining to this Joist Use over the Water Structure. This is stated in Part B Enhancement and Restoration Conditions (both 2 &3) as are additional items in Part B (1) However your legal counsel wants to write this up is for you decide, but those are the things I would need before I would approve the document per your request and according to what is stated in the final hearing document. That the Planning Director needs to review,comment, and approve. If I can be of further assistance to you or if you have additional questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Jim >>> "Carter, Bill (A. W.)" <CarterB@pbworld.com>5/15/2008 4:50 PM >>> What we want to do is to get our building permit and construct the dock. The final hearing document states"A deed restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier, dock, PRF or unattached, anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants'four waterfront parcels, respectively. The deed restriction shall be in a form approved by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, shall reference this decision, and shall be submitted to the Mason County Planning Director for review, comment and approval prior to execution and recording with the Mason County Auditor's Office." We need to know how to navigate through this process and move on to getting a building permit. You have a draft of the documents. We believe the process should be to get your approval, and the Prosecuting Attorney's approval of the draft, submit the final to the auditor, and then apply for the building permit. If we are wrong on the process please advise. If we are correct, please review the documents, and if possible also have the Prosecuting Attorney also review the documents. We would then file with the Auditor and apply for the building permit. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Scholz[mailto:JimSc@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:35 PM To: Carter, Bill (A. W.) Cc: Jim Scholz Subject: Re: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Mr. Carter, I received the information I will start going over it and try and put things together as my schedule permits. (9/2/2008)Jim Scholz-FW: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents (SHR2006 00027) Page 7 I want to be clear on what you and the other applicants are requesting. You are now looking to complete the project ie: build the pier, ramp, float and you need to put the legal documents together before you can get the building permit is that correct. Please get back to me with any additional information you may feel will help me move this along. You had stated some stipulations were being required of you and the other applicant during our first conversation could you please readdress them so that I have a reference point to start from, I believe you mentioned the assessor's office is that correct. Please refresh my memory as time permits and I will try and move forward. Thanks for your help and any additional info you can send me. Jim NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. (9/2/2008)Jim Scholz-Sweeney Page 1 From: Monty Cobb To: Jim Scholz CC: Barbara Adkins Date: 8/28/2008 1:47 PM Subject: Sweeney Jim Sweeney is asking for a minor modification which can be made administratively or through the hearing examiner. Unless the Dept is dead set against this app,I suggest you simple make the requested modification in-house Monty Monty Cobb, Chief Civil Deputy Mason County Prosecutor's Office PO Box 639,Shelton,WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext 417 (7/3/2008)Jim Scholz-RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Page 1 From: Jim Scholz To: Carter, Bill (A. W.) Date: 7/3/2008 9:25 AM Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Mr.Carter, Some of my comments(below)may seem redundant but I can only go by what was stated in the Hearing Examiner's decision and I do want to make sure that all that was stated in the Hearing Examiner's decision is stated in these documents especially if I am going to sign off on them at some point in time. If you have concerns about my request or concerns about the redundancy of my comments you may want to contact Mr. Monty Cobb(360-427-9670 Ext.417,who is the legal counsel for Mason County and who will eventually have to examine these documents and make sure they are in an approved form as stated in the Hearing Examiner's decision(VI.B.2&B. 3). Per your request I have completed a review of the revised editions of the Declarations of Restrictions and the Joint Use Agreement for the Shoreline Substantial Development(SHR2006-00027)for a joint use pier,ramp,float. Before giving you my comments on these two documents I would like to first address a few concerns that you made in your June 26 e-mail, it is my understanding from the reading of the Hearing Examiner's decision that all four of these documents (the three deed restrictions and the joint use agreement) must be signed by all parties,notarized,and recorded with the Mason County Auditor's Office(see page 11 B.2&B. 3.)I will accept One Joint Use Agreement Document(if the Prosecuting Attorney's Office deems that appropriate)+ providing that all members of all three parties sign it. Additionally it states in the decision(see page 10)that the conditions set forth in Section VI(B)of this decision must be strictly completed prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed PRF. You will need to contact me once all documents are signed,notarized,and recorded with the Mason County Auditor's Office and I have received copies of these and set up a time when I can come out and inspect the site to make sure all of the items mentioned in(B. 1.) have been removed as stated in the decision prior to Mason County issuing the building permit. My comments are as follows: Regarding the Declaration Of Restrictions,first I would like this to state Declaration Of Deed Restrictions this may seem redundant but this is what the document is,second in the paragraphs where you actually state the restrictions(paragraphs 5&6) it should actually state what the Hearing Examiner noted in his decision,and it is my belief that this should be stated verbatim on all three of the Deed Restrictions Documents this being for VI. B. 1.: "All existing unattached,anchored floats,moorage buoys presently located within the tideland area or offshore from each of the applicants'waterfront parcels shall be permanently removed. This requirement specifically includes,but is not necessarily limited to,(1) removal of the existing 16'X 24'unattached anchored float from the Carter and Sweeney tides/offshore area,and the(2) removal of the unattached float from the Lund tidelands/offshore area.The applicant shall arrange for a site visit by staff to verify such removal. Like wise for VI. B. 2.: A restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier,dock, PRF or unattached, anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants four waterfront parcels, respectively. Regarding the Joint Use Over Water Structure,under#4 Access and Use Rights the way I read this it appears the granted access and use rights are completely opposite of what was stated in the Hearing Examiner's decision(VI.B.2). It states, "in order to ensure permanent joint use of the PRF,the parties shall execute and record a permanent,written easement granting each applicant and his/her successors in title reasonable access to and use privileges of the PRF. Said easements shall be appurtenant to the applicants' underlying property,shall run with land,and shall bind and benefit all future owners of the current applicants'waterfront parcel". Once again this is what is stated as one of the enhancement and restoration conditions(see VI. B. 2.) Once again as stated in the Hearing Examiner's decision these documents have to be in a form approved by the Mason County's Prosecuting Attorneys Office. If I can be of further assistance or if you have additional questions please feel free to contact me at JimSc@co.mason.wa.us or 360-427-9670 Ext. 294. Regards, James Scholz 6/26/2008 Jim Scholz_RE: Carter—Sweeney—Lund Documents Page 1 From: "Carter, Bill (A. W.)" <CarterB@pbworld.com> To: "Jim Scholz" <JimSc@co.mason.wa.us> CC: "Sweeney, Jeff'<Jeff.Sweeney@T-Mobile.com>, "Amy Leitman" <sea@cablespe... Date: 6/24/2008 1:51 PM Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Attachments: 06-23-08 Sweeney Deed Restriction.doc; 06-23-08 Joint Use Agreement(final) (2).doc; 06-23-08 Carter Deed Restriction.doc; 06-23-08 Lund Deed—Restrict ion.doc Jim, attached are the revised Declaration Restrictions and the Joint Use Agreement. Your comments in the email below have been incorporated as follows: All documents now are to be notarized. I was not sure if you meant only to have the Joint Use Agreement notarized or all documents. I put it on all just to be sure. In the Joint Use Agreement I have included the applicable items from the "Original Hearing Examiner's Decision Part B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions of the Final Decision"as requested. You asked that each property owner have a separate agreement. Since this is an agreement between the property owners I is necessary that all sign the same agreement. Note that this is the agreement that has already been accepted by the Corp of Engineers. All three Declaration of Restrictions are attached, and the property description have been added to each. Only one was submitted originally because the wording of each is identical. Restrictions in the Hearing Examiners Decision from Part B. (1 & 3)are included. I also spoke to our Amy Leitman, or Biologist, and she said that Barbara Robinson had advised here that we could apply for a reconsideration on the Buoy issue, and she will be proceeding with that. For the time being the buoys are included in the Deed Restrictions and will be easy to leave or remove at the last moment. If you have any questions please give me a call at 206 909 7568. