Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
VAR2004-00008 Hearing Ex Decision - VAR Letters / Memos - 6/9/2004
CASE INDEX RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE APPLICATION (VAR2004-00008) Michael and Linda Fish INDEX DATE DESCRIPTION 1 04/26/2004 EXHIBIT 1-Staff Report 2 04/20/2004 EXHIBIT 2-Revised Variance Application 3 04/20/04 Attachment A of Variance Application-Vicinity Ma 4 04/20/2004 Attachment B of Variance Application-Site Ma 5 04/20/04 Attachment C of Variance Application-Parcel Ma 6 04/20/2004 Attachment D of Variance Application-Letter from applicants to Planning, 7 04/19/2004 EXHIBIT 3-Notice of Request for Continuance of Public Hearin 8 03/2004 EXHIBIT 4-Photographs of Site by County Staff 9 11/01/2003 EXHIBIT 5-Project Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and pictures of site 10 09/15/2003 EXHIBIT 6- Geotechnical Report and pictures of site 11 03/11/2004 Attachment A- Letter from County Public Works to Planning staff re: Geot Report 12 03/03/2004 EXHIBIT 7- HMP review Letter to S uaxin Tribe 13 03/23/2004 EXHIBIT 8-Response Letter from Michelle Stevie's S uaxin Biologist re: 14 03/03/2004 EXHIBIT 9-HMP review Letter to WA Dept. Fish and Wildlife 15 12/18/2003 EXHIBIT 10-Letter from Valorie Kessler re: proposed project 16 03/18/2004 EXHIBIT 11-Affidavit of Publication for Original Variance proposal 17 03/18/2004 EXHIBIT 12-Affidavit of Posting Notice 18 03/18/2004 EXHIBIT 13-Notice of Application 19 02/13/2004 EXHIBIT 14-Variance Application 20 08/25/2003 EXHIBIT 15-Site preinspection report TO BE KEPT IN THE PARCEL FILE MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 June 9, 2004 Notice of Decision Case: VAR2004-00008, a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Applicant: Michael and Linda Fish Notice is hereby given that Michael and Linda Fish who are the applicants for the above- referenced action,has been granted the variance subject to the following as described in the Hearing Examiner decision: As allowed outright by the Mason County Code, the Examiner approves the expansion of the cabin by 10% and a vertical expansion (MCC 17.01.11-0 Fl). The Examiner also authorizes the requested garage and porches. The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance, specifically Chapter 17.01.150 (E). This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Diane Marcus Jones, Senior Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x 363. r r` 12.500 Sf y51 � / ! ! ! v ! ! J / r6'&MIM / 600' /s / 1 / / _ PAD ADG M ! /6 — 512 T ! 55CI1(IN 6�IffiMOVLL7 '" / (NhTNB ZCJP 660 5r PWPVW h01�F1 C1tl514JG i`OdrlRBkf � RECEIVED r�5(ORAt'ON ZOt� 5 ' � /! 95 A�ti'a piw if+ APR 2 9 2004 rlol _�~ MASON ! ON CO.PLANNING DEFT. / / P15H AMMON KOXCT►POITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TAX FA12M NO, 12119157 0 11 425 �W taWHW WAV LM POAP RVITAT MANA6ej� 'pI.ANNING VW RVO Lt _ ©© �o 1 avi�l. I--b 00o ( ( Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland SErvices PO Box 2854 • Belfair, WA 98528 • 360-620-0618 . leehoad(a�hctc.com Diane Marcus Jones Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department RE: Mike and Linda Fish Project Parcel 12118-13-0001 1 Residential Construction Dear Diane, At the Request of Mike and Linda Fish, the proposed plans for improvements of 425 East Rauschert Road located in Grapeview, Mason County Washington have been revised based on public comments and comments from the Squaxin Island Tribe. The previous proposal included locating the residential footprint 5' closer to the marine shoreline than the existing structure, The landowners are now proposing to locate the proposed structure no closer to the marine shoreline than the existing structure, which is 55' from the bluff. All other project descriptions and mitigation measures listed in the Habitat Management Plan still apply to this proposal. A plot map is enclosed shoW"Ing the location of existing and proposed buildings in relation to critical areas, buffers, building setbacks, and property lines, I trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Lee B Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services PO Box 2854 Belfair, WA 98528 (360)-620-0618 RECEIVE APR 2 9 2004 MASON C). PLANNING DEFT, C'M01IA JQC:Tn +,M Y1 --7/+,fT Q+,OfT_Cl7_ITOC .- I II.7111a111 P I 11 11 I—..TPC TPIIP- nnnu V � TO BE KEPT IN TI-'i�. Table of Contents P A R G t1 FILE Fish Addition Project Habitat Management Plan 1.0 Introduction......................................................................2 2.0 Project Description..............................................................2 3.0 Property Description............................................................2 4.0 Applicable Setbacks.............................................................5 5.0 Species Information.............................................................5 6.0 Potential Development Impacts................................................6 7.0 Mitigation Measures............................................................7 7.1 Preservation of Critically Important Plants.........................7 7.2 Seasonal Consideration of Construction Activities.................7 7.3 Recommended Best Management Practices........................7 7.4 Riparian Corridor Restoration.........................................7 7.5 Shoreline Bluff Restoration...........................................7 7.6 Footprint Abandonment and Site Restoration......................7 8.0 Monitoring........................................................................9 9.0 Conclusion........................................................................9 Recommended Citation: Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning. November 2003. Fish Addition Project, Habitat Management Plan. Belfair, WA Prepared for Mike and Linda Fish. 1.0 Introduction At the Request of Mike and Linda Fish, a Habitat Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed improvements of 425 East Rauschert Road located in Grapeview, Mason County Washington. This parcel is mapped in Section 18 of Township 21 North, Range 1 West. The property is recorded by the Mason County Tax Assessor's Office as Tax Parcel 12118-13-00011. All observations reported in this report relate to this parcel unless otherwise stated. 2.0 Proiect Description This report addresses the proposed house reconstruction and garage addition all to be placed partially within the footprint of and existing single-family residence, currently located in the protected buffer of a Type N stream as well as the protected Marine Conservancy Shoreline Buffer. The existing 1,100 square-foot structure will be replaced with a house and garage which together will occupy a footprint of roughly 2,472 square feet. This will be placed 50 feet from the marine shoreline bluff, and 27 feet from the Type IV stream. The existing structure is 55 feet from the bluff and only 16 feet from the stream. 3.0 Property Description The property is located on -- the western shore of Case Inlet. It consists of roughly 120 feet of marine wr � - shoreline and roughly 2.5- a "' acres of upland. An active " x , feeder bluff is located . between the Marine + Shoreline and the upland area. The stream runs ; north to south through the center of the property. Located in a V-shaped canyon, the stream is surrounded on both banks by a mature second growth conifer/deciduous mix riparian Figure 1. Looking upstream from the bottom of the canyon area. This moderately dense forested riparian area extends 30-50 feet to the east and 60-150 feet to the west throughout the lineal distance of the stream segment located within the property. The area between the existing house and the marine shoreline consists of evergreen huckleberry bushes and few remaining story trees(figure 4). tits p . f P i �h r � f h • J �r y k ti �� +ter �s� - "u • ��! �u�-T rF,t +�Y��."� s�-+•ow� .,' sz�f "� ���� �sv��'��+3r�+ww- `S�`�,ge�, '-�, 3.�� ��.c �,s. •c1 �--'� ;r��,r.;v� .��„ .. ti, ��.c.,s�^sa ,�L.�a`,�*�'�•..f �� �a`.�` �'� ,n4�,�`�-�z'Y''�f� g '�s�"�S' �' �f xa� ,. � .,c ky L �4J '�"' � W"s+F� S'L�S� `� d,:�,."' �r e��Ck��';} � ,i..�(.x{i. •���*-x1�,„�s,�• Figure 4. Proposed building zone looking south Is x R 3 7 y� x 1 y,, tax 4 x 4 ,,.f ♦ � art+�_3h`x `x�r t+T.r. ,r. !+�:. a - ii• a< t r — J a L''-�y', ,• t t w Figure 5. Proposed building none looking north 4.0 Applicable Setbacks This site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County. The applicable setback for this project is as follows: Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback from Buffer Type IV stream 100' 15' Conservancy Shoreline 100' 15' 5.0 Species Information Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshaw ty sha)-Threatened Listed as threatened since March 24,1999 adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. In the vicinity of the proposed project area, summer/fall Chinook have been documented in Sherwood and Coulter Creek. These stocks are assumed to be of hatchery origin. Designated Critical Habitat For Puget Sound Chinook Critical habitat includes all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Due to the marine shoreline and small estuary existing within the subject parcel, critical habitat is present within the project area. The riparian restoration program associated with this project will likely provide a net benefit to the marine environment. Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus leucoc!phalus)- Endangered Stands of second growth, deciduous, and deciduous/coniferous mix forests are within the project site. Wintering bald eagles have been observed in the vicinity of the project area. Foraging habitat encompasses the surrounding area and is likely supported by marine forage fish populations as well as salmon returning to streams entering McLane Cove. Foraging and nesting habitat is not expected to be negatively impacted by the proposed project. No potential nesting or roosting trees will be removed or impacted. The restoration program associated with the project will likely have a net benefit. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)- Threatened No old growth forests surround the site or are in vicinity of the project area that would make it suitable for Marbled Murrelet. There are no documented nesting sites in this part of Case Inlet. This project will have no adverse impacts on Marbled Murrelet. Humpback Whale (AftWlera novaeg6gliae)-Endangered There are no documented occurrences of Humpback Whales in Case Inlet. Therefore, this project is not expected to have negative impacts on Humpback Whales. Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochleys coriacea)- Endangered There are no documented occurrences of leatherback sea turtles in Case Inlet. Therefore this project is not expected to have any negative impacts on leatherback sea turtles. Steller Sea Lion (Eumek pia iubatus)- Threatened Steller Sea Lions have been documented as occurring intermittently in Southern Puget Sound. There are no documented haulout sites located in Case Inlet. This project is not expected to have any negative impacts on Steller Sea Lions. Recovery or Management Plans Compliance Management Recommendations for bald eagle are included in WDFW's Management Recommendations for Priority Species. This project is guided by the recommendations in this document. 6.0 Potential Development Impacts The majority of the parcel lies within the regulated Buffer Zone of a Type IV stream and/or Marine Conservancy Shoreline. Development scale in the protected area is as follows- Development Type Habitat Type Project scale House Reconstruction Type IV stream/Conservancy Shoreline 1,900 square feet Garage Addition Type IV stream/Conservancy Shoreline 572 square feet Vegetation Disturbance The proposed construction zone is within an existing parking area located on the eastern side of the house. One madrona and one Douglas fir will need to be removed. No other vegetation removal will be necessary. Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids None of the actions described in the proposed project will destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitat. All actions described in this plan are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. Noise Pollution An increase in noise from construction activities is anticipated during daylight construction hours. This will not adversely impact listed fish species occurring in the vicinity of the project area. It will likely not impact any bald eagles. No roosts were observed or documented within the radii of concern. Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Construction The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediment within the project area. Best Management Practices have been recommended to reduce the potential for temporary increases in suspended sediment and turbidity. 7.0 Mitigation Measures 7.1 Preservation of Critically Important Plants Native vegetation located outside the proposed construction zone will be protected to the maximum extent feasible. 7.2 Seasonal Consideration of Construction Activities Wintering bald eagle may be present between October 31, and March 31. It is recommended that high noise level construction be minimized during these dates. 7.3 Recommended Best Management Practices Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows: • Perform any excavation and grading work during dry weather • Install silt fencing around the work area to prevent erosion and siltation of marine and riverine waters. • Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible. • Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur off site. Don't store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals, or hazardous substances overnight within the project area. • Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain. • Comply with all permits and requirements of the government authority or agency. 7.4 Riparian Buffer Restoration A 12,500 square foot area adjacent to the western bank of the canyon currently supports minimal under story trees and shrubs (figure 3, see plot map). A supplemental planting program is recommended to enhance stand diversity in terms of strata, species, and age class. This will further increase the wildlife habitat value associated with the site. Restoration potential on the eastern bank of the canyon is limited due to the existing access road and limited space within the subject parcel. The riparian vegetation existing between the road and the stream will continue to uphold critical functions necessary to maintain aquatic and terrestrial habitat. 7.5 Shoreline Bluff Restoration The landowners have maintained native shrubs and scattered over story trees throughout several areas along the shoreline bluff. A 1,000 square foot area between a section of the proposed construction zone and the shoreline bluff can be further restored. It is recommended that this area be supplemented with native plantings to eventually provide one continuous section of native vegetation throughout the area along the shoreline bluff. 7.6 House Footprint Abandonment and Site Restoration The 360-foot section of the abandoned footprint is located within the 50 feet of the marine shoreline and 16 feet of theType IV stream. This area will be restored through native plantings. This will provide riparian connectivity throughout the stream corridor restoring a natural habitat connection to the marine shoreline. Figure 6. Shoreline bluff restoration zone Native Plantings It is recommended that native plantings be installed within the identified restoration zones to achieve the following densities(See plot map for planting zones): Trees- 10' on center Shrubs-5' on center Ferns- 3' on center These densities have been selected to provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the restoration area. Volunteer native vegetation can be counted towards the target densities of restoration plants. Native plant species that may be used within the restoration zone include: Trees: western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Shrubs: nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) salmonberry(rubus spectabilis) salal (Gaultheria shallon) evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Ferns: sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Groundcover: kinnikinnik(Arcostaphylus uva-ursi) Coastal strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis) All planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is during February and March. 