HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2009-00961 - BLD Letters / Memos - 8/13/2013 �r9°N CO& MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352
BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352
Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street
1Rsr PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us
April 17, 2014
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION OF WILLIAM AND TERI ABRAMS
PROPOSED RESIDENCE SUBMITTED FEB. 20, 2014:
The evaluation of the replacement of a single-family residence and possibly the
detached garage on the south shore of Hood Canal (parcel number 32233-50-00004).
The proposal portrays new construction with the expansion of footprint of the new home
over the existing cabin in the shoreline buffer, and the proposal does not meet the
scope of maintenance or repair and is being increased in height. The existing cabin is 30
ft. wide by 35 ft. deep, one-story, and 5 feet from the east property line. The proposed
residence is 36 to 40 ft. wide and 52 to 58 ft. deep, two-stories in part, and 5 to 9 feet
from the east property line. The expansion occupies areas to the west and to the south
of the existing residence, into previously undeveloped areas that include the areas
within 35-foot distance from the ordinary high water mark. Under the submitted site
plan, the review and approval of a Shoreline Variance and a Resource Ordinance
Variance at a public hearing by the County Hearing Examiner will be required.
The property ownership (upland/dry portion) is approximately 16,700 square feet (92 ft.
wide by 162 ft. deep) and is entirely within the shoreline management area of Hood
Canal and Dalby and Big Bend Creeks on the shoreline side of State Route 106. A type F
stream (Dalby Creek) outlets into Hood Canal along the east side of this property. There
is an existing home and attached covered deck (measured to roof eve) extends to 5 feet
from the OHWM and rock alignment. There is a detached garage (approximately 290
square feet) that is along the east property line and gravel driveway/turn-around area
landward of the home.
FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS
The zone designation for the area is Rural Residential 5. Standard building setbacks for
new construction in this zoning are a 25 foot front yard (measured to road right of ways
or access easements) setback and a 20 foot side yard (measured to property lines)
setback. However for lots that are 100 feet in width or less, the standard setback is 100/0
of the lot width; in this case the minimum side yard setback is 9 feet.
An Administrative Variance may be applied for to reduce the setback to the road right of
way down to as low as 10 feet and/or to reduce the side setback to as low as 5 feet.
You must show that the setback is reduced to the minimum necessary for a reasonable
development proposal.
SHORELINE SETBACKS
The shoreline designation for the Union area is Urban Residential Environment per the
Mason County Shoreline Master Program, and setbacks from the shoreline would be
determined by the Residential section of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as well as
I
the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the Mason County Resource
Ordinance (RO).
The SMP requires a 15 foot setback and/or 'common line,' whichever is greater. In this
situation, there are neighboring homes to the east and west within 150-feet of lot line in
which to determine a common line, so the shoreline setback is determined by an
imaginary line (common line) drawn between the roof eves of the adjacent homes or
determined by averaging their setbacks on curved shorelines. The average setback
(common line) of the adjacent structures to the east and west (including fences greater
than 30 inches in height) is 35 to 36 feet from the ordinary high water mark. If this
common line cannot be met, then a Shoreline Variance is required.
The RO's standard structure setback for residential development on shorelines is 100
feet or the 'common line.' However no setback, regardless of the common line, may be
less than 35 feet from the shoreline's ordinary high water mark. To construct anything
that requires a building permit (home, garage, deck, porch, stairs, etc) within 35 feet of
the ordinary high water mark (or bank/bulkhead), a Resource Ordinance Variance and a
Habitat Management Plan is required. To construct anything that does not require a
building permit (fence 6 feet tall or less, storage shed less than 200 square feet, etc)
within 35 feet of the shoreline would require a Mason Environmental Permit and Habitat
Management Plan.
In addition, per the RO, the most waterward 20 feet of this 35-foot setback is reserved
for a vegetated habitat buffer area, but the remaining (landward) 15 feet is an area
where development at grade (patios and sidewalks) is permitted.
