HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2007-00001 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 8/30/2007 4^
i
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: John and Tanya Watkins
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
5 Resource Ordinance Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
(MCC 7.01.150) . .
6
VAR2007-00001
7
INTRODUCTION u
8
9 The applicants have applied for a variance from a 100 foot Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area buffer of a Type 1 shoreline in order to partially place a home
10 within the buffer. The Examiner approves the application subject to a limitation in
ground space of 2,550 square feet and the conditions recommended by staff.
11
ORAL TESTIMONY
12
13 See transcript.
EXHIBITS
14
See "Listed Exhibits for Mort James III, AIA Variance Request, VAR2007-00001",
15 attached to the Staff Report. In addition, a 7/24/07 staff report was admitted as
Exhibit 11 at the hearing and a side elevation drawing was admitted as Exhibit 12 at
16 the hearing.
17 FINDINGS OF FACT
18
Procedural:
19
20 1 Applicant. The applicants are John and Tanya Watkins.
21 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on July 24, 2007, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
22 chambers, Building I.
23 Substantive:
24
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicants propose to build a 2,193-
25 square-foot residence located in part within a 100 foot Resource Ordinance buffer to
Peal Passage. The residence also includes 1,216 square feet in deck space, a 660-
{PAOPA00017.DOC;1/13 009.900000/9000001
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
square-foot garage, and a 660-square-foot studio'. According to some rough
I calculations made by the applicant during the hearing, approximately 2,020 square
2 feet in deck and house space will be located within the buffer. The residence,
including the water-side deck, would be located an average of 80 feet from the
3 ordinary high-water mark, between 74 feet to 90 feet. The home will be constructed
in an existing treeless area on top of a small gully. The home will be built on stilts
4 that will enable existing vegetation to continue to grow below the home.
5 The property is a one-acre parcel located on the southwest side of Harstine Island.
6 The property supports a forested, upland landscape with no stream or wetland
conditions. Dominant trees are young, even-aged Douglas Fir with a ground canopy
7 dominated by salal. The shrub canopy is sparse primarily because the previously
dominant t broom has been largely eliminated by the landowners. There is a
8 moderately steep topography that descends three sides to the gully over which the
9 home is proposed to be built.
10 4. Characteristics of the Area. The adjacent parcel to the north is vacant and
the adjacent parcel to the south contains a residence. There are other single-family
11 residences in the vicinity both on the saltwater shoreline and inland. As noted at page
4 of the Staff Report, the average total square footage for the footprint of neighboring
12 residences is approximately 1,978 square feet.
13 5. Adverse Impacts. The impacts to the buffer area have been thoroughly
14 assessed and mitigated in the Habitat Management Plan, Exhibit 4. As noted in both
the Habitat Management Plan and the Staff Report, if the home is built outside of the
15 buffer, it will require the clearing of trees as well as excavating into the steep slopes
of the building site. As noted in the Staff Report, the resulting foundation would
16 become a dam across the site that would change drainage and fauna from its natural
17 state all the way to the beach. As proposed and mitigated, the home, built on stilts,
would have virtually no adverse impact upon habitat and the shoreline buffer.
18
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
19
Procedural:
20
21 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
22
23
' At page 4 of the staff report, the studio and garage appear to each be assigned 660 square feet for
24 purposes of MCC 17.01.150(E),which implies that the this is the amount of ground space occupied by
each use. The Exhibit 12 overhead elevation,however, shows a total ground space of 660 feet for the
25 garage and studio combined and that it is a two-story structure. It is unclear from the elevations
whether the studio is located entirely on top of the garage or splits some ground level with it. The
conditions of approval limit the size of the home to 2,550 square feet as measured by MCC
17.01.150(E). As defined by MCC 17.01.150(E), the 2,550 square feet is only ground space. The
studio will only qualify for this amount to the extent it is at ground level.
(PAOPA00017.DOC;1/13009.900000/900000)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
Substantive:
2 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations.tions. The Mason County
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural
3 Residential 5.
4 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicants seek a variance from the
5 100-foot buffer from a Type I saltwater, as imposed by Table 3 of MCC 17.01.110.
MCC 17.01.150 provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall
6 apply to Resource Ordinance variances. An MCC 15.09.057 variance is subject to
Type III permitting review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC 15.09.050(C) sets generic
7 review criteria applicable to all Type III permit applications. The review standards
for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the general review standards of MCC
8 15.09.050(C)are quoted below and addressed by accompanying Conclusions of Law.