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Scholz[mailto:JimSc@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:52 PM To: Carter, Bill (A.W.) Cc: Jim Scholz Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Mr Carter, Per your request I have reviewed the Agreement Regarding Joint Use Over Water Structure pertaining to the SHR 2006-00027) permit that you sent me. After discussions with some of the senior members of the planning staff (6/26/2008)Jim Scholz- RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lunde Documents Page 2 I have come up with this: First, each of the three parities would need to have there own Notarized Agreement to sign and the legal description of there corresponding parcel would need to be attached to that document. Second, it is necessary to include in the Joint Use Agreement Document under each of the corresponding areas the items from Original Hearing Examiner's Decision Part B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions of the Final Decision that pertain to that condition in the Joint Use Agreement. Third, as for the Declaration of Restrictions Document, I see that you have only one and that the document pertains to only the Sweeney's parcel and restrictions on that parcels. Once again I would need three different Declaration of Restrictions Documents for each corresponding parcel and I would also want to see in those restrictions the same ones that were handed down in the Hearing Examiners Decision from Part B. (1 & 3). Those are the items that I would need to be added to this document before I would approve it. These are in fact the requirements and the restrictions of the final decision of the Hearing Examiner's Decision pertaining to this Joist Use over the Water Structure.This is stated in Part B Enhancement and Restoration Conditions (both 2 &3) as are additional items in Part B (1) However your legal counsel wants to write this up is for you decide, but those are the things I would need before I would approve the document per your request and according to what is stated in the final hearing document. That the Planning Director needs to review,comment, and approve. If I can be of further assistance to you or if you have additional questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Jim >>> "Carter, Bill (A. W.)"<CarterB@pbworld.com> 5/15/2008 4:50 PM >>> What we want to do is to get our building permit and construct the dock. The final hearing document states"A deed restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier, dock, PRF or unattached, anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants'four waterfront parcels, respectively. The deed restriction shall be in a form approved by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, shall reference this decision, and shall be submitted to the Mason County Planning Director for review, comment and approval prior to execution and recording with the Mason County Auditor's Office." We need to know how to navigate through this process and move on to getting a building permit. You have a draft of the documents. We believe the process should be to get your approval, and the Prosecuting (6/26/2008)Jim Scholz- RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Page 3 Attorney's approval of the draft, submit the final to the auditor, and then apply for the building permit. If we are wrong on the process please advise. If we are correct, please review the documents, and if possible also have the Prosecuting Attorney also review the documents. We would then file with the Auditor and apply for the building permit. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Scholz[mailto:JimSc@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:35 PM To: Carter, Bill (A.W.) Cc: Jim Scholz Subject: Re: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Mr. Carter, I received the information I will start going over it and try and put things together as my schedule permits. I want to be clear on what you and the other applicants are requesting. You are now looking to complete the project ie: build the pier, ramp, float and you need to put the legal documents together before you can get the building permit is that correct. Please get back to me with any additional information you may feel will help me move this along. You had stated some stipulations were being required of you and the other applicant during our first conversation could you please readdress them so that I have a reference point to start from, I believe you mentioned the assessor's office is that correct. Please refresh my memory as time permits and I will try and move forward. Thanks for your help and any additional info you can send me. Jim NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message")may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. (6/24/2008)Jim Scholz-Carter Lund PRF Page 1 From: Barbara Robinson To: Jim Scholz; Robert Fink Date: 6/24/2008 11:51 AM Subject: Carter Lund PRF I advised Amy Leitman today that if she wants the decision of the hearing examiner relative to the above project and the condition of no mooring buoy allowed,she will have to submit a request for reconsideration by the HIX. She will likely be contacting one of you. I told her we do not have the authority to change a decision made by the HEX or Shoreline Hearings Board if also applicable. Barbara Robinson Community Development Director Mason County P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 360-427-9670,Ext. 603 barbarr@co.mason.wa.us ' (5/29/2008)Jim Scholz- RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Page 1 From: Jim Scholz To: Carter, Bill (A. W.) CC: Jim Scholz Date: 5/29/2008 2:51 PM Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Mr Carter, Per your request I have reviewed the Agreement Regarding Joint Use Over Water Structure pertaining to the SHR 2006- 00027)permit that you sent me. After discussions with some of the senior members of the planning staff I have come up with this: First, each of the three parities would need to have there own Notarized Agreement to sign and the legal description of there corresponding parcel would need to be attached to that document. Second, it is necessary to include in the Joint Use Agreement Document under each of the corresponding areas the items from Original Hearing Examiner's Decision Part B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions of the Final Decision that pertain to that condition in the Joint Use Agreement. Third,as for the Declaration of Restrictions Document,I see that you have only one and that the document pertains to only the Sweeney's parcel and restrictions on that parcels. Once again I would need three different Declaration of Restrictions Documents for each corresponding parcel and I would also want to see in those restrictions the same ones that were handed down in the Hearing Examiners Decision from Part B. (1 & 3). Those are the items that I would need to be added to this document before I would approve it. These are in fact the requirements and the restrictions of the final decision of the Hearing Examiner's Decision pertaining to this Joist Use over the Water Structure.This is stated in Part B Enhancement and Restoration Conditions(both 2&3) as are additional items in Part B(1) However your legal counsel wants to write this up is for you decide, but those are the things I would need before I would approve the document per your request and according to what is stated in the final hearing document.That the Planning Director needs to review,comment,and approve. If I can be of further assistance to you or if you have additional questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Jim >>> "Carter, Bill (A.W.)" <CarterB@E)bworld.com> 5/15/2008 4:50 PM >>> What we want to do is to get our building permit and construct the dock. The final hearing document states"A deed restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier,dock, PRF or unattached,anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants'four waterfront parcels, respectively.The deed restriction shall be in a form approved by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office,shall reference this decision,and shall be submitted to the Mason County Planning Director for review,comment and approval prior to execution and recording with the Mason County Auditor's Office." We need to know how to navigate through this process and move on to getting a building permit. You have a draft of the documents. We believe the process should be to get your approval,and the Prosecuting Attorney's approval of the draft,submit the final to the auditor,and then apply for the building permit. If we are wrong on the process please advise. If we are correct, please review the documents, and if possible also (5/29/2008)Jim Scholz- RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Page 2 have the Prosecuting Attorney also review the documents. We would then file with the Auditor and apply for the building permit. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Scholz Finailto:JimSc(@co.mason.wa.usl Sent: Thursday, May 15,2008 4:35 PM To: Carter, Bill (A. W.) Cc: Jim Scholz Subject: Re: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Mr.Carter, I received the information I will start going over it and try and put things together as my schedule permits. I want to be clear on what you and the other applicants are requesting. You are now looking to complete the project ie: build the pier, ramp, float and you need to put the legal documents together before you can get the building permit is that correct. Please get back to me with any additional information you may feel will help me move this along.You had stated some stipulations were being required of you and the other applicant during our first conversation could you please readdress them so that I have a reference point to start from,I believe you mentioned the assessor's office is that correct. Please refresh my memory as time permits and I will try and move forward. Thanks for your help and any additional info you can send me. Jim NOTICE:This communication and any attachments("this message") may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).Any unauthorized use,disclosure,viewing,copying,alteration, dissemination or distribution of,or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,or you are not an authorized recipient,please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message,delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. (5/29/2008)Jim Scholz RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Page 1 From: Jim Scholz To: Carter, Bill (A.W.) Date: 5/29/2008 1:07:31 PM Subject: RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Mr Carter, Per your request I have reviewed the Agreement Regarding Joint Use Over Water Structure pertaining to the SHR 2006-00027) permit that you sent me. After discussions with some of the senior members of the planning staff I have come up with these suggestions. First I think it would be best if each of the three parities had there own Notarized Agreement to sign and the legal description of there corresponding parcel be attached to that document. Second I feel that it is necessary to include in the Joint Use Agreement Document under each of the corresponding areas the items from Original Hearing Examiner's Decision Part B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions of the Final Decision that pertain to that condition in the Joint Use Agreement for example: One below needs to be attached to 1 in the Joint Use Agreement like this. See Below where have inserted it below in parenthesis in bold. And Two needs to be attached to 3 and Three needs to attached to 4. See below in (parenthesis)and in bold. Those would be the things that I would need to be added to this document before I would approve it. These are in fact the requirements and the restrictions of the final decision of the Hearing Examiner's Decision pertaining to this Joist Use over the Water Structure. Third, as for the Declaration of Restrictions Document, I see that you have only one and that the document pertains to only the Sweeney's parcel and restrictions on that parcels. I don't think that this will work once again I would need three different Declaration of Restrictions Documents for each corresponding parcel and I would also want to see in those restrictions the same ones that were handed down in the Hearing Examiners Decision from Part B. especially those from Part B (1 & 3). All three of those documents must make a similar statement as to the one in Part B (3) ie: (A deed restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier, dock, PRF or unattached, anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants'four waterfront parcels, respectively.) And each of the three documents must have language that places the restrictions for that parcel as stated in the Hearing Examiners Decision:(All existing unattached, anchored floats, and moorage buoys presently located within the tideland area or offshore from each of the applicants'waterfront parcels shall be permanently removed. This requirement specifically includes, but is not necessarily limited to, (1) removal of the existing 16'X 24' unattached anchored float from the Carter and Sweeney tidelands/offshore area,and (2) removal of the unattached anchored float from the Lund tidelands/offshore area.) Those are the things I would need to see in the Declaration of Restrictions before I could approve it. Agreement Regarding Joint Use Over Water Structure Effective Date: December 8, 2007 This agreement, regarding a joint-use pier, ramp and float structure, is made as of the date shown above between Carters, Sweeneys and Lunds, the"Owners"of the property described in Exhibits A, B and C attached hereto, and more commonly known as the Carter, Sweeney and Lund parcels and more (5/29/2008)Jim Scholz- RE: Carter-Sweeney-Lund Documents Page 2 particularly, described on the attached plat map, Exhibit D, attached hereto. Whereas, the Carters and Sweeneys have commenced with plans for the construction of a joint-use pier, ramp and float structure to be located on the adjoining property line between the Cater parcel and the Sweeney parcel. Whereas, the Carters, Sweeneys and Lunds wish to enter into an agreement to provide for the use, access and such other matters concerning the joint-use pier, ramp and float structure pursuant to the plan for development of the premises, as stated and in compliance with the Carter, Sweeney and Lund Shoreline Substantial Development(SHR2006-00027) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION document dated March of 2008; Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived here from, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Joint Use Restriction: The current and future Owners of Carters and Sweeneys (hereinafter referred to as the"Joint Use Owners")and Lunds (hereinafter referred to as"Beneficiaries")voluntarily agree to build no additional pier, ramp and float structure, except for the maintenance or modification of the joint-use pier, ramp and float structure located between Carters and Sweeneys on their adjoining property lines. (All existing unattached, anchored floats, and moorage buoys presently located within the tideland area or offshore from each of the applicants'waterfront parcels shall be permanently removed. This requirement specifically includes, but is not necessarily limited to, (1) removal of the existing 16'X 24' unattached anchored float from the Carter and Sweeney tidelands/offshore area, and (2) removal of the unattached anchored float from the Lund tidelands/offshore area.) 2. Joint Use Construction: The current and future Joint Use Owners and the Beneficiaries agree to and recognize the requirements for construction, use and mitigation requirements associated with the joint-use pier, ramp and float structure located on the adjoining property line between Carters and Sweeneys. 3. Access and Use Rights: The current and future Joint Use Owners hereby convey and warrant to Mary and Pat Lund, the current Owners of the Lund parcel an access easement over and across the affected parcels as is reasonable and desirable to gain use, ingress and egress to the joint-use pier, ramp and float structure. The rights for the Lund parcel use and access of the subject joint use pier, ramp and float structure are limited to Mary and Pat Lund's personal use, so long as they own and/or live on their affected parcel and those rights may not be transferred to future Owners, their heirs, successors or assigns of the Lund parcel. ( In order to ensure permanent joint use of the PRF,the parties shall execute and record a permanent,written easement granting each applicant and his/her successors in title reasonable access to and use privileges of the PRF. Said easement shall be appurtenant to the applicants' underlying property, shall run with land, and shall bind and benefit all future owners of the current applicants'waterfront parcels.) 4. Binding Effect: This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the current and future Owners, their heirs, successors or assigns of the affected parcels upon completion of construction of the joint-use pier, ramp and float structure. All covenants contained herein shall run with the land and shall be recorded on the deed or title for each parcel. (A deed restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier, dock, PRF or unattached, anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants'four waterfront parcels, respectively.) 5. This agreement may not be amended without the written permission of all governmental agencies and the parties to this agreement(in particular, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch)having Jurisdiction over the joint-use pier, ramp, and float structure. �T t 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 1 in the public interest. 2 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 3 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 4 Mr. McCoy testified at the April 10, 2007 that, in staff s view, the applicants' 5 proposal satisfied all relevant code criteria, necessarily including the above standards. 6 No contrary evidence was entered into the record. 7 VI. DECISION 8 The shoreline substantial development permit requested by the applicants is GRANTED subject to the following conditions of approval, each of which is 9 mandatory. The conditions set forth in Section VI(B) of this decision must be 10 completed prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed PRF: 11 A. Design, Construction and Maintenance Conditions. 12 1. The design and construction of the PRF shall be as depicted in Biological 13 Evaluation(Exhibit A: Attachment 1, Figures 2 and 3 -pages 20 and 21). 14 2. The design and construction of the PRF shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the MDNS (Exhibit A: Attachment 3). 15 3. The design and construction of the PRF shall comply fully with all applicable 16 federal, state and local regulations. 