HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Change Concern Letters - PLN General - 9/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
Kell McAboy- Concern re any change of use for parcels adjacent to us
From: Teri Abrams
To: Kell McAboy
Date: 3/21/2007 5:55 PM
Subject: Concern re any change of use for parcels adjacent to us
Hi Kell,
We've been traveling and just noticed in the Journal that there was a liquor license being applied for
along with plans to change the little boutique store at Dalby Rd. and SR 106 to a restaurant that would
serve liquor. This was included in the commission report.....which said the license was denied due to
change in use of the parcel.
Since we have residences adjacent to the one parcel that would be a parking lot we are very concerned.
As it is now the little store is only open until late afternoon and is quiet with space adjacent to the store
for a few cars at a time. However we noted that the 0003 parcel which shares a property line with us is
also being used for parking even though here is no business on that parcel. It is separate and has a
mobile home which has been used as a residence for renters until recently. To have enough parking for
a restaurant the owners would surely need to use the second parcel for parking which would place cars
on the other side of a wood fence from our present house on 0004 and a future house on 0906.
We are concerned about:
1. Any change of use of parcel 32233500002 which has the boutique and any changes in use for
322335000003 which as a mobile home last used as a residence. Our parcel 322335000004 is adjacent
to 322335000003 and shares the property line along its entire length. We presently have an
occupied residence at the lot line which has been there for over 50 years.
2. Our second parcel 322335000906 is also adjacent to 322335000003 and our parcel is purely
residential with plans to build a house on the portion just north of SR 106. A wood fence with a large
sliding gate separates the two parcels. We have previously taken out a building permit for this location
and will be submitting a modified design. Our parcel has an easement through the area of 00003 and it
requires that no blockage of this passage be established. Since restaurant parking for parcel 0002
would be directed onto parcel 0003 just on the other side of the fence from us it would affect our
residential use as well as our access to our property from SR 106.
3. We have requested that a letter from us be placed in the front cover of the file for these two
parcels 0002 and 0003 since any change in usage would impact us greatly. But we have not been
notified of this plan to change the use from a daytime store to a restaurant with liquor served. The
original deed from Bill's grandmother, Ethel Dalby, contains a clause prohibiting any use of liquor on
that parcel.
Please let us know what is happening and what we can do to protect our property from the noise and
other nuisances that can come from a business operated after 6 pm and serving liquor.
Sincerely,
Bill and Teri Abrams
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kellm\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\46017... 3/22/2007
a
REGARDING ANY ACTIVITY
To: Mason County, for parcels 00002 and 00003
From: Abrams Family
9-14-06 TO BE KEPT IN THE
FILE
Please notify us at the earliest regarding any inquiry or
proposal for further development on these parcels.
Our two residential parcels are adjacent along the entire
length of 00003 and our property has two homes. Part of
one house lies partially on the boundary with their parcel
00003. And our parcel 00906 has an easement for a
driveway access across parcel 00003.
The primary use of 00003 has been residential for many
decades....since the 1920s. Its use has not been primarily
commercial despite the owner's labeling it such when he
served on the committee for zoning a few years ago. The
oniv business use was a portion of the mobile home which
contained a quiet office for a few years in the early 90s while
it was still considered residential property. But that use had
stopped prior to the zoning of the area. The last use of the
parcel has been residential with a family living there for the
last two years.
This inner end of the small cove is quiet with two creeks and
an estuary. Abundant wildlife and fish use this cove.
We are concerned about any change or development. Please
call and send a notice by mail also. Thank you.
Please read the attached letter for more information.
William & Theresa Abrams, owners, parcels 32233 50 00004 & 32233 50 00906
17 Waterwheel Place
Union, WA
Community Planning, Mason County
Panel Files
Shelton Washington
September 14, 2006
Regarding Adjacent Parcels 32233 50 00003 and 32233 50 00002
Dear Planners,
Please afix this letter in the front of the Parcel File for both of these properties.
We would like to be immediately notified regarding any plans or applications for
development of either of these parcels. Although the parcels have been owned for
years by Gary and Pamela Hansen, one or both parcels may be listed under
another name, such as a business.