9 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
10 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
11
4. The 100-foot Resource Ordinance buffer applicable to the property does
12 significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property, i.e. the construction of a
13 single-family home in a manner that minimizes environmental harm. As noted in
prior decisions, the construction of a single-family home on a suitably sized
14 residentially zoned parcel is a reasonable use for that property. In this case, however,
the applicants do have room to build outside the buffer, but only by doing greater
15 harm to the buffer habitat than building within it. The issue in this case is whether
requiring the applicants to build outside the buffer deprives them of a reasonable use
16 because the environmental impacts would be worse than building within.
17
As noted in prior decisions, the "reasonable use" concept involves a balancing of
18 public benefit versus the burden on the property owner. Applying the public benefit
side of the reasonable-use balancing analysis, a reasonable use of property in this case
19 is a home that minimizes damage to the shoreline buffer and environment of the
parcel as a whole. The home proposed by the applicants constitutes that reasonable
20 use and, therefore, the 100-foot buffer does significantly interfere with that
21 reasonable use of the property.
22 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
23 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
24 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
the applicant's own action.
25
5. The hardship suffered by the applicants are created by the Type I shoreline
and its buffer.
{PAOPA00017.DOC;1/13 009.900000/900000}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
1 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
2 properties or the environment.
3 6. As noted in the Findings of Fact above, the proposed home is slightly
larger than the surrounding homes by about 10 percent. This discrepancy in size is
4 not significant enough to warrant a finding that the home is incompatible with
surrounding homes. The size of the proposed structures and its use (residential) is
5 compatible with other permitted activities in the area. As noted in the Findings of
6 Fact, as mitigated, the property has no significant adverse impacts on the
environment. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the home will have any
7 adverse impacts on adjoining properties and, indeed, a neighboring property owner
has sent a letter expressing support for the project(Exhibit 5).
8
MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
9 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
10 necessary to afford relief.
11 7• The applicants merely seek to build a single-family home, which is
consistent with what other property owners in the vicinity have been able to do on
12 their properties. As noted in the Staff Report, a variance has also been granted to
13 another use in the vicinity to build within the shoreline buffer.
14 The "minimum necessary" portion of the criterion above will have a significant
impact on the applicants' proposal. The granting of this variance is premised upon
15 the concept that the home will create more harm than good if it is constructed entirely
outside the Resource Ordinance buffer. In order to comply with the "minimum
16 necessary" requirement, the home should be sized to minimize its buffer
17 encroachment as much as possible. In this case this means building as much as
possible outside the buffer without damaging habitat and then encroaching into the
18 buffer only as much as necessary to accommodate the minimum size for a reasonably
sized home. To facilitate matters, MCC 17.01.150(E) sets the minimize size for a
19 reasonably sized home at 2,550 square feet of ground space. Consequently, to
achieve the minimum variance necessary in this case, the ground space of the home
20 must be limited to 2,550 square feet. Since minimizing the encroachment into the
21 buffer entails maximizing construction outside of the buffer, any reductions in the
applicants' proposal to meet this standard must be made from the portions of the
22 home that encroach into the buffer.
23 The applicants have apparently taken the position that the above-ground portions of
the home (on stilts) should not be subject to the 2,550 square foot limitation because
24 those portions of the home are not on the ground as contemplated by MCC
25 17.01.150(E). MCC 17.01.150(E) includes decks and roof overhangs more than two
feet in the portions of the building subject to the 2,550 square foot limitation. As
noted at the end of 17.01.150(E)(1), the area subject to the limitation is that which
would be seen covered by structures from a bird's eye view of the property. Given
{PAOPA00017.DOC;1/13 009.900000/900000}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
this language, the portions of the home on stilts is clearly subject to the 2,550 square
1 foot limitation.
2 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
3
8. As noted previously, the project will have no significant adverse impacts
4 on the environment or adjoining properties. Nothing suggests that the project will
5 create any substantial detrimental effect to the public interest.
6 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
7 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
8 shall not justify a variance.
9 9. Without the variance, the applicants will be forced to construct a home
10 that could potentially be significantly disruptive to the shoreline environment. As
discussed previously, that is not a reasonable use of the land. As noted in the Staff
11 Report,the proposed variance is consistent with all other applicable regulations.
12 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
13 proposed development according to the following criteria:
14 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.
15
2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
16 in the public interest.
