HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2004-00033 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 8/31/2005 Index# Date Description
1 1-Mar-05 Staff Report
2 14-Dec-05 Site Plan and Vicinity Map
3 14-Dec-05 Applications for Resource Ordinance and Shoreline Variances
4 24-June-96 Septic System Approval from Mason County Environmental
Health
5 16-Apr-04 Planning pre-inspection and report
6 10-Nov-04 Letter from Traci Michel to Planning staff
7 27-Aug-04 Habitat Management Plan prepared by James DeShazo
8 20-Sep-04 Geotechnical report prepared by AML Geotechnical Services
9 3-Feb-05 Legal Notice of Application, Affidavit of Posting of Notice
10 Jan, 2005 Habitat Management Plan Notice, Comments from Public
Works and Environmental Health
11 1-Mar-05 Letter from Bruce Collins
12 8-Mar-05 Letter from John Diehl
13 9-Jul-04 Letter to Richard Scott from AJ Bredberg
14 1-Mar-05 Three color photos of building site
15 1-Mar-05 Site Plan prepared by John Diehl
16 Mar 1,05 Assessor records submitted by Constance Ibsen
17 2-Aug-03 Collins Geotech Report
18 17-Mar-05 Letter from AJ Bredberg
19 1-Apr-05 Letter from John Diehl
20 26-Apr-05 Hearing Examiner Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Final Decision
21 13-May-05 Hearing Examiner Order for Clarification
22 13-May-05 Notice of Final Decision
23 1-Mar-88 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Mason County Code
Title 7
24 10-Jan-05 Mason County Resource Ordinance
25 17-May-05 Mason County Development Regulations, adopted as Ord No
82-96 as revised
Date of Filing -----Title of Document
Documen Land Use Petition and Complaint for Damages
t#(sub
Certified appeal record
Petitioner's opening brief
Response Brief of Mason County
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Motion for Reconsideration
Notice of Appeal
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
Transcript re: hearing before Mason County Hearing Examiner
S11 �Case Activity Listing 3.27.2006
Case#: VAR2004-00033 11:39:50AM
Assigned- _ Dono _
Activity Description Date i Date 2 � Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By
VARA010 Application Received 12.2.2004 12.14.2004 None DONE GBM CMH 12.14.2004 COO II
VARA900 Telephone Call 1.19.2005 None DONE GBM GBM 1.19.2005 GTIM
spoke waracy Michelle and Richard Scott and explained that public hrg will have to be March 8 vs.originally planned sate of 2/22/05.
VARA920 Miscellaneous Action 1.19.2005 None PEND GBM 1.20.2005 TCS
send HMV to Squaxin Island Tribe and WDFW for review.
VARB 170 Planning Req. for More Info 1.25.2005 None DONE GBM GBM 1.25.2005 GBM
The Geotechnical Report that you submitted was forwarded to A]Ian Tahja of the Mason County Public Works Department as part of the review of your Variance Permit.Please see the enclosed comment
letter which the Planning Department has received regarding the geotechnical report.Please send additional information requested to my attention and I will forward to Mr.Tahja in the Public Works
Department for further review.Thank you.
CC:Traci Michel
VARB020 Environmental Health Review 2.8.2005 None DONE CW CEW 2.8.2005 CEW
send RO Variance app to Cindy for comment.2/8/05 Community drainfield is off site.The septic tank meets our setbacks.The community water system is offsite.Our setbacks have been met.
VARA910 Meeting 1.19.2005 3.8.2005 None PEND GBM GBM 1.19.2005 GBM
Public Hrg scheduled for 1:00 on 3/8/05.
VARB015 Planning Review 12.14.2004 3.8.2005 None PEND GBM GBM 1.20.2005 GBM
hrg examiner public hearing at 1:00 on 3/8/05.HMP mailed for comment to Squaxin Tribe and WDFW on 1/21/05.There is a 28-day comment period from date of issuance of HMP which will be 2/18/05.
The project is SEPA exempt.
VARA006 Public Works Review 1.24.2005 6.14.2005 None DONE AAT AAT 6.14.2005 AT
Geo-rpt and other information reviewed.Geo-rpt determined acceptable.See attched IDC"Scott-2.doc"to DCD.
Page 1 of 1 CaseActivity-rpt
3/8/2005
Case Activity Listing 12:50:90PM
Case #: SPI2004-00148
i
Assigned Done
Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By
SPIA600 SPI Letter-Field Review 6/17/2004 None DONE SAL 6/17/2004 SAL
Pre-inspection f r Bruce Collins: Lo f3 (0 2-7 '�a
The subject property consists of three small lots adjacent to Case Inlet. The lot where a home is proposed has been partially cleared in the past and contains a small shed and driveway. The future building
site is proposed to meet the standard 100-foot shoreline buffer required in this case. The site is also adjacent to a regulated wetland and contains steep slopes. It maybe difficult to meet standard wetland
buffer/setback requirements on-site.
The zoning designation for the site is Rural Residential 5. Standard building setbacks for this zoning area 25 foot front yard setback,and 20 foot side and rear yard setback(lot he setbacks). The side yard
setbacks would equal 10%of the lot width if the lot width were 100-feet or less,with a minimum setback of 10-feet. The front yard refers to the lot line adjacent to the property access, including access
easements. The front yard setback may be reduced to a minimum of 10-feet for reasons including steep slopes etc. These setbacks are measured from structures above grade such as roof overhangs(roof
gutters),and other structures/appurtenances,including heat pumps etc. Other setbacks can apply when critical areas are present such as streams,wetlands,steep slopes etc.
Geological/landslide hazards: Per the applicant a Geotechnical Report has already been prepared for the site and would be submitted to the County at the time of building permit application. Per the
Mason County Resource Ordinance,a Geotechnical Report is needed to evaluate slope stability for development proposed within 300 feet of slopes on and near the site,which approach 70%or more. The
report must meet the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance section 17.01.100 E.S. The report must also 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.See Mason County Code 17.01.100,E7. A landslide hazard covenant
maybe needed if through a geotechnical report it is determined that development will occur within a landslide hazard area or its buffer. It appears that developing the site for residential use may require
significant grading due to the topography and due to steep slopes.If any grading,filling or excavation is proposed in or near slopes an engineered grading plan will be needed to show any proposed
topographical changes,cuts,retaining walls etc.
If it is desired to prepare the site(grade/excavate etc.)prior to building permit issuance and review of the project site/grading plan,this is possible through a Mason Environmental Permit(MEP). An
MEP would not be needed if site preparation is done after building permit,grading and site plan approval. If grading in excess of 250-cubic yards is done within 200-feet of state shoreline or their associated
wetlands,a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit would be required also. The volume of grading would be evaluated within the project Geotechnical Report. It does not appear that site grading would exceed
250 cubic yards, depending upon project design.
Wetlands: wetlands are located adjacent to the building site. A wetland delineation/categorization will be required prior to building or development permit approval. There is currently a delineation
underway by another adjacent owner. It appears that it will be difficult to meet most standard wetland setbacks and buffers on site due to limited lot dimensions and topography. It is possible to apply for a
permit(Mason Environmental Permit)to build within regulated wetland buffers if necessary. Permits can be issued when the applicant can demonstrate that the activity is both unavoidable and necessary.
This process would require a project mitigation plan to attempt to offset potential wetland impacts. A list of wetland consultants is enclosed for your information,although you may also use others not listed.
No other critical areas were identified. If you have any questions please call. Thank you.
Page 2 of 2 CanActivity-rpt
3/8/2005
Case Activity Listing 12:50:OOPM
Case#: SPI2004-00148 t,
Assigned Done
Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By
SPIA010 Application Received 5/24/2004 5/24/2004 None DONE NJP 5/24/2004 NJP
SPIA100 Site Inspection 5/24/2004 6/9/2004 None DONE SAL 6/17/2004 SAL
Page 1 of 2 caseAcnvity•rpt
MASON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,STATE OF WASHINGTON
RICHARD SCOTT and PING SUN, )
Husband and wife; and MARK.A. ) No. 05 2 00507 0
ANDERSON, )
IDENTIFICATION AND
Petitioners, ) CERTIFICATION OF THE RECORD
V. )
MASON COUNTY; )
Respondent. )
I,Grace Miller,declare under penalty of perjury to the best of my knowledge and ability
as follows:
I am over the age of 18 and am competent to testify.
I have been a planner with the Mason County Planning Department, in Mason County
Washington,since 1986. .
I am the planner who presented the Richard Scott variance to the Mason County Hearing
Examiner before it was appealed to court,as captioned above.
I have personal familiarity with the record in this case. Part of my job duties include
keeping track of the record in hearings where I am presenting a case before the Hearing
Examiner.
Pursuant to the stipulated order, attached is an index of the documents that constitute"the
Identification and certification of record Michael Clift
Mason County Prosecutor's Office
PO Box 639
Shelton,WA 96564
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.239
FAX:(360)427-7754
1
record"in this case. These documents include the record before the Hearing Examiner,the
decision of the Hearing Examiner,the notice of that decision, a copy of applicable portions of the
comprehensive plan,two superior court decisions,a copy of the Mason County Resource
Ordinance (chapter 17.01 Mason County Code as adopted,chapter 8.52 MCC as codified)that
was applicable to the variance in question and a copy of the applicable version of Title 15 (the
"development code")which governs the procedural processing of permits. This copy of Title 15
was applicable to the variance in question. Also attached are true copies of the documents
themselves. Some documents might have been reduced proportionately to fit in an 8.5 by 11 inch
format.
Respectfully submitted this August ,2005.
Grace Miller,Mason County Lead Planner
Identification and certification of record Michael craft
Mason County Prosecutor's Office
PO Box 639
Shelton,WA 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.239
FAX:(360)427.7754
2
providing written materials. Mr. Bredberg's written materials, to the extent they
1 address the geotechnical report submitted by Bruce Collins (Exhibit 16) are admitted.
2 A response to the written materials may be submitted by any party to the Scott
hearing by 5:00 pm on March 29, 2005. Mr. Bredberg may submit a reply by 5:00
3 pm on April 1, 2005. All written materials must be submitted to Grace Miller at the
address provided for the filing of appearance of fairness objections identified above.
4
5
6 Dated this 22th day of March, 2005.
7
8 -. Phil Olbrechts
9 Mason County Hearing Examiner
10
11
12 H 2A*
13
14
15
U
16 ` _j 2 c.�noKd :S N
17
18
19
20 kA
21 OPP PCB
22
�' h5 �4 .��5e.✓1
23
24
25
Carrier Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0595760.DOC;2/13009.900000/}
Vci/u4/LVub 10. 4V r HR ZJ it5') f Z IZ34 I lUCJ nCAL CJ I A I C INU.
TideS Real Estate, Inc.
PO BOX 235
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
Office: 253-857-2151
360-876-9255
Fax
Fax: 253-857-2154
ce -1:� aS3 - �2�S - 5g11
To: e CCa e f S From: � C� v, r y`S 0�
Fax: 1 3 6 a . Pages: C 0 L/t ''
Phone: Date: -3 A
C. C
0t4o e
e c, oA was o v �-e- v, S S b( �.
