HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2007-00006 DDR2007-00062 Decision - VAR Letters / Memos - 6/29/2007 Mason County Community Development
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584 19 ✓ . 40
�j
41
Attn. Allan Borden ®(��
M CCD - PLANNING
April 7, 2010
RE: Patty Stone and Terry Mills application for time extension of Variance for SFR
MCC 17.01.150(E) Variance
VAR2007-00006 and
Dev. Reg. Variance
DDR2007-00062
Regretfully we must ask your kind consideration for a second time extension for the above
variance which was granted on June 26, 2007.
The first extension was graciously granted on March 26, 2009.
Unfortunately, the same economic circumstances which prompted the first request continue to
exist.
The start of construction of the planned single family residence has been impacted by a persistent
sluggish economic climate which necessitates the sale of other real estate properties in order to
start and finish the project in a timely manner.
The real estate market continues to be distressed and the sale of our properties at 6741 and 6743
have been unsuccessful so far. However, we are hopeful that those sales will happen sometime
this spring and enable us to begin construction in early summer.
Attached for your convenience is a copy of the findings, conclusion and decision of the original
Variance approval. (Postal copy only).
Respectfully,
Terry Mills
Patty Stone
360 275 6979
cc
Greg Belding
Steven Rice
Rice,Fergus,Miller Architecture&Planning
262 e St.
Bremerton,WA98337
360 377 8773
PEON cop' MASON COUNTY
Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Belfair (360) 275-4467
y Planning
Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
1BSf
May 4, 2010
Patty Stone and Terry Mills
P.O. Box 819
Belfair WA 98528-9819
RE: Extension of Action Date of Resource Ordinance Variance VAR2007-00006 and
Development Regulations Variance DDR2007-00062.
Dear Mr. Mills and Ms. Stone:
This letter is to explain the status of these variance cases and to help in the planning of
development permit regarding the variance approvals.
Parcel Number: 22210-51-00022
Site Address: 381 NE Landon Rd. Belfair WA
Variance Granted: Construction of a single-family residence with detached garage with a
combined footprint area of 2,362 sq. ft. within the marine shoreline buffer of Hood Canal.
Date of Original Decision: June 26, 2007
Date of Present Approval Extension: June 26, 2010 [from 2009 request]
On April 7, 2010 you submitted a letter of extension for these two variances, requesting
to extend the action date of these variances. Your request is timely as it was submitted
prior to the third-year action date of June 26, 2010. Your request is found to be valid as
the economic conditions do not enable you to sell other properties and begin
construction on the subject property.
For these reasons, Mason County Department of Community Development will
grant you the additional four-month extension of these variance approvals
[VAR2007-00006 and DDR2007-00062] to the date of October 26, 2010.
Please be aware that when you submit a development permit for the residence [a building
permit], the proposal must meet the dimensions of the structures approved in these 2007
review approvals. If you have any questions on this matter or the time period, please call
me at (360) 427-9670 extension 365. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Allan Borden
Senior Planner
Site Reviews and Long Range
Stone&Mills variance extension letter.doc
PEON oojd, MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elm@ (360) 482-5269
_ Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th
P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
>854
June 29, 2007
Corrected Notice of Decision
Case: VAR2007-00006
ti - 2Z2, �-
Applicants: Terry Mills and Patty Stone
Notice is hereby given to Terry Mills and Patty Stone, who are the applicants for the above-
referenced Resource Ordinance Variance, have been granted the Variance. The request
was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically
for the construction, of a Single-family residence, attached grated deck and detached two-
car garage within a shoreline vegetation conservation buffer and building setback. The
proposal was exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (b), (i).
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 Charles Mead
McCoy 111, Planner with Mason County at 360.427.9670 ext. 294 or
ch uckm@ co.mason.wa.us
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Patty Stone and Terry Mills FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 MCC 17.01.150(E)Variance
VAR2007-00006 and
6
Dev. Reg. Variance
7 DDR2007-00062
8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 The applicants have applied for a variance from the Mason County Resource
Ordinance in order to construct a single-family home residence with detached two-car
11 garage, having a combined footprint of approximately 2,362 square feet within the
marine shoreline buffer of Hood Canal, and a variance from Mason County
12 Development Regulations Ordinance No. 82-96 to reduce the required minimum
13 front-yard building setback from the County's right-of-way to 0.0 feet for both
proposed structures. The Examiner approves the requests subject to the conditions
14 recommended by staff.