17 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
18 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
19
10. The project is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan
20 because the Comprehensive Plan allows Single-Family Residential development at
21 the subject location. It also meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County
Code, which allows residential development at the location. As noted previously, as
22 mitigated, the project will not harm environmental resources, and therefore, does not
adversely affect public health, safety and welfare. The unique stilt design, by
23 allowing vegetation to remain underneath, is an effective and creative way to prevent
damage to environmental resources and is, therefore, in the public interest. There is
24 no indication in the record that the project will lower the level of service for
25 transportation or neighborhood park facilities, nor would any be expected by the
construction of one residence.
DECISION
{PAOPA00017.DOC;1/13009.900000/900000}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
1 recommended in the Staff Report and also limits the footprint of the home, as
2 measured by MCC 17.01.150(E) to 2,550 square feet. All reductions to the proposed
footprint of the home shall be done within the 100 foot Resource Ordinance buffer.
3
Dated this day of August, 2007.
4
5
6 Phil A. Olbrechts
7 Mason County Hearing Examiner
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{PAOPA00017.DOC;1/13 009.900000/900000}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
FW Watkins home on Harstine
From: janet [janet@msjaia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:32 PM
To: Watkins, John P
Cc: 'Mort James III'
Subject: FW: Watkins new home on Harstene Island
Follow up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
confirmation directly from Grace--
Janet Jansen Knoblach AIA, NCARB, LEED AP Associate Principal Morton Safford James
III AIA Architects Inc. P.S.
360-943-7015
janet@msjaia.com
---original Messa a-----
From: Grace Miller mailto:Gbm@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, october 16, 2007 4:00 PM
To: janet
Subject: Re: Watkins new home on Harstene island
This interpretation of the Hearing Examiner's Decision and Findings is correct. You
may apply for a Building Permit at this time. Thank you.
>>> "janet" <janet@msjaia.com> 10/16/2007 3:11 PM >>>
Grace-
Thank you for returning my call today regarding the Watkins project.
I am writing to confirm our conversation about the Hearing Examiners report back to
us regarding the approval of the variance.
This variance limits the amount of construction square footage, including decks, to
2,550 square feet, in front of the 100' buffer,
but allows construction to be continued beyond this, behind the 100 foot buffer,
thus allowing a home with decks larger than 2,550 square feet.
Please contact us if there is anything necessary for this project.
Best regards, Janet
Janet Jansen Knoblach AIA, NCARB, LEED AP
Associate Principal
Morton Safford James III AIA Architects Inc. P.S.
360-943-7015
janet@msjaia.com
Page 1
July 16,2007 EXHIBIT 1
TO: Phil Olbrechts,Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM:Grace Miller, Senior Planner,(360)427-9670,ext 360.E-mail:gbm@co.mason.wa.us
RE: Resource Ordinance Variance#VAR2007-00001 request by Mort James III,Architect for owners,
John and Tonya Watkins.
STAFF REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION.The request is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance. The
single family residence is proposed to be located within the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area
buffer of a Type 1 Shoreline. I have recommended approval of the permit with conditions.
IL APPLICANT. The applicant is Mort James I1I,Architect, for owners,John and Tonya Watkins.
III. PROPERTY LOCATION.The property is located along the Puget Sound shoreline on the
southwest side of Harstine Island. Tract 8D of GL 5: Lot 2 of SP#2856.
Parcel No.22026-10-90085.
IV. EVALUATION.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the construction of a new residence to be partially located
within the 100 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark(OHWM).In order to save a
majority of the trees,the home will be constructed in an existing cleared,treeless area and on
stilts,pilings,that will allow the existing vegetation to remain below and surrounding trees to
remain on site. The site plan indicates that the 100' setback would run through the approximate
center of the proposed residence.The residence, including waterside deck,would be located an
average of 79.91' from the OHWM between 74'to 90'.A Habitat Management Plan has been
submitted for the proposal.
A. Characteristics of the site.The property is a one acre parcel located along the Puget Sound
shoreline on the southwest side of Harstine Island.The property supports a forested,upland
landscape with no stream or wetland conditions.Dominant trees are young,even-aged Douglas fir
with a ground canopy dominated by salal. The shrub canopy is sparse primarily because the
previously dominant scoffs broom has been largely eliminated by the landowners.There is a
moderately steep topography that descends from three sides towards a centralized landscape
trough.Although prominent within the landscape this trough does not support a stream condition
and has never been observed to carry even temporary surface water flows during major rain events.