8.0 Monitoring Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following tree plantings and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) condition of reintroduced plant species; 2) the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by the development and its effect on protected zones and associated aquatic habitat, 4) any occurrence of exotic species within the restoration zones; 5) any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of Community Development. 9.0 Conclusion This project involves adding a footprint of 1,372 square feet to the existing site. The entire project lies within the protected buffer of a Type IV stream and Marine Conservancy Shoreline. The project will move the location of a single-family residence an additional 16 feet back from the Type IV stream. The proposed structure will be five feet closer to the marine shoreline than the existing structure. Roughly 12,860 square feet of stream riparian zone and 1,360 square feet of conservancy shoreline riparian will be restored through a focused native planting program. Preservation Measures, Restoration Measures, and Best Management Practices, have all been identified to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for proposed construction. I trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing me as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call. Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning PO Box 2854 Belfair, WA 98528 360-620-0618 leeboadCa hctc_com Attached: Plot Map F?5N AMMON PROICf HAIWAT MANA WNf MAN TAX MM NO, 121191�0 11 425 BAST 12 )5aflZr POAP L�� POAn NADIfAf MANALTWNf PLANNING UJJIIMEt7 il�'C N 5�(t�,Ml 600' �5 625' 61 pI�OP0�t7 /ig71TKxJ5 r 9MT! (NMM zap �o 5rt t 5ft F PWPOW PM zany 120' CAT k,�r �� To Diane Marcus-Jones Dept of Community Devel(From John E. Diehl 426-3709 (call first) 05/06/04 2 52 00 Page 2 of 6 BEFORE,THE,HE,ARTNG E,XAMTNER FOR MASON COUNTY RF.: Michael and Linda Fish Memorandum Opposing Request for Variance from Mason (from John F. Diehl, for County Resource Ordinance. Advocates for Responsible Development) Advocates for Responsible Development is a Public interest group seeking wise land use Planning to a.cliicve tic goals a.nd requirements of the Growth Ma.nagcmcnt.Act.(-GMA") and tlic Shoreline Management Act. We are requesting denial of the proposed variance because it does not satisfy the rccluired criteria of MCC 17,01.150: it is not consistent with tic intent and pUrposc.of tllc Resource Ordinance; it is unnecessary for the reasonable use of the land; the proposed variance is not the 111inllliulii to aecolliplisll a.reasonable usc; and it would give the applicants a.privilege denied to other lands in the same designation. I.Procedural history of riparian and marine shoreline buffer protection Mason County adopted its initial response to the GMA requirement (RCW:36.70A.060 and -.170) to designate and protect critical areas in 1993. 1-Jndcr tic ordinance so adopted, vegetation area requirements, i.e., buffers, of 50 feet (plus a 15-fool building setback to protect the buffers) were esta.blishcd for "Type, IV waters" (referring to WAC 222-16-030). Marine buffers were nonexistent,though setbacks for construction were required. In 1995 this ordinance was challenged in a.I-tition brouglit to the Western Washington(_irowtli M.911a.gc111cut.hearings Board. '111c licarings hoard found the County noncompliant regarding its protection of critical areas, among other dcrlcieneics,Dield cat ed. v. Mason County (No. 95-2-0073), Final Decision and Order, January 8, 1996.in September 1996, the hoard, noting the "minimal response" by the County and citing "the absence of adequate. buffers and liabitat protection for certain critical areas" as "especially egregious" (together with other deficiencies), determined that certain sections of the ordinance substa.utia.11y inteltercd witli GMA goals and wore,tlicre.forc invalid under RCW 36.70A.302. In February 1999, after mediated efforts at settlement failed, the parties stipulated and the hoard entered in order stating that the. County s resourec. Ordinance (as a111onded in 1997) was noncompliant and that it must include buffer widths based on hest available science. in October 1999,the County again inicndcd its resource ordinance, increasing buffer widths for what are now called "Type TV streams" to 7.5 feel (iglus a 1.5-fool setback). Upon review of this amendment, in what was flit. 9d, compliance. hearing in tllis case, tic hearings board found the riparian buffers themselves to he invalid.Order Finding Continued Noncompliance and invalidity, M22/00. Finally, anicndnients to the Resource Ordinance made in August 2000-- including an increase.ill tllc buffer width for Type TV streams to 100 feet -- caused the hoard to find the riparian buffer widths compliant. 'flit marine buffers remained nolicomplia iit, however, until buffers of 100 feett were adopted in 2003. - 1 - To: Dine Marcus-Jones Dept of Community Devel(From: John E. Diehl 426-3709 (call first) 05/06/04 2:52:28 Page 3 of 6 ii. The request is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Resource Ordinance. One of the primary purposes of the Resource Ordinance is the protection of critical areas, including specifically the habitat along strea.ills and illarine.sllorclines. It is essential to maintain an interconnected network of habitat, since many or the wildlife species intended to he protected by the ordinance 111ove or migrate over buffer areas like,that on the applicant's land. 'lliCir I.loplila.t.ions will suffer if only a patchwork of riparian habitat, and nothing like a vegetated corridor, remains after all property owners with sinlilar reasons or excuses obtain variances. Clearly, if every applicant showing a treater convenience or cost savings to himself were, allowed a variance to build within a riparian or marine shore buffer, then the requirement for buffers would bec0nic a.nullity. While de 111ininlis arguments nla.y always be Made retarding any particular proposed variance, the question of consistency with the purpose and intent of the Resource Ordinance must be,placed in the context of whether the cumulative effects of granting variances of the sort requested are consistent with the Ordinance's purpose and intent. In the granting of all variance permits in Shorelines cases, consideration shall be given to the cluillila.tive'- impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. Ruerhel tip. D partm.erit of F,rulogy, 125 Wn. 2d 196 (1994). A spcci.9.l concern with the Dish proposal is that it involves an unstable shoreline bluff. Although the geotechnical report glosses the hazard of bluff erosion, there is no dispute that the bluff is not rock and that in the,course,of time itt serves as a."feeder bluff," replenishing,by its erosion, essential beach sand and gravel. See staff report,p. 6. This erosion process is essential not only for the,continued existence of beaches,but also for tile'e,fish and Wildlife',dependent llpoll the111. While some birds use beaches for feeding and/or nesting,perhaps the part of the beach that lies underwater is most important, for this provides the,basic condition vital to the cclgrass e01111111111ity, especially necessary to juvenile salmonids and their prey. Thus, a major regulatory concern is to not create or encOura.ge. developnicut that., because of its proximity to eroding marine bluffs, will eventually generate pressure for bulkheads or other artificial stabilization of the bluffs to prevent loss of stluctllres perched on unstable bluffs, since,such artificial stabilization, if it works, will inhibit the natural process of beach replenishment. it is with such concern in mind that some counties prohibit new constluction within that area. lying above the angle, of repose for unstable. slopes. '1111i1;ston County, for example,requires the primary structure and its normal residential appurtenances to he set back froill the top of the Marine bluff for a.distance of at least twice the hci-;ht of the bluff. Sec TCO;`17.1-5.620(R)(2)(b). The geotechnical report, by recommending a setback of 35 feel, ignores the desirability of locating sttvctllrc,S outside the areas that may be cxpccted to eventually erode, and so compromises science with the client's needs. Rut what is attractive, at least in the short run, to the Dishes may prove in the 10112 run harmful to the,fish, and perhaps to the Dishes or their successors as well. Although the vegetation restoration proposed in the habitat management plan for one part of the bluff is offered as 111itigltion, the rec0nuilendation is simply to plant "native vegetation." There is no evidence that native vegetation, when not specified as to species, will materially improve the. stability of the bluff or postpone the day when the county will reeeive an a.ppliea.tioll fur - 2 - To Diane Marcus-Jones Dept. of Community Devel(From: John E. Diehl 426-3709 (call first) 05/06/04 2 53:00 Page 4 of 6 hulkheads or other artificial stabilization. Viewed in this light, it is evident that variances or the sort sought by the applicants cannot be,grautcd and still protect tllc.functions and values of riparian and marine shoreline habitat.. Witll the reconstructed house to he located only 27 feel from the stream, the.Fish proposal would maintain less than one quart.cr that ainlount of buffer plus setback required by tile.C:ounty's regulations and found compliant with GMA goals and requirements by the Growth Management Hearings Board. By reconstructing within the illarinc shore buffer,the Dishes would jeopardize:the future safety of their house and indirectly jeopardize the marine life dependent on the continued erosion-or the bluff. illtLs,we must ask tile.applicants to d0 the part ill Lill inta ining tllc hlnctions and valttcs of riparia.a and marine buffers if the purposes of the Resource Ordinance are to he served. 111. The request is not necessary ror the reasnnahle use of the land. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that the requested variance is necessary for the reasonable use of tllcir laud. 'lhc staff reportt notes that any expansion of the existing, house would entail building in a stream huffier.Yet,neither the applicants nor the staff report of Ms. Marcus-Tones silggest.that tllc cxist.illig Va.ca.tion cabin is not a.reasonabble.use:of the.laud. 'l'lle.site,has historically been so used. Staff report, p. R. in the Cousins case, the Mason County Commissioners in 2003 denied a variance to build even a.silla.11 house, pointing to its historic recreational usc: 'the 130C also funds the following:the impacts to tile.environment could be lessened with the constriction of a smaller,one story structure or no structure at all. A smaller stiticturc means fewer potential fall time users of the property and thus less potential impacts to the shoreline critical area. The Cousins decision was upheld on appeal to superior court. Citing the Cousins case, the Hearing Lxamincr for Mason CoUnty stlbserlucntly denied variances to Chong and Young Song and to Craig Kennedy to place structures with larger footprints on their shoreline lots. The Song case involved a.proposed stick-built replacement for a.776-square-foot illobilc honlc (together with-in existing 414 square foot utility room). After noting that the County Commissioners had determined that tile, size. of tile. proposed structure rcla.tcs to the nUillber of full-time users of the property and hence the potential impacts to shoreline critical area, the Hearing Examiner concluded: Consequently, any allowed material increase in square footage in a mobile home re,pla.ccillent should be construed as increasing adverse, impacts to the shoreline:. Given that an important reason justifying the reasonable use determination is the historical use of that property for a.residence,tlla.t sank.historical use also csta.blishcs that no increase in square feet is necessary. Similarly,in the Kennedy case, which also involved a mobile home replacement, the Hearing Lxaillincr concluded, in ruling oil a.illotion to reconsider: In this case tllc. property leas been used listorically for a 550 square foot. hoille, - 3 - To Diane Marcus-Jones Dept of Community Devel(From: John E. Diehl 426-3709 (call first) 05/06/04 2:53:28 Page 5 of 6 Presumably for recreational use. Most of the property is unhuildable, as testified by the applicant. As discussed in the Song Exa.mincr decision and Cousins Commissioner decision, size does correlate with occupancy and ultimately adverse i114)acts on envir'011nlental resources.Even if the applicant does not intend to increase, occupancy or use his property more because of the increase in size, the size increase provides that Oppolrtttnity for subsequent. purchasers. Limiting retllodels and conversions of shoreline structures to currently existing sizes also has more broad based public benefits. "llic limitation provides some,clarity and certainty to the land use review Process by Providing a simple, Predictable and objective standard to employ in variance. requests. Further, since most currently existing honks are relatively modest sized cabins and mobile homes,property owners will have some incentive t0 build their perina.uont homes elsewhere. C liven the factors identified above, linlit.iag the SllllarC feet Of the 11O111C to that currently allowed by MCC 17.01.1 1 OM(1)provides the applicant with a reasonable use of his property. . . . Moreover,no variance would be required to upgradc.Or even rebuild the existing stluctilre, as the staff report acknowledges.See p.S.Tinder S 17.01.1 1 OYM, the applicants might add a second story or even a.third story (up to 3S feet.) without any need for a.variance. It is absurd to argue that the applicants would have noreasonahle use without building the house of the size and location that they prefer. Because the staff repot refers to investment backed expectations, it may be useful to discuss the implications, if any, of the acquisition by the applicants of 30 feel along, the eastern length of their propelty.first., it should be pointed out that by the t.inlcc of this acquisition is September 2000 the County already had established 75-fool huffers for Type TV streams (and by March 2000, the hearings beard had found even these,buffers noncompliant and invalid). So, if the applicants Made reasonable inquiry,they could not have expected that their proposed expansion would conform with Mason County regulations, with Or without the addition Of 30 feet on the edge Of their property. if cAsting land regulations lint t the pciinisslblc Uses of the propelty at the tilllc Of acquisition, a.purchaser usually cannot reasonably expect to use the land lbr Prohibited purposes. Ruechel v. Del)urly-new v/* Ecology, Op. cit. Second,although the boundary line ad.just.nleat(BLA 2000-(0058) allegedly was Made "for PL°lxtses of this expansion" (staff repo)rt at p. 6), it was not necessary to the proposed expansion, nor is it being used for the proposed expansion. 'lllc:nla.p subalitt.cd as part of the habitat ma.na.genieat plan shows that no part o or the 30-foxttstrip will he built upon, nor will the proposed expansion come closer than 12-15 feet to the recently acquired land. Nor is the strip needed for sidcyard setback requirements. - 4 - To Diane Marcus-Jones Dept of Community Devel(From. John E Diehl 426-3709 (call first) 05/06/04 25358 Page 6 of 6 iV. The request would not be the minimum variance needed for a reasonable Lwe. Moreover,even if we were to suppose that a variance is needed for the reasonable use of the laud, the,reclueste'd variance,does not ntcct the test of being the mininunu variance needed to have areasonahle use. it fails to he the minimum in two ways: (1) Adding about 1,372 square feet to an existing 1,100 square-foot footprint is not ntininia.l; and (2) Loca.ting the new house so that it intrudes in both the shoreline buffer and the stream buffer is not minimal. There is nothing"minimal"about a 2,472 square foot house and garage. Obviously, one can have a.reasonable use of a residence with a.sma.11cr footprint.. As in the Cousins case, the applicants are requesting a larger structure than the minimum necessary to afford relief, even supposing that they did not already have a reasonable use. '11ius,the variance should be denied. lkuithtcr,the proposed site:is not"minintai" either in its intitision into the riparian buffer or into the shoreline buffer. The fact that it is less intrusive than that which was initially Proposed by the applicants should not blind its to the fact that., if the applicants wish to rebuild,there arc other locations on their Property which would he less intrusive, if only because the sensitive feeder bluff night.be given a more adcquMe buffer or setback. V. The request would give the applicants a privilege denied to other lands nl the same designation. The Resource Ordinance prohibits buffer destruction except in specific instances, including those where, a. variance nta.y be. legitimately granted. But there, has been no pattern of granting variances entailing buffer intrusions, at least where the primary reason has been to maintain a water view while greatly expanding thc.residence. if the precedent were sct.in this case that one nta.y build a bigger house set long as one does not intrude closer than one already is to the critical areas the Rosourec Ordinance is designed to protect, then the privilege these applicants seek would undo much of what we have so long sought to protect in the public interest, for the sake of fish and wildlife and the,benefits they bring to all of us. Ww �rw �r �rtw =� Stewardship of land has always been a moral responsibility for those living on earth, a resp lLsibility to fellow inhabitants and to future generations. 