15 ORAL TESTIMONY
16 See transcript.
17 EXHIBITS
18 See "Case Index," attached to Staff Report, identifying eleven exhibits. In addition, a
topographical survey dated January 5, 2007, was admitted as Exhibit 11, and a
19 Proposed Site Plan dated February 28, 2007, was admitted as Exhibit 12.
20 FINDINGS OF FACT
21
Procedural:
22
23 1. Applicants. The applicants are Patty Stone and Terry Mills.
24 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on June 12, 2007, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
25 meeting room.
(VE0666146.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Substantive:
1
2 3. Site/Proposal Description. The site is a shoreline property along the north
shore of Hood Canal. The subject parcel is approximately 0.29 acres. It is bisected
3 into upland and waterward portions by the Landon Road County right-of-way, which
traverses approximately east to west across the property. Nearly the entire parcel is
4 encumbered by the building setbacks from property lines, County right-of-way and
the 35 foot minimum distance from Hood Canal as required by Mason County's
5 Resource Ordinance. The upland portion is steeply sloped and well vegetated by
6 native plants, including mature Douglas fir and associated understory vegetation
native to the coastal Pacific Northwest. The upland portion is a steep slope and is the
7 site of the existing well for potable water for the residence on the lowland portion.
The water-ward portion of the parcel is a highly developed site consisting of a single-
8 family residence, storage building/studio, sewage system, deck, lawn, and stairway
9 amenities.
10 The existing buildings have footprints of 1,547 and 414 for the SFR and the storage
building, respectively. These existing footprint of the storage building encroaches
11 into the building setback and conservation buffers by 386 square feet (93%) and the
footprint of the residence encroaches into the building setback and conservation
12 buffers by 1278 square feet (83%). The existing uncovered deck is 340 square feet in
13 area. The applicants propose to reuse the existing dwelling on the property, rather
than demolishing it and disposing of the materials, by barging the structure on Hood
14 Canal.
15 The applicants propose to then construct a single-family residence with a detached
two-car garage. The combined footprint of the structures is approximately 2,362
16 square feet, the majority of which lies within the building setback and conservation
17 buffer of a Saltwater Shoreline designated as Urban Shoreline Environment. The two
structures are also within the minimum front-yard building setback from the County's
18 right-of-way. The proposed house footprint square footage is 1,260, of which 1,086
(86%) square feet are forward of the combined setback and buffer of 35 feet from
19 OHWM. The proposed detached two-car garage footprint square footage is 668, of
which 474 (71%) square feet are forward of the combined setback and buffer of 35
20 feet from OHWM. The proposed deck projects into the conservation buffer for 434
21 square feet. The remaining portion of deck in the building setback is at ground level
and is therefore not considered a structure by Mason County's Development
22 Regulations and Resource Ordinance codes and is exempt from setback requirements.
This allows for the proposed deck to be constructed in the building setback without
23 the need for a Resource Ordinance variance. The proposed deck will have at least
30% grating to allow for the passage of sufficient light and precipitation for growth of
24 native vegetation beneath that portion of the deck within the conservation buffer area.
25 See Exhbit 2 to the Staff Report.
(V E0666146.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Two parcels owned by the applicants to the southwest of the subject parcel are
I included in the proposal as off-site mitigation and the ultimate destination of the
2 existing dwelling to be removed to provide for housing at this other location. The
applicants also propose other on-site and off-site mitigation measures including
3 restoration of portions of the marine riparian habitat along Hood Canal, removal of a
vertical concrete bulkhead structure, upgrade of the sewage treatment on site, and
4 construction of a stormwater collection system. (See Habitat Management Plan,
Exhibit 1 to Staff Report).
5
6 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area characterized by rural family
homes of comparable size in footprint square footage as the proposed residence.
7 Many single-family residences occupy the area. There are single-family residences
adjacent to the subject property on all three remaining sides not bordered by Hood
8 Canal. The two adjacent properties to the east and west of the subject property are
both closer than 35 feet from OHWM on Hood Canal.
9
10 5. Adverse Impacts/Need for Variance. No adverse environmental impacts
are anticipated since all construction work will occur in an already completely
11 developed and landscaped shoreline and the project will be conditioned on the
mitigation recommended in the habitat management plan, which are adequate to
12 mitigate project impacts. The proposal includes removal of an existing vertical
concrete bulkhead along the shoreline, and restoration of marine riparian habitat at
13 the site as described in the submitted HMP. As noted during public testimony, the
14 relocation of the home will also not create any significant adverse impacts, since the
home will be levered over a bulkhead onto a barge that remains floating off the
15 shoreline. The proposal provides for a minimal amount of critical area disturbance.