17 4. The PRF shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition 18 pursuant to MCC 7.16.170(c)(16). 19 B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions. 20 1. All existin unattached, anchored fl �ofthe �al' �'s��=ffee d within the t' re from each 21 shall be ermanently rem(w uni p ., recifically includes, but is not 22 necessarily limited to, (1) removal of the existing 16' X 24' unattached anchored float from the Carter and Sweeney tidelands/offshore area, and (2) removal of the 23 unattached anchored float from the Lund tidelands/offshore area.4 The applicants shall arrange for a site visit by staff to verify such removal. 24 25 4 The latter requirement deviates from the conditions of approval originally recommended by staff, which had omitted from the structure removal mandate the current float situated offshore from the Lund parcel. The Examiner finds that permanent removal of all of the applicants'existing floats is the minimum measure necessary to adequately mitigate the installation of the applicants' larger, {JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/} PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 10 - l 1 2. order to ensure permanent joint use of the PRF, the parties shall execute and 2 record a permanent, written easement granting each applicant and his/her successors in title reasonable access to and use privileges of the PRF. Said easement shall be 3 appurtenant to the applicants' underlying property, shall run with land, and shall bind and benefit all future owners of the current applicants' waterfront parcels. The 4 easement shall be in a form approved by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, shall reference this decision, and shall be submitted to the Mason County 5 Planning Director for review, comment and approval prior to execution and recording 6 with the Mason County Auditor's Office. 7 J A deed restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier, dock, PRF or unattached, anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high 8 water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants' four waterfront parcels, respectively. The deed restriction shall be in a form approved by 9 the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, shall reference this decision, and 10 shall be submitted to the Mason County Planning Director for review, comment and approval prior to execution and recording with the Mason County Auditor's Office. 11 VII. APPEAL 12 Pursuant to MCC 15.09.055(g), this decision is appealable to the State Shorelines 13 Hearings Board. Any person aggrieved by this decision may initiate an appeal by 14 filing an original and one copy of a request for the same with the Hearings Board within 21 days of receiving this decision. Any such request must be in the form 15 required by the rules for practice and procedure before the State Shorelines Hearings Board. Concurrent with the filing of a request for review with the Hearings Board, 16 the person seeking review shall file a copy of the request for review with the 17 Department of Ecology,the Attorney General and the Hearing Examiner. 18 Hearings Board regulations are set forth in Chapter 461-08 WAC. 19 DATED this day of May, 2008 20 J. Zachary Lell 21 Mason County Hearing Examiner pro tem 22 23 permanent PRF and to minimize its aesthetic, ecological and other impacts. As a practical matter, the Examiner notes that installation of the applicants' new PRF, to which the Lunds will enjoy joint use 24 rights,should obviate any continuing need for the existing float. 25 (JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/) PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 11 - Addendum to the Staff Report RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHR2006-0002 ) All the following conditions will need to be met by the Applicants before issuance of a Final Building Permit Approval for the proposed joint use pier, ramp and float. A. Design Conditions 1. As submitted in attached Biological Evaluation (Figures 2 and 3 - pages 20 and 21, respectively). B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions 1. An existing unattached, anchored float of dimensions 16' X 24' will be removed from the Carter and Sweeney tidelands. 2. All four parcels have agreed to restrictions on their respective deeds to disallowing unattached, anchored floats to be placed in Hood Canal forward of OHWM on their individual properties (exception for the Lund property is stated below in item 4.) 3. All four parcels have agreed to restrictions on their respective deeds to not allowing for a pier, ramp and float to be placed in Hood Canal forward of the OHWM of their individual properties. The proposed pier, ramp float found in this application and evaluated by this staff report will be jointly used by all properties and should be so stated on all four deeds. 4. The Lund property will be permitted to maintain their existing unattached, anchored float and maintain and replace said float without deed restriction. C. Deed Restriction Conditions 1. These deed restrictions, as presented above, will need to be recorded with Mason County Auditor's Office and a copy submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Respectfully, Charles Mead McCoy III Planner Mason County 1 2 3 4 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 5 J. Zachary Lell,Hearing Examiner pro tem 6 RE: Carter, Sweeney and Lund 7 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 8 Shoreline Substantial Development OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION (SHR2006-00027) 9 10 I. INTRODUCTION 11 The applicants have requested a Shoreline Substantial Development (SSD) permit to construct a joint use pier, ramp and float (PRF) structure along the north shore of 12 Hood Canal. The request is APPROVED contingent upon compliance with the 13 conditions imposed herein. 14 II. ORAL TESTIMONY 15 Pursuant to MCC 15.09.070 and MCC 15.09.080, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing regarding the applicants' proposal on April 10, 2007. The following 16 individuals testified at the public hearing in the order of presentation indicated below: 17 Mason County Staff: Charles Mead McCoy III, Senior Planner, Mason County 18 Applicants: Bill Carter 19 Amy Leitman 20 Public: None 21 Staff Rebuttal Charles Mead McCoy III 22 Applicant Rebuttal: Bill Carter 23 Amy Leitman 24 A verbatim transcript of the April 10, 2007 public hearing is attached hereto as 25 Exhibit G and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The hearing record was left open until April 17, 2007, for the submission of additional written comments from staff and the public. The hearing record was left open until April 20, 2007, for the submission of additional written rebuttal testimony from the applicants. {JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/) PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 1 - I III. EXHIBITS 2 The following exhibits were admitted into the hearing record and are hereby 3 incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full: 4 Exhibit A: Staff Report, Mason County(January 8, 2006)1 5 Attachments to Staff Report: 6 1. Biological Evaluation, Marine Surveys & Assessments (September 7 14, 2006) 8 2. Environmental Checklist(October 6,2006) 9 3. SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsigificance: SEP2006- 00160, (December 8, 2006) 10 11 4. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application(undated) 12 5. Affidavit of Posting Notice(December 11, 2006) 13 6. Shoreline Permit Application(October 6, 2006) 14 7. Environmental Permit Application(October 19, 2006) 15 8. Plot Plan (October 6, 2006) 16 9. Structural Diagram (October 6, 2006) 17 10. Flow Chart, "Dock Pier and Float Impacts" (undated) 18 19 11. Curriculum Vitae, Charles Mead McCoy III (undated) 20 12. Revised Addendum to Staff Report (April 17, 2007)2 21 22 At Mr. McCoy's request, the original staff report was replaced with an updated version at the April 10, 2007 public hearing. Unless otherwise indicated, references to the staff report within this 23 decision are to the updated version set forth in Exhibit A. The original staff report is included as Exhibit E. 24 2 Attachment 12 contains a "revised addendum" to the staff report submitted by Mr. McCoy via 25 email message dated April 17, 2006. The Hearing Examiner assumes from the underlying context that this submittal was intended to supersede and replace the revised addendum originally entered into the record as Attachment 12 during the April 10, 2007 public hearing. The designation of the former document as Attachment 12 reflects this assumption. I JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/) PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 2 - 13. Email Message,Barbara Nightingale to Chuck McCoy(April 6, 1 2007) 2 14. Letter, Jeff Heinis to Charles Mead McCoy III (December 22, 3 2006) 4 Exhibit B: Applicants' PowerPoint Presentation 5 Exhibit C: Excerpt from"Overwater Structures and NonStructural Piling White 6 Paper", Jones & Stokes/Anchor Environmental LLC (December 2006) 7 Exhibit D: Staff Report with Applicants' Comments Interjected (January 8, 2007) 8 Exhibit E: Original Staff Report(January 8, 2006)3 9 Exhibit F: Email Messages,Amy Leitman to Charles McCoy III (April 18, 2007); 10 Bill Carter to Charles McCoy III (April 19, 2007) 11 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 12 1. Applicants. The applicants are Bill Carter, Jerry and Karen Sweeney, and 13 Marvin and Patricia Lund. The applicants were represented at the April 10, 2007 public hearing by Amy Leitman of Marine Surveys &Assessments. 14 2. Public Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing 15 regarding the subject application on April 10, 2007. 