'lhc failure.and tragedy of relying on voluntary efforts has obliged governments to make it increasingly a legal responsibility. Yet, the legal res�XxLsibility is scarcely store than a charade it varlanec rctlucSts arc granted that do not Billy meet the criteria established in law. Because the Fish request does not meet the criteria, it should be denied. Dated: May 11, 2004 -- John L. Diehl President, Advocates for Responsible Development cc: Diane.Marcus-Jones Michael and Linda Fish - 5 - 14,- .200 Y-oo oo, RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE CHECKLIST Application received and logged: a-a.z-o t oea,z �M, JJ00y Notice and HMP sent to WDFW and Tribe: 3-3 -o y o jmumaL aI` •py - � Notice of application posted and mailed: ,Notice of hearing delivered to Journal: 3•!16•oy Notice of hearing posted and mailed: J'��•py Photos? Y44 SEPA?: #to Circulated on: NE r Cohn 044. 34. J,. o V Report to HEX by: HEX hearing date: -- d vim• o,; 13 Decision: Notice of Final Decision sent on: Appeal to BOCC: add ft 7,4,.�..,.,,c Notes & Comments: N0fice,4,-I b/' r.At dC r.L ��!76✓a/k'� �d I1,Y•t<wf � 'Vd rtao "." �-%k� 41-4 /� I cv- c3� /e2-aoO�J t fi � v CAMuments and Settings\scottl\Local Settings\Temp\RESOURCE OR CHECKLIST.doc.ram ` RECEIVED J U L 2 8 2004 MASON CO. PING MR. 288' well • APPROVE M SON COUNTY DCD LANNING S TE PLAN REQUIRED TO E ON SITE HANGES SUBJECT TO PPROVAL BY Da a N ..onc new garage this stake was placed by 572 sq. dianne marcus Jones on O ft. 7127 as 22'setback. a building edge will be 5' approx. east of this stake.stake s 17' to remain during construction black line ` represents new 0000�4 red line building footprint. E, 0000 000 represents (includes°o�o 625' o00 existing covered o444ca 00000 building m a0000 g porches)new sq. m —27' footprint( footage of 00000 dpp 1100 sq. proposed house • 4p only footprint is this stake was placed by ¢ ¢ C OOp0�00 1209 s q feet. dianne marcus jones on 0� 7/27 as 49 setback. --building edge will be 10' _ — — north of this stake.stake to remain during -- construction hatched area with stars represents section of original house restoration zone that will be moved to the i5n' east.native un 1000 sq.ft. plantings will replace this section edge of marine bluff edge of marine bluff case inlet R E C E I Y E D APR 2 n 2004 Mason County MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT. Department of Community Development Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01) 411 N. 5►h Street/P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 Variance from Standards Information: *Mason County may consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards of the Resource Ordinance where strict application of said standards would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special exception to the rule. The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific variance criteria listed below. 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. We are requesting a variance in order to build a house on our property to replace a cabin that has been there for 45 year. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. In order to build a home larger than the current cabin, a variance is needed. Not only would we like to expand the house footprint by 25%, we would like to add a garage and front and side porches. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes finding of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. 1. The granting of the variance shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and conditions shall be imposed to ensure compatibility with the surrounding conforming uses. Use of the property will be consistent with the purpose and intent of current regulations. The current footprint will be used. The structure will be moved an additional 12 feet from the stream. The building will be located north of the existing building line maintaining the same distance from the bluff as the current cabin. All new excavation will be done on areas where there is currently minimal vegetation. A replanting project will be undertaken. 2. The granting of the variance shall not permit the establishment of any use that is prohibited by this chapter. The use of this property will remain the same- Single Family Residence. Instead of vacation use however, it will be a primary residence. t�h,b�t oL RECEIVED APR 2 n 2004 MMON CO. PLANNING DEPT. 3. The granting of this variance must be necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building and the variance as granted by the County is the minimum variance that shall accomplish this purpose. The findings shall fully set forth the circumstances by which this Chapter would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use his land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variation. We feel that the granting of this variance is within reasonable use. For many years the cabin has served as a vacation home. We are now looking at retirement and the need for a home that has all necessary conveniences on one floor. Due to the deteriorated condition of the cabin, it could not be remodeled. A few years ago,we purchased an additional 30 feet East to create a site that would allow for bedroom,bath,living,dining and kitchen on one floor. As this is a permanent residence,we also included a garage as part of our building plan. The current cabin has about 1100 sq ft of excavated area. It is about 36 ft across and 30 feet deep. It is about 55 feet from the bluff. There is a three-foot sidewalk that runs across the front. Our proposed home is about 53 feet across and 30 feet deep with an excavated area of about 1500 sq ft and would also be located 55 feet from the bluff. The connecting garage is about 570 sq feet and porches across the front and side are about 400 sq ft. The purchase of the 30 feet allows us to move the building an additional 12 feet away from the stream. We would replant this 360 sq ft. Eliminating this footage we are left with about 740 sq feet of original footprint. Moving to the East,we would recapture the 360 sq ft,using a current driveway. The additional footage to be excavated for the house is former farmland. The proposed garage is on the north of the house and is located north of the buffer line of 82.5 ft and would also be constructed on former farmland. These former farmland areas are currently mostly grass. We feel that this use is reasonable. 4. The granting of the variance shall not impair or substantially diminish property values of surrounding neighborhood properties. Our building project would not diminish the property values of the surrounding neighborhood. Our neighborhood consists of a variety of housing ranging from small to large. We are adjacent to the Mountain Shores Community which consists of many upscale houses. Our planned home will blend with the mix of these beachfront homes. 5. The granting of the variance shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands or building in the same designation. We do not feel that we would be receiving any special privileges denied to others by our variance request being approved and a building permit being issued. `f I � may' r 4 i PLANNINCC 0 6W+_ o� So. gn Water a 0 h dryye �'�/one o � w c ho F 400,south Of 17orm ftp-/it,. 0 s m n RECEIVED FEB 13 2004 426 W. (aL/AK a f. 2 WINTERWUOD DRIVE LI,O. 2290 044 o 11 9001 0 1I I //s/90?/s 0'/04 1190S0 9i0 2101010 1200040 S22/65 0//0SP 2945 0 1100010 11 90020 0 S S 21/124-125 SP-637 0)ool I 19,e S I24/ 0 2101000 11 90030 19 0 20b010 22904 Sp 74 I SSP-8 ,S S22/184 0 1 1 90040 Q: 1200020 0 2��i3 2102 7590 7590 I o SP 823 j 220 050 2102000 I o n 1200030 A 7590 7590 1100 I 1 100 it 01825 BLA 01-27 2 1 0 060 030 040 S 2-6/198 1200000 I S 22/151 �I)�, 1190 I 200 •- � 2490 2400 S 7/3 100 120 a A o 0 0 0 1130010 1300/ o SP 571 o ro N o o 1 MOUNTAIN SHORES o 1 1 , Q a 572 2400090 VOL . 6 PGS 63-64 10 n n NO j i r r r r m 12� 00 I m 012 i 2400080 I I I I J t 1 I I � x 1 1 N 1 •. I N l a ! IwlQlvl � l 4 2400 2400 X a 1 � I M m v 060 070 I w I (D U Q I L. 3I O O 0 0 0 0 0 cn N - 0 0 0 0 O O O i0 0 O O O O O O O N N 27 v v � N N N N I 0I I I RECEIVED APR 2 n 2004 MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT. April 19, 2004 Diane Marcus Jones Senior Planner Courthouse Building 1 411N. 5' Shelton,WA 98584 Dear Diane: Attached is our new Variance From Standards Information form along with a letter of support from our neighbor. We read the Mason County Resources Ordinance that you gave us and tried to answer the questions with the ordinance in mind. If you have any concerns and questions about it,please call us at 541-990-1247. We check messages often, as our phone does not always pick up the signal here in Port Townsend. We were at the site yesterday and did some measuring. No matter how we measured from the bluff to the current cabin,we would not come up with a measurement of 65 feet as mentioned in Michelle Stevie's letter to you. Additionally,we discovered that if we extend the house East,as we have requested,the building would be setback even further due to the curvature of the bluff. We can find no evidence that our project would encroach an additional 15 feet as mentioned in her letter. Therefore,instead of using measurement in feet,we are addressing the site of the cabin as being our water ward line. Our current request has the porch and roof overhang ending at the cabin foundation. Lee Boad says that this is 55 feet from the bluff. Reference has been made to the thinning of trees. Our family has owned this property(all but the newly acquired 30 feet to the East)for about 50 years and we have removed few trees. Prior to our ownership,the property was farmland. Island Belle grapes were grown. We have a picture from 1940 that shows practically no trees. When the cultivation stopped,the trees began to come back. Many areas around our property are now heavily wooded. During our tenure,we have only removed trees that were damaged due to storms or endangered the house. As you have seen from visits to our site,we enjoy natural vegetation and have no plans to create the city lot look. Mention was also made to the upper stream area. My father built a dam(with a permit)on the stream for the purpose of fire control. Until recently,the bank area was underwater,hence no vegetation. The upper area around the stream was a vineyard. Over time this area has reforested itself. Lee Boad's report offers suggestions on replanting. We plan to follow them. Our purpose is not to destroy the property,but to enjoy it. We feel that our house plan is within the minimal reasonable use portion of the ordinance. We hope that by making this adjustment and adding this letter of explanation, we will be able to move forward. If you have any questions or concerns,please let us know. Thank you for your help with this matter. ySincerel �, y Linda d Mike Fish �jthrb�t o2, .G1t��ck�,e �,t MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg. 1411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 April 19, 2004 NOTICE OF A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case: VAR 2004-00008 Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Michael and Linda Fish Notice is hereby given that Mr. and Mrs. Michael and Linda Fish, applicants for the above referenced variance, have filed for a request for a continuance of the public hearing from April 27, 2004 to May 11, 2004. Revisions to the originally proposed project have recently been submitted. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is to reconstruct and expand an existing home and provide a garage addition, partially within the footprint of the existing structure. The existing structure is located in a protected buffer of a Type IV stream, as well as, a Type I saltwater shoreline buffer, along the Case Inlet in the Grapeview area. Revisions to the proposed project involve the placement and configuration of the new structure. The project proposes to replace the existing 1,100 square foot structure with a house and garage totally 2,472 square feet. The revisions submitted indicate the structure as proposed will be 55 feet from the shoreline bluff and located within the same alignment of the shoreline buffer as the original cabin. The new structure is also proposed to be located approximately 27 feet from the stream, whereas the original cabin is currently located 16 feet from the stream. Site address and Project Location: 425 Rauschert Rd. Grapeview, WA. The Mason County Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. If special accommodations are needed, contact the Planning Department at ext. 577. Please contact Diane Marcus Jones of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 363, with any questions or comments. EXhrb,f �3 March 3,2004 Squaxin Tribe Natural Resource Dept. ATTN: Michelle Stevie 2952 SE Old Olympic Highway Shelton, WA. 98584 RE: Michael and Linda Fish, Resource Ordinance Variance VAR 2004-00008 Dear Michelle, The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP)has been provided by a property owner who is applying for a Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance. This ordinance requires buffers and building setbacks from areas such as streams, lakes and ponds that support fish and/or wildlife habitat. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct and expand an existing home and garage addition,partially within the footprint of an existing structure. The existing structure is located in a protected buffer of a Type IV stream as well as a Conservancy Shoreline buffer along the Case Inlet, in the Grapeview area. The project involves replacing the existing 1,100 square foot structure with a house and garage totally 2,472 square feet. The new structure proposed would be placed 50 feet from the marine shoreline bluff and 27 feet from the Type IV stream. The existing structure is 55 feet from the bluff and 16 feet from the stream. Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, questions,or concerns about this plan. I am more than willing to incorporate suggestions into the conditions for this permit, assuming that it is granted. If it's easier you can E-mail your comments to me. My E-mail address is listed below. Thank you for your time and consideration. By ordinance we have a 28-day HMP review period for this type of project, so if you could have any comments to me by March 31, 2004 it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Sincerely, Diane Marcus Jones, Shoreline Planner Mason County Dept. of Community Development PO Box 279 Shelton WA 98584 Ph. (360)427-9670 ext. 363, E-mail DianeM@co.mason.wa.us �Ybb,f SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE ......... ...._...... .-. .... ......... ...... .. . .tar...... :.a:rt^;:;ij...:nr.'•'ri4ru' .'