The 00003 panel contains a mobile home and has been used almost exclusively for
residential use since it was separated as a parcel more than 40 years ago. After
years of vacancy, a family has lived in the mobile home for the past 2 or 3 years
until moving out this summer. When zoning of the area was first done a few
years ago, the owner Gary Hansen was a member of the committee involved in
designating zones and he was able to have it zoned commercial despite its
decades-long primary use as a residence. We were not aware of this until recent
years. The mobile home is 4 bedrooms and clearly a residence. It is very close
to the salt water and to the other residences at that inner end of the cove.
We own two quiet residential parcels, 32233 50 00004 and 32233 50 00906,
which are directly adjacent to 32233 50 00003. An older home we own sits
partially over the property line onto Hansen's 00003 because all of these parcels
were originally the large Delby homestead before being divided for the family
members. One uncle, in financial need, later sold the 00003 parcel to Gary
Hansen. Because of the close proximity, any development on that parcel would have
great impact on our residences next door. Our 906 panel will have a new home
constructed within the near future. The site for the house is just across the fence
from 00003 near highway 106. A large easement area for access from 00004 to
the relocated highway 106 runs across 00003 to the highway and a driveway will
be installed there within the next year.
Residents of the mobile home on 00003 moved out recently and we are concerned
about potential plans for future use which could adversely affect our quality of life
and access next door. The Sunny Beach Cove is residential and the only
commercial building on the shoreline is a boutique on the first floor and residential
space on the second. The boutique business is a quiet one with cars parking close
to the entrance of the store. Previously, an office used for a timber business had
only an occasional vehicle entering and the access was very wide. Because of
boundary adjustments by Hansen between his two parcels two years ago, the only
entrance for 00003 is a narrow area which would force cars to be dose to our
parcel.
Recent activity has raised our concern. We noticed that parking signs for the
boutique have just been taped up on the fence between our properties even though
there is adequate parking next to the store. This concerns us. We also noted that
a new covered deck structure has been erected within the past month inside the
setback between panel 00002 and 00003 and that this appears to violate the
building code regarding setbacks.
Please note that the previous planner, Scott t_onganedcer, wrote a letter to the owner
stating that the present mobile home is inside the salt water buffer and that the only
commercial use that could be considered for that site would be a quiet water-
oriented business.
The owner has expressed hostility to our use of the legally recorded easement
across 00003 which was freely signed by all parties prior to construction of the new
highway. The old highway easement area was then returned to the original owners,
which was a nice benefit. The easement was required by the state to provide
access for our 00906.
Cars have historically used the 00002 parcel for parking near the store. We are
concerned that plans are being made for expansion of parking to the 00003 parcel.
Noise and lights from vehicles entering and leaving, starting up engines, and the
accompanying voices would be heard by those residing in the little house on the
property line as well as the other homes close by. We've heard that some kind
of dinner cruise business may be planned for that parcel and we are very concerned
about that since it would be inappropriate in that location. The noise would be very
detrimental to us, other residents on the cove, and the native habitat in the sensitive
estuary of the cove as well as that of Big Bend Creek which empties into the cove
next to 00002.
It should be noted that Moth the 00002 and 00003 parcels fie within the 150 foot
setback of the class 3 Big Bend Creek which has a large annual Chum Salmon run,
greater than 4000 count. Both parcels have structures very close to the salt water.
In this sensitive environment, Gary Hansen cut and removed seven large second
growth firs and has not replaced them as required by Mason County. instead, the
ground has been covered with additional paving and gravel.
We understand that there is a need for businesses to support tourism, however, the
coastline of the canal has numerous sites where cars and large boats could enter
and leave without causing harm to a peaceful cove with sensitive habitat and quiet
residential homes. We don't believe the intent of zoning is to enable someone to
use a primarily residential parcel for a different use without notification of the
neighbors and an opportunity for input for those who would be affected. A major
change in use should not be allowed in such a sensitive setting. Mr. Hansen
clearly had a conflict of interest in placing himself on the committee and then
labeling his own property as commercial when its use had been primarily residential
for decades.
Our primary residence for now is in California but we are spending more and more
time at our home there as Bill nears retirement. The enjoyment of the quiet and
calm of the cove is very important to us as it is to others who live there year-
round. Inappropriate business use would cause great harm to the value and
enjoyment of the other properties.