D� V � � �� 0 VA � CA,
V- Ck
L
d, o ✓l; o-fir I0.2 l; e ✓e. -�-l,� s w c�
? 0 Y I door v - 0
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Richard Scott EXTENSION OF
4 RECORD/APPEARANCE OF
5 MCC 17.01.150(E) Resource FAIRNESS DISCLOSURE.
Ordinance Variance and MCC
6 7.28.010 Shoreline Master
Program Variance
7
8 Appearance of Fairness Disclosure
9 At the March 8, 2005 hearing on the above-captioned matter I disclosed that A.J.
10 Bredberg and Richard DeShazo, consultants to Mr. Scott in this case, had served as
consultants for a party I represented in a land use case against Kitsap County
11 approximately ten years ago. There were no objections. My recollection of the date
of the case was incorrect and I actually worked with Mr. DeShazo and Mr. Bredberg
12 five years ago for a reasonable use hearing before the Kitsap County Hearing
13 Examiner on April 8, 1999. To the best of my recollection, I have not spoken to Mr.
DeShazo or Mr. Bredberg since the April 8, 1999 hearing, although the case itself
14 went through various appeals through 2002 and the damages portion of the case still
needs to be resolved. After the close of the March 8, 2005 hearing I discovered that
15 Alan Lumsden had written the geotechnical report (Exhibit 8) for Mr. Scott. Mr.
16 Lumsden also served as a consultant in the Kitsap County case. I have not spoken to
Mr. Lumsden since the April 8, 1999 hearing. Only Mr. Bredberg was present at the
17 April 8, 1999 hearing. Mr. DeShazo and Mr. Lumsden only supplied written reports.
If anyone objects to my participation in this case due to my prior work with Mr.
18 Lumsden, Mr. DeShazo or Mr. Bredberg, please provide your objection in writing to
the Grace Miller at the Mason County Department of Community Development, 411
19 N. 5th Street, P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584. The objection must be received by
20 Ms. Miller by 5:00 pm April 1, 2005.
21 Extension of Record
22 On March 22, 2005 I received an e-mail from Grace Miller, Mason County Planner,
advising that A.J. Bredberg had submitted some written rebuttal materials on the
23 geotechnical report submitted by Bruce Collins. Except for a site visit, I had closed
24 the hearing on March 8, 2005. However, in listening to the tapes of the hearing I did
ask Mr. Bredberg if he wished to have an opportunity to provide written rebuttal on
25 the geotechnical report. Mr. Bredberg did not respond to my inquiries. Giving Mr.
Bredberg the benefit of the doubt, I will take his lack of response as a
misunderstanding of my inquiry, i.e. he believed I had given him the option of
Carrier Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0595760.DOC;2/13009.900000/)
07/28/05 12:52 FAX 360.9561208 PERKINS COIE 005
1 counsel, and the original to this Court. Any color documents shall be duplicated in color if
2
3 possible, and any oversized documents shall be duplicated if possible. If duplication of
4
5 oversized and/or color documents is not possible,then said exhibit(s) shall be identified,
6
7 described, and assigned a placeholder or number-stamped page in the record,with the
a
9 original being sent to the Court. Said record shall include(i) all findings, decisions, and
10
11 I orders by the Hearing Examiner; (ii)the transcript of the hearing and continued hearings in
12
13 this matter held before the Examiner,if such transcript was made; (iii) a complete copy o
14
15 the staff report including all exhibits attached to the staff report, (iv)any additional a its
16
17 presented to the Hearing Examiner at the hearing or its continuances; and(v) any other
18
19 documents that were submitted as part of the subject application to Mason County not
20
21 1 already attached to the staff report or Hearing Examiner decision.
22
23 b. Discovery. Neither party anticipates the use of discovery. However,
24
25 should limited discovery be needed,the requesting party may make a motion to this Court to
26
27 allow it.
28 29 C. Briefing Schedule: (i)Petitioners'hearing brief shall be due
30 ,2005;
31 approximately three weeks after receipt of the certified record: _
32
33 (ii)Mason County's response brief shall be due approximately three weeks after receipt o
34 2005; and tii Petitioners'reply brief shall be due
35 petitioners'brief: ( ) p y
36 37 ten days after receipt of the response brief: 2005.
38
39 d. Hearing Date. Counsel has also conferred with the Court by
40
41 telephone on August 11,2005 to discuss the scheduling of a mutually available hearing date,
42 2005 beginning at
43 and have agreed to a hearing date on
44
45
46
47
STIPULATION AND ORDER AGREEING Perkins Coie i u
TO RECORD PREPARATION,BRIEFING 111 Market Street N.E.,Suite 200
SCHEDULE,AND HEARING DATE-2 Olympia,Washington 98501-1008
[58397-000iisLo51920.275] Phone: (360)956-3300
Fax: (360)956-1208
07/28/05 12:52 FAX 3609561208 PERKINS COIE fj006
1 DATED: July 28, 2005. PERKINS COIE LLP
2
3
4 BY
5 Alexander W. Mackie,WSBA#6404
6 Attorneys for Petitioners
7
8 MASON COUNTY PROSECUTING
9 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
10
11
12
13 By
14 Michael E. Cliff,WSBA#
15 Chief Deputy Prosecutor
16 Attorneys for Mason County
17
18
19
20 ORDER
21
22 The Court having been advised of the matters herein,hereby enters the above
23
24 Stipulation this day of 2005.
25
26
27
28
29 The Honorable
30
31
32 Presented by:
33
34
35 PERKINS COIF LLP MASON COUNTY
36 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
37
38 By
39 Alexander W. Mackie,WSBA#6404 By
40
41 Attorneys for Petitioners Mile Clift,WSBA#
42 Chief Deputy Prosecutor
43 Attorneys for Mas on County
44
45
46
47
STIPULATION AND ORDER AGREEING Perkins Coie LLP
TO RECORD PREPARATION,BRIEFING 111 Market Street N.E., Suite 200
SCHEDULE,AND HEARING DATE-3 Olympia,Washington 98501-1008
Phone: (360)956-3300
[58397-0001/SIA51920.275]
Fax: (360)956-1208
Vd/V4/LV Vb 10 . 4V r hA 4V000(L I Z)4 1 1UL,, nr-nL CJ I n I G 1I'It . WJ vv . v..
°00
tj� MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Selfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elmo (360) 482-5269
_ Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA98584
A
February 28, ZUW
Mark Anderson
13121 44th Avenue Ct. NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332-8825
RE: VAR2004-00033
Dear Mr. Anderson:
It appears that the Variance approved to build a home within the buffer of Pickering Passage has or
is about to expire. Chapter 15.09 (below) states that the permit expires two years from the date of
the approval. You may request the hearing examiner for an extension if you have paperwork
showing that less than two years has passed since the date of final approval (such as the Superior
Court decision). If the two years has Iapsed since the final approval, you will need to reapply for the
Variance. A current Resource Ordinance Variance application is enclosed.
Mason County Code Title 15.09.100 Final decision.
(c)Time Limit for Action. Where not otherwise provided by law, no pe exemption
authorizing construe hall ext of more than five years
9No Nib RiRi I � or review authority, in the case o an
1Pet4fit`sha review the permit and upon a showing
of good cause,may extend the initial two-year period by permit for one year. Otherwise
the permit terminates; provided,that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has
requested such review and extension prior to the expiration date.
Don't hesitate to call me at (360) 427-9670 extension 593, if you have any questions. Please send
documentation of final approval date to the following address:
Mason County Plarming
ATTN; Rebecca Hersha, Planner
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Sincerely,
i
i
Rebecca Hersha, Planner II
Mason County Department of Community Development
07/28/05 12:51 FAX 3609561208 PERKINS COIE 11 004
1
2 �)RAF*
3
4
5
6
7 The Honorable
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
15 FOR MASON COUNTY
16
17 RICHARD SCOTT and PING SUN,husband
18 and wife; and MARK A. ANDERSON, NO. 05-2-00507-0
19
20 Petitioners, STIPULATION AND ORDER
21 AGREEING TO RECORD
22 23 V. PREPARATION, BRIEFING
24 SCHEDULE, AND HEARING DATE
25 MASON COUNTY,
26 Clerk's Action Required:
27 Respondent. Hearing Set for:
28 at am/pm
29
30 STIPULATION
31
32
33 Pursuant to RCW 3 6.70C.080(4)-(5),via telephone conference of July 6, 2005, the
34
35 parties through their respective counsel agreed to waive the initial hearing date and to
36
37 instead file a stipulated order pertaining to jurisdiction and procedural issues.
38
39 1. Jurisdictional Issues: There are no jurisdictional issues in dispute.
40
41 2. Procedural issues:
42 a. The County shall have approximately three weelft from the
43 �_'"_
4-4
45 date of this Stipulation to prepare and certify the record, or until / , 2005. All
S
46
47 pages shall be sequentially number-stamped, and one copy shall be sent to Petitioners'
STIPULATION AND ORDER AGREEING Perkins Coie up
TO RECORD PREPARATION, BRIEFING 111 Market Street N.E.,Suite 200
SCHEDULE,AND HEARING DATE- 1 Olympia,Washington 98501-1008
(59397-0001/SU51920.275] Phone: (360)956-3300
Fax: (360)956-1208
MASON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,STATE OF WASHINGTON
RICHARD SCOTT and PING SUN, )
Husband and wife; and MARK.A. ) No. 05 2 00507 0
ANDERSON, )
IDENTIFICATION AND
Petitioners, ) CERTIFICATION OF THE RECORD
V. )
MASON COUNTY, )
Respondent. )
I,Grace Miller,declare under penalty of perjury to the best of my knowledge and ability
as follows:
I am over the age of 18 and am competent to testify.
I have been a planner with the Mason County Planning Department,in Mason County
Washington, since 1986.
I am the planner who presented the Richard Scott variance to the Mason County Hearing
Examiner before it was appealed to court, as captioned above.
I have personal familiarity with the record in this case. Part of my job duties include
keeping track of the record in hearings where I am presenting a case before the Hearing
Examiner.
Pursuant to the stipulated order,attached is an index of the documents that constitute"the
Identification and certification of record Michael Clift
Mason County Prosecutor's Office
PO Box 639
Shelton,WA 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.239
FAX:(360)427-7754
1
record"in this case. These documents include the record before the Hearing Examiner,the
decision of the Hearing Examiner,the notice of that decision, a copy of applicable portions of the
comprehensive plan,two superior court decisions,a copy of the Mason County Resource
Ordinance(chapter 17.01 Mason County Code as adopted,chapter 8.52 MCC as codified)that
was applicable to the variance in question and a copy of the applicable version of Title 15 (the
"development code")which governs the procedural processing of permits. This copy of Title 15
was applicable to the variance in question. Also attached are true copies of the documents
themselves. Some documents might have been reduced proportionately to fit in an 8.5 by 11 inch
format.
Respectfully submitted this August ,2005.
Grace Miller,Mason County Lead Planner
Identification and certification of record Michael Gift
Mason County Prosecutor's Office
PO Box 639
Shelton,WA 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.239
FAX:(360)427-7754
2
Grace Miller ID and cert of record.doc Page 3
CASE INDEX
Zimmaro
VAR2003-00018
Index# Date Description
1 October 20,2003
Exhibit 1: Staff Report
2 Attachment A of Staff Report: Regulations cited
3 May 1, 2003 Exhibit 2: Variance Application
4 May 12,2003 Attachment A of Variance Application: Variance from
Standards Information
5 May 12,2003 Attachment B of Variance Application: Aerial photo
of property and surrounding land; date of photo
unknown.
6 May 12,2003 Attachment C of Variance Application: First Draft
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Plan by
Applicants
7 Unknown Attachment D of Variance Application: Site plans
8 July 14, 2003; Attachment E of Variance Application: Habitat
October 6,2003 Management Plan by The Coot Company
9 June 2003 Exhibit 3: Maps of area and property provided by
County staff
10 June—October Exhibit 4: Photos: Pictures of subject property by
2003 County staff
11 June 2003 Attachment A of Photos: 1995 orthographic photo of
area.
12 Exhibit 5: Correspondence
13 September 26,2003 Attachment A of Correspondence: Letter from
Bjorgen Bauer to Count
14 August 18,2003 Attachment B of Correspondence: Letter from County
to applicant
15 August 18,2003 Attachment C of Correspondence: Enclosure sent to
applicant from County of Mason County Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance residential construction
standards.