As stated in the Staff Report and HMP, off-site mitigation has been offered by the
16 Applicants at their properties at 6741 and 6751 NE North Shore Road (parcel #s
22209-53-00005; 22209-53-00006). In addition the Applicants have been issued by
17 the County a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA2006-00068) that restricts the
18 development at the site to only one shoreline property instead of two. Improvements
are also proposed to upgrade the sewage treatment on site and to construct a
19 stormwater collection system. The placement of the proposal within the ROW
setback will enhance compatibility with other activities in the area and will improve
20 the parking situation.
21 The Mason County Development Regulations variance is required as part of this
22 project because the Applicant is requesting a reduction to 0.0 feet from the County's
right-of-way (ROW) along Landon Road which bisects the property. Currently, the
23 applicants park their two family vehicles in the ROW. This poses a hazard for
applicants as well as pedestrians and motor vehicles using the County's roadway.
24 The applicants are requesting a reduction in setback from the ROW for both the
25 proposed dwelling and detached two-car garage of 0.0 feet.
(VE0666146.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1
2 Procedural:
3 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Examiner
with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
4
5 Substantive:
6 2. Zoning Designation._ The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 ("RR-5").
7 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicants seek a variance from the
Mason County Resource Ordinance to construct a single-family home residence with
8 detached two-car garage within the conservation buffer required for a Saltwater
9 Shoreline, and a variance from Mason County Development Regulations Ordinance
No. 82-96 to reduce the required minimum front-yard building setback from the
10 County's right-of-way to 0.0 feet for both proposed structures. Section 17.01.150
(E), Review Standards for a Variance, sets forth the review standards for these
11 variances, and are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law.
12 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
13 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
14
4. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a reasonable use of
15 residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to
16 accommodate them. Without the variance, there would be no reasonable amount of
buildable space for a single-family home. The waterward side of Landon Road is
17 nearly entirely encumbered by the saltwater shoreline buffer and associated building
setback, building setbacks from property lines and from the County's ROW. The
18 upper portion of the property, on the landward side of Landon Road, is too steep to
reasonably accommodate development. The Resource Ordinance buffer and building
19 set back only leave a narrow band of approximately twenty feet for development on
20 the waterward side of the property. An extremely small building envelope remains.
Consequently, the Resource Ordinance denies the applicants reasonable use of their
21 property. The applicants have chosen a location that is as distant from the resource as
is practical with a minimal amount of critical area disturbance. The proposal is
22 permitted under the County's Variances from Standards Section (17.01.150) which
provides that the minimum reasonable use for a residence in a residentially zoned
23 area is the lesser of a) 40% of the area of the lot, or b) 2,550 square feet. The
24 applicants propose lot coverage of approximately 19% and a total footprint of 2,362
square feet. The definition of minimal reasonable use is therefore met for both
25 required criteria. The property is surrounded by single-family homes and the
proposed use is consistent with these surrounding land uses. The applicant has
proposed to further mitigate adverse environmental impacts and enhanced the subject
t V E0666146.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
property by restoring the marine riparian habitat as outlined in the HMP (Exhibit 1 to
1 the Staff Report). Given these factors, a single-family home constitutes a reasonable
2 use of the property.
3 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
4 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
5 the applicant's own action.
6 5. The hardship suffered by the applicants is created by the Saltwater
7 Shoreline and the steep slopes of the landward portions of the lot, both natural
features of the property. The hardship is a direct result of the size and location of the
8 parcel. The proposal places the dwelling and two-car garage in locations that
contemplate the best compromise between the desires of the applicants and
9 enhancement to the resource and are the most logical placement choices.
10 Similarly, the hardship suffered by the applicants is created by the location of the
11 County's right-of-way (ROW) along Landon Road which bisects the property.
Again, the proposed placement of the dwelling and two-car garage are the most
12 logical choices given the nature of the property.
13 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
14 Permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the environment.
15
6. The proposed footprint of the proposed SFR and garage is smaller than
16 those in the vicinity. No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated since all
construction work will occur in an already completely developed and landscaped
17 shoreline and the project will be conditioned on the mitigation recommended in the
18 habitat management plan, which are adequate to mitigate project impacts. As noted
during public testimony, the relocation of the home will also not create any
19 significant adverse impacts, since the home will be levered over a bulkhead onto a
barge that remains floating off the shoreline.