FEMA FLOODPLAIN
Per the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 530115 0120 C, a
Zone 'A' floodplain extends to about 50 feet (measured horizontally) from the ordinary
high water mark (or bulkhead) of Hood Canal. Proposed development within the
floodplain will need to meet the building standards outlined in the enclosed Mason
County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance including elevating the first floor at least 2
feet above grade and designing for flood water venting. An elevation certificate will be
required both at the time of permit application submittal and immediately following
construction to assure that the structure is elevated to the required level. Please see
the Ordinance [MCC 14.22.1601 for additional design requirements. FEMA (via the
County) also now requires a Habitat Assessment for any development or substantial
improvement within the mapped floodplain. If the Habitat Assessment indicates that
endangered species may be impacted by the proposal, then a Habitat Management Plan
(mitigation) is required. However, if a Habitat Management Plan is already required
(such as for the Shoreline Variance or to construct within the wetland buffer), then that
may be utilized. In other words, two Habitat Management Plans are not required.
Specific standards for future development contained in County Codes may be found at
the County website address http://www.co.mason.wa.us. If you have any questions
please feel free to call. (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 Thank you.
In response to the building permit submittal, a property site inspection was made on Fri.
November 20, 2009 and several aspects about the property and proposed development were
observed. The existing cabin/residence is situated very close [+/- 5 feet] to the Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM) of Hood Canal, especially at the existing covered deck portion on the north
side of the cabin. The saltwater vegetation cover associated with the OHWM of Hood Canal is
located at 13 feet from the northwest corner of the existing cabin/residence (excluding the roof
overhang and porch / deck). The Mason County Shoreline Master Program will not permit new
residential development (such as new structures or expansion of structures) that is setback less
than 15 feet from the OHWM. This same restriction applies to new roof eaves or overhangs on
portions of the existing structures. As proposed, the expansion of the bedroom on the northwest
side of the cabin/residence is not meeting this shoreline setback standard. The site plan and
structure remodel drawings that were submitted must be changed to meet this standard,
showing the OHWM on the proposal site plan and the changes to the structural drawings that
show the proposal meeting the 15-foot shoreline setback in respect to the OHWM.
�s Its
Page 1 of 1
Sub1': Abrams' modified buildingplans 2-18-2014
Date: 2/18/2014 4:45:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
From: teriabramsayahoo.com
To: dghomedesignaaol.com
Hi Tim
Bill told me that the plans are ready to drop off at Mason County. Thank you. Would you put this message as a cover
sheet with the plans to make sure all parties have clear understanding of this project and are up-to-date? Thank you.
We need to keep our existing approved building permit active and want to commence building immediately. However,
because of the height of the King Tides, we had some damage to the house and had to remove wet insulation and
obtain a tidal elevation survey. We learned that it may be cost effective to build a new structure instead of remodeling
the existing house. We won't know for sure until we can obtain complete bids on the project but hope to build a more
attractive house that will improve the aesthetic view for all who enjoy Sunny Beach Cove.
When we met with the county group last summer, it was agreed that the insulation work would be considered
progress so we would have 6 months to do further work and wouldn't have to use up the one time normal 6 month
extension without progress. Since the meeting we have spent a lot of time traveling to visit and help with Bill's sister
who finally passed away last fall.
At of today, we have obtained the tidal elevation survey report and are submitting the adjusted plans to accommodate
moving the house and constructing a new house. The original plan for the garage had an indentation because of
some large trees but we have learned they need removal anyhow because of proximity to existing and proposed
structures so the garage can be rectangular now. We also met with contractors who move houses and install new
foundations. The engineering is included so the plans would be complete. However, we do not know the total cost of
the project yet. In the event it is too costly, we may be forced to only modify the existing house at least temporarily.
For that reason, we need the prior approved design left open as an option.
We want to commence work within weeks as soon as this modification is approved and the contractor's availability is
confirmed. Please feel free to call or e-mail us at any time. Thank you for your quick review and for working with us to
find a good solution.
Sincerely,
Teri Abrams
949 248-5522 H
949 922-7871 C
Tuesday, February 18, 2014 AOL: Dqhomedesign
2012 Washington State Energy Code:UA Alternative Worksheet,Type R-3 Occupancies
Abrams Residence
Conditioned Floor Area
Conditioned Building Volume L75q
Weather Station Shelton
Component Performance,R-3 occupancies Code Target Values
Area UA Area UA
Doors U= 0.300 80 24 80 24
Overhead Glazing U= 0,500 47 24 47 14
Vertical Glazing U= 0.300 289 87 421 126
Flat/Vaulted Ceilings U= 0.026 2,242 58 2,242 45
Wall(above grade) U= 0.056 2,193 123 2,062 105
Floors U= 0.029 2,242 65 2,242 65
Slab on Grade F= 0.540 0 0 0 0
Below Grade Wall U= 0.042 0 0 0 0
Below Grade Slab F= 0.570 0 0 0 0
TargetUATotalF 356 Proposed UA Total 355
Target Credits from Table 406.2 1.5 Proposed Credits from 1.5
Table 406.2
Qualifies
If the Proposed UA 5 the Target UA,and the Proposed Credits From Table 406.2 are>_those required in Section R406.2 than
the home meets the 2012 WSEC.