B. Characteristics of the area: The adjacent parcel to the north is vacant and the adjacent parcel to the
south contains a residence. There are other single-family residences along Nicole Lane both on the
saltwater shoreline and inland.
C. Zoning: The property is zoned as Rural Residential 5.
D. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is Rural.
E. Shoreline Designation: The Shoreline Environment is Rural.
1
H:\ROvarstf5.doc.gbm
F. SEPA Compliance: The proposal is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800(1),(iii).
G. OTHER PERMITS. The proposal also requires a Building Permit.The home that is drawn on the site
plans was drawn to give us an idea of the massing that could be done in the trees on the existing
clearing.The home is not fully designed at this time. A well and septic system have been previously
permitted and installed on site.
H. HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN: A copy of the Habitat Management Plan was sent to the Squaxin
Island Tribe and the Dept of Fish and Wildlife.No comments were received.
III. ANALYSIS:
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW:
Type III review for permit applications require that the hearing examiner evaluate the proposal for
consistency with the County's Development Code,adopted plans and regulations. The Hearing
Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following criteria: 1)The development does not
conflict with he Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County
Code,especially Title 6, 8 and 16.
2)The development does not impact the public health,safety and welfare and is the public interest.
3)The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park
facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan and meets the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code.
B. RESOURCE ORDINANCE REVIEW:
The Mason County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110(D)(1)of the
Resource Ordinance details buffers on Type I waters such as this.The setbacks for the proposed structures
were determined by staff to be 100' of vegetated buffer with same minimum building setback.It is also a
state shoreline within a Rural Shoreline Environment under the Shoreline Master Program. The proposed
residence and garage can meet the minimum shoreline setback of 25' and 35' from the SMP shoreline. The
variance is required under the Resource Ordinance because of the minimum 100' building and buffer
setback from a Type I Water.
B. DISCUSSION.
The shoreline setback for development from Peale Passage was determined by staff during a site pre-
inspection conducted in 2003.There is a gully running through the parcel to the saltwater shoreline that
appears to have historically had a stream.The area where the stream channel would have been now
contains upland vegetation and no evidence of surface water flow. Staff speculates that it was either filled a
long time ago and the water diverted or naturally dried up. The new residence is proposed to be constructed
on stilts over this gully which runs from the easement road to the shoreline. For construction of the
residence and garage,there is a minimum 20' sideyard setback required from the north and south property
lines and a 25' frontyard setback required from the road right-of-way of Nicole Lane.
A Habitat Management Plan was developed by the Coot Company,dated September 2006. The Habitat
Management Plan meets the requirements of the ordinance.The HMP contains a recommendation for
minimizing impacts to the existing forested areas by placing the residence in the existing clearing and
irrigation below the structure to maintain the vegetation below the residence.
2
H:\ROvarstf5.doc.gbm
The proposed construction phases follow:
2007—Construct structural bridge deck.
2008— 10—Foundation and retaining walls and earth work for the garage studio.
2010-2015—Build"Cabin"Phase I of house.
2015-2020—Build phase II of house.
2023—Enclose garage and studio.
VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA.
The Mason County Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110
details buffer requirements and the content of the Habitat Management Plan. The Variances from Standards
Section 17.01.150(E)and the Mason County Code review standards Section 15.09.057 provide that no
variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following
circumstances exist:
1. That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional and performance standards precludes or
significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County
regulations.
The area outside the shoreline setback will be occupied by an on-site septic system and well. If the
residence were built further away from OHWM,many more existing trees would be have to be removed
and the excavation for the structure would disturb more ground.The applicant has proposed a minimal
impact solution. If it were required,excavation would be into two steep slopes.The foundation would
become a dam across the site.This would change drainage and fauna from its natural state across and to the
beach. With the 100'building and buffer setback from the marine shoreline and the 25' setback from the
road along with the location of the septic system and well radius a treed area would remain over the gully.
The applicant's reasonable use of the waterfront lot is for a single-family residence.
2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the
property of the applicant,and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or
natural features and the application of the County regulations and not,for example from deed
restrictions or the applicant's own actions.
The hardship is specifically related to this parcel primarily because of the natural features,the existing
clearing within the trees,the gully and the existing septic system and well..Previous landowners cleared
the area for which they propose the home structure to be built up on poles.The surrounding trees have
continued to grow and will remain with this proposal. This project is to minimally touch the ground.