16 3. Site Description/Proposal. The applicants propose an overwater joint use 17 pier, ramp and float ("PRF") structure on the north shore of Hood Canal at approximately milepost III on North Shore Road. As proposed, the PRF would 18 involve a 6' by 60' fixed grated pier, a 4' by 40' grated aluminum ramp, and three attached, grated 6' by 20' polystyrene floats. The entire structure would be supported 19 by driving 10 ACZA piles. The PRF will not exceed 115' in total length as measured 20 from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Hood Canal. 21 The site of the proposed PRE contains three single-family residences on individual parcels owned by applicants Carter (10871 North Shore Rd.), Sweeney (10891 North 22 Shore Rd.) and Lund (10851 North Shore Rd.), respectively, as well as an additional vacant lot owned by applicant Carter (unspecified lot). All four parcels are zoned 23 Rural Residential 5 (RR-5), and are designated as Rural under the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. The Shoreline Master Program designation for the site is 24 Urban. 25 3 See Note 1. {JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/) PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 3 - As proposed, the applicants' PRF would extend from the property line separating the 1 Sweeney parcel and the vacant Carter parcel. 2 4. Surrounding Area Characteristics. The general area surrounding the 3 project site is characterized by residential construction along the north shore of Hood Canal. Waterfront residences are located immediately east and west of the project 4 site. One private residential PRF is located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. The predominant method of boat anchorage for private residences along 5 the north shore is the use of moorage-ball buoys. Many anchored floating platforms 6 privately used for recreational purposes are also located along the north shore. 7 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 8 A. Procedural: 9 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) authorizes the Hearing Examiner to review applications and issue final decisions regarding shoreline 10 substantial development permit applications. 11 B. Substantive: 12 1. Permit Review Criteria: MCC 15.09.055(a) requires a shoreline 13 substantial development permit for any "substantial development" within the shoreline area. The term "substantial development" is undefined by MCC Title 15, 14 but is apparently intended to encompass any development that does not fall within the 15 permit exemptions enumerated in MCC 15.09.055(a), the most significant of which exempts projects valued at $5,000 or less. The estimated cost of the applicants' 16 proposed PRF exceeds this threshold, and no record evidence suggests that any other exemption applies to this project. As such, construction of the applicants' proposed 17 PRF requires an SSD permit. 18 Pursuant to MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(c), a shoreline substantial development permit must 19 be consistent with both the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and the policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act codified at Chapter 90.58 RCW. 20 The Hearing Examiner construes the Mason County Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") as including the shoreline policies set forth in Chapter IX of the Mason 21 County Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Use Regulations contained in Chapter 22 17.50 MCC. The Hearing Examiner further concludes that many of the policies of the Shoreline Management Act are sufficiently incorporated within — and thus 23 addressed by the applicable policies and regulations of Mason County's SMP and need not be separately addressed as such. 24 The SMP policies and criteria applicable to the applicants' PRF proposal are 25 addressed below: {JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/} PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 4 - SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 1): Piers and docks should be designed and 1 located to minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and 2 fishermen. MCC 7.16.170(b)(1). 3 The applicants' proposed PRF would be located on the north shore of Hood Canal in an area containing relatively few structures of this type. Ordinarily, locating a PRF in 4 this area would fail to "minimize obstruction of views" in violation of the above policy. However, the applicants contend, and staff concurs, that the applicants' 5 proposal for a joint PRF actually comports with this policy by minimizing the future 6 ability to install individual PRFs in the immediate area. Under the applicants' theory, the proposed PRF will be constructed to service each of the four contiguous parcels 7 owned by the applicants, respectively, and will ensure that neither present nor future owners may subsequently install additional PRFs to individually service their 8 parcels. As such, the construction of a single, jointly-owned and collectively-used PRF will, over the long term, minimize view obstruction and user conflicts by 9 permanently reducing the total number of local PRFs that will (or can) be installed in 10 the future. The Examiner finds merit in this position provided that the project is conditioned in manner that conclusively and permanently prevents future construction 11 of individual PRFs and other overwater structures on the applicants' parcels. 12 SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 2): Cooperative uses of piers and docks are 13 favored, especially in tidal waters. MCC 7.16.170(b)(2). 14 As a joint use PRF collectively applied for by applicants Carter, Sweeney and Lund, the applicants' proposal clearly satisfies the above policy. 15 SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 3): The type, design and location of docks and 16 piers should be compatible with the shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, 17 adjacent land and water uses. MCC 7.16.170(b)(3). 18 The project site is approximately 100 feet eastward of an existing PRF that is larger than the applicants' proposed structure. The surrounding shoreline area is fully 19 developed, fronted by bulkheads, and contains not only the existing PRF but also several detached floats. Except for the existing PRF, the applicants' proposed 20 structure is arguably incompatible with the aesthetics and physical characteristics of 21 the existing shoreline. 22 Uncontroverted testimony received at the April 20, 2007 public hearing suggests that the applicants' PRF would also be largely compatible with tidal action. The absence 23 of any significant discernible scour around nearby piers generally supports this contention. As proposed, the applicants' float will be constructed with float stops to 24 ensure that the float is suspended above the substrate by at least 12" at low tide. And 25 given that the PRF will facilitate recreational use of the shoreline area and water by the occupants of at least four adjacent parcels, the proposal is generally compatible with adjacent land and water uses. I J Z L660252.DOC;1/l 3009.900000/} PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 5 - I SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 5): Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over 2 piers and docks. MCC 7.16.170(b)(5). 3 Mooring buoys and floats provide the predominant form of boat moorage on the north shore of Hood Canal, and the above policy reflects a legislative preference for this 4 type of moorage rather than permanent attached structures such as piers and docks. As a permanent structure involving a pier, the applicants' proposed PRF clearly does 5 not comport with this policy. The Examiner notes, however, that MCC 6 7.16.170(b)(5), like MCC 7.16.170(b)(3), is ultimately a policy statement rather than a formal regulation. The Examiner also affords significant respect and deference to 7 staff s recommendation—and the reasons underlying it—to approve the applicants' proposal notwithstanding this policy. 8 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks 9 and piers, as well as the subsequent use, shall minimize adverse effects on fish, 10 shellfish, wildlife and water quality. MCC 7.16.170(c)(1). 11 While no evidence was submitted remotely suggesting that PRFs may beneficially impact the marine environment, both the applicants and staff concur that the 12 cumulative adverse impacts of private PRFs upon marine life—particularly juvenile salmonids — are presently uncertain. Some testimony and evidence suggested, 13 however, that many of the adverse impacts commonly associated with large 14 overwater structures may be avoided in the context of small docks by virtue of their comparatively lesser size, as well as through the use of gratings, increased dock 15 height and non-treated wood. 16 Staff s basis for recommending approval of this project is the long-term minimization of adverse impacts by reducing the aggregate amount of artificial shading from PRFs 17 and floats in the immediate vicinity of the project site. This novel "more-is-less" 18 theory is at first glance counterintuitive. However, although this issue is extremely close, the Examiner finds that the criterion set forth in MCC 7.16.170(c)(1) is 19 satisfied under the specific circumstances of the applicants' proposal for two reasons. First, the regulation by its terms only requires that the location, design and subsequent 20 use of a new pier minimize — as opposed to prevent — adverse ecological impacts. 