°%]wi:4''`Y3 ,tt { .. REC_ED APR 0 5 2004 TO: Diane Marcus Jones NICCD - PLANNING FROM: Michelle Stevie' RE: Michael and Linda Fish, Resource Ordinance variance VAR 2004-00008 DATE: March 23, 2004 Diane, As a follow up to our field review I would like to reiterate my concerns with the Fish property resource variance. Mason County variance ordinances state that a change in standards can apply if it"would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their. property." Alternative options for this project will not prevent the property owners from reasonable use of property. I believe the proposed variance may further decrease nearshore habitat functions. I recommend the variance not be approved. The proposed property is under no size constraints; therefore alternative building plans can be created to maintain the existing buffer. Currently the property has a minimal buffer adjacent to the nearshore. and the type IV stream, and associated wetland. The existing buffer has already been heavily thinned and the removal of additional trees will further decrease habitat values, specifically shade, large woody debris, and bank stability. The nearshore area consists of a moderately steep (approximately i2 feei) "fecdor iviu i . The a::•..a.pears is be the ini.iation point of a nearshore drift cell and is contributing essential beach gravels through natural erosion processes to augment marine beaches. Removal of additional trees and further encroachment of the building may jeopardize this process The existing house structure is approximately 65 feet from the marine shoreline bank and the nearshore erosion process appears to be slow, inferring that the house is not in jeopardy from erosion. Removal of additional trees and placing the building closer into the nearshore increases the likelihood of detrimental impacts. Through the application of a 100-150 foot fish and wildlife conservation buffer we not only preserve habitat functions but also decrease the necessity to "protect" upland structures through the placement of bulkheads. Bulkheading the marine shoreline cuts off the sediment input and starves the beaches and nearshore of sediment, which provides Natural Resources Department / S.E. 2952 Old Olympic hwy / Shelton, WA 98584 FAX 426-3971 / Phone (360) 426-9781 essential habitat for marine organisms and spawning forage fish. Mason County's Master Shoreline ordinance consists of a 15-foot setback, which grossly under protects this valuable resource. The following is a passage written by Washington Department of Wildlife: Feeder Bluffs The natural geohydraulic system(including feeder bluffs,littoral drift corridors,and accretion beaches) provides the spawning substrate for the identified marine fish species and the upper intertidal beach topography that comprises the juvenile salmonid migratory corridor. The construction of bulkheads adjacent to feeder bluffs can indirectly impact the identified marine fish species by starving the associated accretion beach of substrate resulting in beach erosion and loss of spawning habitat. In addition,the construction of bulkheads hardens the bank and reduces natural beach roughness. This can result in erosion along the littoral drift corridor by accelerating the rate of drift and by increasing wave energy waterward of the bulkhead. The resultant beach instability can reduce available spawAng habitat for the identified marine fish species and adversely impact the production of juvenile salmonid food organisms. The proliferation of bulkheads, many of which are located below OHW and may not be necessary for erosion control,contributes to serious cumulative impacts to fish resources throughout Puget Sound. The most significant of these impacts is the loss of spawning habitat. Modification and loss of rearing habitat are similarly important impacts resulting from bulkhead encroachment below OHW. Cumulatively,these can result in lower survival of juvenile fish and therefore reduced contribution to sport and commercial fisheries and the adult spawning populations. Planning instead of bulkheads "WDFW recommends that steps be taken in development planning such that,in the future, it will not be necessary to construct bulkheads to protect residences abutting the shoreline. Using the Mason County guidelines to establish buffer requirements in an area where there is existing development, the proposed properties "common line" buffer requirement would be 82.5 feet. The existing structure is currently 65 feet from the shoreline. The variance application is requesting that the structure be built farther into the buffer, leaving a 50-foot setback. A 50-foot setback does not offer adequate nearshore habitat protection. Nor does it protect the proponent's structure as well from naturally occurring shoreline bank erosion. Furthermore, if the variance were approved the "common line" buffer average for future adjacent development would also decrease. A further decrease in buffer protection for any adjacent properties may cause additional degradation of habitat functions. The variance application is proposing to remove approximately 50% or more of the existing buffer. The existing shoreline buffer has been heavily thinned leaving few large trees to provide habitat functions. The 360 square feet of restoration that is proposed for the nearshore buffer will not mitigate the loss of habitat functions. Also, the upper stream buffer mitigation area does not mitigate for the proposed variance actions. The upper stream buffer area also has been heavily thinned and the banks denuded of trees and shrubs. The buffer area needs to be re-vegetated with both shrubs and over-story conifer to reestablish stream shade and increase other habitat functions. In addition to riparian planting, the concrete dam structure within the ordinary high water mark of the stream channel needs to be removed. A hole has been chopped out of the dam wall to allow a small corridor for stream flow. The inadequate sizing of the passageway has increased water velocity, scouring the stream channel to bedrock as well as causing the channel to be incised. Once the dam wall has been removed the sediments that have collected behind the wall will naturally fill in the downstream channel. It is recommended that large woody debris be placed throughout the stream channel to collect the deposited gravels which will re-create pool riffle habitat features. The"estuary" area of the stream has also been impacted from past development practices. Rehabilitating the stream-estuary interface is another opportunity to restore lost nearshore/estuarine habitat functions. If the proponent wishes more information and help to rehabilitate the estuary functions they may do so by contacting WDFW. If you have any questions or concerns please call me at 432-3812. March 3, 2004 Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife ATTN: Margie Shirato 2391 W. Deegan Rd. Shelton, WA. 98583 RE: Michael and Linda Fish, Resource Ordinance Variance VAR 2004-00008 Dear Margie, The enclosed Habitat Management Plan(HMP)has been provided by a property owner who is applying for a Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance. This ordinance requires buffers and building setbacks from areas such as streams, lakes and ponds that support fish and/or wildlife habitat. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct and expand an existing home and garage addition,partially within the footprint of an existing structure. The existing structure is located in a protected buffer of a Type IV stream as well as a Conservancy Shoreline buffer along the Case Inlet, in the Grapeview area. The project involves replacing the existing 1,100 square foot structure with a house and garage totally 2,472 square feet. The new structure proposed would be placed 50 feet from the marine shoreline bluff and 27 feet from the Type IV stream. The existing structure is 55 feet from the bluff and only 16 feet from the stream. Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, questions, or concerns about this plan. I am more than willing to incorporate suggestions into the conditions for this permit, assuming that it is granted. If it's easier you can E-mail your comments to me. My E-mail address is listed below. Thank you for your time and consideration. By ordinance we have a 28-day HMP review period for this type of project, so if you could have any comments to me by March 31, 2004 it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Sincerely, Diane Marcus Jones, Shoreline Planner Mason County Dept. of Community Development PO Box 279 Shelton WA 98584 Ph. (360)427-9670 ext. 363, E-mail DianeM@co.mason.wa.us RECEIVED APR 2 0 2004 MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT, December 18,2003 Mason County Planning Department To Whore It May Concern: I am a neighbor to Michael and Linda Fish of E 425 Rauschert Road, Grapeview. I am aware that they are trying to get a building permit for the purpose of building a new home on the current site of their cabin. I also know that they must receive a variance in order to get this permit. I am writing this letter in support of their project, Even Though my house in located farther back from the shoreline than their cabin,my view is in no way compromised. I have no problem whatsoever with a new house being constructed at that site. If you have any questions you can contact me at 37301 280'Ave S,Federal Way, WA,98003 or by phone at 253-952-4914. Sincerely, Valarie Kessler Notice of application for Variance from Affidavit of Publication the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Mr. Mike STATE OF WASHINGTON, Fish' applicant for the following proposal, COUNTY OF MASON SS. has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Ma- son County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 Julie Orme is to reconstruct and expand an existing home and provide a garage addition, partial— ly within the footprint of the existing struc- ture. The existing structure is located in a on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk protected buffer of a Type IV stream as well of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news- as, a Conservancy Shoreline buffer along paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the the Case Inlet, in the Grapeview area. The date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language condnu- project involves replacing the existing 1,100 ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now square foot structure with a house and ga- and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of rage totally 2,472 square feet. The new publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL structure proposed would be placed 50 feet was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court from the marine shoreline bluff and 27 feet of said Mason County. from the Type IV stream.The existing struc- ture is 55 feet from the bluff and 16 feet from Notice i C e O f A 1, f O r the stream. Site address and Project Loca- That the annexed is a true copy of a ply tion: 425 Rauschert Rd., Grapeview, WA. Parcel#121181300011. Variance / Mike i sh Date of application:March 3_,_2004._ The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Re- as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said source Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat newspaper once each week for a period of one Conservation Areas,which details shoreline consecutive weeks,commencing on the buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establish es Variance procedures and criteria. The 1 8 th day of March 2p0 4 and ending on the proposal requires a Habitat Management 1 8th March 04 Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. day of 20 both dates inclusive, A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said Mason County Hearing Examiner on the period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the proposed project on Tuesday April 27,2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners foregoing publication is the sum of$ 45. 32 Chambers', Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shel- ton, WA. If special accommodations are .� needed, contact the Planning Department at ext.577. Please contact Diane Marcus Jones of the Mason County Department of Communi- Subscribed and swom to before me tht 1 8 t-h day of Nll ty Development at(360)427-9670,ext. 363, III!►�� N 1f ill/ i with any questions or comments on this de- March 20 04 �� ,rpAK or velopment and variance. `` r A F,��., 3/18 1 t �;• !� NotaryOublic in and for the State of Washingtoni NOTARY `P Residing at Shelton,Washington = —0— My commission expires L` 20� �V61\C AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) do hereby certify that I posted copies of the attached A/0 fi(� ,4 o5jq,1,«,A,, on /T day of /'�I�;_,, 20 Cry in _3 public places as follows: one at C�u.orr.;Y f s f o one at //o,-„ j, h_. el /��v/vcL. t yd 5 /(ems k.,r 6L one at &.U /I r f /1J� /7 yn o� C"A4e4-11 Ltiy b /�r 4 In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this ' i" day of 200 By: Address: ,� y�/ /V, .5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) Subscribed and sworn to me this ,/_aday of ,7yI , 20 Q 4- BONNIE CAP 0 NOTr,RY Notary Public for the State of ashington sTq�E PUBLIC �' j r VVASHING7orq 0 Residing at "y Commission Expires June 6,2006 i Commission Expired —C>� MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 F;J Planning 360 Mason County Bldg. 1411 N.5th Elma ( ) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Notice of application for Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Mr. Mike Fish, applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is to reconstruct and expand an existing home and provide a garage addition, partially within the footprint of the existing structure. The existing structure is located in a protected buffer of a Type IV stream as well as, a Conservancy Shoreline buffer along the Case Inlet, in the Grapeview area. The project involves replacing the existing 1,100 square foot structure with a house and garage totally 2,472 square feet. The new structure proposed would be placed 50 feet from the marine shoreline bluff and 27 feet from the Type IV stream. The existing structure is 55 feet from the bluff and 16 feet from the stream. Site address and Project Location: 425 Rauschert Rd. , Grapeview,WA. Parcel#121181300011. Date of application: March 3,2004. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150,Variances from Standards,which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday April 27, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I,411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. If special accommodations are needed, contact the Planning Department at ext. 577. Please contact Diane Marcus Jones of the Mason County Department of Community Development at(360) 427-9670, ext. 363, with any questions or comments on this development and variance. H:\Word\Notice of RO app-FISH.doc.ram rti,b � 13 4/28/2004 Case Activity Listing 3:34:01PM Case#: SPI2003-00114 P10 Assigned Done A ctiv�ty Description Date l Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated B% SPIA600 SPI Letter-Field Review 8/4/2003 None DONE DMJ DMJ 8/4/2003 DMJ A field inspection of the subject property was conducted on 7/25/2003(spi 2003-00114)to consider critical area issues relevant to the expansion of an existing cabin and/or new residential development.A primary focus of the site inspection was to assess if the parcel contained any lands unencumbered by critical areas buffers.Based upon the field review,few areas exist on the subject property.The level of detail necessary to know the exact extent of shoreline and stream buffer effects is beyond the scope of this pre-inspection.However,some general assertions can be made about the critical areas on site. The subject property is located off of Rauschert Rd.in the Grapeview Loop Rd.area.The property is slightly fan shaped,with the southern property line fronting the shoreline approximately 100'in width, the northern property line approximately 230'in width. The east and west property lines measure a little over 600 feet. The cabin is situated on a marine bluffoverlooking Pickering Passage. A type IV stream is located to the west of the cabin,bissecting the entire length of the property eventually draining into Pickering Passage. A pathway leads from the cabin down to a deck area and the shoreline. A portion of the shoreline is bulkheaded,adjacent to the deck area. More than one planning regulation applies to this site. Where more than one planning regulation applies each applicable regulation must be met: Shoreline Setbacks:Land within 200'of Pickering Passage is regulated by the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, which provides for shoreline setback requirements for structures from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The Shoreline Master Program designation for the property is Urban Residential,a minimum of a 15'shoreline setback from the OHWM or front of bulkhead. The bulkhead to the cabin measures approximately 33 feet.Greater setbacks prevail however,through the Mason County Resource Ordinance;which provide for additional setbacks from shoreline jurisdictions. Pursuant to the applicant's request,if the cabin is to be removed and a new residential structure proposed to be constructed to replace it and located outside the existing footprint of the cabin,a shoreline setback would be derived using a common line procedure.However,the parcel is located