16 August 5,2003 Attachment D of Correspondence: Letter from Bjorgen
Bauer to County
17 July 17, 2003 Attachment E of Correspondence: Letter from County
to applicant
18 Received Attachment F of Correspondence: Letter from Bjorgen
July 17, 2003 Bauer to County
Identification and certification of record Michael Clift
Mason County Prosecutor's Office
PO Box 639
Shelton,WA 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.239
FAX:(360)427-7754
3
Grace Miller- ID and cert of record.doc Page 4
19 June 25,2003 Attachment G of Correspondence: Facsimile from
l3 or en Bauer of site Geotechnical assessment
20 May 16,2003 Attachment H of Correspondence:Notification of
Incomplete Application from County to applicant
21 May 14,2003 Attachment I of Correspondence: Notification of
Incomplete Application from County to applicant
22 May 14,2003 Attachment J of Correspondence: Notification of
Incomplete Application from County to applicant
23 May 5,2003 Attachment K of Correspondence: Notification of
Incomplete Application from County to applicant
24 May 5,2003 Attachment L of Correspondence: Notification of
Incomplete Application from County to applicant
25 October 29,2003 Attachment M of Correspondence: Letter from
County staff to Hearings Examiner,Mr. Olbrechts.
26 October 29,2003 Attachment M of Correspondence: Copy of Mason
County Aquatic Management Areas Ordinance in
effect in 1995.
27 October 29,2003 Attachment N of Correspondence: Copy of Mason
County Shoreline Master Program residential
development standards in effect in 1995.
28 October 27,2003 Attachment O of Correspondence: Facsimile of letter
from Mr. John E. Diehl to Mason County
29 Exhibit 6: Photographs
30 Submitted October Attachment A of photographs: Three pictures
28,2003 taken 10/20/03 by applicant and corresponding
descriptions
31 Submitted October Attachment B of photographs: Six pictures taken
28,2003 11/25/94 by applicant and corresponding description
32 Submitted October Attachment C of photographs: Eight pictures taken
28,2003 10/23/03 by County staff after recent severe rain event
caused flooding
33 November 24,2003 Exhibit 7: Notice of Decision of Variance request
34 November 24,2003 Attachment A of Notice of Decision of Variance
request: Mason County Hearings Examiners Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision
35 October 16,2003 Exhibit 8: Affidavit of Publication
36 May 1,2003 Mason County Resource Ordinance
37 December 14,2002 Mason County Code,Title 15, as amended
38 January 14, 2003 Title 15 amendments
I
Identification and certification of record Michael Clift
Mason County Prosecutor's Office
PO Box 639
Shelton,WA 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.239
FAX:(360)427-7754
4
J
13 :06:22 Tue Aug 23, 2005
JSM007 DISPLAY DOCKET MASON SUPERIOR 08-23-05 13 :04 1 OF 3
CASE#: 03-2-01093-0 JUDGMENT# NO JUDGE ID:
TITLE: JOHN & NICKI ZIMMARO V MASON COUNTY
NOTE1:
NOTE2 :
CAUSE: LUP LAND USE PETITION STATUS: CMPL DATE: 06/04/2004
SUB# DATE CODE DESCRIPTION/NAME SECONDARY
12 12 2003 $FFR FILING FEE RECEIVED 110.00
ATPO1 BJORGEN, THOMAS ROSS
- 12 12 2003 CICS CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET
1 12 12 2003 SM SUMMONS
2 12 12 2003 PT PETITION - LAND USE
3 12 16 2003 AFSR AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF SERVICE
4 12 16 2003 AFSR AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF SERVICE
5 12 16 2003 AFSR AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF SERVICE
6 12 18 2003 NTAPR NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
7 12 18 2003 AFSR AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF SERVICE
8 12 19 2003 MT MOTION FOR LUP/SCHEDULING
9 12 19 2003 NTIS NOTICE OF ISSUE 01-26-2004MT
ACTION LAND USE PETITION INITIAL HEARING
10 12 22 2003 AFSR AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF SERVICE
11 01 26 2004 HSTKPA CANCELLED: PLAINTIFF/PROS REQUESTED
? F1=Help Enter=Process F7=Bwd F8=Fwd PA1=Cancel
IIIII)IIIII IIII�II Illll I II IIII IIII�II III III�I NCI IIII 17914459
MASON COUNTY TITLE INS CO EASMT 22.00 M"on Co, WA
After recording return to:
Phyllis Anderson II•FFIOXiff .�
No..........
5210 Old Stump Dr NW WN.AE.AI ESTATE
Gig Harbor, WA 98332 �XaSE TAX
FXEMPT
SEP 0 3 2003
USA Grantors: Phyllis M. Anderson, Mark A. And�-9RasnLIFA d Shores
Homeowners Association
Grantees: Phyllis M. Anderson, Mark A. Anderson
Abbrev. Legal Desc. Lots 22 and 25 to 28, Island Shores 3rd Add.
Parcel Nos. 12018 52 00022, 00025, 00026, 00027, 00028
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, PHYLLIS M. ANDERSON, as her separate estate, is the owner
of land in Mason County, Washington, particularly described as
follows:
Lot twentysix (26) , twentyseven (27) and twentyeight (28) ,
Island Shores Third Addition, Volume 9 of Plats, pages 41 and
42, records of Mason County, Washington.
WHEREAS, MARK ALVIN ANDERSON, as his separate property is the
owner of land in Mason County, Washington, particularly described
as follows:
Lot twentyfive (25) , Island Shores Third Addition, Volume 9
of Plats, pages 41 and 42, records of Mason County,
Washington.
WHEREAS, ISLAND SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Washington
corporation, is the owner of land in Mason County, Washington,
particularly described as follows:
Lot twentytwo (22) , Island Shores Third Addition, Volume 9 of
Plats, pages 41 and 42, records of Mason County, Washington.
WHEREAS, the plat of Island Shores Third Addition establishes
easements for access and utility purposes over portions of Lots
twentyfive (25) and twentysix (26) for the mutual benefit of said
Lots.
WHEREAS, the undersigned wish to establish alternative means of
access to Lots twentyfive (25) and twentysix (26) , and to
terminate the access and utility easements established on the
plat, except for the utility easement over Lot twentyfive (25) .
WHEREAS, Lot twentysix (26) does not need the access easement
established on the plat over Lot twentyfive (25) , as it can be
accessed through the adjoining Lots twentyseven (27) and
twentyeight (28) , which are held in common ownership with Lot
twentysix (26) . ISLAND SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. has
agreed to grant an easement for access and utilities over Lot
twentytwo (22) for the benefit of Lot twentyfive (25) , so that Lot
twentyfive (25) no longer will need the access and utility
easement established on the plat over Lot twentysix (26) .
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits, the
undersigned hereby agree to the following:
1) ISLAND SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Washington
corporation,, pursuant to a resolution of its Board of Directors
dated , 2003 authorizing the execution of this
Agreement, hereby conveys and quit claims to MARK ALVIN ANDERSON,
as his separate property, perpetual, non-exclusive easements for
ingress, egress, drainage and utility purposes, particularly
described as follows:
(IIIII IIIII IIIIIII IIIII IIII IIII IIIIIII III III)IIIf IIII Pass: 2 of 4
1791440p
MAEON COUNTY TITLE i4 CO ENBMT 22.00 Mason Co, YA
a) A strip of land, 16 feet in width, being 8 feet width on each
side of the centerline of a blacktopped road, as now
constructed and in use over and across Lot twentytwo (22)
described herein, running from its intersection with the
right-of-way line of Plantation Way, in a generally,
Northeasterly and Southeasterly direction to its terminus
near the boundary line common to Lots twentytwo (22) and
twentyfive (25) ;
b) A strip of land, 16 feet in width, being 8 feet in width on
each side of a centerline particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the intersection of the boundary line common to
Lots twentytwo (22) and twentyfive (25) , with the boundary
line of Lot twentyfour (24) of said plat; thence North 68
degrees 47100" East, along the boundary line common to Lots
twentytwo (22) and twentyfive (25) , 72 feet, to the POINT OF
BEGINNING of the herein described centerline; thence
Northwesterly, in a straight line, to the centerline of the
existing blacktopped road referenced above, and the terminus
of the herein described centerline.
Said easement shall be for the benefit of Lot twentyfive (25)
described herein.
2) MARK ALVIN ANDERSON, as his separate property, hereby conveys
and quit claims to PHYLLIS M. ANDERSON, as her separate estate,
and hereby terminates, cancels and extinguishes from the record
title all of his right, title and interest in and to a private
easement for access and utility purposes over that portion of Lot
twentysix (26) described herein which is 15 feet in width, as said
easement was established on the plat of Island Shores Third
Addition, Volume 9 of Plats, pages 41 and 42, records of Mason
County, Washington. Said easement shall no longer have any legal
effect on any of the land described herein.
3) PHYLLIS M. ANDERSON, as her separate estate, hereby conveys
and quit claims to MARK ALVIN ANDERSON, as his separate property,
her right, title and interest in and to a private easement for
access purposes over that portion of Lot twentyfive (25) described
herein which is 15 feet in width, as said easement was established
on the plat of Island Shores Third Addition, volume 9 of Plats,
pages 41 and 42, records of Mason County, Washington, reserving,
however, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for the installation,
operation, maintenance, repair and possible future replacement of
utilities, public and private, including the right of ingress and
egress for such purposes, over, under and across said private
easement.
The provisions of this Easement Agreement shall be binding on the
undersigned, their heirs, successors and/or assigns, and shall be
binding on, and run with the titles to the land described herein.
DATED this Zh,�day of 2003.
IIIIIIIII��II�I��IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIilll�ll�llll�ll�lllll! 1791of 4
4451
IASON COUNTY TITLE INS CO EASIIT 22.00 Mason Co, IjA
EASEMENT AGREEMENT (Cont.)
PHYYLUISeM. ANDERSON ,It .
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF 0,/yt11 )
On this day personally appeared before me PHYLLIS M. ANDERSON
to me known (or proven on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to
be the individual described in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that SHE signed the same as
HER free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
GIVEN undvlg7% and official seal this day of
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the $t �
of Washington, residing at �(o
%Jr'• f `�".' My commission expires (C�103J
MARK ALVIN ANDERSON
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF \ )
On this day personally appeared before me MARK ALVIN ANDERSON
to me known (or proven on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to
be the individual described in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that HE signed the same as
HIS free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this aLday of
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the t e
of Washington, residing at
":•'R�"'c�� '� My commission expires p a�
IIIIII IIIN III�III IIIII N!�IIO IIINII III���11 Ilil I��I 17900 4459
MASON COUNTY TIRE INS CO EABMT 22.00 Mason Co, YA
EASEMENT AGREEMENT (Cont.)
ISLAND SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
�1
By: � L��Y.GQ�o-z� ,',SF',r'A�By.;.
Its P -,i e I', Q �ti. r.5 1 y I
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF
On this p rsonally appea -lie ` e
e Icy rft` and ' ��_ 1 � t S C o to me
provb�n'Son t e I Pasis of satisfactory""�evidence to be the
��I �&
and (�G -" , of ISLAND
SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., t corporation that executed
the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for
the ses and purpo es therein mention and on oath stated that
and S�4.y���c � Sc oif are
authorized to execute the said instrument on behalf of said
corporation.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this �i day of
2003.
C1
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State
of Washington, residing at "14�
My commission expires 0� 0�
VJ/V4/YVVb 10. 4V rnn Z3id3fLID4 IluGo nLnL GOInIG inU. .�.... , — .