Exterior Doors
Plan Component Door Width Height
ID Description_ Ref. U Qt. Feet Inch Feet Inch Area UA
2 Insulated Front Door W! Custom 0.28 1 3 6 s 20 6
2 Insulated Garage Door Custom 0.28 1 3 6 e 20 6
2 S.G.D. W' Custom 0.32 1 6 6 8 40 13
0 0.00 0 0
0 0.00 0 0
0 0.00 1 0 0
: 0 0.00 0 0
Sum of Area and UA 80 24
Overhead Glazing:
Plan Component Glazing Width Height
ID _ Description_ _ _----- Ref. U Qt. Feet Inc' Feet In' Area UA
2 Vinyl Window mfr 0.30 3 3 1 9 3
2 Vinyl Window mfr 0.30 2 5 1 10 3
2 Vinyl Window mfr 0.30 1 8 1 8 2
- --- - -- -
2 Vinyl Window mfr 0.30 2 4 1 8 2
2 Vinyl Window mfr 0.30 2 6 1 12 4
Sum of Area and UA 1 471 14
Copyright 2013,WSUEEPIO-009(Version 11)Copied by permission from Washington State University Extension Energy Program. (see copyright restrictions)
2/11/2014 1 of 4
� N
O
1
y
T 7
E ? A
� 3
4 < < < < S < _< S < y y
a f N m
n °� °� $ n
3
!Q (7
N O
a
QOC� 0 m
oDo 0
. 8
'0CD
N
N
m
Nc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ID -,
m
_N
0
m d
C� o o O o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C N
TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w W w O w w W CJ W w (.J : y
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
N
r
O C 'T
3 fD
3 O W Cn m W m A W W CT W 7
� m
� m o> T
$ m m S
as W A cn W Cn U, Cn A A CT �.
C
C D =
Do D
N CO CO N A m m
O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O CD O CDO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O CDOD O O O O O O N O O
D � � D
N O m O O O O O O O O O C. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (T m J O W J m N A Oo Cu
N
O_
a
N
O
a
2012 Washington State Energy Code:UA Alternative Worksheet,Type R-3 Occupancies
2 R49 blown Attic ADV baffled _� 10-7 0.020 1,541 31
W-Vaulted Co0.000 0
3 R49 blown Attic ADV baffled 10-7 0.020 701 14
0 0.000 0
Sum of Area and UA 1 2,242 40l
Walls(Above Grade)
Plan Component Wall
Description_ _ Ref. U Net Area UA
2 R21 cavity+RO foam ADV 2X6W Lap 10-5 10.05151 1,178 607 0 3 R21 cavity+RO foam ADV 2X6W Lap 10-5 884 45
0 0
Sum of Area and UA 1 2,062 105
Floor(over crawl or exterior)
Plan Component Floor
ID Description Ref. U Area UA
2 R30 vented Joist 16oc 10-3 0.0291 1,5411 45
0 0.000 0
3 R30 vented Joist 16oc 10-3 0.029 701 20
0 0,000 0
Sum of Area and UA 1 2,2421 65
Slab on Grade(less than 2 feet below grade)
Plan Component Slab Slab
ID Description - Ref. F Length UA
-- - 0 0.000 1 0
0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0
Sum of Area and UA 01 0
Below Grade Walls and Slabs
Plan Component Wall Wall Wall Slab Slab Slab
ID Description_ _ Ref. U Area UA F Length UA
0 0.0001 0.0 0.000 0
0 0.0001 0.0 0.000 0
0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0
• 0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0
Sum of Area,Length and LIAI 01 0.0 1 0 0
Copyright 2013,WSUEEPIO-009(Version 11)Copied by permission from Washington State University Extension Energy Program. (see copyright restrictions)
2/11/2014 3 of 4
2012 Washington State Energy Code:UA Alternative Worksheet,Type R-3 Occupancies