on a curved shoreline and contains a Type 1V stream. Setbacks on curved shorelines are derived using an average of the two adjacent residences setbacks.In this instance,where no residences are located within 150'of your property line to the east,a standard 100 foot buffer is required as measured from the OHWM for new development.To the west, a residence is located 40 feet from the subject parcel property line.This residences'bulkhead adjoins the subject property's bulkhead and is in the same alignment as the subject property. The residence is located 65'from the OHWM.For this parcel,the average shoreline setback was determined to be 82.5 feet. Site plans for the proposed construction should reflect all setbacks,the common line and include the edges of the adjacent residences. it is permissible,however,to replace the existing cabin within its footprint (i.e.total home replacement),in accordance with the Mason County Resource Ordinance(17.01.110 Section f),as stated,"The remodel,repair or change of use of an existing building within its existing footprint,plus or minus ten percent and provided that such an expansion does not increase any intrusion into the aquatic management area or buffer."It is also permissible,as long as the structure is maintained in its existing footprint,to add height,up to a maximum of 35'. Stream Buffer Setbacks:Regarding the stream issue,the Resource Ordinance requires buffers and building setbacks from streams. The size of the buffer depends on the stream type. A type IV stream requires a total setback of 115',which is comprised of a 100'buffer+a 15'building setback.The west-facing wall of the cabin,parallel to the stream,measures 22 feet from the Channel Migration Zone stream.The aforementioned remodel policy(17.01.110 Section f)applies for the stream buffer as well. However,the placement of any new structure or expansion over 10%of the existing footprint of the cabin,within the type IV stream buffer will require a variance from the Resource Ordinance and a Habitat Management Plan(HMP)to support that variance. The HAP addresses impacts to the buffer and offers measures to preserve and protect the buffer or mitigate impacts. A copy of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter is enclosed. It includes details on the contents of an HMP. It also contains information about the variance procedure. An application for the variance is also enclosed for your convenience. Landslide Hazard Areas:This area meets the criteria for a Landslide Hazard Area per the provisions of the Mason County Resource Ordinance No.77-93. Any site work or application for development within 300 feet of a Landslide Hazard Area requires a geotechnical report to assess slope stability and address specific efforts to remediate the hazard. Enclosed is a copy of the Landslide Hazard Areas chapter of the Resource Ordinance. Please note the distinction between a geologic assessment and a geotechnical report. This project will require a geotechnical report. The report must state that the hazards of the landslide area can be overcome in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety,and must also assure the project will cause no significant environmental impact. 44,d,t /5 Page 2 of 3 CaseActivity..rpt Case Activity Listing 4/28/2004 3:34:01PM Case#: SPI2003-00114 P14 Assigned Done Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By Additional setbacks affect the parcel:The property is zoned Rural 5 (R5).Sideyard setbacks are 20'and the frontyard setback is 25'.There is a small portion,along the northwest corner of the property that may be outside the regulated shoreline and stream setbacks. According,to the applicant however,this is where the drainfield and reserve drainfield are located,in which case,this area would be inappropriate for new construction as well. Site plans for the proposed construction should reflect all setbacks,the common line and include the edges of the adjacent residences. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues,please contact me. SPIA400 Miscellaneous Action 8/4/2003 None DONE DMJ DMJ 8/4/2003 DMJ Applicant's representative maintained creek is seasonal and has no fish. This may not be accurate and could be a Type 3 stream,if fish present. Page 3 of 3 CaseActivity..rpt 4/28/2004 Case Activity Listing 3:34:01PM 11 Case#: SP_I2003-00114 910 Assigned Done Acti%,ity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 . Dis4& To By Updated Updated By SPIA010 Application Received 6/23/2003 None MiJ DM.j 6"24200; 613M SPIA100 Site Inspection 6/23/2003 7/25/2003 None DONE DMJ DMJ , '1 20w Dmi Page 1 of 3 CaseActivity..rpt Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services PO Box 2854 • Belfair, WA 98528 • 360-620-0618 • leeboad a�hctcxom Diane Marcus Jones Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department RE: Mike and Linda Fish Project Parcel l 2 1 18-13-0001 1 Residential Construction Dear Diane, At the Request of Mike and Linda Fish, the proposed plans for improvements of 425 East Rauschert Road located in Grapmew, Mason County Washington have been revised based on public comments and comments from the Squamn Island Tribe. The previous proposal included locating the residential footprint 5' closer to the marine shoreline than the existing structure. The landowners are now proposing to locate the proposed structure no closer to the marine shoreline than the existing structure, which is 55' from the bluff. All other project descriptions and mitigation measures listed in the Habitat. Management Plan still apply to this proposal. A plot map is enclosed showing the location of existing and proposed buildings in relation to critical areas, buffers, building setbacks, and property lines. I trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Lee B Lee Boad Habitat .Management Planning and Wetland Services PO Box 2854 Belfair, WA 98528 (360)-620-0618 R E C VE APR 2 9 2004 MASON GO, PU NiNING DEPT. cmrn .� roc:Trn i,m icy a,m oa,ora_ci�_rnoc .1� iu�wa�ueuu� uauiec reu�^ 000u tee' MM ION zm / 12,50051` q5� � 5( abwn rff N%W M / v / / J / I=Riw 600' / /5 / / 1 / / / / / / / / _ PfVVZP AVVft W5 / ACTION ♦��NIOVED '`- _ / (NtifNC 2" 6601 `/ - mvww W pokoi MluFoorm RECEIVED W%t 1,000�5F 'S 'q APR 2 9 2004 // I tAASON CO. PLANNING DEPT. / / r15H AMMON MOJ�CT HANTAT WNA6MNf PLAN FAX PA12M NO. 1211913Q 11 h25 EAST RAllSCH�t ROX9 M POAP RVITAT MANAaiM N PLANNING �rrrn•.� .�Qc:rrn +,r�ia�i+,o� ai,goi_gi�_oigq .All ivawaDUeuu-4 UOWTeq TeUeD POOH RECEIVED J U L 2 8 2004 MASON CO. FANNING DEFT. 288' well • APPROVE M SON COUNTY DCD PLANNING S TE PLAN REQUIRED TO E ON SITE HANGES SUBJECT TO PPROVAL �Y M Da e -&--k N seP� new garage ' this stake was placed by 572 sq. dianne marcus tones on O ft. 7127 as 22'setback. a building edge will be 5' approx. east of this stake.stake s. 17' to remain during - - construction black line represents new ppp0 red tine building footprint. 0p�pp00 represents (includes pppppppppp existing covered 625' opp°p°aao° building porches)new sq. —27' footprint( footage of u ppppppppp 1100 sq. proposed house a0000 m pppp ft.) this stake was placed by c ppppppppp only footprint is dianne marcusjones on ppppp 1209 sq.feet. 7/27 as 45'setback. pppp building edge will be 10' - - north of this stake.stake _-- to remain during l-, construction hatched area with stars represents section of original house restoration zone that will be moved to the east.native L0 1000 sq.ft. plantings will replace this section edge of marine bluff edge of marine bluff case inlet i O�� MOWN / ZM I$5o05f ' yl Ih6�i►�NkG 11Te N 91�3'1�M / t / v / / J � / wa Mr rye / 10'M"14 / / boo' / / /1625, / / / / , / i / flaorozn nnvmo�s / / (NAfN� 7DPp 660 V --J h0(�i ma5lu RECEIVED / APR 2 9 2004 / r201 / MASON CO.PLANNING DEPT. / / P15H AM111ON KOJECf HVItAf MA M MM PLAN f,AX FARM NO, 121191 XMI I 425 �A51't2ALl5 HMr ROAD LEE POAn HAPIfAr MANMEM�Nf MANNING r: SITE INSPECTION REPORT NOWIM ASSOCIATES Asbestos Inspection East 425 Rauschert Road ENERGY&ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Grapeview, WA 98546 - Performed for: PO Box 220 Grapeview, WA 98546 Contact Person: Michael & Linda Fish (360) 277-3520 On Thursday, July 01, 2004 Nowicki & Associates, Inc. (NAI) inspected the waterfront vacation home located at East 425 Rauschert Road, in Grapeview, WA for asbestos containing building materials. While on site, NAI created a sketch of the home to depict its layout as well as map our bulk sample locations. Currently, the home is slated for demolition, with a new home to be built on the site. At the time of our inspection, the home was still in use and the owners were present. Building Description Construction on the vacation home under consideration began in approximately 1963. At the time of our inspection, the house covered an estimated 1000 square feet on two floors. Its exterior walls are clad in wood shake siding. All eaves and soffitts are made of wood. The building's original windows are wood-framed and do contain glazing putty. However, the home does contain some newer aluminum and vinyl framed windows, which do not contain glazing putty. The roof is constructed of three-tab asphalt composite shingles. Inside, the building's walls are primarily constructed of painted plywood sheets. The lower floor walls are made of gypsum wallboard. The ceilings match the wall construction. Throughout the home's main level, the floors are made of wood, covered by 12x12 inch vinyl floor tiles. One room's floor is covered by carpet. On the lower level, the floors are made of bare concrete. Electric baseboard heating units supply heat to the home. There is also a small stove in the living room which can supplement the baseboard units. The home does not contain ductwork. The plumbing consists of uninsulated metal and PVC pipe. Exterior walls in the home contain non- suspect insulation. Inspection Summary Asbestos containing materials identified in the building include: • 12x12 inch, gray-colored vinyl floor tiles Suspect materials NAI identified, tested and determined to be non-asbestos containing are: • 12x12 inch, self-sticking vinyl floor tiles _ • Window glazing putty • Three-tab asphalt composite roof shingles • Gypsum wallboard _ • Popcorn ceiling texture 33516 9th Avenue South Building#6 Asbestos Inspection Federal Way,Washington 98003 East 425 Rauschert Road,Grapeview,WA 98546 Phone: (253) 927-5233 Nowicki&Associates, Inc.—07/02/04 Fax: (253)924-0323 Inspection Results Olympic Regional Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) and Labor & Industries regulations require an inspection of all buildings greater than 120 square feet for the presence of asbestos containing materials prior to renovation and demolition. Asbestos containing materials are defined as those building materials containing one percent or more of asbestos as verified by laboratory analysis. Asbestos containing materials are sub-divided into three types: surfacing materials, thermal system insulation, and miscellaneous materials. Surfacing materials are defined as those materials that are sprayed-on, troweled-on or otherwise applied to surfaces including, but not limited to, acoustical plaster on ceilings, paints, fireproofing materials on structural members, or other materials on surfaces for decorative purposes. Thermal system insulation means material applied to pipes, fittings, boilers, tanks, ducts, or other structural components to prevent heat loss or gain. All other materials are considered to be miscellaneous materials. All surfacing materials, thermal system insulation and flooring installed in structures prior to 1980 are assumed to contain asbestos unless proven otherwise by a licensed building inspector. Surfacing Materials • Very light popcorn ceiling texture can be found on the bedroom ceiling. In total, there are approximately 120 square feet of the material in the home. NAI collected three samples of the material for analysis. Laboratory analysis determined that this texture does not contain asbestos. Thermal System Insulation NAI did not discover any suspect thermal system insulation during this inspection. Miscellaneous Materials • 12x12 inch, gray vinyl tiles cover the floor throughout most of the home's ma in level. In total, NAI estimates there to be roughly 500 square feet of the tile within the home. Laboratory analysis determined these tiles contain 3% Chrysotile asbestos. The mastic associated with the tiles was found not to contain asbestos. • 12x12 inch, self-sticking vinyl tiles cover the floor in the home's main level bathroom. In total, there appears to be approximately 32 square feet of the tile in the room. Laboratory analysis determined that neither the tiles nor their associated mastic contains asbestos. • The home contains approximately 6 wood framed windows that use glazing putty to affix the glass panes. Laboratory analysis determined that this putty does not contain asbestos. • Three-tab asphalt composite shingles cover the home's roof. Laboratory analysis determined that these shingles do not contain asbestos. • Gypsum wallboard covers the lower level walls and ceilings. Laboratory analysis determined that this material does not contain asbestos. ORCAA regulations require that all asbestos containing materials be properly handled during demolition and renovation and that a survey of the asbestos containing materials be provided to all contractors and posted at the site to prevent potential accidental asbestos exposure. All asbestos must be removed prior to demolition or renovations in which it will be disturbed. Contractors are advised that the potential to find asbestos-containing materials including thermal system insulation in hidden spaces is always present during demolition or renovation projects. Should suspect materials be discovered during the work, the contractor is advised to call the author for an inspection of the suspect material. Asbestos Inspection East 425 Rauschert Road, Grapeview, WA 98546 Nowicki &Associates, Inc.—07/02/04 Inspector Endorsement p 9 � / h Inspector: Reviewed by: `-'i Attachments: Site Sketch Laboratory Analysis Certificate I I I I I I Asbestos Inspection East 425 Rauschert Road, Grapeview,WA 98546 Nowicki&Associates, Inc.—07/02/04 Sp �n� 3�dwb�S d �51�L-Ory:3C7 O q CtQ �7N�J�-�S I I O I ��n3� ► I W I CY10 �l cARoi.tNAVvIRONn effX,M LABORATORY REPORT 107NewftidonCoL4Cwy,NC27511 ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS Phone:(919)481-1413 Fax:(919)481-1442 Client: Nowicki & Associates CEI Lab Code: A04-4838 33516 9th Avenue South Received: 07-02-04 Federal Way, WA 98003 Analyzed: 07-02-04 Reported: 07-02-04 Project: 425 Rauschert Rd. Analyst: Scott Minyard The following definitions apply to the abbreviations used in the ASBESTOS BULK ANALYSIS REPORT: CHRY =Chrysotile CELL =Cellulose DEBR = Debris AMOS =Amosite FBGL = Fibrous Glass BIND = Binder CROC =Crocidolite ORGN =Organics SILI =Silicates TREM =Tremolite SYNT =Synthetics GRAY =Gravel ANTH =Anthophyllite WOLL =Wollastonite MAST =Mastic ACTN =Actinolite CERWL=Ceramic Wool PLAS = Plaster N D = None Detected NTREM =Non-Asbestiform PERL = Perlite NANTH = Non-Asbestiform Tremolite RUBR =Rubber Anthophyllite Stereoscopic microscopy and polarized light microscopy coupled with dispersion staining is the analytical technique used for sample identification. The percentage of each component is visually estimated by volume. These results pertain only to the samples analyzed. The samples were analyzed as submitted by the client and may not be representative of the larger material in question. Unless notified in writing to return samples, Carolina Environmental, Inc. will discard all bulk samples after 30 days. Many vinyl floor tiles have been manufactured using greater than 1%asbestos. Often the asbestos was milled to a fiber size below the detection limit of polarized light microscopy. Therefore, a "None Detected" (ND) reading on vinyl floor the does not necessarily exclude the presence of asbestos. Transmission electron microscopy provides a more conclusive form of analysis for vinyl floor tiles. It is certified by the signature below that Carolina Environmental, Inc. is accredited by the National Voluntary Accreditation Program (NVLAP) for the analysis of asbestos in bulk materials. The accredited test method is EPA/600/M4-82/020 for the analysis of asbestos in building materials. Procedures described in EPA/600/R-93/116 have been incorporated where applicable. The detection limit for the method is 0.1%(trace amount). Carolina Environmental, Inc.'s NVLAP accreditation number is#101768-0. This report is not to be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the U.S. Government. This report and its contents are only valid when reproduced in full. Dust and soil analyses for asbestos using PLM are not covered under NVLAP accreditation. ANALYST -,54� J- Scott Minyard REVIEWED BY 4- Tianbao Bai, Ph.D. Laboratory Director Pagel CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL,INC. Project: 425 Rauschert Rd. 107 New Ed1dW Coot,Cary,NC 27511 Phone: 919481-1413 Fax::919481-1442 Lab Code: A04-4838 CLIENT ID CEI LAB ID HOMOGENEITY DESCRIPTION ASBESTOS 01 A276096A FLOOR TILE CHRY 3% Heterogeneous, Tan, Fibrous,Tightly Bound CHRY 3% VINYL 95% CELL <1 % MICA 2% A276096B MASTIC ND Heterogeneous, Tan, Clear, Fibrous,Bound MAST 98% CELL 2% 02 A276097A FLOOR TILE ND Heterogeneous, Beige, Grey, Non-fibrous,Tightly Bound VINYL 98% CELL <1 % MICA 2% A276097B MASTIC ND Heterogeneous, Tan, Clear, Fibrous,Bound MAST 98% CELL 2% 03 A276098 GLAZING PUTTY ND Heterogeneous, Grey, Non-fibrous,Bound CAULK 95% CELL <1 % PAINT 5% 04 A276099 ROOFING SHINGLES ND Heterogeneous, Black,Grey, Fibrous,Bound TAR 35% FBGL 25% GRAY 35% SILI 5% 05 A276100 JOINT COMPOUND &TAPE ND ' Heterogeneous, Off-white, Tan, Fibrous,Bound BIND 55% CELL 20% MICA 15% ' PAINT 10% Page 2 CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL,INC. Project: 425 Rauschert Rd. 107 New Edition Cout,Cary,NC 27511 Phone: 919-481-1413 Fax::919481-1442 Lab Code: A04-4838 CLIENT ID CEI HOMOGENEITY DESCRIPTION % LAB ID ASBESTOS 06 A276101 CEILING TEXTURE ND Heterogeneous, Off-white, Tan, Non-fibrous,Loosely Bound BIND 50% CELL <1 % PERL 40% PAINT 10% 07 A276102 CEILING TEXTURE ND Heterogeneous, Off-white, Tan, Non-fibrous,Loosely Bound BIND 50% CELL <1 % PERL 40% PAINT 10% 08 A276103 CEILING TEXTURE ND Heterogeneous, Off-white, Tan, Non-fibrous,Loosely Bound BIND 50% CELL <1 % PERL 40% PAINT 10% Page 3 NOWICKI & ASSOCIATES, INC. q*7 Laboratory Services CHAIN OF CUSTODY Client: 1'-s Project: (IZ; 124"�-W W 1D Address: Date Sampled: Sampled By: d. �a-)I C'o Telephone: NAI Laboratory ID: FAX Number: RUSH 4 (L. Standard Sample # Description of Sample Analysis ( fZ 1Z�1:1Oo2 r MAWL(t 7�i►W ST(I41114 U)Al y' Ti.fS 4 r7LM p� (DrNLiAk a e1AL PLA4 ce1tlhl4' ?