REI,EIVED K FILED IN
• MA Y VED 00_ CLERK'S OFFICE
AY 0'5 2006 100b MAY -2 A q: Ss
c
PERKrN r~:1,kSo1�I o. ivo%.
s
�4/E ��;� �1r� ;F; ros, co. CLERK
5 DE
7 THE HONORABLE JAMES B. SAWYER, 11
8
9
10
l I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
12 FOR MASON COUNTY
13
14 RICHARD SCOTT and PING SUN,
15 husband and wife; and MARK A. NO. 05-2-00507-0
i6 ANDERSON,
17 [Proposed] ORDER
18
19 Petitioners,
20
22
23 MASON COUNTY,
24
25 Respondent.
26
27
28 This matter came before the court on February 24, 2006, based on proceedings under
29
30 Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW("LUPA"). The record below was certified
31
32 and the matter briefed.
33
34 Petitioners challenged Condition 1 imposed by Mason County as pan of a 1-Tearing
35
36 Exmi-dner decision of April 26,2005. arid an Order for Clarification on May 13, 2005
37
38 ("Decision") granting a variance to a h6j.tat buffer requirement, imposed through Mason
39
40 County's Resource Ordinance,MCC 17.0t.I 10, Table 3. Condition 1 stated that the
41
42 jh]eight of residence to be limited to one story, a maximum of 18' to the top roofline."
43
4s
45
46
47
Perkins Cole 1,Lr
111 Market Street N.E.,Suite 200
Olympia, Washington 98501-1008
ORDER - I Phone: (360)956-3300
SL060760.211 Fax: (360)956-1206
VOI V4JZVVU 10.4V r nn ZZIdtit)f Z 134 I IUCJ nCML CJ 1 M I C INU. wJ vvYf vv i
DECISION ON T14E MFRITS
2
3 Upon review of the record, case briefs,and arguments of Counsel.the Court is"clearly
4
5 convinced" Mason County's conditioning of the Petitioners' variance !approval with
6
7 Condition 1 was clearly erroneous.
8
9 1. The record below is not supported by substantial evidence to support the
10
1 t height restrictions of Condition 1 on the basis of view blockage of existing, future homes. or
I?
13 front or to the water.and on this basis the standard for relief in RCW 36,70C.130(1)(c) is
14
15 met. The record contains no substantial evidence that view blockage due to construction on
16
17 the Scott lot would be significant, substantial or material and the imposition of Condition I
19
19 on this basis meets the standard for relief in RCW 36.70C.130(l)(c).
20
21 ?. The record below shows that the environmental issues addressed by the
22
33 Resource Ordinance were satisfactorily resolved by the variance application and its response
24
25 to environmental issues and mitigation. The record fails to demonstrate substantial evidence
26
27 of any nexus between the house height on the Scott lot acid the environmental or habitat
28
29 buffer setback concerns for which the Resource Ordinance variance was requested and on
30
31 this basis the standard for relief in RCW 36,70C.130(i)(c) is met.
32
33 3. The Hearing Examiner for Mason County identified no nexus between the
34
35 height of the Scott house and the Resource Ordinance requirements and on this basis the
36
37 height limit was an erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case. The Hearing
38
39 Examiner for Mason County further failed to identify any statutory. code or objective factual
40
41 basis for limiting the size of the Scott house to one story under the facts of this case based
42
4; upon some "average" of the size of nearby houses. and as such Condition I arises from an
44
45 erroneous application of the law to the facts of this case. In each instance, the meeting the
46
47 standard for relief of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d).
Perkins C01e LLP
I I 1 Market Street N.E., Suite 200
Olympia, Washington 99501-1008
ORDER - 2 Phone: (360)956-3300
SL060760,21 1 Fay.: (360)956.1208
V3/V4/1VV8 1'J:4V rRR Lt13ti5 f L 134 I lUt6 MLAL t6 1 A l t INN. IFj V Vj/V V I
I 4_ The mere ability to see a house does not constitute "view blockage" under the
3 Mason County Shoreline Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act: and the
a
5 assumption in the Hearings Examiner's decision that the facts of this case warranted a limit
6
on house height to prevent view blockage was an erroneous application of the law to the
g facts satisfying the criteria for relief of RCW 36.70C.I 30(1)(b) and (d)
to
I 1 5. The Hearing)examiner for Mason County failed to identify any law or policy
12
13 supporting the house height limit under the facts of this case. As such. Condition 1 was
14
15 based upon an erroneous application of the law to the facts of this case, meeting the standard
16
17 for relief in RCW 36.70C.I 30(l)(b) and (d).
18
19 Ill. CONCLUSION
20
21 LLPA's standards of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b),(c) and(d) for relief have been met and
22
23 the appeal of Petitioners in this case is granted.
24
25 IT 1S THEREFORE ORDERED;
26
27 Petitioners' appeal challenging Condition 1 in the Hearing Examiner decision of
28
29 April 26. 2005, and Order for Clarification of May 13. 2005. is granted and Condition 1 and
30
31 supporting findings are stricken for all purposes and have no further force and effect.
32
33 Except as modified herein, the decision of the hearings examiner is affirmed and the matter
34
35 remanded to the County to reissue the variance approval of the Resource Ordinance striking
36
37 Condition 1 within thirty(30) days of this Order.
38
39
40
41 DATE o� Q
42
43
44
45 4onorable James eSawyer, 1I
46 '
47
Perkins Cole LLP
1 I I Market Street N.E., Suite 200
Olympia. Washington 99501-1008
ORDER - 3 Phone: (360)956.3300
s 060760.21 I Fax: (360)956-1208
V6/V4/LVV0 10. 4V rAAS Z3Jb0 i C IJ4 11UC0 nEnL Lo i n i L L11 lam. 'Ed-f vv
OFFICE OF THE
MASON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
GARY P-BURLESON P.O-BOX 639
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 521 N.FOURTH STREET
SHELTON,WASHINGTON 96584
PHONE(360)427-9670 ext.417
May 3, 2006
Alexander W. Mackie RECEIVED
Perkins Coie LLP MAY 0 5 200E
111 Market Street N.E., Suite 200
Olympia, WA 98501-1008 PERKINS COIE
Mr. Mackie,
Please find enclosed the Agreed Order signed by Judge Sawyer on May 2, 2006
in the case of Richard Scott v. Mason County, Case Number 05-2-00507-0. If
you have any questions please call me at the number below.
Sincerely,
T 'ti n
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Attorney for Mason County
(360) 427-9670 ext. 417
Vj/V4/2VVtf I tl:4V r nn ; �jJbb fie 134 I lut6 NtnL to i n l t INU. Lyj V V I V V I
I
6
7 Presentment Waived by
9 �y. -
10 fTUlexayider W. Mackie, WSBA 96404
11 Perkins Coie LLP
12 Attomeys for Petitioners
13
14
I:
16
17 presented by Mason County f
41
21
» T.J. MIa , W A 431152
�; De v Pros utino Attome)'
24 '?s.ttorney f r. mason County
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
6
37
38
39
40
11
42
43
44
45
.16
47
Perkins Cnir 1.1.r
1 I 1 Market Street N.E.. Sulk 200
Oh•mpis, Nklashiniton 98501-1O08
ORDF,R - 41 Phone: (360)956-3300
SLOW76o.-I I I fax: (360)956-1208
..,` ictures in the zones where elevations or depths have been estab-
ed.
determine if flood insurance is available in this community,
tact your insurance agent,or call the National Flood Insurance
36 gram,at (800)638-6620.
4
ZONE C
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2000 0 2000
T.21 N.
T.20 N.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
6
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
MASON COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
12
PANEL 225 OF 300
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
N �
Cr M
13 COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
18 530115 0225 C
�Y MA_ EFFECTIVE DATE:
MAY 17, 1988
7
/24 19 Federal Emergency Management Agency
r
KEY TO MAP
500-Year Flood Boundary—
ZONE B
100I-Year Flood Boundary --
Zohe Designations
I
10�-Year Flood Boundary
50 -Year Flood Boundary
DNE C I
Base Flood Elevation Line 513
With Elevation In Feet**
-AND Where
Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987)
Where Uniform Within Zone**
Elevation Reference Mark RM7x
Zone D Boundary
ZONE A River Mile •101.5
**Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
ZONE EXPLANATION
A Areas of 100 year flood; base flood elevations and
'r flood hazard factors not determined.
AO Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths
e, are between one (1) and three(3)feet;average depths
of inundation are shown, but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
A1H Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood
elevations are shown, but no flood hazard factors
are determined.
A1-A30 Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors determined.
j ? A99 Areas of 100-year flood to be protected by flood
Qprotection system under construction; base flood
V elevations and flood hazard factors not determined.
B Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-
V
year flood
year flood;or certain areas subject to 100
cu ing with average depths less than one(1)foot or where
- a the contributing drainage area is less than one square
mile;or areas protected by levees from the base flood.
(Medium shading)
-
C Areas of minimal flooding.(No shading)
D Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards.
V Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
j not determined.
V1-V30 Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action);base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
determined.
NOTES TO USER
Cer ain areas not in the special flood hazard areas(zones A and V)
maJ be protected by flood control structures.
Thi map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance
Program;it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flood-
ing, particularly from local drainage sources of small size, or all
planimetric features outside special flood hazard areas.
Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of the shoreline
shown on this map.
For' adjoining map panels, see separately printed Index To Map
PanVels.
INITIAL IDENTIFICATION:
AUGUST 9, 1977
Mason Co. Land Records
c
MASON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
Sheh«ti Wmhtrg 98594
0 DATE: June 13a'. 2005
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Grace Miller, DCD—Planner
FROM: Alan A. Tahja, P/W-Co. Hydr. Engr. WO#PLG-05
SUBJ: Geo-Report Review NAME:_ Scott SFR(a,Harstene Island
VA 004-00033 SHR2004-0002
Grace,
A geotechnical report prepared for the development of Lot 25, Division 3, Island Shores,
Harstene Island,has been received and reviewed by Public Works.
The report appears to satisfactorily address County requirements for geotechnical reporting. The
report's author indicates that, in his opinion, the proposed development of the property will not
cause stability problems for either the subject property or neighboring properties. From the
contents of the report,I recommend accepting the report as satisfying the County's
requirement(s) for stability investigation and geotechnical reporting. The 25 foot building setback
from the toe of the easterly bluff,and the 20 foot building setback from the crest of the bulkhead
roughly located along the westerly property boundary/Mean High Tide Line recommended in the
report should be incorporated into the site's development plans and made conditions for permit
issuance. Other recommendations and conclusions contained in the report should also be made
conditions for project approval.
Erosion and sediment control measures recommended in the report should be made conditions
for permit issuance. The migration or release of silty water or mud from the applicant's property
will be considered a violation of County and State water quality protection regulations.
In summary,the geotechnical report appears acceptable, and the re-development of the lot for
residential development should be allowed to proceed, subject to the engineer's
recommendations.
Please feel free to contact me at County extension 461 if you have any questions regarding these
comments, or if you feel any features need further discussion or attention.
Sincerely,
AL
A Ian A. Tahj
File: H:\WP\GEO\Reviews\Scott-2.doc
Mason Co. Land Records
WORK ORDER -PUBLIC WORKS DEPTWe: .
W. PERMIT#�
•�.� Ste- � �work oror
Nwnben
Regt�sdmbortm
.,y" �or ,.' � oats:
r
CHARGE TO:
NAME
AGENCY/COMPANY
lXlJNG ADEss
PHONN
IN PWL In Cm d
to womi
• w�.otatiaac ` '� e
. . " E•a>Mt.d Ian obc.
r Q=>f N1AT®TOTAL V*
MATEMO L tIm
a l Ad"ooa _ tom, rRortec
llY5�3K� Now ;,gm HoYrs �
TOTAL
EQUIPMENT U8ED:
MATERIAL WED:
SI BILLED DATE TOTAL ALL
-----�1/1�- PAID DATE RECA CW���
Mason Co. Land Records
'`_ FIE CEIVEI)
JUN 0 8 September 20,2004 2005
MR.RICHARD SCOTT MASON CO.RMNING DEPT.