Table R406.2 Summary
Opt. Description Credit(s)
1a Efficient Building Envelope 1a 0.5 ❑
1b Efficient Building Envelope I 1.0 ❑
tc Efficient Building Envelope tc 2.0 ❑
2a Air Leakage Control and Efficient Ventilation 2a 0.5 0 0.5
2b Air Leakage Control and Efficient Ventilation 2b 1.0 ❑
2c Air Leakage Control and Efficient Ventilation 2c 1.5 ❑
3a High Efficiency HVAC 3a 0.5 O 0.5
3b High Efficiency HVAC 3b 1.0 ❑
3c High Efficiency HVAC 3c 2.0 ❑
3d High Efficiency HVAC 3d 1.0 ❑
4 High Efficiency HVAC Distribution System 1.0 ❑
5a Efficient Water Heating 0.5 ID 0.5
5b Efficient Water Heating 1.5 ❑
6 Renewable Electric Energy 0.5 kWh ❑
Total Credits 1.5
*Please refer to Table R406.2 for complete option descriptions
Copyright 2013,WSUEEPIO-009(Version 11)Copied by permission from Washington State University Extension Energy Program. (see copyright restrictions)
2/11/2014 4 of 4
Simple Heating System Size:Climate Zone 1
Project Information Contact Information
Abrams Residence Dolphin Quest Home Design
Indoor Design Temperature 70 UNTESTED GLAZED FENESTRATION U-FACTOR
Outdoor Design Temperature 23
SINGLE DOUBLE
FRAME TYPE PANE PANE SKYLIGHT
Design Temperature Difference(AT) Metal 1.20 0.80
AT=Indoor-Outdoor Design Temp 47
Conditioned Floor Area 2242 Metal with Thermal 1.10 0.65 See Table
Conditioned Volume 19477 Break a3o3.i.3(a)
Nonmetal or Metal Clad 0.95 1 0.55
Glazing Glazed Block 0.60
Copy Sum of UA from Glazing Schedule
Attic U-Factor X Area = UA
R-49 0.027 2242 60.5 Building Envelope U-Values
R-38 Advanced 0.026 Refer to 2012 WSEC Appendix A for
U-factors not listed below.
Single Rafter or Joist Vaulted Ceilings
U-Factor X Area = UA Ceilings w/no insulation U=0.30
R-38 Vented 0.027 B Floors w/no insulation U=0.134
Walls w/no insulation U=0.31
Above Grade Walls U-Factor X Area = UA Glass Blocks U=0.51
R-21 0.056 2062 115.5
Floors U-Factor X Area = UA
R-30 0.029 1 2242 65.0
Below Grade Walls U-Factor X Area = UA
2'Depth Walls 0.042
3.5'Depth Walls 0.041
7'Depth Walls 0.037
Slab Below Grade F-Factor X Length = UA
2'Depth 0.59
3.5'Depth 0.64
7'Depth 0.57
Slab on Grade F-Factor X Length = UA
R-10 2'perimeter 0.54
R-10 Full-Heated 0.55
Sum of UA 241
Envelope Heat Load 11328 Btu/Hour
Sum of LIA X AT
Air Leakage Heat Load 9887 Btu/Hour
((Volume X 0.6)X AT)X.018))
Building Design Heat Load 21215 Btu/Hour
Air Leakage+Envelope Heat Loss
Building and Duct Heat Load �1f 21215 Btu/Hour
If ducts are located in unconditioned space:Sum of Building Heat Loss X 1.1
If duds are located in conditioned space:Sum of Building Heat Loss X 1
Maximum Heat Equipment Output 140% 29701 Btu/Hour
Building and Dud Heat Loss X 1.40
From: Allan Borden
To: Tim Moore; teriabrams@yahoo.com
CC: Allan Borden
Date: 4/21/2014 4:41 PM
Subject: Review of the Wm. and Teri Abrams Residence in Union WA
Attachments: Abrams residence proposal evaluation Apr 2014.pdf
Tim Moore and Teri & Bill Abrams:
I AM RESENDING THIS MESSAGE (originally sent to Tim Moore on Friday April 18, 2014
without the attachment) TO YOU ON MONDAY APRIL 21, 2014.