21 Second, the project as conditioned (particularly the use of grating, the mandatory removal of existing floats, and the permanent restrictions against installing new piers 22 or floats on any of the applicants' parcels) will ensure that the cumulative local impact of the applicants' PRF is in fact minimized. 23 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 2): Docks and piers shall be located, 24 designed and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the 25 rights of adjacent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be located at a minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line. MCC 7.16.170(c)(2). (JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/) PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 6 - The location of the proposed PRF straddles the Carter/Sweeney property boundary, 1 which is permissible under the above policy in the context of joint use facilities. This 2 criterion is accordingly satisfied. 3 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 4): No pier, dock, or float or similar device shall have a residential structure constructed upon it. MCC 7.16.170(c)(4). 4 The applicants' proposal clearly satisfies this regulation, as the PRF in question will 5 not include a residential structure. 6 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 7): Maximum overall length of a 7 recreational pier dock facility including float shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at mean lower low water on salt-water... 8 The length of any pier or dock facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from OHWM on saltwater. . . . Joint or community use facilities may 9 be an additional 15 feet in length, and shall not exceed a depth of minus five (-5)feet. 10 MCC 7.16.170(c)(7). 11 The length of the applicants' proposed PRF is 115 feet as measured from the ordinary high water mark, which satisfies the above standard for joint use facilities. The 12 terminus of the proposed PRF (i.e., the float) is at a depth above the 0.0 of mean lower low water. 13 14 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 8): Only one dock is allowed per lot. MCC 7.16.170(c)(8). 15 The applicants' proposal is for a single PRF structure extending from the 16 Carter/Sweeney parcels. This criterion is accordingly satisfied. 17 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 9): The width of recreational piers and 18 docks shall not exceed eight feet. MCC 7.16.170(c)(8). 19 The maximum width of the applicants' proposed pier is six feet, which clearly satisfies the above standard. 20 21 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 10): At the end of a dock or pier, afloat may be attached. These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a 22 "T" or "L". In tidal water, the float shall not exceed four hundred gross square feet without a boat slip, or six hundred gross square feet with a boat. MCC 23 7.16.170(c)(10). 24 The surface area of the applicants' proposed float is 360 square feet, which complies 25 with MCC 7.16.170(c)(10). (JZL660252.DOC,1/13009.900000/) PU Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 7 - • SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no 1 higher than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at 2 least an eight foot span between pilings. MCC 7.16.170(c)(13). 3 Per the drawings in the biological evaluation attached to the staff report, the height of the proposed pier component of the applicants' PRF is less than 11 feet above mean 4 higher high water. The piling span is at least 20 feet. 5 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 14): The surface of floating structures 6 shall be a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water. MCC 7.16.170(c)(14). 7 As configured,the surface height of the proposed PRF satisfies this criterion. 8 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 15): All floating structures shall 9 include intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide. MCC 10 7.16.170(c)(15). 11 Intermittent supports are included in the applicants' proposal. 12 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 16): All facilities shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers 13 shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. MCC 7.16.170(c)(16). 14 The construction and maintenance requirements set forth in MCC 7.16A70(c)(16) are 15 included as a condition of project approval. 16 RCW 90.58.020: This policy (Shoreline Management Act policy) is designed,to insure the development of these shorelines (of the state) in a manner which, while 17 allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will 18 promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the 19 waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. 20 21 For self-evident reasons, development of permanent overwater structures, including PRFs, is generally inconsistent with this policy. However, viewing the applicants' 22 proposal in light of both the fully developed nature of the surrounding shoreline area (specifically including the existing PRF west of the project site) and the required 23 mitigation conditions imposed by this decision, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the adverse impacts of the proposal are sufficiently reduced. 24 25 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. {JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 8 - As conditioned, applicants' proposal will eliminate the ability of future owners of 1 three of the four parcels at issue to adversely affect the state interest in shoreline 2 preservation through future installation of PRFs and floats. 3 RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. 4 The shoreline area immediately surrounding the project site is substantially developed, and already includes a PRF larger in size than the one proposed by the 5 applicants. While the installation of an additional PRF will not "preserve" the 6 remaining natural character of the shoreline per se, the applicants' project as conditioned herein will involve removal of existing floats and ensure that no similar 7 overwater structures will be installed on the other three parcels owned by the applicants. 8 RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit. 9 10 As explained above, the long-term benefit of the proposal will take the form of preventing future installation of additional PRFs, floats and similar overwater 11 structures within the immediate vicinity. 12 RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. 13 The specific cumulative impacts of PRFs on aquatic resources and shoreline ecology 14 are presently uncertain. The specific impact of the applicants' proposal upon shoreline resources and ecology is minimized by virtue of the mitigation conditions 15 set forth herein. 16 RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 17 18 The proposed PRF will not have any impact upon public access to public areas of the shoreline. 19 RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the 20 shoreline. 21 The proposed PRF will have little or no impact upon recreational opportunities for the 22 general public. Once constructed, the PRF will increase shoreline and aquatic recreational opportunities for the applicants as joint users of the facility. 23 MCC 15.09.050(c): The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development 24 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. (J ZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/) PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 9 - 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 1 in the public interest. 2 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 3 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 4 Mr. McCoy testified at the April 10, 2007 that, in staff s view, the applicants' 5 proposal satisfied all relevant code criteria, necessarily including the above standards. 6 No contrary evidence was entered into the record. 7 VI. DECISION 8 The shoreline substantial development permit requested by the applicants is GRANTED subject to the following conditions of approval, each of which is 9 mandatory. The conditions set forth in Section VI(B) of this decision must be 10 completed prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed PRF: 11 A. Design, Construction and Maintenance Conditions. 12 1. The design and construction of the PRF shall be as depicted in Biological 13 Evaluation(Exhibit A: Attachment 1, Figures 2 and 3 -pages 20 and 21). 14 2. The design and construction of the PRF shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the MDNS (Exhibit A: Attachment 3). 15 3. The design and construction of the PRF shall comply fully with all applicable 16 federal, state and local regulations. 17 4. The PRF shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition 18 pursuant to MCC 7.16.170(c)(16). 19 B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions. 20 1. All existing unattached, anchored floats, and moorage buoys presently located 21 within the tideland area or offshore from each of the applicants' waterfront parcels shall be permanently removed. This requirement specifically includes, but is not 22 necessarily limited to, (1) removal of the existing 16' X 24' unattached anchored float from the Carter and Sweeney tidelands/offshore area, and (2) removal of the 23 unattached anchored float from the Lund tidelands/offshore area.4 The applicants shall arrange for a site visit by staff to verify such removal. 