3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not
cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment.
This proposal will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties. The neighbor is in support of a"low
impact"structure on this site. This project will enhance the existing adjacent properties by maintaining the
natural setting. A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies the proposal as designed
as low impact and which in itself will avoid,minimize and compensate for potential negative effects to the
environment.No view corridors will be obstructed. Similar projects have been approved in Mason County.
Several other lots along this shoreline have been developed with permitted residences overlooking Peale
Passage.
3
H:\ROvarstf5.doc.gbm
Some of the adjacent residences dimensions are as follows:
1) Address:480 E Nicole Ln—3 bd,4 ba.,2714 sf residence
2) Address: 500 E Nilcole Ln—3 bd,2 ba.,2734 sf residence
3) Address: 570 E Nicole Ln—3 bd,4 ba.,2549 sf residence
4) Address: 630 E Nicole Ln—2 bd,2 ba., 1568 sf residence
5) Address: 640 E Nicole Ln—2 bd,2 ba,1250 sf residence
6) Address: 660 E Nicole Ln- 2 bd,2 ba, 1370 sf residence
7) Address: 670 E Nicole LN—3 bd,3 ba,2604 sf residence
8) Address: 1110 Maples RD—3 bd,3 ba., 1586 sf residence
9) Address: 970 E Maples RD—2 bd,2 ba, 1619 sf residence
10) Address: 940 E Maples RD—2 bd,2 ba, 1783 sf residence
The average total square footage for a footprint of neighboring residences is therefore approximately
1,977.7 square feet.The size of the proposed residence is 2,193 SF.The front decks are 1120 SF and the
rear deck is 96 SF,for a total of 1216 SF of decking. The garage is 660 SF and the Studio is 660 SF.The
residence is 216 SF over the average size of the neighboring homes. Staff does not have the square footage
of the neighboring garages and decks.
Since the time of the applicant's original application for this variance,a new regulation was added to the
Mason County Resource Ordinance, Section 17.01.150,Review Standards(E). This section was added on
Dec.27,2006.It allows up to 2,550 SF for the"total allowed area for a residence."The section states"In
addition to the review criteria in Mason County Code 15.09.057,the minimum reasonable use for a
residence in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of a)40%of the area of the lot,or
b)2,550 square feet."The section goes on to explain the total allowed area included for a residence in#1.
With the residence,garage and studio,and decks it appears the applicant's footprint would be
approximately 4,729 SF. Without the decks,it would be approximately 3,513 SF The design could be
altered to reflect the total square footage of the combined structures,as specified in the revised ordinance
section,to be 2,550 SF in size.
By placing the residence within the existing cleared area of the parcel and approximately 80'
from the saltwater,the proposal will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment.
The applicant intends to follow all recommendations made within the HMP and this will preserve the
natural environment that currently exists on the remainder of the parcel.
4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by
other properties in the area and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief.
The proposed location will not affect any neighbors and the proposal is to minimally impact the entire site.
The protection of the environment that exists naturally outweighs the special privilege that would be
granted with this.The existing clearing would be utilized for the new home. Four of the surrounding
residences are of equal or greater size than this proposed residence.Variances are allowed and procedures
established whereby individuals may seek relief from dimensional and performance standards provided
they meet specific criteria and when they are the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use while
providing maximum protection to the resource area.As stated in response#3,there are several permitted
residences with views of Peale Passage similar to the one proposed located in the vicinity.By constructing
the residence in this area where it is already cleared and within the trees,this is the minimum necessary to
afford relief.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. There will be no loss or impact to
recreational opportunities associated with the surrounding area.
4
H:\ROvarstf5.doc.gbm
There will be no detrimental effect to the public interest with this proposal.The protection of the shoreline
environment will be enhanced and remain undisturbed. Increase in traffic and noise will not be of a
magnitude that would substantially effect nearby residences. By following the recommendation for the
mitigation proposed within the Habitat Management Plan,the marine shoreline will be preserved in its
existing natural state and the buffer enhanced. There will be no detrimental effect to the public interest.
6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such
variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,Development Regulations,
Resource Ordinance and other County ordinances and with the Growth Management Act.Mere loss in
value only shall not justify a variance.
The variance requested does not address any loss/gain in land value.Reasonable use of the land as an
allowed use without the variance would represent a greater potential impact on the existing environment.