20
The placement of the proposal within the ROW setback will enhance compatibility
21 with other activities in the area and will improve the parking situation. Currently, the
22 applicants must park their two family vehicles within the ROW. This hazard to the
applicants and other traffic on Landon Road will be ameliorated by the addition of a
23 garage within the ROW setback.
24 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special
25 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
necessary to afford relief.
(VE0666146.DOC;I/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
7. Other home owners in the area would be allowed to replace their homes.
I Authorizing a remodel, repair and/or replacement of an aging or outdated home is the
2 minimum necessary to afford relief from development regulations, including both the
Mason County Resource Ordinance conservation buffer and the Mason County
3 Development Regulations Ordinance No. 82-96 ROW setback.
4 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will stiffer no substantial detrimental effect.
5 8. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 9 below, the public interest is
6 served by authorizing the replacement of homes within Resource Ordinance buffers
because it improves property values, increases tax revenues and updates and replaces
7 aging homes with homes built under current (and presumably improved) building
codes 1. In addition, the proposed placement of the two-car garage will remedy
8 parking in the County's right-of-way by construction of a garage. As noted in the
Findings of Fact, as mitigated the project will create no significant adverse
9 environmental impacts. For these reasons the public interest is served by the project.
10 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
I 1 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
12 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
13 shall not justify a variance.
14 9. This is the most difficult criterion to apply in this case. It is difficult to
conclude that the applicants "otherwise lack a reasonable use of their property" when
15 a single-family home is already located on the lot. Further, as noted in prior
decisions, the courts do not favor nonconforming uses. Allowing homes to be
16 replaced, as requested by the applicants in this case, only serves to perpetuate the
nonconformity of a single-family home within a resource ordinance buffer. However,
17 the judicial policy against nonconformity is applied to properties that can otherwise
18 be developed legally. That is not the case with the applicants' property. As a result,
nonconforming development will never be phased out upon their property, because
19 the County will always have a constitutional duty to authorize the reasonable use of
their property. Since a single-family home must be allowed upon their property, there
20 is only marginal public benefit in prohibiting the replacement of structures. For
21 properties such as the applicants' where there is no development potential without a
variance, single-family homes will never be phased out over-time by obsolescence
22 because the County will always have the constitutional duty to allow development.
Prohibiting development only serves to reduce property values (and hence tax
23
24 I It is recognized that an aging home is not being fully replaced in the subject application since it is
actually being moved to another location. However,the other benefits to the replacement are
25 significant enough to satisfy the requirements of the variance request.
{V E0666146.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
revenues) and perpetuate aging buildings constructed under outdated versions of the
1 state building code. For these reasons, an aging building with no right to replace
• 2 should be construed as lacking a reasonable use of land.
3 As noted in the staff report and as will be further ensured through the building permit
process, the project is consistent with all applicable development regulations except
4 for those subject to this variance request.
5
6 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
proposed development according to the following criteria:
. 7
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
8 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
9 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
10 in the public interest.
11 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
12 Comprehensive Plan.
13 10. The project complies with all of the County regulations specified in the
14 criteria above. Since it has no adverse impacts as mitigated, it does not impact the
public health, safety and welfare.
15
DECISION
16
The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
17 recommended in the staff report.
18
Dated this 26th day of June, 2007.
19
20 \ ! -----------__
Olbrechts
21 Mason County Hearing Examiner
22
23
24
25
{VE0666146.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
, •fir 121079999999 121073300030 121077700010
.� •� �l�rj����. � .max
k .�40
t tV +• "" 121079999999
!►tom
121182200010
1 211 8220001 0 121182290044.--
AL
., 121189999999
+ 121182200012
IM-
121182200010
s •+ 121182200011
121182200010 121182270070 121182102000
f 121182290046
N
1 inch = 100 feet
1 inch = 0.02 miles
S
r,' we] r wp A �! •yam rs
� J•
tooL
f 221137500010 .' ;+ `s ,• ��
to
dk
Ilk
l i'� tom„+ ' Y 1• •% �,'� -
221132490011 ad,E GRAPEVIE „
.r *• T211VRIWy • ,'; .rsr n } •. _,
i�2?1130060000 �
VM
.146
RI -
Ire
�,
41,
221131300000 '
3 ,.
221132490013 Iw x` ;: � � 'r. • � !y
.91
221131300000
dr
t r� ", � 1, _ . `"'�• _,j;
N
1 inch = 100 feet
W E
1 inch = 0.02 miles
S