� re Ftm 07 c f;('►hitl -lehl rt)r2l-Do �oT g�lt1GY� lF •��C /S 1�cKirr v� r-J q o� of UA1 y T=e-61X6 ->o A14-r 140 1F.9&v9 PV q Relinquished By: ' / IC'�i/ Received By: ISignature: el Signature: Company Name: � Company Name: Time: Date: Time: Date: I Sample Disposition: All samples will be disposed of after 30 days of receipt. Sample Condition: Good L7 Accept L7 Reject L7(samples are not properly contained and sealed or Ipresent in adequate quantity for method analysis.) If sample is insufficient in quantity and the client desires analysis regardless, please check❑. I Analysis method is in accordance with EPA Method 600IR 93-116 for PLM. I33516 gch Avenue South, Bldg#6 • Federal Way, WA 98003• (253)927-5233 • (253) 924-0323 FAX 7n "M lw INSPECTOR REFRESHER CERTIFICATE This is to certify that ii, Nickolas Nowicki fr has attended and satisfactorily completed all requirements to maintain accreditation as an Inspector in accordance with the Toxic Substance Control Act Title (Section 206) and 40 CFR 763. a. This refresher course was taken February 13, 2004 Accreditation No. I-NAI-04-05 4(,116 f F'e� Valid Through: February 13i, Y , 2005 Robert F. Simons "I Nowicki & Associates, Inc. 35516 9th Avenue South, Bldg. #6 Federal Way, Washington 98003 (253) 927-5233 5 ........... ....... Mason County Department of Planning Building I * 411 N. 51h Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670 April 26, 2004 TO BE KEPT IN THE TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner PARCEL FILE FROM: Planning Staff—Diane Marcus Jones RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (VAR2004-00008) SUMMARY: The request is for a variance from the Resource Ordinance to reconstruct and expand an existing cabin and provide a garage addition, partially within the footprint of the existing structure. The existing structure is located in a protected buffer of a Type IV stream and associated wetlands, as well as, a Type I Shoreline buffer along Pickering Passage in the Grapeview area. The project involves replacing the existing 1,100 square foot structure with a house and garage totally 2, 472 square feet. The existing structure is 55 feet from the bluff and 16 feet from the stream. The new structure proposed, based on the revisions submitted April 21, 2004, would be to extend the structure to the north and east maintaining 55' from the marine shoreline bluff and 27 feet from the Type IV stream. The original proposal, which as indicated has since been revised, provided for the new addition to be placed 50' from the shoreline buffer. The Squaxin Tribe commented on the Habitat Management Plan based on the original proposal. STAFF REPORT I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically the reconstruction and expansion of a cabin from 1,100 square feet to a total of 2,472 square foot home and garage within a type IV stream buffer and Type I saltwater shoreline buffer. II. Applicant: Michael and Linda Fish III. Property Location. 425 Rauschert Rd. Grapeview, WA. Parcel #121181300011. IV. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the site. The subject property, approximately 2.5 acres, is located off Rauschert Rd. in the Grapeview Loop area. The property is slightly fan shaped with the southern boundary line fronting the shoreline approximately 120' in width, the northern boundary line approximately 230' in width. The parcel measures a little over 600' in length. The cabin is situated on marine bluff overlooking Case Inlet/Pickering Passage. A type IV stream and associated wetlands is located to the west of the cabin,bisecting the entire length of the property in a north-south direction, eventually draining into the Pickering Passage. An active feeder bluff is located between the marine shoreline and the upland area. A pathway leads from the cabin down to a deck area and the shoreline. A portion of the shoreline is bulkheaded, adjacent to the deck area. B. Characteristics of the area. The lots to the east and west are similar to the subject property, sparsely developed containing one cabin or residence located on the marine bluffs fronting the shoreline. The adjacent property to the east, approximately 23 acres belongs to the Rauscherts,the homesteaders in the area, with one cabin and barn. The adjacent property to the west contains a residence approximately 40 feet from the subject property's boundary line and shares a common shoreline, with both properties bulkheads adjoining one another. Further to the west, approximately 500' from the subject property's western property line is subdivision called Mountain Shores. The subdivision is 40 lots, with a mix of primary residences and recreational cabins. C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural Residential 5. D. Date of application. The planning department asserts that applicant is vested as of the date of their completed application March 3, 2004. E. SEPA Compliance. This activity is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800(1), (i). F. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit for the garage and additional residential construction. The proposal required review and comment by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Squaxin Tribe. Notification was sent on March 3, 2004. A 28-day review period followed. Comment was received in writing from Michelle Stevie,biologist for the tribe. Ms. Stevie's letter is attached(see exhibit 8). Ms. Stevie's comments, based on the original proposal, focused on the opportunity for the applicants to seek alternative placement of the structure than proposed so as to not further decrease nearshore habitat function, in addition to, increased encroachment on the feeder bluff. Ms. Stevie's letter also stated her concern that steps should be taken in development planning such that, in the future, it will not be necessary to construct bulkheads to protect residences abutting the shoreline. Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Shelton Journal on March 18, 2004. Comments were also received via telephone by Mr. John Diehl, representing a citizen group, regarding the proposed waterward expansion. The applicants submitted revisions to proposal April 21, 2004 based on the issues raised during the comment period. The revisions address changes to the placement of the structure, maintaining a 55' shoreline buffer rather than originally proposed moving waterward to approximately a 50' shoreline buffer. The revisions also clarify the intent of use of the proposed project. V. Analysis: The specific request is a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (MCRO No. 77-93), Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas, Chapter 17.01.110, Table 3, which provides specific buffer and building setback dimensions from regulated water bodies and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes variance procedures and criteria. The regulated water bodies on site are a Type IV stream and associated wetlands, to the west of the cabin, and the shoreline of Pickering Passage to the south. The required buffer setback for a Type IV stream is 100 feet plus 15 foot building setback for a total of 115 feet setback from the stream per Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Chapter 17.01.110. Stream typing is per Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing criteria and planning staff field observations. The minimum shoreline setback under the requirements of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program (SMP)was determined to be the designated urban shoreline setback of 15' per SMP chapter 7.16.080. Greater setbacks prevail, however through the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110, Table 3. Setbacks from the shoreline are derived using the shoreline common line procedure. Setbacks on curved shorelines are derived using an average of the two adjacent residences setbacks. In this instance, where no residences are located within 150' of the property to the east, a standard 100' buffer is required as measured from the OHWM for new development. A residence to the west is located 65' from the OHWM. The average shoreline setback was determined to be 82.5 feet. In this case, almost the entire site is encumbered within the regulated stream buffer as well as approximately one-quarter of the site within the shoreline buffer. The wetland area associated with the stream, due to its size is not considered a regulated wetland per the Wetlands Chapter of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Due to its proximity to the stream, however, the regulated stream buffer will protect the wetland area. The addition, of approximately 1, 372 square feet to the existing 1,100 cabin will maintain a buffer of approximately 55' from the marine shoreline bluff and 27 feet from the Type IV stream. The existing structure is 55 feet from the bluff and 16 feet from the Type IV stream. The applicants, in 2000, recently acquired 30 feet of property to the East, along the entire length of the site in anticipation of the present remodel and expansion proposal (BLA 2000-00058). The current proposal provides for abandoning approximately 360-sq. ft. of the existing structure's footprint closest to the stream, maintaining 740 square feet of the original footprint and then recapturing the abandoned portion of the footprint using the existing driveway and additionally purchased property. It also includes an attached garage of 570 square feet and 400 square feet of front and side porches. The proposed addition will maintain a 55' buffer to the marine shoreline and be placed 11 feet further from the Type IV stream. The home is to be approximately 53' in length x 30' deep with two bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. The proposed expansion will mainly encroach upon the stream and shoreline buffer to the east and north, in an area where an existing driveway and mowed lawn exist. As noted in the Habitat Management Plan, (Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 22), most of the proposed 660-sq. ft. expansion would encroach into the shoreline buffer, where the shoreline commonline is determined to be 82.5 feet. Both the garage of 572 sq. ft and the aforementioned 660 sq. home expansion will encroach upon the regulated stream buffer of 100 feet. The proposed garage placement will not encroach upon the shoreline buffer. Section 17.01.110.G.c. of the Mason County Resource Ordinance states that"new residential construction ...is not permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use exception may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted. Section 17.01.120.Q. states that"except when application from this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Section 17.01.150. Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan(HMP)be prepared in association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through habitat mitigation. A Geotechnical Report was also submitted as part of the project proposal. Section 17.01.100 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance requires a Geotechnical Report be completed in areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. The project site has slopes in excess of 100 percent. Any site work or application for development within 300 feet of a Landslide Hazard Area requires the Report to assess slope stability and address specific efforts to remediate the hazard. VI. Variance Criteria. Mason County Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110 details stream and saltwater buffer requirements and the content of the Habitat Management Plan. Variances from Standards chapter 17.01.150 establishes variance procedures and criteria. Variance Review Standards Section 17.01.150 (E),provides that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following circumstances exist: 1. The granting of the variance shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and conditions shall be imposed to ensure compatibility with surrounding conforming uses. Staff Response: The general purposes of MCRO 77-93 are to protect natural resources, and critical areas, and establish uniform processes to review land use/ development proposals in critical areas. The purpose of a variance, per MCRO 77-93, section 17.01.150 is to allow the County to consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards, where strict application of said standards would deprive owners of reasonable use of their property. Staff acknowledges that beyond the provisions per Section 17.01.110 F1 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, the entire project site is encumbered with buffer restrictions and/or septic and drainfield setbacks. Section 17.01.110 Fl allows the replacement/reconstruction of the existing cabin in the existing footprint,plus possibly enlarged an additional 10 percent,providing that such an expansion does not increase any intrusion into the aquatic management area or buffer; in addition to, vertical expansion of the structure up to 35' without a Resource Ordinance Variance, as long as the vertical expansion meets County Shoreline and Development regulations. Buffer regulations and setbacks as mentioned in the above Analysis section include: Type IV stream buffer— 100' buffer plus 15' building setback Shoreline buffer- 82.5' shoreline commonline setback Landslide Hazard building setback-35' from the top of the coastal bluff to the bottom of the footing (as specified by the Geotechnical Report) Drainfield building setback-10' Shoreline bluff The proposal is configured to attach to the existing footprint. The applicants have revised their original proposal, in efforts, to locate the structure in a less impactive location. The original proposal,provided for a waterward expansion of the residence. Concerns were raised that the waterward expansion would require removal of a few mature Douglas fir and madrona trees, and possibly cause root disturbance and damage to others, along the shoreline bluff. This area has already been heavily thinned and the removal of additional trees may further decrease habitat values and bank stability. The nearshore area of the site, as described, in the Habitat Management Plan (see Exhibit 5) and by Squaxin tribal biologist, (Exhibit 8), consist of a moderately steep feeder bluff. This feeder bluff is contributing essential beach gravels through natural erosion processes to augment the marine beaches. Removal of additional trees and further encroachment waterward as originally proposed could jeopardize