512 East Plantation Way
Shelton,WA 98584-9542
Regarding:Geotechnical Report for a Property(Lot 25,Division 3,Island Shores)located at the above
address,Mason County,Washington
Dear Richard:
I We have carried out the studies necessary to complete the above-referenced report;the following letter will
embody that report,and provide you with all of our findings and opinions,and make recommendations to
be implemented during any future development of the property.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is located on the eastern shoreline of Harstine Island,with an approximately 100-foot frontage
onto Case Inlet. It extends out to the mean low tide line,with the western boundary some 80 feet inland
from the mean high tide line. The high tide line is marked by a rock bulkhead averaging about 6 feet in
height that extends all the way across the lot and beyond to a community beach that adjoins the subject
property to the north. A paved driveway that provides access to the community beach from East Plantation
Way also provides access to the site on the north side. Vehicular access is also available by way of a
driveway that extends from the southwest corner of the main part of the lot up to East Plantation Way by
way of an easement. This driveway will provide future access to the lot and is already being used by the
neighbor to the south. Appearances suggest that the level part of the lot,extending from the rock bulkhead
back to the toe of the bluff is man-made;the toe of the bluff is approximately 10 to 15 feet to the west of the
western property line.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
On Wednesday,August 112004 the writer visited the site and inspected all surface features. An open
utility trench some five feet in depth was inspected to determine soil types and subsurface conditions,and in
addition,two exploratory test pits were excavated close to the proposed building site. A number of
photographs were taken at that time also;some of these are attached to this report.
FINDINGS
i
As noted above,the lot extends across the beach to the mean low tide line and extends inland to within 10
to 15 feet(depending on where one measures it)from the toe of the bluff. A rock bulkhead has been
constructed along or slightly above the mean high tide line and compacted fill has been placed behind it so
that the area between the west property line and the mean high tide line bulkhead is now more or less level
(see photographs.) The property contains no trees,the only vegetation being grass,but there are some small
trees and areas containing dense brush along the toe of the bluff,and the slope of the bluff,although steep,
contains a number of trees and is mostly covered with dense brush. Appearances suggest that the lower 6 to
8 feet of the bluff slope has been steepened by human activity;this may well have been the source of the fill
that was used to level the area out to the bulkhead. The soil profile revealed in the utility trench and also in
the test pits was similar,consisting of a layer of very dense,compacted silty sand and gravel overlying
relatively fine beach sand. The latter was noted to exhibit minor shell content. The native soil present at
the site,immediately behind the beach,is described by the"Soil Survey of Mason County,Washington"
(compiled by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture)
I
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining Wahl,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil do Rock Mechanics, Stormwater Management
-g-
as "Sinclair shotty loam", with the designation "So, 5 — 15 percent slopes", and is given the capability
subclass IVs. The Survey defines the latter thus:
"Soils in class W have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants, require very careful
cultivation, or both. Subclass Ws - Medium to moderately coarse textured soils with low to medium
fertility." The Survey specifically describes Sinclair shotty loam as follows:
"This gently rolling and rolling (sic) soil is the dominant soil of the Sinclair series. A thin, very dark
brown,acid organic mat is on the surface. The upper 3 to 4 inches of mineral soil is medium acid,granular
and friable, grayish-brown shotty loam (very dark grayish-brown when moist). This is underlain by
medium acid, friable and granular, light brownish-gray shotty loam that continues to depths of 10 to 12
inches. The shot are grayish and very pronounced. This shotty loam is underlain by pale brown subsoil
that reaches to depths of 20 to 24 inches. It is faintly stained and mottled with yellowish-brown and light
gray and is massive or has a weak,subangular blocky structure. The gravelly loam is hard when dry but
friable when moist; it contains much less shot than the horizons above. Between the subsoil and the
underlying till is a more sandy layer,3 to 6 inches thick,that is firm and moderately mottled,contains very
few shot,and is massive. The firm till very abruptly changes to cemented till at depths of 28 to 42 inches.
The upper 2 to 6 inches of cemented till is, normally, a sequence of thin plates consisting of mottled and
stained, strongly cemented,grayish gravelly sandy loam. To depths of many feet, the till is granitic, light
gray,and strongly cemented." ...
The Survey then goes on to discuss the agricultural suitability of the soil type. The foregoing does not
exactly describe the soil profile that we observed, but the area under discussion has been graded and the
upper soil horizon exposed in the test pits appears to consist of native soil from elsewhere in the immediate
vicinity that has been disturbed during grading and placement.
CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATIONS
General Comments
Based upon the results of our investigations we can find no geotechnical reason why this lot should not be a
feasible location for a single-family dwelling. Although the site contains fill it is very dense, apparently
consisting of mixed native soil from surrounding areas,and of structural quality at all the locations wherein
we observed it. Although the lower bluff face is very steep it shows no signs of instability such as active
talus slopes or overhangs,but it is in any case several feet beyond the property boundary and therefore shall
remain undisturbed. The upper part of the slope contains dense vegetation, mainly in the form of ground
covering brush, and there is dense vegetation along the toe, all of which points to a lack of erosion or
spalling of material from the bluff face. There is a house of apparently recent construction on top of the
bluff, immediately above the community beach area, slightly to the north of the proposed building area on
the subject property,and apparently within a few feet of the crest. We were not able to access this property
but we would assume that an engineering study was carried out on the site prior to the issuance of a
building permit,and if this assumption is correct then we may conclude that it was deemed safe to place the
i dwelling close to the crest of the slope. Anecdotal information we obtained indicates that the stormwater
runoff from this property is being properly and safely managed and that it poses no threat to the stability of
the slope.
I
i
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining Walls,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil&Rock Mechanics, Stormwater Management
Soils Characteristics
As noted in previous sections,a section of the proposed building area(that part close behind the bulkhead)
contains a surface layer of fill,but it is of structural quality, apparently free of debris, and in a very dense
condition. We therefore see no need for its' removal. The underlying beach gravel contains some small
shell fragments, but these are neither numerous enough, nor large enough to be of concern. The beach
gravel that we observed was in a well drained,dry condition. We are therefore of the opinion that the soil
present at the site possesses the necessary bearing capacity to support a residence on conventional shallow
foundations,i.e.,continuous and/or spread footings. Footings may be designed for allowable loads of 2000
psf; this should adequately compensate for temporarily increased loads due to seismic activity and/or
sustained high wind.
Buffer&Setback
In our opinion, in the interests of safety the most critical setback should be that from the foot of the bluff.
Although we were unable to find any indications of instability the possibility of surface material spalling
from the face of the slope cannot be absolutely ruled out. Sustained heavy rain combined with a major
seismic event, for example, could trigger a slide event. The height of the bluff immediately behind the
proposed building area is not more than 40 feet,and is,as previously noted,protected by dense vegetation,
therefore even if a slide event were to occur it is unlikely to be a major, deep seated catastrophic one, but
such an event could damage anything placed too close to the toe of the bluff. It is therefore strongly
recommended that a setback of at least 25 feet from the toe of the bluff be maintained for all construction.
With regard to the bulkhead it is recommended that a setback of at least 20 feet be maintained from it for
all construction. The bulkhead is no more than 6 feet in height and is in good condition and we were
unable to find any sections of it that showed damage or erosion from wave action. Violent wave action
during winter storms is unlikely to become a serious threat to the integrity of the bulkhead,as these waters
are relatively sheltered from the main force of winter storms, and the shoreline at this location roughly
parallels the direction of the winds that most commonly drive winter storms in this area, making serious
wave action even more unlikely. Appearances suggest that the bulkhead has been in place for many years
without suffering noticeable damage. In terms of safety there is no doubt that it is more important to
maintain an adequate setback from the toe of the slope than from the bulkhead.
Landslide Hazard
I
With the qualifications mentioned in the previous section,we consider the likelihood of major slide activity
on the bluff face to be low. There is no evidence that the slope face was affected by the major earthquake
of February 2001 despite the fact that the epicenter of the earthquake was relatively close by. Provided that
an adequate setback from the toe is maintained we feel that the slope does not represent a significant safety
issue even if a slide did occur. The toe of the slope is beyond the property line so that the entire slope is on
another property,therefore there is no reason why construction activity should disturb it in any way. With
these precautions, and given the history of the area we feel that any safety hazard attributable to the
possibility of slide activity is low.
Drainage/Erosion Control
With regard to roof runoff the most obvious and convenient method of disposing of it would be to tight-line
it to the beach. The site soils are unlikely to provide a suitable location for the infiltration of stormwater
because of the presence of cemented substratum at relatively shallow depth. For this reason the wastewater
from the septic system is being pumped to a location off the property on top of the bluff and beyond East
Plantation Way. We are not in possession of all the details of this system,but understand that it has been
approved by the Mason County Health Department(see attached Figure.) The driveway runoff could also
be directed onto the beach, after being passed through a grass-lined ditch; the details of stormwater
management go beyond the scope of the present study,however. The septic tank(s)themselves are to be
i
t
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining Walls,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil& Rock Mechanics,Slormwater Management
C
-4
located at the rear of the lot,in the southwest corner adjacent to the foot of the entrance driveway. Because
of the level nature of the building site we do not believe any special erosion control measures will be
required during, or subsequent to construction. The only part of the property prone to erosion is the
entrance driveway sloping down from East Plantation Way;we understand that this is to be paved in such a
way that surface runoff will migrate to the centerline of the pavement and be directed to a grass-lined ditch
at the bottom of the slope,wherein it will be allowed to disperse. From our observations of the upper soil
horizon we are of the opinion that this system is a feasible and reasonable method of controlling the
driveway runoff.
Summary
Provided that our understanding of the proposed construction is correct, i.e., a single family residence that
will not in any way encroach upon the slope or the bulkhead,we are of the opinion that the site is safe and
stable and we can find no geotechnical reason why the project should not be allowed to proceed. This
conclusion is based upon the understanding that the recommendations of the preceding sections shall be
implemented,without exception.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices.
We make no warranty, either expressed or implied. The opinions expressed are based upon the results of
our investigations,and observable conditions at the site. They should not be applied to other, surrounding
properties. If conditions are encountered that appear to differ from those described in this report we
should be notified Immediately so that we may review the situation and if necessary, modify the
recommendations of this report. In the event that such notice is not forthcoming we reserve the right to
disclaim any or all of the recommendations and opinions expressed herein. This report is for the
information of our client,Mr.Richard Scott only. Its' reproduction and or transmittal to any third party by
any means, except In its' entirety, without the written authority of AML Geotechnical Services, Inc. is
prohibited. We would like to thank you for having given us this opportunity to provide you with
engineering services. Please contact us at 360-413-1745 should you have questions regarding any of the
contents of this report. This study has been carried out in association with GeoResources LLC, 5007
Pacific Highway East, Suite 20, Fife (tel. 253-896-1011) whose technical review we gratefully
acknowledge.
Yours very sincerely,
AML Geotechnical;Se7' esInc. Geolkesources LLC
Alastair Lumsden,P.Eng. '�' , G$0 urt W.Groesch,P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer/Principal �. Principal
I
I
19300
r VV" 00 1 Ol0
� a
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining Walls,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil&Rock Mechanics,Stormwater Management
C
a
A Rendix
C�
Mason Co. Land Records
.41VII. Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Groundwater Hydrology
VICINITY MAP
a._
SO
"r )
r !
j
ai
I
r
gym;. •x, .. J�r
2WX MA Qur t.aam.In&.;&2004 WT, c
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geotechnical Serpic+as, Inc.
Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Groundwater Hydrology
Y
w
V
r
c
4
"4e.�+�•_GiJ!• '.e#,:.♦ at y. sx1 f. r vt..'.R�,t�.t �Ye
View of the actual proposed building site. The toe of the bluff behind the lot is
just beyond the brush at upper right.
Mason Co. Land Records
AMI, Geotechnical Sergi, Inc.
Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Grounrhvater Hydrology
i
i
i
s
View of the lot from the entrance driveway. Actual building
site is beyond the shed,where the trailer is parked.
Mason Co. Land Records
AHL Geotechnical Sertict-4 Inc.
Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Groun&vater Hydrology
1t 2 �n
A�
z
i
.a s
} '
c e< n s s
T� k
r
View of the utility trench leading into the site. This clearly shows about 18 inches
of gravelly compacted fill overlying native beach gravel in the base of the trench.
Mason Co. Land Reco-r- as
AML Geoteehnical Services, Inc.
Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Groundwater Hydrology
7
a,
View of a test pit excavated adjacent to the proposed building footprint.
This shows the same soil profile as that noted in the utility trench, i.e.,
compacted gravelly fill overlying native beach graveL
Mason Co. Land Records
AMI Geotechnical Serviced,Ina
Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Groundwater Hyttlogy
iw-
IAIa.
IV
„
� r
— a
` e
Spoil flrom a teat pit eydtvatod adjsa»t to the proposed buiWiag footprint.
Now t1w gnvei emtmt of the native soil.
AML Geotechnica/Services,Inc.
Retaining Walls,Slope Stability Analyses,SOIL A Rock Mechanics,Stormwater Management
PLAN SHOWIN(;SErM RYLP LOCATION
(Technical Detalb arc not avaihble to as)
(Scale-1"a 100')
' plLOTS�a-% 6 3 X- E}o A% Tn � Ca.1almoA
R14k1' 4{�T U)'w fDW�ITfi5GM11rJ�►t'f'�Rt4vrT 7i AusGEa \
71ki.
)3o1L<<AF , IO V'A la- Lcrr 51Jot Lc Fall A3)i t� _9 U
ftA-rt BE Wr4R A Pox STL$LOCATtb us Nrr S
19CALL W re Zak
143 WbMz0f'L Lars.
SIM 6Mm6Y Z at'
. A lria CafUlRaly.E�rr" II t�O�+ � '� ✓� t. '
PAS
4/0tr y
3
O A R.tYt- 1 � OQ '
LIME04t Sr Ar A"
Jim
■V T -tl-DOoao 1� ) � \1\
J 1 t
1 L L 1 0j- p )
CRos6tue.S 1 '
date `� dMt-
CL%00 -T Ee ft�f
W%TALL$O MS T.Aci+
LVr fSVPJELhM1:p.
C CTt'C1GRC.roc" EUfte"►ltr
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geotechnical Services, Ina
Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Groundwater Hydrology
C / *01 SITE PLAN
Sale: 1"a 40'
(Not a Surrey,Vertical Daum Assumed)
A qtort*
Toe Lie d tie Wad
(ate)
b
10 - A
k TP—2 Zia,
Ts.ii(a) P •
sue
TP-1 y
6 A;
Afta
1-01
Approximate Teat Pit Lacatiolu
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geolechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining Walls,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil&Rock Mechanics,Stormwater Management
CROSS SECTION,A—A'
Scale: I"-20'
:................. .......�. _....i.. ......_ ..a..:...:..:... .
x•
� � � Y Y
:
i
t•..J
i { ......:......:....... t
'�..
,...
Face apog � a.....
i ..i...'...
} , Nord.Property Lis ...... ,.. 1 :: :::::
;...
;... ..... :. �..;..... . ...
..
i - a...>......_ ..... - :...
v
j
... .......�..:........... p
� ..... .. .
y...f ..
...{.......
..1.. ... .. ............. '
r ,
.... .....i...i...:...:...:...:.........i...... .. ... ... r
.. .. �-.. .r .. .. ... ....c. .. .. :4......:...
..}. ... r. ...... .>. <. .....
.T._. ...f..t.. ..f_. ._ .. .1...:. .`.
{ .- .....a.«-....-
77 ., i. ........1 ....>. ...
`1111 f. ` .....
a.. ....<... ..
•.
} v ... ... ;... ..
.. •�•� _ ..i. ..,... .....................
..
.. F ... ...... ... .....
C -
_ ... r..................... ... <..... ... ..... a..................
. s..
■
Maso Co. Land Records
RECEIVED w FILED Itd
' CO, CLERi{'S OFFICE
Z005 Ali
3
4 ok N FAT S6;A,i,TOS CC]. CLERK
s hItASGt4EcUTGR
6 pROS r�LrT�if
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
10 FOR MASON COUNTY
11
12 RICHARD SCOTT and PING SUN, husband
13 and wife; and MARK A. ANDERSON, NO. 05-2-00507-0
14
15 Petitioners, NOTE FOR INITIAL HEARING
16
17 V. Clerk's Action Required:
18
19 Civil Motions Calendar 7/11/05 1:30
20 MASON COUNTY,
21
22 Respondent.
23
24
25 Pursuant to RCW 36.70C.080, Petitioners note the above-entitled action for an initial
26
27 hearing on Monday, July 11, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.. The purpose of this hearing is to permit
28
29 the Court to (a)hear motions on jurisdictional and procedure issues for resolution at the
30
31 initial hearing, except that a motion to allow discovery may be brought sooner, per RCW
32
33 36.70C.080(2) and (b) set the date on which the record must be submitted; set a briefing
34
35 schedule; set a discovery schedule, if discovery is allowed; and set a date for the hearing or
36
37 trial on the merits, per RCW 36.70C.080(4). #
38
39 DATED: June 7, 2005. PERIQNS COIF LLP
40
41
42 By
43 Alexand W. Mackie, WSBA#6404
44 Attorneys for Petitioners
45
46
47
Perkins Coie LiD
111 Market Street N.E., Suite 200
NOTE FOR INITIAL HEARING- 1 Olympia,Washington 98501-1008
[/sio51580.1371 Phone: (360)956-3300
Fax: (360)956-1208
Maso Co. Land Records
RECEIVED a FILED IN
Z �� CO. CLERi;'S OFFICE
3 lOQS JUN -8 A 0,: 41
4 GO
5 M�R04- P= ,T g,,,n RT0S, C
6 �1. CLERK
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
10 FOR MASON COUNTY
11
12 1 RICHARD SCOTT and PING SUN, husband
13 and wife; and MARK A. ANDERSON, NO. 05-2-00507-0
14
15 Petitioners, DECLARATION OF SERVICE
16
17
18 V.
20 MASON COUNTY,
21
22 Respondent.
23
24
25 STATE OF WASHINGTON )
26 1COUNTY OF THURSTON ) ss
27
29
288 I, DOREEN MILWARD, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
30
31 Washington, declare that on June 7, 2005, I caused Petitioners'NOTE FOR INITIAL
32
33 HEARING and this Declaration of Service, to be hand delivered by June 8, 2005, to:
34
35 Mason County Prosecuting Attorneys Office Mason County Auditor
36 c/o Darren Nienaber, Deputy Prosecutor 411 N. 5 h St.
37 P Y
38 521 N. 41h St., Suite A Shelton, WA 98584
39 Shelton, WA 98584
40
41 DATED this 7u'day of June, 2005.
42
43 Doreen Milward
44
45
46
47
Perkins Coie w II
111 Market Street N.E., Suite 200 I
DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 Olympia, Washington 98501-1008
[58397-0001/SL051520.117] Phone: (360)956-3300
Fax: (360)956-1208
Mason Co. Land Records
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Belfair (360) 27SA467
Mason county Bidg.1 411 N,5th Elma (360)482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Sh*lton,WA oe5s4
1'/0
January 24,2005
TO:Cindy Waite,Environmental Health Dept
and Allan T*a,Public Works Dept
FROM: Grace Miller,Planning Dept
RE:Request for comments on Richard Scotts Shoreline variance and Resource Ordinance Variance
Please review the enclosed Mason Environmental Resource Ordinance Variance and Shoreline Variance
request by Richard Scott on Harstine Island Mr.Scott has requested variances to construct a single family
residence 20,from a bulkhead Enclosed are the application forms and area for your comment on socond
page.Please return your comments to me by Friday February 18,2005 so that I may include them in my
staff report for the Hearing Examiner.There is an enclosed geotechnical report and habitat management
Plan.Call me at ext 360 if you have any questions. Thank you.
M,as9n Co Land Records
MASON COUNTY ��'� 3 W
11i3ff PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
SimWoo,W 11 S' "W
DATE: January 25a', 2005
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Grace Miller, DCD—Planner
FROM: Alan A. Tahja,P/W- Co.Hydr. Engr. WO#PLG-05
SUBJ: _ Geo-Report Review NAME: Scott SFR na,Harstene Island
V R QQ4-QQQ13
Grace,
The geotechnical report prepared for the proposed Mark Anderson/Richard Scott Single Family
Residence to be constructed at 512 E Plantation Way,Harstene Island,has been received and
reviewed by Public Works.
Though the report generally indicates that the site may be developed without adverse impacts to
the subject property or surrounding community,the report lacks some of the basic elements
required by y Mason County's Critical Resource Ordinance.
The report should be returned to the applicant,and their agent,for completion in conformance
with the Critical Resource Ordinance requirements. Some of the deficiencies include identifying
the soil,providing a site plan with development features identified(septic location,building
footprint,permanent stormwater management features),a cross section,temporary erosion and
sediment control features.
The applicant should also be provided with a copy of the County's Resource Ordinance reporting
requirements for geotechnical reports.
In summary,the geotechnical report is lacking required information,and should be returned to
the applicant for completion of required report elements.
i Please feel free to contact me at County extension 461 if you have any questions regarding these
comments,or if you feel any features need further discussion or attention.
S cerely,
A an A. Tahja
i
File: H:\WP\OSO\Revtexe\Scott.doc
I
i
Mason Co. Land Records
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1/25/2005 Case No.: VAR2004-00033
Comrwnts: The Geotechnical Report that you submitted was forwarded to Allan
Tahja of the Mason County Public Works Department as part of the
review of your Variance Permit. Please see the enclosed comment
letter which the Planning Department has received regarding the
geotechnical report. Please send additional information requested to
my attention and I will forward to Mr. Tahja in the Public Works
Department for further review. Thank you.
CC: Traci Michel
i
I
1
i
3
4
I
3
1/25/2005 2 of 2 VAR2004-00033
Mason Co. Land Records
oN sT'1rF MASON COUNTY
��y c DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
O A U
r s Planning Division
y� N Y n P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
0 �Dti (360)427-9670
1864
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
January 25, 2005
RICHARD SCOTT
P O BOX 1324
BELFAIR WA 98528
Parcel No.: 120185200025
Project Description: Construction of single family residence within Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area buffer.
Dear Applicant:
You have submitted a permit application (case no. VAR2004-00033)for proposed
construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I require
additional information to complete the permit review process.
Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information
is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information
is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your
application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County
within 180 days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on
the proposed development shall take place.