24 25 4 The latter requirement deviates from the conditions of approval originally recommended by staff, which had omitted from the structure removal mandate the current float situated offshore from the Lund parcel. The Examiner finds that permanent removal of all of the applicants' existing floats is the minimum measure necessary to adequately mitigate the installation of the applicants' larger, {JZL660252.DOC;I/13009.900000/) PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 10 - 1 2. In order to ensure permanent joint use of the PRF, the parties shall execute and 2 record a permanent, written easement granting each applicant and his/her successors in title reasonable access to and use privileges of the PRF. Said easement shall be 3 appurtenant to the applicants' underlying property, shall run with land, and shall bind and benefit all future owners of the current applicants' waterfront parcels. The 4 easement shall be in a form approved by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, shall reference this decision, and shall be submitted to the Mason County 5 Planning Director for review, comment and approval prior to execution and recording 6 with the Mason County Auditor's Office. 7 J A deed restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier, dock, PRF or unattached, anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high 8 water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants' four waterfront parcels, respectively. The deed restriction shall be in a form approved by 9 the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, shall reference this decision, and 10 shall be submitted to the Mason County Planning Director for review, comment and approval prior to execution and recording with the Mason County Auditor's Office. 11 VII. APPEAL 12 Pursuant to MCC 15.09.055(g), this decision is appealable to the State Shorelines 13 Hearings Board. Any person aggrieved by this decision may initiate an appeal by 14 filing an original and one copy of a request for the same with the Hearings Board within 21 days of receiving this decision. Any such request must be in the form 15 required by the rules for practice and procedure before the State Shorelines Hearings Board. Concurrent with the filing of a request for review with the Hearings Board, 16 the person seeking review shall file a copy of the request for review with the 17 Department of Ecology,the Attorney General and the Hearing Examiner. 18 Hearings Board regulations are set forth in Chapter 461-08 WAC. 19 DATED this day of May, 2008 20 J. Zachary Lell 21 Mason County Hearing Examiner pro tem 22 23 permanent PRF and to minimize its aesthetic, ecological and other impacts. As a practical matter, the Examiner notes that installation of the applicants' new PRF, to which the Lunds will enjoy joint use 24 rights,should obviate any continuing need for the existing float. 25 1 JZL660252.DOC;1/13009.900000/} PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Findings, Conclusions and Decision - 11 - Addendum to the Staff Report RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHR2006-00027) All the following conditions will need to be met by the Applicants before issuance of a Final Building Permit Approval for the proposed joint use pier, ramp and float. A. Design Conditions 1. As submitted in attached Biological Evaluation (Figures 2 and 3 - pages 20 and 21, respectively). B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions 1. An existing unattached, anchored float of dimensions 16' X 24' will be removed from the Carter and Sweeney tidelands. 2. All four parcels have agreed to restrictions on their respective deeds to disallowing unattached, anchored floats to be placed in Hood Canal forward of OHWM on their individual properties (exception for the Lund property is stated below in item 4.) 3. All four parcels have agreed to restrictions on their respective deeds to not allowing for a pier, ramp and float to be placed in Hood Canal forward of the OHWM of their individual properties. The proposed pier, ramp float found in this application and evaluated by this staff report will be jointly used by all properties and should be so stated on all four deeds. 4. The Lund property will be permitted to maintain their existing unattached, anchored float and maintain and replace said float without deed restriction. C. Deed Restriction Conditions 1. These deed restrictions, as presented above, will need to be recorded with Mason County Auditor's Office and a copy submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Respectfully, Charles Mead McCoy III Planner Mason County WACs>Title 173 >Chapter 173-27 > Section 173-27-090 173-27-080 <;< 173-27-090 --- 173-27-100 WAC 173-27-090 Washington State Register filings since 2003 Time requirements of permit. (1) The time requirements of this section shall apply to all substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized by this chapter. Upon a finding of good cause,based on the requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and provisions of the master program and this chapter, local government may adopt different time limits from those set forth in subsections (2) and(3) of this section as a part of action on a substantial development permit. (2) Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities are involved,the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a substantial development permit. However, local government may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the substantial development permit and to the department. (3) Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of a substantial development permit. However, local government may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the department. (4) The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections (2) and (3) of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. z ' (5) Revisions to permits under WAC 173-27-100 may be authorized after original permit authorization has expired: Provided, That this procedure shall not be used to extend the original permit time requirements or to authorize substantial development after the time limits of the original permit. (6) Local government shall notify the department in writing of any change to the effective date of a permit, as authorized by this section, with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change. Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those authorized by RCW 90.58.143 as amended shall require a new permit application. [Statutory Authority:RCW 90.58.030(3)(e),90.58.045,90.58.005,90.58.140(9),90.58.143, 90.58.147,9058.200,90.58.355.90.58.390,90.58.515,43.21K.080,71.09.250,71,09.142, 77.55.1S1,89.09.460,chapters 70.1051.),80.50 RCW.07-02-086(Order 05-12),§173-27-090, filed 1/2/07,effective 2/2/07.Statutory Authority:RCW 90.58.141)(3)andf90.58120t1.96-20- 075(Order 95-17),§173-27-090,filed 9/30/96,effective 10/31/96.] Glossary Comments Nryr_ac� Aceessbility of about this —'I Disclaimer Perms site Notice Information (9/23/2008)Jim Scholz- RE: Beginning of construction. Page 1 It From: Jim Scholz To: Carter, Bill (A. W.) CC: Jim Scholz Date: 9/23/2008 9:25 AM Subject: RE: Beginning of construction. Mr.Carter, Had a chance to talk with Bob Fink late yesterday afternoon and came up with a solution to your dilemma.There is actually a WAC 173-27-090(Washington Admin Code)that addresses this specific issue I have listed it below. Number#4 is the one that would be of interest to you(underlined and bolded).After consulting with Bob on this,our interpretation of this is that the clock does not start until I have done a site inspection to make sure that you(the applicants) have fulfilled all the requirements of the HEX decision thereby allowing me to sign off on the building permit. I think this part of#4 The permit time periods in subsections(2)and(3)of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed,....... So from my discussion with Bob and our interpretation of the above mentioned WAC you have two years to start the project from the date I due a site inspection and sign off on the building permit.This should clarify your question concerning the actual start of the two year period. I will be making a copy of this e-mail and attached it to the WAC and will keep it with the building permit file. Let me know if you have additional questions and also keep me posted as to a site inspection schedule. Regards, Jim WACs >Title 173 > Chapter 173-27 > Section 173-27-090173-27-080 << 173-27-090 >> 173-27-100WAC 173-27-090 Washington State Register filings since 2003 Time requirements of permit. (1)The time requirements of this section shall apply to all substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance or conditional use permit authorized by this chapter. Upon a finding of good cause, based on the requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and provisions of the master program and this chapter,local government may adopt different time limits from those set forth in subsections(2)and (3) of this section as a part of action on a substantial development permit. (2)Construction activities shall be commenced or,where no construction activities are involved,the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a substantial development permit. However, local government may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors,if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the substantial development permit and to the department. (3)Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of a substantial development permit. However,local government may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the department. (4)The effective date of a substantial development permit shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6).The permit time periods in subsections(2)and(3)of this section do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed,including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. (5)Revisions to permits under WAC 173-27-100 may be authorized after original permit authorization has expired: Provided,That this procedure shall not be used to extend the original permit time requirements or to authorize substantial development after the time limits of the original permit. (6) Local government shall notify the department in writing of any change to the effective date of a permit,as authorized by this section,with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change.Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those authorized by RCW 90.58.143 as amended shall require a new permit application.[Statutory Authority: RCW (9/23/2008)Jim Scholz- RE: Beginning of construction. Page 2 90.58.030(3)(e),90.58.045,90.58.065,90.58.140(9),90.58.143,90,58.147,90.58.200,90.58.355,90.58.390,90.58.515, 43.21K.080,71.09.250,71.09.342,77.55.181,89.08.460,chapters 70.105D,80.50 RCW. 07-02-086(Order 05-12), § 173- 27-090,filed 1/2/07,effective 2/2/07. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.140(3)and[90.58].200 . 96-20-075(Order 95-17), § 173-27-090,filed 9/30/96,effective 10/31/96.] Glossary of Terms I Comments about this site Privacy Notice I Accessibility Information I Disclaimer >>> "Carter, Bill (A.W.)" <CarterB@pbworld.com> 9/22/2008 3:12 PM >>> That would be fine. I appreciate you looking into it. Hopefully your answer will be affirmative, but the worst case is that we may have to file for a 1 year extension. My experience with highway projects that required shoreline permits was that the first work on the project,even if it was outside the shoreline zone constituted the beginning of construction. Normally that work was site prep work. If we need to get an extension I will need to know the process for that. I don't see a clear road map for that on the web site. -----Original Message----- From:Jim Scholz jmailto:JimSc@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday,September 22, 2008 2:09 PM To: Carter, Bill(A.W.) Cc:Jim Scholz Subject: RE: Beginning of construction. Mr.Carter, I cannot give you a definite answer to this question at this time, my knowledge of this type of situation is not that complete.On one side the building department answer the question when they stated that no permits were required to demo the below mentioned items because no permits were required to build them.That being said in the true sense of the word construction you can not have permitted construction without a permit so there removal by the above noted comment from the building dept would not constitute construction. It is true that the removal of the fire place,a portion of the patio,the mooring Buoys,and floats are a required part of the hearing examiners decision but that does not mean they are part of the construction. I am not arguing your point I am simply stating that I will have to seek advise on this before I can give you a definite answer.That being said it may be that the removal of all the mentioned items and the signing off on the building permit may begin the construction phase and in that case you will be covered but once again I am going to have to seek advise on this. I will try and talk with Bob Fink over the next couple of days and get back to you on this. Jim >>> "Carter, Bill (A.W.)" <CarterBftbworld.com> 9/22/2008 1:48 PM >>> Jim,I just got off the phone with the Building Department and they advise that there are no permits necessary for the removal of the floats,or the mooring buoys. They also said it is not necessary to get a demo permit to remove the fireplace or the portion of the patio that will need to be removed. Apparently since they are not considered structures and no permit is required for their construction none is required for their removal. Since the removal of the fire place,a portion of the patio,the mooring (9/23/2008)Jim Scholz- RE: Beginning of construction. Page 3 Buoys,and floats are a required part of construction I think it is reasonable to say we have begun the construction,and have satisfied the time limits in Title 15 that requires us to begin construction within 2 years and be complete within 5 years. Since pile driving can't begin until July,after the expiration of the 2 year window to begin construction,it is important to us that you confirm that the current work constitutes the beginning of construction. I will advise you by email when the floats and buoys have been removed and arrange for your inspection as we discussed. Hopefully within a couple of weeks. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Scholz rmailto:JimScCalco.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday,September 22,2008 10:43 AM To: Carter, Bill(A.W.) Cc: Jim Scholz Subject: Re: Mr.Carter, Per your request I am replying to your e-mail and our recent phone conversation(this morning). First concerning the demo permit I am not sure you really need it if all you are removing is the fireplace that you sent the pictures of.If you have more to do I would contact the building dept(permit assistance center,ext. 352)just to be safe. I wouldn't think you would need any permits to remove the floats and buoys because you are removing them and not tearing them apart in the water but once again that is a question that could be better answer by the Permit Assistance Center(PAC). As far as the actual time limits for the building permit I would again refer you to PAC two years sounds right as far as the actual time to start construction per the HE)( decision(that information is listed below and it comes from Title 15) 15.09.100.C. Time Limit for Action.Where not otherwise provided by law, no permit or exemption authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval,the Hearing Examiner(or Review Authority, in the case of an exemption or Mason Environmental Permit)shall,review the permit and upon a showing of good cause,may extend the initial two-year period by permit for one year.Otherwise the permit terminates; PROVIDED,that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension prior to the expiration date. As we further discussed I would just need yo to call me set up a time and I will come out an inspect the site to make sure all the necessary developments addressed in the HEX decision have been completed and then sign of on the permit. If you have additional questions please feel free to contact me. Hope this helps. Regards Jim >>> "Carter, Bill (A.W.)" <CarterBCalpbworld.com> 9/20/2008 8:25 PM >>> Jim,attached are the photos I said I would send that shows the demo work. I am also sending this to document that today,9-19-08 we began construction of our PRF by beginning the necessary demo work. Between now and when the building permit is issued we will continue some site preparation work by removing a small portion of the concrete patio to allow the PRF to land on the bulkhead. I also need to confirm that my understanding of the period of time that -- ----- ----- (9/23/2008)Jim Scholz RE: Beginning of construction. Page 4 our permit is valid. I didn't find anything explicit on your web site, but did see that on the state web site that the permit required construction to begin with in two years(also possible to get a 1 year extension),and that you then have 3 years to complete the project. My records indicate that the date of the permit is 5-3-07,so construction has to begin by 5-3-09,and be complete by 9-19-11 (with construction beginning today. I got your phone message this morning,Saturday,indicating all the paper work was in order and that you wanted to talk about the removal items. I will give you a call on Monday. I checked with the building department and they said the review of the plans was complete and they are just waiting for your release of the hold. I think that is what you called about,since the mooring buoys and float have to be removed prior to issuing the permit. Look forward to talking to you Monday. NOTICE:This communication and any attachments("this message") may contain confidential information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).Any unauthorized use,disclosure,viewing,copying, alteration,dissemination or distribution of,or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited.If you have received this message in error,or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message,delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies. • 4. All time required for the administrative appeal of a Determination of Significance or an appeal of an administrative decision. 5. All time required for the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement, as agreed upon by the County and the applicant. 6. Projects involving the siting of an essential public facility. 7. An extension of time mutually agreed upon by the County and the applicant. 8. All time required to obtain a variance. 9. Any remand to the hearing body. B. Effective Date. The final decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be effective on the date stated in the decision,provided that the date from which appeal periods shall be calculated shall be the date the Hearing Examiner issues the decision. C. Time Limit for Action. Where not otherwise provided by law, no permit or exemption authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval, the Hearing Examiner(or Review Authority,in the case of an exemption or Mason Environmental Permit) shall,review the permit and upon a showing of good cause,may extend the initial two-year period by permit for one year. Otherwise the permit terminates;PROVIDED,that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension prior to the expiration date. MASON COUNTY CODE TITLE 15-DEVELOPMENT CODE — June 30 2004 version 25 *Lam M-La IWO, itt _. _...tea. Y A '4 4,