this process. This continues to be a concern, however, the current proposal situates the expansion and reconstruction slightly away from the marine bluff, further to the north, where removal and damage of the Douglas fir trees may not be necessitated or as severe, as in the original proposal. The Geo-Technical Report points out that soils on the site are generally stable to deep-seated failure and no evidence of deep-seated landslide activity or significant erosion was observed at the site at the time of their investigation (Exhibit 6,pg. 4). The Report continues to state though, "weathering, erosion, and the resultant sloughing and shallow landsliding are natural processes that can affect steep slope areas...evidence of minor surficial erosion,raveling and sloughing was observed on the coastal bluff at the time of our investigative visit." (Exhibit 6 pg. 4) The report recommends that erosion in steep slope areas such as this can be reduced by encouraging vegetation and discouraging erosion. The variance application states that, the project site including the shoreline bluff area has historically been cleared for many years and used for farmland. As currently proposed, most of the expansion will be located in an already cleared driveway access and grass area; with the exception, as mentioned of a few mature trees. This also includes the area 30 feet to the east along this property line, which was purchased for purposes of this expansion. The Habitat Management Plan, as part of the recommended mitigation measures,provides for restoration of a 1,000 square foot area section between the proposed expansion and shoreline bluff. Reorienting the expansion landward of the marine bluff, rather than waterward, as proposed in the original plan will cause less degree of likelihood, although still possible, that a bulkhead would be required to protect the structure. Stream buffer Impacts to the stream buffer would still exist, since the stream bisects the entire subject property. The width of the lot at this point is approximately 160' and the stream is located inside this boundary, approximately 120' from the east property line and approximately 40' from the west property line. The recently acquired property further to east, provides the applicants the opportunity to move the residence an additional 12 feet away from the stream, for a total of 27 feet. This also enables the applicants,per their request proposal to construct an attached garage to the residence. The attached garage is located north of the shoreline common line, and situated in an area that is composed of an access area and grassland. One or two of the large trees, as mentioned above are located in this area, as well. The applicants are requesting a 570-sq. ft. garage. This portion of the proposal was also evaluated by staff for a less impactive location, even if it resulted in a separate freestanding garage rather than attached to the residence. As noted on the site map, it was determined wherever the structure is placed requires a variance from standards with regard to stream buffers and dependent on the location may or may not require clearing of existing native vegetation and a disturbance to the riparian corridor. The Habitat Management Plan recommends a supplemental planting program to enhance the riparian corridor as mitigation for the impacts of the proposed development. As described in the HMP, the planting is located in an area where restoration is not affected by the proposed development. The Squaxin tribal biologist,Michelle Stevies, raises this issue by stating in her letter dated, March 23, 2004, "the upper stream buffer mitigation area does not mitigate for the proposed variance actions. The upper stream buffer area also has been heavily thinned and the banks denuded of trees and shrubs. The buffer area needs to be revegetated with both shrubs and over-story conifer to reestablish stream shade and increase habitat functions...the estuary area of the stream has also been impacted from past development practices. Rehabilitating the stream-estuary is another opportunity to restore lost nearshore/estuarine habitat functions." In terms of stream functionality, it is important to note that a dam is located in the upper stream segment of the project site. Although not mentioned in the HMP, staff recommends that, consideration should be made to remove this concrete dam, in order to improve stream flows and connectivity. Comments by the Squaxin tribal biologist also refer to this structure and recommended its removal. (Exhibit 8). If the project is approved, it is suggested that stream restoration should also include the recommendations as described above. With respect to compatibility, nearby residences exist along the marine shoreline bluff. The nearest neighbor, to the west, is located approximately 55' from the stream and 65' from the marine shoreline. Correspondingly, the type IV stream buffer also impacts the adjacent residence to the west. Beyond, the adjacent resident, no other structures are in the immediate vicinity of this stream. The scale of homes in the area range from small vacation cabins to primary residences compatible with the scale of the applicants' request. The nearest home to the west is very similar in size to the applicant's request. 3. The granting of the variance shall not permit the establishment of any use, which is prohibited by this Chapter. Staff Response: Variances are allowed and procedures established whereby individuals may seek relief from dimensional and performance standards provided they meet specific criteria. The proposal is for 1,900 square foot residential reconstruction and expansion including front and side porches and a 572 square foot attached garage, which is an allowable use. 4. The granting of the variance must be necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building and the variance as granted by the County is the minimum variance that shall accomplish this purpose. The findings shall fully set forth the circumstances by which this Chapter would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variation. Staff Response: A variance would be required to allow for the proposed expansion of the existing shoreline cabin and garage, as the proposed setbacks and buffers from the unnamed type IV stream and Pickering Passage shoreline do not meet the minimum requirements of MCRO chapter 17.01.110. The existing cabin is approximately 1,100 square feet, and the variance request is to add approximately 800 square feet of living space and a 572 square foot garage. A 360-foot section of the cabin footprint will be abandoned and replaced as proposed. Historically, the property has been for recreational use and the cabin as a vacation homesite. The applicants' current request is part and parcel to their intention of making the residence a primary residence. As stated, the applicants also purchased an additional 30 feet to east a few years ago in anticipation of enlarging existing cabin and which allows them to move further away from the stream. The current proposal consists of two bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms,which is consistent with homes in the surrounding area. As mentioned in variance criteria 1, concerns were raised as to the configuration and scale of the proposal as the least impactive location and minimum necessary to accomplish this purpose, particularly the attached garage. Staff recommends, as described, avoiding damage and/or removal of trees in the shoreline buffer and stream buffer should be an utmost priority in accomplishing this proposal. If approved, mitigation measures should be incorporated into this proposal to this effect. Variance requests are allowed when they are the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use while providing maximum protection to the resource areas. Staff references the discussion in Resource Ordinance Variance Jeaneane Tharp, regarding the minimum variance concept; whereby the size proposed is consistent with the size of surrounding homes. In this case, considering the scale of the proposed residence and garage seems compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The granting of the variance shall not impair or substantially diminish property values of surrounding neighborhood properties. Staff Response: The garage and residential addition will be new and built to current codes. They would add value to this and surrounding properties. 6. The granting of the variance shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to other lands or buildings in the same designation. Staff response: Variances are contemplated and procedures are established by the provisions of Chapter 17.01.110 (D)(2 VII. Conclusions. Based on the proposal as presented and discussed herein, the request for expansion of the existing shoreline cabin and construction of garage, appears to be consistent with the variance criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150. Although staff recommends approval of the current proposal as requested and determines that it is a reasonable use of the property, it is still uncertain whether the configuration and size of the proposal is the minimum necessary. Staff notes that it is compatible with surrounding land uses and residences in the area and that the applicants have revised the proposal to the present request based on attempting to accomplish the remodel/construction of the residence and garage with as minimal environmental impact as possible. Incorporation of the HMP restoration plans and additional restoration measures as suggested in Section VI(1 and 4)would mitigate much of the adverse impacts of the proposed project. VIII. Conditions: If the variance is approved staff recommends the following conditions. 1. Individuals shall be required to control erosion during construction of the proposed addition,removal of vegetation shall be avoided and any areas disturbed within the construction zone shall be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. 2. The existing natural vegetative buffer and wetland adjacent to the stream shall remain undisturbed by any construction and/or development on the parcel. This area shall be marked off to protect it from disturbance including from any heavy equipment. 3. Provisions for the Shoreline Bluff buffer plantings as set forth in the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and planting plan shall be a condition of this project's approval, and must be completed prior to final inspection of the addition. If proposed construction extends beyond one construction season, applicant may be required to complete segmental implementation of the plan prior to that time, for resource protection and mitigation. The location and configuration of the proposal should avoid damage and removal of the existing mature trees, specifically the Douglas fir trees 4. Provisions for the Riparian Buffer restoration should incorporate supplemental plantings as set forth in the Habitat Management Plan. Mitigation should also address the nearshore/esturary interface portion of the stream and portion of the stream in closest proximity to proposed development; in addition to possible removal of the concrete dam structure located within the stream channel. 5. Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following tree plantings and maintained on a seasonal basis for the duration of three years. 6. Approval of this variance requires Mason County Environmental Health approval of a septic system and hook-up within 60 days of final variance approval. 7. Wintering bald eagle may be present near the site between October 31 and March 31. It is recommended that high noise level construction be minimized during these dates. It is also recommended that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife be apprised of any activity. 8. The recommendations and setbacks as set forth in the Geotechnical Report shall be a condition of this project's approval. IX. Choice of Action 1. Approval. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). 4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year). 5. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15. Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services PO Box 2854 • Belfair, WA 98528 . 360-620-0618 a leeboad(a�hctc.com Diane Marcus Jones Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department RE: Mike and Linda Fish Project Parcel 12119-13-00011 Residential Construction Dear Diane, At the Request of Mike and Linda Fish, the proposed plans for improvements of 425 East Rauschert Road located in Grapeview, Mason County Washington have been revised based on public comments and comments from the Squaxin island Tribe. The previous proposal included locating the residential footprint 5' closer to the marine shoreline than the existing structure, The landowners are now proposing to locate the proposed structure no closer to the marine shoreline than the existing structure, which is 55' from the bluff. All other project descriptions and mitigation measures listed in the 1 labitat Management Plan still apply to this proposal. A plot map is enclosed showing the location of existing and proposed buildings in relation to critical areas, buffers, building setbacks, and property lines, 1 trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time, , '�5" ' Lce B Lee Boad Habitat.Management Planning and Wetland Services PO Box 2854 Belfair, WA 98528 (3 60)-620-0618 RECEIVED APR 2 9 2004 MASON Go, PLANNING DEPT. E001d d8s:To t?n/R7/bA _ice i iaui��iioiu on .o 1�5fORhrloN zDF� / Ydri00 Sf 75� � / ' yl It+INAhti'D 11Te N 91RCaM / . V / J KV DI(W* / IS'WIN / 600' 15 / /62V / / / / __ p EOPO D APATI 5 / 5725E / <Nnf1VC ZDI� 6609 mvpm pan mmFoomm RECEIVED W-x " i,000� // i� APR 2 9 2004 (MASON CO.PLANNING DEFT. C / / / P15H AM111ON P90JECt HVITAt MANMWENf PLAN fAX FARM NO, 121191!7 0 11 42 y �A%t2 15CHW ROAD L�� POAn HAPITAf MAWEi�W PANNING Z00'd d88 C TO bO/R7/b01 f4bC01-C/a-rnoc 1�1 1 uauial��Pi x i in u r oc a ion r�r riu �'I u r , /� w. .��, ,•'�.. + ;.• �is ��t. T: a• . � .. } is a Y, t,; '•��' � y. � .. t 1 � <;x S s _ �y Y •'�+•' 3.w � y .� Rom} � b ha.y .. I ; a r .' - _ - � ,._ tit ra t.�� ..� .-i-• . I yam._ 'F>. '.jLlM. !� Iy ';• y y �tr __. j + �� •ill � �` + ;' � �+'t 1 i I f 1ti J 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner 3 RE: Michale and Linda Fish FIDNINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 4 OF LAW AND DECISION 5 6 INTRODUCTION 7 The applicants have applied for a variance from stream and shoreline buffer requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance in order to replace a 1,100 8 square foot cabin with a house and garage totaling 2,472 square feet with a setback of 55 feet from Pickering Passage and 27 feet from a Type IV stream and associated 9 wetlands. As allowed outright by the Mason County Code, the Examiner approves 10 the expansion of the cabin by 10%and a vertical expansion up to maximum allowable building height if staff interprets MCC 17.01.110(F)(1) as allowing vertical 11 expansion. The Examiner also authorizes the requested garage and porch additions. 12 ORAL TESTIMONY 13 14 See transcript. 15 EXHIBITS 16 See"Case Index" for Michael and Linda Fish, VAR 2004-00008. In addition, Exhibit 17 18, Staff Background, and Exhibit 19, May 11, 2004 memo from John Diehl are also admitted. 18 19 FINDINGS OF FACT 20 Procedural: 21 1. Applicants. Michael and Linda Fish. 22 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 23 on May 11, 2004, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners Meeting Chambers. 24 25 Substantive: Fish Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision (PA0572554.DOC;1/13009.090000/) 3. The subject property is approximately 2.5 acres in size, located off 1 Rauschert Road in the Grapeview Loop area. The property is slightly fan shaped with 2 the southern boundary line fronting Pickering Passage, approximately 125 feet in width, and the northern boundary line is approximately 180 feet in width. The parcel 3 measures a little over 600 feet in length. An existing cabin is situated on a marine bluff overlooking Pickering Passage. A Type IV stream and associated wetlands is 4 located to the west of the cabin, bisecting the entire length of the property in a north- south direction, eventually draining to Pickering Passage. An active feeder bluff is 5 located between the marine shoreline and the upland area. A pathway leads from the 6 cabin down to a deck area and the shoreline. A portion of the shoreline is bulkheaded, adjacent to the deck area. 7 The applicants propose to increase the area of the home and attach a garage on the 8 north side of the home, away from the marine bluff. The applicants will maintain a 55-foot separation from the home and Pickering Passage and will also increase the 9 separation from the Type IV stream from 16 feet to 27 feet. 10 In 2000, the applicants moved their eastern boundary line 30 feet to the east in order 11 to allow for an eastward expansion of their home. At the time of the lot's line alteration, Mason County's regulations imposed a 75%buffer on Type IV streams. 