The proposed variance is in complete compliance with the intent of all other county regulations and
ordinances which emphasize the protection of the shoreline environment and site sensitive designs to
reduce impact.
The property is zoned as Rural Residential 5.Residential development is an allowed use under these
regulations and policies.A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared to meet the intent of the county
regulations. The applicants purchased the property for the setting of the residence overlooking Peale
Passage,Puget Sound.
VII. CONCLUSION.
Staff has recommended approval of the application as proposed with conditions. The conditions require
incorporation of the Habitat Management Plan.It is staff s opinion that the natural features and the
preferable low impact design and location of this residence preclude placement of a residence that would be
outside the required 100' shoreline buffer and building setback. One comment letter has been received from
a neighbor in support of the proposal and is attached.
VIIL RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the proposal as presented and discussed herein,the proposal is consistent with the
variance criteria detailed in Section 17.02.150 and the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff would
like to point out that a similar variance was approved for Mr.Bernie Walton in 2003,Case
#VAR2003-00007.A copy of the Findings and Conclusions as well as the staff report,application
and site plans from that case is attached as Exhibit 10. Staff recommends approval of this
proposal with the following conditions:
1) Design of residence,garage and studio or total structures to be limited to 2,550 SF in size.
2) Owner shall be required to control erosion during construction.Removal of vegetation,other
than in the area where the residence is proposed,shall be avoided and any areas disturbed
should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.Erosion and best
management practices must be incorporated during all development for the residence.
3) Owner shall implement the proposed mitigation measure of irrigation to the landscape
beneath the structure so that the existing vegetation will be maintained. The development of
the parcel must be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan that was prepared by The
Coot Company dated September 2006.
5
H:\ROvarstf5.doc.gbm
VI. CHOICE OF ACTION:
1. Approve permit request with conditions.
2. Approve permit request without conditions.
3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted.)
4. Deny with prejudice(reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year.)
5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 15.09.090 of
Title 15.
6
H:\ROvarstf5.doc.gbm
LIST OF EXHIBITS for Mort James III,AIA VARIANCE REQUEST,VAR2007-00001:
1. Staff Report.(7 pgs)
2. Variance Permit Application, Site Plans and vicinity maps. (1 1pgs)
3. Public Notice,Affidavits of Posting and Publication.(3 pgs)
4. Habitat Management Plan and HMP Notice.(9pgs)
5. Public Comments(1 pg)
6. Geotechnical Report(4 pgs)
7. Title Report dated 2001 and 2003 (2 pgs)
8. Septic Records(6 pgs)
9. Shoreline pre-inspection(3 pgs)
10. Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law&Final Decision, Staff Report,Variance Application and site
plans for Case#VAR2003-00007(14 pgs)
H:\ROvarstf5.doc.gbm
Page 1 of 1
Grace Miller-RE: VAR2007-00001
From: "John Watkins" <johnpdub@comcast.net>
To: "'Grace Miller"' <Gbm@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 7/18/2011 11:10 PM
Subject: RE: VAR2007-00001
Grace,
TO THE
Thank you very much for the clarification.
John
From: Grace Miller [mai Ito:Gbm@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 9:58 AM
To: johnpdub@comcast.net
Subject: VAR2007-00001
Mr. Watkins,
The proposed revision to the shoreline master program would not impact the approval of the variance that you
have unless possibly if the variance expires. In that case, you would need to start over and obtain a new
variance. Then if the buffer restrictions change in 2013, and you then apply for a new variance, it would be
subject to those regulations in the 2013 Revision. Until then, it is subject to the current restrictions which are
the same as they were when your variance was approved.
The Variance that was issued to you be the county expires after two to five years of its issuance. You are
supposed to have begun some work within the two year period and then it is valid up to five years. I understand
you have been working on the design with the architect and can consider that "substantial progress" to keep the
permit valid for the period between two to five years from its issuance.The expiration date is 8/7/2012. If you
have obtained a building permit or begun construction by that date, the revisions will not impact your proposal
and it will remain valid until completion, whatever that year may be. If you are unable to obtain the building
permit by the expiration date of 8/7/12, the variance expires and you would need to re-apply for a new
variance. The Revision may include the same buffer restrictions that are already in place but I cannot
guarantee that. We simply do knot know at this time.
I hope this is not too confusing. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you.
Grace Miller
(360)427-9670 (ext 360)
file://CADocuments and Settings\gbm\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4E24BD4BMason... 7/19/2011