Please contact me at(360) 427-9670, ext. 360 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
4a/"'14-
Grace Miller
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
1/25/2005 1 of 2 VAR2004-00033
Mason Co. La n .,.Records
�ia�T s
AML GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, INC
Retaining Walls:Shipt Stability Analyses,Solt and Rack Mechanics,Slornrwater Management
September 20,2004
MR.RICHARD SCOTT COPY512 Feat Plantation Way
Shetton, WA 98584-9542
Regarding: Geotechnical Report for a Property (Lot 25, Division 3, Island Shores) located at the above
address,Mason County,Washington
Dear Richard:
We have calmed out the studies necessary to complete the above-referencod report;the following letter will
embody that report,and provide you with all of our findings and opinions, and make recommendations to
be implemented during any future development of the property.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is located on the eastern dwmline of Harstine Island,with an approximately 100-foot fluntage
onto Case Inkt. it extends.out to tic mean low tide Ikea, with the western boundary some 80 feet inland
from the mean high tide line. Tin high tiler line.is merited by a rock buildaaid averaging about 6 feet in
height that extends all the way across the lot and beyond to a community beach than adjoins the subject
property to the north. A paved driveway Curt provides access to the cotnm=ity beach ft Dm East Plantation
Way also provides access to the site an the north side. Vehicular access is also available by way of a
driveway that extends from the southeast corner of the main part of the lot up to Ease.Plantation Way by
way of an easement. This driveway will provide fiht=access to the lot and is already being used by the
neighbor to the-south. Appearances suggest that the keel part of the lot,wending ftom the rods bulkhead
back to the too of the bluff is man-made;the toe of the bluff Is approximately 10 to 15 feet to the east of the
i eastern property lint.
� FIELD 1NVF.STUGATION
I On Wednesday, August 11 2004 the writer visited the site and inspected all surface features. An open
andlity,trench some five feet in depth was hapected to determine soil types and;subsurface conditions,and
in addition, trite expel muxy teat pit was excavated close to the proposed building site. A number of
photographs were taken at that time also:some of these are attached to this report.
I
FINDINGS
As note above,the lot extends across the beach to the mean low tide line tut extends inland to within 10 to
! 15 feet (depending on wham one measures it) torn the toe of the bluff. A rock bulkhead has been
constructed along or slightly above the mom high tide lute and compacted fill has boon placed behind it so
that the area between the west property line and the moan high tide lima bulkhead is now more.or less level
(see photographs.) 'fie property contains no trees,the only vegoation being grass.but."v are some small
trey and dense brushalortg the toe of the bluff, and the slope of the bluff;,although steep, contains a
number of trees and is mostly covered with dense brush. Appearances suggest that the lower 12 to IS feet
of the bluff slope.has been steepened by human activity;this may well haVer been the soiree of the fill that
was used to level the'area out to the W&hm& The soil proflk revealed in the utility trench and also in the
test pit was similar,consisting ofa byerof vary dense,compacted silty sand and gravel overlying relatively
fine beach sand. The latter was noted to exhibit minor shell content.
6009!on CauM SE Tdepkone.360-113-17I5
Olympia, 14 A 98513 Fax:360-I13-3917
1
i
1
Mason Co. Land Records8
• AML Geotechnical Services, In4 '
Rrtaintng IVaIIs,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil A Rock Mechanks,Stormwarer Management
2
CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATIONS
General Comments
Based upon the results of our investigations we can find no gootechnical reason why this lot
should not be a feasible location fora single-family dwelling. Although the site contains flu it is
very dense and of structural quality at all the locations wherein we observed it. Ahfiough the
lower bluff face is very steep it shows no signs of instability such as active talus slopes or
overhangs. The, upper part of the slope contains dense vegetation,mainly in the form of ground
covering brush, and there is dense vegetation along the toe, all of which points to a lack of
erosion or spalling of material from the bluff face. There is a house of apparently recent
construction on top of the bluely immediately above the community beach area,slightly north of
the proposed building area on the subject property, and apparently within a few fleet of the crest.
We were no able to access this property but we would assume that an�engineering study was
carried out on the site prior to the issuance of a building„and if this assumption is correct than we
may conclude that it was deemed safe to place the dwelling close to the crest of the slope.
Anecdotal information we obtained indicates that the stormwater nmoff frnin this property is
being properly and safely managed and that it poses no threat to the stability of the slope by being
allowed to discharge onto it.
Sods Ckaracteriatics
As noted in previous sections, a section of the proposed building area(that part close behind the
bulkhead)contains a surface layer of till, but it is of structural quality,apparently free of debris,
and in a very dense condition. We Onrefore see no need for its' removal. The underlying beach
gravel contains some small shell fragments, but these we neither numerous enough, nor large
enough to be of concern. The beach gravel that we observed was in a well drained,dry condition.
We are derefore of the opinion that the soil present at the site possesses the,necessary bearing
capacity to support a residence on conventional shallow foundation, i.e.,continuous and/orspread
footings. Footings may be designed for allowwbk loads of 2000 psP, this should adogw oly
compensate fortemporarily increased loads due to seismic activity and/or sustained higirwirwL
Baffer&Setback
In our opinion, in the interests of safety the most critical setback should be that from the foot of
the bluff. Although we were unable to find any indications of instability the possibility of
material spalling from the face of the slope, especially in the-steep, lower section, camwt be
absolutely ruled out. Sustained heavy rain cornbined with a *or seismic event, for example,
could trigger a slide event. The height of the bluff immediately behind the proposed building
area is not more than 40 feet in height,therefore even if a slide event were to occur it is unlikely
to be a n4or, deep seated catastrophic one but such an event could seriously damage anything
within 20 feet of the toe of the bluff. it is therefore strongly recommended that a setback of at
least 25 feet from the toe of the bluff be maintained for all owia ction. With regard to the
bulkhead h is recommended that a setback of at kast 20 feet be maintained ftm it for all
construction. The bulkhead Is no more than 6 fed in height and is In good condition and we were
unable to fuel any sections of it that showed damage or erosion from wave action. Violent wave
F
1
Mason co. Land :Records �8
` .3 1
AML Geoteehnkat Services,Inc
Slope Stabillo Analyses,Retaining fiWalls,SoU do R"k Meckanics,Stormwater:Management
GOPU
action during winter storms is unlikely to become a serious thrw to the integrity of the bulkhead,
as these waters are relatively sheltered from the train fore of winter storms. Appearances
suggest that the bulkhead has been in place for many years without suffering noticeable damage:
In terms of safety then is no doubt that it is more important to maintain a sizeable setback from
the tae of the slope than from the bulkhead.
Landslide Hazard
1%rdh the qualifications mentioned in the previous section, we consider the likelihood of major
slide activity on fire bluff face to be low. Thera is no evidence that the slope face was affected by
the v*or earthquake of February 2001 despite rho fact that the epicenter of the earthquake was
relatively ck►se. Provided that an adequate setback frown the toe is maintained we feel that the
slope does not mTresern a significant slide threat. The toe of the slope is beyond the property
line,therefore there is no treason why construction activity should disturb it in any way;certainty
any undercutting of the slope must be avoided. With time precautions, and the history of the
area we foci that the risk of significant slide activity occurring is low.
Saataaary
Provided that out understatnding of the proposed construction is correct,i.e.,a.single family
residence that will not in any way encroach upon the slope or the bulkhead we are of the opinion
that the site is safe and stable and we can find no geotechnieal reason why the project should not
be allowed to proceed.
L AITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and
practices. We make no warranty,either exposed or hnplied. The opinions e4wessod are erased
upon the results.of our investigations, and observable conditions at the site. They stwuld not be
applied to other, sunnunding properties. If condWo+rs an encore Owed talent.4*1&V&AVkr
fryer d se described in tkls repro mr skald be na Y.W hnnedlesty so that we may review the
situation and if necessary, modify the recommendations of this report. In the event that such
notice is not ford=ming we reserve the tight to disclaim any or all of the recommendations and
opinions expressed herein. This report is for the information of our client, Mr. Richard Scott
only. Its' reproduction and or transmittal to any third party by any moans,a qN In its,endmV,
without the written authority of AML Geotechnical Services,Inc. is prohibited. We would like to
thank you for having given us this opportunity to provide you with engineering services. Please
contact us at 360-413-1745 should you have questions regarding any of the contents of this
report.
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geotcchnical Services, Inca
Slope Stability analyses,R<<aiffing Walls,Soil A Rock Meckantcs,Stormwater Managentent
.-
This study has been carried out in association with Geolkesources LLC,5007 Pacific Highway
East,Suite 20. Fife(tel.253-896-1011)whose technical review we gratefully acknlowledge.
Yours very sincerely,
ANIL Gooterhnical Sere Iac. 7urt
rcu LLC
Alastair Lumsden, P. Eng. oesch,P.E.
Geotechnical EngineerlPtincipal �O(�� � Principal
ELSAA
l � �
d
z
Y
j
Mason Co. lan, d- Records _
. A &&oWhj*al Sayliaes,
,Boll Meehexjcs Rock A4c"xlix,•Groundwater Hydrology
000 D
Mason Co. Land Records g
' A1►1L Geotechnicad Servic ,
Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics, Groundwater Hydrology
vlgk TY mo
� l
z
3 �
k
a
e
G —
Y
G!
A �
3
62N4 k44 4L*O.00m.bk;•I004 a07•,
I
s
Mason Co,: .,La,n;l Records
t�x E
AML Geotechnical Services,Inc.
Retaining Walls,Slope-StabWO Analyses,Soil&Rock Mechanics,Stormwater Management
i
r
i
1
i
View of the utility trench leading into the site. This clearly shows about 18 Inches
of gravelly compacted fill overlying native beach gravel in the but of the trench.
I
;M .
Mason • Land Records
r/03
AML Geotechnical Services, Ina
Betaining Walfs,Slope StabOy Analyses,SoU&Rock Mechanics,Starmwater Management
xa
View
aw *f jC,Lt�1 •
"It's. ,.s f N•"� � � � .r.� ...i � � � � "
of from the . drtveway. t i
Mason Co. Land Records
AML Geolechnical Services,Inc.
Retaining Walls,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil&Rock Mechanics,Stormwater Management
i
n
View of the actual proposed building site. The toe of the blaff behind the lot Is
just beyond the brush at upper right.
1
Mason Co. Land . Records
AML Geotechnical Services,Inc-
Retaining Walls,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil&Rock Mechanics,Stormwater Management
• ^^`�i!-�'Saf �•/%!L:•��.�.'.Y its• yt r, %`eV• b.r'_ r� .'1 .�`.
y i re._ u • �r rj,,
View of a test pit excavated adjacent to the proposed building footprint.
This shows the same soil proth as that noted In the atWty trench,Le.,
compacted gravellyIDl overlying native beach gravel
Mason Co. Land Records
• AML Geotechnical Services,Inc.
Retaining Walls,Slope Stability Analyses,Soil&Rock Mechanics,Stormwater Management
1
Spoil from a test pit excavated adjacent to the proposed ballding footprint.
Note the high gravel content of the native roll
a - -
.1
r
:f
Mason Co. Land Records
• � AML Geotechnical ervices, nG .
Soil Mechanics,Rock Mechanics, GroundwaAff H drology
��' �y,�ts�►°vw� Seale: 10-40'
(Not a Survey,Vwdeal Datum Assmned)
AA
30.
Toe Lice of tie Bluff
(Approximate)
20
I
r
i
i
08d6radu�
f Pr" B
i ^w`__
"o�
Tw U"
y CAS 11V
Mason:, Co. Land Records
1 I. DECISION ON THE MERITS
2
3 Upon review of the record, case briefs,and arguments of Counsel,the Court is "clearly
4
5 convinced" Mason County's conditioning of the Petitioners' variance approval with
6
7 Condition 1 was clearly erroneous.
8
9 1. The record below is not supported by substantial evidence to support the
10
I I height restrictions of Condition 1 on the basis of view blockage of existing, future homes, or
12
13 from or to the water, and on this basis the standard for relief in RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) is
14
15 met.The record contains no substantial evidence that view blockage due to construction on
16
17 the Scott lot would be significant, substantial or material and the imposition of Condition 1
18
19 on this basis meets the standard for relief in RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c).
20
21 2. The record Below shows that the environmental issues addressed by the
22
23 Resource Ordinance were satisfactorily resolved by the variance application and its response
24
25 to environmental issues and mitigation. The record fails to demonstrate substantial evidence
26
27 of any nexus between the house height on the Scott lot and the environmental or habitat
28
29 buffer setback concerns for which the Resource Ordinance variance was requested and on
30
31 this basis the standard for relief in RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) is met.