Please contact us if any requests or plans for any kind of development are proposed
for these parcels. We've not been notified of any plans and would like to be
informed. Also,
Please respond with the name of the planner assigned to these parcels so we know
you have received this letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
William (Bill) and Theresa (Teri)Abrams Mailing Address:
teriabrams@yahoo.com 15 Blue Horizon
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
949 248-5522 Home
949 922-7871 Cell and 17 Waterwheel Place, Union
TRANSMITTAL
TO; Mason County Commissioners
FROM: Mason County Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit request.
from Gary Anderson.
On Tuesday, 'July 24, 19901the Shoreline Advisory Board met in
regular session to consider the application of Gary Hanson for a
changQ of use of existing mobile home from residential to
commercial in an Urban Commercial designation. A1L aeven advisory
board members were present.
Grace Miller presented the staff report and the meeting was open
for public comment. Grace read definitions of water dependent.,
related and oriented use from Master Program. Mr. Hanson stat-pci
that the staff report was complete and that he did not have
anything to add. A Board member asked Mr. Hanson what the size of
the boat to be used for the inspection of oysterlands. Mr. Hanau:t
stated that the boat was 19' long.
Earl asked the public if they had any comment and the termer nwnpr
and adjacent property owner responded. Mr. Fritz Dalb stated tha$
the sate had been commercial since- the: t one time it was
ea market. At anot er time a restaurant was on the sit.a and
there were cabins for the public at another time. Mr. OaLby
concluded with the fact that he had no objection to the proposal.
The meeting was then closed to the public and Cal Poe asked how
much use was the boat to the business. Don Ghylin, the applicant ' a
agent, stated that a half mile of Dewatto and Taylor United worko
with Hanson to achieve management of site. The boat patrols the
tidelands.
Jay Hupp made a motion to recommend approval of the permit as
proposed. Bob Moyer seconded the motion. All other Board members
were in favor of the proposal. The Shoreline Advisory Board hereby
recommends approval of the Substantial Development and Conditional
Use permit as proposed.
' Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the
following terms and conditions
NONE
This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971
and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with
any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations
applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline
Management Act ( Chapter 90.58 RCW) .
This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58. 140( 7) in the event the
permittee fails to comply with the terms of conditions hereof.
CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED
UNTIL THIRTY ( 30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE FINAL ORDER OF THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN
THIRTY ( 30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED.
No permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than
five ( 5) years. If actual construction of a development for which a
permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval of
the permit by the Board of Commissioners, the Board shall at the expiration
of the two-year period, review the permit, and upon a showing of good cause,
extend the 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 las reg lar meeting of the
Board coming before the permit expiratio date.
h 5
July 31, 1990
Date Signature of Authorized Local
Government Official)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL
USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT.
Date received by Department of Ecology
Approved Denied
This Substantial Development Permit with Conditional Use/Variance is
approved by the Department of Ecology pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW.
Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms
and conditions :
Date Signature of Authorized Department
of Ecology Official)
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT
(SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
'CONDITIONAL USE) Affidavit of Publication
Notice is hereby given that Gary Hanson
who Is applicant of the below-described prop-
erty has filed an application for a shoreline
management permit (Substantial Develop-
ment,Conditional Use)for the development of
change of use of existing residence to consult- NASHINGTON,
Ing business office located attract 1-B and tax OF MASON SS.
892 within NW(quarter section)of Section 33
of Township 22 N., Range 3 W.W.M., in
Union, Mason,Washington.
Said development is proposed to be within
Hood Canal and/or its associated wetlands.
Any person desiring to express his views or to S- Trocrstad being first duly sworn
-be notified of the action taken on this applica-
lion should notify:
Mason County Department of General Ser- ?oses and says that he is the clerk
vices, P.O. Box 186. Shelton, Washington ILTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That said
98584 is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months
in writing of his interests within thirty(30) ; date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English
days of the last date of publication given pur- ntinuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,
suant to WAC 173-14-020.The final date of v and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid
publication, posting, or mailing of notice is iblication of said newspaper. That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY
June 7, 19W. was on the 9th day of August, 1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the
Written comments must be received by July ourt of said Mason County.
7, 1990.