I am reviewing the proposed residence and revised site plan for the Abrams on a property
located in Union WA. (building permit no. BLD2009-00961) You prepared the recent home
design and site plan from February 2014. So I am directing the evaluation of the siting of
the proposed residence to you for your understanding (see attachment with this message).
The important issue is that a totally new structure is being proposed on this property with
shoreline, stream, and floodplain critical areas. Certain development standards apply as
described in the evaluation, and in this case, the review of variances must be completed
prior to further building permit reviews. Such variances can be avoided if the new
development is located at least 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark and the structure
is within the existing building footprint up to the 35-foot distance from the ordinary high
water mark. In addition, in this case on this property, a proposed new development
setback at the 35-foot distance from the ordinary high water mark and meeting other
setback standards could proceed without variance reviews.
Please review the evaluation and consider the alternatives to development. Contact me if
you have further questions.
Allan Borden
Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
From: Allan Borden
To: Tim Moore
CC: Allan Borden
Date: 4/18/2014 11:23 AM
Subject: Review of the Wm. and Teri Abrams Residence in Union WA
Tim Moore:
I am reviewing the proposed residence and revised site plan for the Abrams on a property
located in Union WA. (building permit no. BLD2009-00961) You prepared the recent home
design and site plan from February 2014. So I am directing the evaluation of the siting of
the proposed residence to you for your understanding (see attachment).
The important issue is that a totally new structure is being proposed on this property with
shoreline, stream, and floodplain critical areas. Certain development standards apply as
described in the evaluation, and in this case, the review of variances must be completed
prior to further building permit reviews. Such variances can be avoided if the new
development is located at least 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark and the structure
is within the existing building footprint up to the 35-foot distance from the ordinary high
water mark. In addition, in this case on this property, a proposed new development
setback at the 35-foot distance from the ordinary high water mark and meeting other
setback standards could proceed without variance reviews.
Please review the evaluation and consider the alternatives to development. Contact me if
you have further questions.
Allan Borden
Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
Oct 17 03 02: 05p Teri Abrams 949 248-7871 p. 3
surveys. We will landscape with native plants such as Salal, Ferns, Huckleberry,
Dogwood, and Maple, which is what grows naturally there and this will enhance and
improve the habitat on the side closest to the stream. As you know, we are also planning
to remove a large storage shed which has sat in the stream buffer for years so this will
uncover an additional area which can be planted with native plants. In the last few
months, two squirrels have begun living in our maple trees. We love this and want to
encourage other wild life as well_ It is gratifying to see the wild birds and ducks feeling
very safe and protected in the cove. We would also be willing to add grasses and as you
know, this project would move an existing septic system much further away from the
shoreline.
Please phone us as soon as possible. Please let us proceed to get this project completed
while the highway construction is underway and utilities are being rerouted. We already
have a contractor lined up and the architect and building designer have already done their
work. We would be deeply grateful for your acceptance, Scott.
Exhibit A Page 1 of 1
Barbara Adkins - Abrams Residence; BLD2009-00961
From: Barbara Adkins
To: mail@fosterwilliams.com
Date: 8/19/2013 12:37 PM
Subject: Abrams Residence; BLD2009-00961
CC: Allan Borden; Cindy Waite; Debbera Coker
Mr. Williams -
I have received and reviewed your letter of August 13, 2013 regarding the situation the Abrams now find
themselves in. It would seem, however, that this unfortunate situation, and any solutions to it, are too complex
to address through correspondence. Would you and your clients consider making an appointment to meet with
us, and hopefully collaborate on an agreeable remedy?
Thank you, and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Barbara
Barbara A.Adkins, AICP, Director
Department of Community Development
Post Office Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
360/427-9670 ext. 286
Email: BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us
file:///C:/Users/BarbarA/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/52121 190Mas...