12 4. Characteristics of the Area. The lots to the east and west are similar to the 13 subject property, sparsely developed containing one cabin or residence located on the 14 marine bluff fronting the shoreline. The adjacent property to the east, approximately 23 acres belongs to the Rauscherts, the homesteaders in the area, with one cabin and 15 barn. The adjacent property to the west contains a residence approximately 40 feet from the subject property's boundary line and shares a common shoreline, with the 16 bulkheads of both properties adjoining one another. Further to the west, approximately 500 feet from the subject property's western property line is a 17 subdivision called Mountain Shores. The subdivision is 40 lots, with a mixed 18 primary residences and recreational cabins. 19 5. Adverse Impact. The March 23, 2004 letter from the Squaxin Tribe identifies the importance of feeder bluffs and the damage caused by their 20 bulkheading. The Squaxin Island Tribe letter and testimony from Mr. Diehl also 21 raised concerns about whether or not the bluff will erode over time to the point of the building footprint, necessitating bulkheading. The geotechnical report does not go 22 into much detail about erosion potential but rather focuses upon "deep-seated instability." However, at page 8 of the report the authors do state that in their 23 professional opinion potential erosion hazard is not a limiting factor for the proposed development. It is not clear what timeline the authors had in mine when they made 24 this statement (i.e. if erosion is not a concern over the next 10 years as opposed to 20 25 years and so on). Regardless, the relevant inquiry for assessing adverse impacts is a comparison of what the applicants could build under the code outright versus what they can only achieve through a variance. MCC 17.01.110(F)(1) allows for a Fish Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0572554.DOC;1/13009.090000/} "remodel, repair, or change of use of an existing building within its existing I footprint," plus or minus 10%. Consequently, the existing cabin could be repaired 2 and maintained in perpetuity, thus creating the same need for bulkheading that a replacement structure would create. Also relevant is the fact that at most only 2 trees 3 would have to be removed, that mitigation is provided to offset any habitat loss and that the expansion is away from the marine bluff. Given these factors, there is no 4 evidence to suggest that the proposed use would increase the need for bulkheading or 5 result in any adverse impacts to the shorelines. 6 6. Availability of Other Reasonable Use. The property is almost entirely encumbered by Resource Ordinance buffers, except for a portion of the property that 7 is currently occupied by a septic drainfield. A home could be built upon the access road, but it would have to be unreasonably narrow. Other home sites would involve 8 clearing of habitat and potentially building into slopes along the Type IV stream. Given that the proposed home is to be located in an area that is already disturbed and 9 occupied, there is no other site better suited to protect environmentally sensitive areas 10 for the proposed home. 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12 Procedural: 13 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Examiner with 14 the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 15 Substantive: 16 2. ZoningZonina Designation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 5. 17 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from an 18 82.5' setback from Pickering Passage and the 100' setback from an adjoining Type 4 19 stream. The variance from the Type 4 stream buffers and Pickering Passage can acquired if the applicant meets the review criteria of MCC 17.01.150(E). Those 20 review standards are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law. 21 MCC 17.01.150(E)(1): The granting of the variance shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and conditions shall be imposed to insure 22 compatibility with surrounding conforming uses. 23 6. The relevant purpose of the Mason County Resource Ordinance is to 24 protect critical areas and to establish uniform processes to review land use/development proposals in critical areas. As a counter to the general purpose of 25 the resource ordinance, the purpose of the variance section, MCC 17.01.150, is to allow Mason County to consider a request to vary standards of the Resource Ordinance where the strict application of the standards would deprive property Fish Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0572554.DOC;1/13009.090000/} r owners a reasonable use of their property. Synthesizing the need to provide property 1 owners with a reasonable use of their property while at the same time protecting 2 critical areas, variances should only be allowed when they are the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use while providing maximum protection to the 3 critical areas and resource areas. This standard is indeed incorporated into MCC 17.01.150(E)(3), which provides that the variance granted be the "minimum variance" 4 necessary for the reasonable use of property. 5 As noted in the 5/11/04 brief from John Diehl, the Kennedy and Song Examiner 6 decisions and the Cousins Commissioner decision lays the foundation for the principle that replacements of existing structures should be limited to the size of the 7 existing structure. The Tharpe decision cited by staff is not on point, because the Tharpe decision did not involve the replacement of a currently existing structure but 8 rather the placement of a home on a vacant parcel. Grandfathered structures serve as a benchmark for the historical use factor identified in Buechel v. Washington State 9 Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994). Since existing uses may be 10 expanded by 10% under MCC 17.0 1.11 O(F)(1), this expansion will be allowed for replacements as well since this code provision implies a legislative determination that 11 10% expansions have an acceptable impact on critical areas. Vertical expansion of the home up to the height limit is also allowed if staff interprets MCC 12 17.01.110(F)(1) as permitting vertical expansions outright. Given the ambiguity of MCC 17.01.110(F)(1) on vertical expansion, the Examiner finds that the deference 13 due administrative(staff) interpretation prevails. 14 As noted in the Noyse Examiner decision, garages are considered part of the 15 minimum use necessary for a variance and the applicant's proposed garage is authorized. Since decks do not add to habitable living space (and hence greater 16 adverse impact as noted in the Cousins Commissioner decision), the proposed decks 17 are also allowed because the applicants have moved further away from the shorelines though a lot line adjustment and will mitigated impacts as recommended by staff. 18 with both the recommended staff conditions and the lot line adjustment. 19 MCC 17.01.150(E)(2): The granting of the variance shall not permit the establishment of any use which is prohibited by this Chapter. 20 21 7. Single-family homes are allowed in the RR5 zoning district. The Resource Ordinance variance and reasonable use sections allow single-family homes 22 if the applicable criteria are met. 23 MCC 17.01.150(E)(3): The granting of the variance must be necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building and the variance as granted by the County is 24 the minimum variance that shall accomplish this purpose. The findings shall fully set 25 forth the circumstances by which this Chapter would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variation. Fish Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0572554.DOC;1/13009.090000/} r � 8. As discussed in Conclusion 6, above, the proposed development is 1 consistent with the standard set forth above if the proposed replacement is limited to a 2 10%foot-print expansion plus the proposed garage and decks. 3 MCC 17.01.150(E)(4): The granting of the variance shall not impair or substantially diminish property values of surrounding neighborhood properties. 4 9. The applicants only propose the replacement of an existing structure plus 5 some nominal expansion. This should not have any adverse impact on surrounding 6 property values and as noted by staff the improvement in housing quality may actually serve to increase surrounding property values. 7 MCC 17.01.150(E)(5): The granting of the variance shall not confer on the 8 applicant any special privileges denied by this Chapter to other lands or buildings in 9 the same designation. 10 10. As noted in the staff report, the surrounding area contains several single- family homes. 11 DECISION 12 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions 13 recommended in the last two pages of the staff report subject to the following 14 additional limitations: 15 1. Expansion of the existing footprint for the proposed home (excluding decks and garage) shall not exceed 10% within the building envelope proposed by the applicant 16 (as shown in Exhibit 17). Vertical expansion up to the maximum allowed building 17 height is also authorized if staff interprets MCC 17.0 1.11 O(F)(l). 18 2. The proposed deck and garage is also allowed. The garage shall remain on the north side of the proposed home but may be moved south from its proposed location 19 if necessary to remain attached to the proposed home as revised by this decision. The width of the decks may not be expanded to make up for any loss in length due to the 20 revisions required to the home by this decision. 21 Dated this 8th day of June, 2004. 22 23 24 Phil Olbrechts Mason County Hearing Examiner 25 Examiner Fish Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision (PA0572554.DOC;1/13009.090000/) MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 April 19, 2004 NOTICE OF A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case: VAR 2004-00008 Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Michael and Linda Fish Notice is hereby given that Mr. and Mrs. Michael and Linda Fish, applicants for the above referenced variance, have filed for a request for a continuance of the public hearing from April 27, 2004 to May 11, 2004. Revisions to the originally proposed project have recently been submitted. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is to reconstruct and expand an existing home and provide a garage addition, partially within the footprint of the existing structure. The existing structure is located in a protected buffer of a Type IV stream, as well as, a Type I saltwater shoreline buffer, along the Case Inlet in the Grapeview area. Revisions to the proposed project involve the placement and configuration of the new structure. The project proposes to replace the existing 1,100 square foot structure with a house and garage totally 2,472 square feet. The revisions submitted indicate the structure as proposed will be 55 feet from the shoreline bluff and located within the same alignment of the shoreline buffer as the original cabin. The new structure is also proposed to be located approximately 27 feet from the stream, whereas the original cabin is currently located 16 feet from the stream. Site address and Project Location: 425 Rauschert Rd. Grapeview, WA. The Mason County Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. If special accommodations are needed, contact the Planning Department at ext. 577. Please contact Diane Marcus Jones of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 363, with any questions or comments. UO ha, Al T PERMIT NO.:Y P—CJ-x�'1 DATE RECEIVED: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE ORDINANCE (Chapter 17.01 MCC) 411 N.5TH Street/P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT❑ CONDITIONAL USE ❑ VARIANCE The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32, 36.70A, 39.34, 58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW. PLEASE PRINT 1. Owner: t f 1- Owner Mailing Address: Site Address: Ck r✓-r City: State: 0 V- Zip: _(J_�2_ci Z! City: L— PC ✓•P State Zip: Lien/Title Holder: Phone: Daytime 0 a. 7 " 5 Z U Address: Fire District#: City: State: Zip: Signature: 2, - —�L Legal description: 2• Parcel Number: � �. l�f V g Parcel Size: Q er 3 Dir tions to Site: �ti/ e v ,ti��i 1 e i tr I t,,I¢ V/ I/ T 4 C P r oW 1 R-'Ye rAfP cy G 5 v P > f Alel C. 4. State what sections require a permit: In-Holding Lands, Chapter 17.01.062 ❑ Long-Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060 ❑ Wetlands, Chapter 17.01.070 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands, Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas, Chapter 17.01.090 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Areas, Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas, Chapter 17.01.100 ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas, Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas, Chapter 17,01.102 ❑ Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Chapter 17,01.110 5. Identify current use of property with existing improvements: Cur✓�Nr�Y /L 4 S '5/LC//r i;�I/;-1 �y 6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be us ,co suction m tprInciple dimen ions an other pertinent informationSAttach ad i onal sheets 'f needed): i V �� 40,1 e N , 7. Any water on or ad*acent to property: altwater Lake [IRiver ElPond ElWetland ❑ Seasonal Runoff Other /1(4 5�'45owe,4 LfrK AI,-,<T 8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area? Yes ❑ No N 9. If septic is located on project site,include records. FEB 1 3 E Connect to septic? 14 Community Septic? El Public Water Supply? ❑ Well? 04 426 S W. 0 3 0DAj� Sl 10. Type of Job:- New Add ❑ Alt ❑ Repair ❑ Demolition X Other This permit is granted pursuant to the Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC)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 Resource Ordinance.The permit may be rescinded pursuant to the event the permittee fails to comply with the conditions of this ordinance. MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT: $510.001$305.00(with another permit) MASON CONDITIONAL USE ENVIR.PERMIT: $1,225.00 MASON RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE: $1,225,00 REVISED: 12-5-2003 HEARINGS EXAMINER: $350.00 I:\PLANNING\R&GPACENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION Show the following on the site plan Lot Dimensions Flood Zones Existing Structures Fences Water Lines Driveways Drainage Plans Shorelines Septic System Topography Indicate Directional by(N,S,E,W,etc.) Proposed Improvements Easements In relation to plot plan Name if Flanking Street APPLICANT TO DRAW SITE PLAN BELOW: c_ y Onos a Ql _r 0 r g y 04 F eWr,a� r'c b Q o pg at 50'setback from bluff very slight slope to marine bluff 30 marine bluff RECEIVED FEB 13 1004 426 W. CEwAR ST. i DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW FOR OFFICE USE ONLY COMMENTS Planning: Environmental Health: Building Plan Review: Occupancy Group.- Fire Marshal.- Other: Conditions: FEES TOTAL FEES: RECEIVED FEB 1 3 2004 Accepted by: Date: ' j r MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE May 5,2002 FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I /WE understand that I /WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I /WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. ,;�- 0 DATE OWNER APPL CANT RECEIVED FEB 13 2004 426 w. CEuAR ST, THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS —Page 5 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE Addresses may be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Building I, Second Floor. \A e rte a ve-'N SS�►' `fR5 37 301 .1-1 %yTlvc B R 4 5C .er- 5�30 51f rx 15kE ITV'AJ, wjA 9c6 $q- 2-3 g ti'c 4-v c-e �S a 60 1 9?0 M��JU ► e �� r k I�1a Jnr� �o reM 4,5 N 6-r��pe ve kI /714r I1N 1 F1z} � 0v 701133�15 RECEIVED FEB 13 2004 426 W. CEDAR STa MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT rp P.O.Box 279 1 Far FarAw�y Shelton,WA 98584 �br r � � .4! RECEIVED f4m ��N6E3912�___ _�► [APR 0 5 2004 '�'� MCCD - PLANNING �k t (04— k T r✓q_cA. lY.3 �a'w84��-�t�� '�t�llfil�illi�t�it�l l�f:�lltfllllS l�l It��il illlil'IS�II tf�{I