A public hearing will be held on this mitnnexed is a true copy of a Notice of Application for
request.Contact this office for date and me
of hearing(206-427-9670,extension 366). line Management Permit
A determination of nonsignificance was
Issued on May 31, 1990 under WAC
197-11-340.Written comments regarding this )ublished in regular issues (and not in supplement form) of said
+ determination must be received by June 16,
1990. r once each week for a period of two
5/31-6/7 2t -e weeks, commencing on the
31 st day of _May 19 90 and ending on the
7th day of June 19 90 both dates inclu-
sive,and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of
said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the
foregoing publication is the sum of $ 57.96
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7 day of
June 19 90 .
_ /1 ,,&i" .-, ZL"'a
Notary P lic in and for the State of Washington
Residing at Shelton, Washington
My commission expires 19—C
7
p "4 U
Pe- t( ►�
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext. 66 Fox:(360)427-8425
TO:
COMPANY NAME:
CONTACT NAME: "r'
FAX NUMBER:
PHONE NUMBER.
SENDER: �-?�'`'� -
REGARDING
400 063
Number of Pages (include Cover Sheet):
Date Sent: _ $'r 0 2— Time Sent:
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.Sth
P.O.Box 279 Sholton.WA905"
(360)427-9670 Belhtir(360) 275-4467 Elma (360)482-6269 Seattle (206) 464-8968
August 2, 2002
Gary Hanson
P.O. Box 130
Union WA 98592
RE: Parcel Number 32233-50-00003
Dear Gary Hanson:
Mason County Department of Community Development has reviewed the county
land use maps for the above property and determined that the current
designation is Rural Commercial 3. 1 have attached copies of maps for your
information.
This is consistent with my understanding of the request you made for the
property before it was designated earlier this year.
Please be aware that the action designating this land and the uses allowed by
that designation are under review by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board under the state Growth Management Act.
I hope this response addresses your question. Let me know if you need further
information.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Fink, AICP
Planning Manager
Attachments
RAWROP.OJECTS12002PRMary Hanson Aug 2002 letter,doc '
ZOA� UN.100 NOSVN 9Zt4LZt09C 1Vd W tT IXI ZO%ZO 90
�.... �s� IllllirlilNlll lllllltlll_
NII Im 1111tliUIlill111111
lilllltll� lltliltlll1111 ,. 11280
IIIIItIII Ililtllllinllt
nlllilll M#111l fill llllllIll
Iillli /_
111r11t11 �Illtll 111 �Ililllt nllull� = �_
f1111111! illnllnlnll [Till 111111111!
Sca
111111t11 11111lW111111 IMIIBln.nll r
Illiil111111r1 Nnlllll
11lI!l111111 �nlmnu �i
Itl Illl! lt�tn=� .
r 111 nlll�il��
�in1riii7177
MAI
DEF
Yj
Ci�C.NTY zoo 1
p� FRI 14:11 FAA .,dOd..,�1.5 MASON •
1t ,• �. i .• ' } :+ tit �;• y — 4.
,� , .4 r w. ,• t_ !!�'i(• 's �,f'' pr
.f a w ..r I nr.- „ I , , � .. ,i.��1-'"hi ` r �+k 1�•'•�' i ��. � ,�..:
•.� C _ .piy r�� T1;�` ,M C' '✓ .ln� 'h; pr,l.',•%/'!,� ,
;y + �xy:x� , 'r �, .� r ti.�{�. ,•1.TM.:'sw. :r71;�,7; �;;`.'!�+ s ,+• '.
P. ,'xy'�x.1•, " �}< rx�y�� `��ti v +L,+;
'� 1 F• tl�_ sly. `' - <'.
ot
sp
t0 � o N d � � •� ' y
tj 40
, � 3 -w °r :,i s:. , •�� ry x ,Z.a a '„'' � - _�"'L''3•� ,w .�a,a�����:
5000001 7P a�x000-50000.0,
50000a5 .
5000
5000006OD
co
5000908
8000010`
477
500001 5000012
�c
40
o AT o
50009 f S
5000016.
gOOO.QiB 5000017. 501=19 � N.• -"> ,
5..QbCf0z0 ,y T� 'y•.��(» +:—i��;,.� t 1 . :Q �i vk;� *�K y* ~ � ��Y, �
�ry
a `
I
Its