Oct 17 03 02: 05p Teri Rbrams 949 248-7871 p. 1
FA.`C 4 pages total
To: Scott Longanecker, Sr. Planner From: Bill & Teri Abrams
Fax: 360 427-8425 Phone: 949 248-5522
Phone: 360 427-9670, Ext_ 286 Fax: 949 248-7871
October 14, 2003 E-mail: teriabrams@yahoo.com
Scott,
I spoke with Bill who has been on a business trip this week and we are both feeling very
upset so didn't want to phone you right away. Instead we sat down today with the plan
once more and put our heads together. We prefer to solve problems in a creative fashion
to get things done and move ahead. 1 reviewed prior communication at the time we
applied for this permit in May 2002 and realized that we had been assured that we could
use the square footage in the stream buffer zone for this project. That is why the building
designer submitted the design she did. The major concern of the planner was that we
were in the stream buffer for this project. Now that the Johnson's have built their house
which lies between us and the stream, you and we and everyone else can see that this
changes any impact we would have on the stream. Certainly a sod lawn between us and
the stream prevents any effect our small modification in the existing structure could
possibly have on the stream Also, our application was sent in prior to others and the
huge structure which has been recently placed between us and the stream changed the
situation. We are legally vested under the May 2002 application date.
Here is our third revision that our building designer can probably manage although it will
mean additional cost. We certainly hope this is the last one. I've calculated the square
footage on the following page. The garage extends to the north where it runs into the
existing house. This is necessary in order to work among the preexisting limitations of
the trees, existing drain field, and away from the property line while retaining usefulness
without obstructing an open view of the shoreline. The carport is functionally part of the
house since the back porch roof and the roof of the carport protect one from rain as one
goes from one to the other. The other porch used for access is very close also, within a
couple of steps. The existing carport has two divided sections with two different
rooflines...one section is used for parking the car and one section is used for utility and
storage. We can accommodate the same uses with this plan. Considering the rainy
weather in this climate and Bill's age being over 60 it is reasonable that we would have
easy, safe, access to our car and utility area. In addition, Bill has developed knee
problems so the fewer steps the better. We are both approaching retirement age and have
orthopedic limitations.
Oct 17 03 02: 05p Teri Abrams 949 248-7871 p. 2
It is anticipated that this plan should meet your last request for revision, especially
considering that you approved our plan last week and gave Teri the go ahead to get the
building designer working on the final blue prints for the building department's needs.
We applied for this permit in May 2002. We've been at this for 18 months, this is our
third revision, we've worked with 4 planners, incurred large expenses to comply with all
the requests, and have been very patient and cooperative. But we want you to know we
are becoming frustrated by this point. For the approval to be reversed at this late date
would be grossly unfair to us. Especially in light of what others on adjacent properties
have been permitted to do recently. This is a very small project which will make an
enormous difference in the visual appearance of the property for neighbors and the
community. It also will allow us to live there in our retirement which is extremely
important to us. We have planned and worked toward this for a long time. This property
is my husband's inheritance from his parents and he chose it for this reason. His sister
chose the property next door and has been allowed to build a very tall massive house that
dwarfs our little house and blocks our view of the stream area which we used to enjoy.
The length of the house sits just a few feet from the property line all along our common
boundary. In addition, the house and sod lawn lie between our site and the stream so
there is very little native area at all anymore to the east of us toward the stream. This is
an enormous change that we have tolerated because we understood we would be able to
enlarge our home in a similar fashion.
With this plan we would not have to look at their utility area with piles of debris but
could landscape that side with native shrubs. As it is now, they look at an ugly scene of
the side of the carport, building supplies, lawnmower, tools, and our trash cans. Hardly
desirable. It would be a terrible hardship not to be able to live on our property without
enlarging the present home so that it can accommodate our need for sufficient living and
work areas. Because of the cost of construction and financing increasing and the fact our
application was vested before May 30 2002, we need to do the project all at once and as
soon as possible.
As you know this property has been in the Dalby family for over 80 years. Historically, 4
cabins sat on this same parcel and there is still foundation remaining on the beach. All
but one of the original houses was removed and the existing house was built in
conformance with requirements in effect at the time on the same site as a previous house.
It passed all the inspections and was planned to be completed with a second story at the
time it was built. But Bill's father became ill and passed away before he could complete
it. This isn't just a property, It is a family treasure that evokes deep sentiment and
emotion in us and our children. We feel it is important to complete the home and use it
for the family as Dad had intended.
The major purpose of buffers is protection of the habitat. We have been good stewards
of the environment and this will not change. We would not do anything that would be
detrimental to the habitat on our parcel. On the contrary, we have no paved surfaces,
only gravel, and the area of the addition is all on gravel or hard compacted ground which
was the original road around the canal called the Navy Highway_ It is shown on early