32
33 3. The Hearing Examiner for Mason County identified no nexus between the
34
35 height of the Scott house and the Resource Ordinance requirements and on this basis the
36
37 height limit was an erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case. The Hearing
38
39 Examiner for Mason County further failed to identify any statutory. code or objective factual
40
41 basis for limiting the size of the Scott house to one story under the facts of this case based
42
43 upon some "average" of the size of nearby houses.and as such Condition 1 arises from an
44
45 erroneous application of the law to the facts of this case. In each instance, the meeting the
46
47 standard for relief of RCW 36.70C.I30(1)(d).
Perkins Cole LLP
I I I Market Street N.E.. Suite 200
Olympia. Washington 98501-1008
ORDER - 2 Phone: (360)956-3300
SL060760.21I Fax: (360)956-1208
Mason Co. Land Records
1 4. The mere ability to see a house does not constitute "view blockage" under the
2
3 Mason County Shoreline Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act: and the
4
5 assumption in the Hearings Examiner's decision that the facts of this case warranted a limit
6
7 on house height to prevent view blockage was an erroneous application of the law to the
8 9 facts satisfying the criteria for relief of RCW 36.70C.I30(1)(b)and (d)
10
11 5. The Hearing Examiner for Mason County failed to identify any law or policy
12
13 supporting the house height limit under the facts of this case. As such, Condition 1 was
14
15 based upon an erroneous application of the law to the facts of this case, meeting the standard
16
17 for relief in RCW 36.70C.I 30(l)(b)and (d).
Is
19 11. CONCLUSION
20
71 LUPA's standards of RCW 36.70C.130(l)(b),(c) and(d)for relief have been met and
22
23 the appeal of Petitioners in this case is granted.
24
25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
26
27 Petitioners' appeal challenging Condition 1 in the Hearing Examiner decision of
28
79 April 26,2005, and Order for Clarification of May 13. 2005. is granted and Condition 1 and
30
31 supporting findings are stricken for all purposes and have no further force and effect.
32
33 Except as modified herein,the decision of the hearings examiner is affirmed and the matter
34
35 remanded to the County to reissue the variance approval of the Resource Ordinance striking
36
37 Condition 1 within thirty(30) days of this Order.
38
39
40 DATE
41
42 '
43
44
45 /% 1 -lonorable James eSawyer, II
46
47
Perkins Coie LLP
I I 1 Market Street N.E.,Suite 200
Olympia. Washington 98501-1008
Phone: (360)956-3300
ORDER - 3 Fax: (360)956-1208
SL060760.211
Mason Co. Land Records
1
2
3
4
5
6 Presentment Waived by
7
8 �O7w� --�-�'�Y +ti5 F314
9 By:
10 P.Ale�a)ider W. Mackie, WSBA #6404
11 Perkins Coie LLP
12 Attorneys for Petitioners
13
14
15
16
17 Presented by Mason County
18
19
20 ``
By 21
T.J.�yPros�e
W A 431152
22
23 Dling Attorney
74 ttorney f r Mason County
25
26
?7
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
4_'•
43
44
45
46
47
Perkins Coie t.t.r
I I 1 Market Street N.E.. Suite 200
Olympia. Washington 98501-1008
ORDER - 4 Phone: (360)956.3300
SI,U(,0?bU.]II Fax: (300)956-1208
Mason Co. Land Records
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
Tp
May 13,2005 �Il
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION
Case No:VAR2004-00029
Applicant:Richard Scott
Notice is hereby given that Richard Scott,who is applicant for the above referenced resource ordinance
variance and shoreline variance,has been granted the resource ordinance variance for a maximum 18 foot
high house and the shoreline variance request for a 25'setback from the ordinary high water mark has been
denied.The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance and denied pursuant
to the Mason County Shoreline Master Program specifically for the construction of a two-story single
family residence with an attached garage.
If you have any questions or require clarification on this issue please contact Grace Miller,Planner with the
Mason County Department of Community Development at(360)427-9670,x 360.
This is a final decision.No further appeals to the County are available.Appeals may be made to the
appropriate state administrative agency as regulations apply.It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all
legal requirements of any appeal process.
Mason Co. Land Records
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Richard Scott ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION
4
5 MCC 17.01.150(E) Resource
Ordinance Variance and MCC
6 7.28.010 Shoreline Master
Program Variance
7
Staff gave a copy of the Examiner's final decision to Mr. Scott prior to issuance
8 of the Notice of Final decision. Mr. Scott was concerned that a reference in the
decision to Lot 27 should have been Lot 25 and requested clarification,even though it
9 was patently obvious that this was a typographical error. Staff requested a
10 clarification on this and a couple other points in the decision.. The following are
revisions to the final decision:
11 page 2, line 15 that starts"Mr. Scott stated..." should read"Mr. Collins stated..."
12 Traci "Michael" in the description for Exhibit 6 at page 3, line 10 should be Traci
13 "Michel".
14 Some text may have been lost in the printing of the decision between pages 3 and 4 of
the decision. Paragraph 2 of the Findings of Fact should read in its first few lines:
15
2. Hearin . The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on
16 the application on February 22, 2005 in the Mason County Board of
17 Commissioners meeting room. By order signed March 22, 2005, the
Examiner extended the record for written comment and rebuttal on the
18 submission of Exhibit 18 by Bruce Collins...
19 Page 6, line 15 the reference to Lot"27" should be Lot "25".
20 Dated this 13th day of May, 2005.
21
22
Phi101brechts
23 Mason County Hearing Examiner
24 RECEIVED
25
[MAY 1 F 2005
MCCD - PLAIUI iNG
Scott Variance P. 1 Findings,Conclusions and Decision-
I PA059566I.DOC:2J 13009.090000J90000)
Mason Co. Land Records
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Richard Scott FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 MCC 17.01.150(E) Resource
Ordinance Variance and MCC
6 7.28.010 Shoreline Master
Program Variance
7
8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 The applicant has applied for a variance from a 100-foot Resource Ordinance buffer
and a 25 foot Shoreline Management Act buffer from Case Inlet. The Examiner
11 grants the Resource Ordinance variance for a maximum 18 foot high house and
denies the Shoreline variance.
12
13 ORAL TESTIMONY
14
See transcript.
15
Grace Miller summarized the staff report.
16
17 John Diehl disputed whether the proposed home could fit within the developable area
of the lot as modified by the requested variances. Mr. Diehl questioned staff about
18 variances granted for other properties in the vicinity and also the development plans
for adjoining lots. Brad Bredberg interjected that adjoining lots 26, 27 and 28 have
19 only approval for one septic connection so only one home can be built on the lots. He
stated that the owner could not qualify for any more septic connections. Mr.
20 Bredberg also clarified that adjoining Lots 29 and 30 also only qualify for one septic
21 connection. Mr. Diehl also questioned staff about the classification of a potentially
affected wetland. Mr. Diehl questioned Ms. Miller about the historical use of the
22 property and how staff came to the conclusion that "reasonable use" did not include
recreational use. Ms. Miller testified that the applicant had informed her that the
23 intent was never to limit the property to recreational use.
24 A.J. Bredberg testified on behalf of the applicant. He stated he is a certified
25 professional soil scientist,professional wetlands scientist and certified soils classifier.
He stated he prepared the wetlands study. He stated the property has been family
owned since the 1950's. In 1971 it was platted and scheduled for development. In
Scott Variance P. I Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0595661.DOC;It 13009.090000/90000
Mason Co. Land Records
1980-85 a bulkhead (extending along the entire water frontage) was installed and the
1 lot was cleared. In 1995 a drain field was installed for the lot. Mr. Bredberg also
2 testified that the development sites on surrounding lots are at least 30 feet above the
proposed residence, so there is no view impact. An asphalt driveway already serves
3 the site and no additional impermeable land would be necessary for lot access. It has
a gravel parking pad. No lot clearing would be required for development. Mr.
4 Bredberg also noted that there are no view preservation easements that apply to the
lot, even though other lots in Hartstene Point are subject to such restrictions. Mr.
5 Bredberg pointed out that page 12 of the geotech study (Exhibit 8) shows that the toe
6 of the steep slope is behind Lot 25. Mr. Diehl questioned Mr. Bredberg about the lot
coverage and mentioned that the Shoreline Master Program may limit lot coverage to
7 50%. Mr. Diehl also asked Mr. Bredberg about spills and the impact of the spills on
the estuary.
8
Bruce Collins is an adjoining property owner to the south who owns Lots 26, 27 and
9 28. He stated he also will be asking for a variance to the 100 foot setback. He stated
10 that if Mr. Scott develops as proposed it will block his view to the shoreline to the
north. Mr. Collins stated he purchased his property because of the view that the
11 applicant will block. Richard Scott's cousin (Mark Anderson) told Mr. Collins that
Lot 25 was unbuildable when he sold Mr. Collins Lots 26, 27 and 28. Mr. Collins
12 also stated that the variance would destroy the market value of his property. Mr.
Collins stated that the elevation of his building site is 14 feet and that the area at this
13 elevation would not require a variance. During the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Scott,
14 Mr. Collins clarified that Figure 2 of his (Collins') geotechnical report showed the
low point of his proposed home (at the western lot line of Lot 27) and that with a
15 basement cut into the slope the bottom elevation of the home would be 14 feet above
the proposed site of the Scott residence. Scott stated that if the applicant limited
16 construction to one story, he would havelii gtpa view to the north. Mr. Collins
17 purchased Lots 26, 27 and 28 for$170,000.
18 Constance Ibsen testified that the case was precedent setting because it involved the
conversion of an unbuildable lot to the development of a single-family home. Ms.
19 Ibsen stated that assessor records indicate that Lot 24 would have to be used in
conjunction with Lot 25. Ms. Ibsen noted several title issues related to the lots that
20 suggested that Lot 25 was not buildable.
21 Mr. Diehl stated that the subject lot already has a reasonable use, identifying use of
22 the lot for a recreational vehicle. Mr. Diehl stated that the lot is recreational because
of its low value ($30,000); development restrictions including steep slope, wetlands
23 and shoreline; and small size. Mr. Diehl questioned the thoroughness of the
environmental studies. Mr. Diehl was concerned about the precedent the case would
24 set for development of future substandard lots.
25 Mr. Scott testified that he has two means of access to his property, either the
community driveway (currently used) or the pan handle to his lot. Mr. Scott further
Scott Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0595661.DOC;1/13009.090000/90000
M ftcon r_ I nnd Raccirdr.
WeP
9 Page 3
Mr. Scott testified that he has two means of access to his property, either the
I community driveway(currently used) or the pan handle to his lot. Mr. Scott further
2 testified that he's paying $175,000 for Lot 25,which is $10,000 less than Mr. Collins
is paying for combined lots 26,27 and 28. He testified that Lot 25 was listed for sale
3 at the same time as Lots 26, 27 and 28 and that his cousin did not inform Mr. Collins
that Lot 25 was unbuildable. The assessed value is only$30,000, but this is similar to
4 the assessed value of the lots purchased by Mr. Collins. A contingency in the
5 purchase and sale agreement, however, does require acquisition of necessary
development permits.
6
7 EXHIBITS
8 Exhibit 1: Staff Report dated March 1,2005.
9 Exhibit 2: Site Plan and Vicinity Map.
Exhibit 3: Resource Ordinance Variance and Shoreline Variance applications.
10 Exhibit 4: Septic System approval from Mason County Environmental
Health.
11 Exhibit 5: Planning Pre-Inspection and
12 Exhibit 6: Letter dated 11/10/04 fro Tracy Mich�ared
to Planning stall
Exhibit 7: 8/27/04 Habitat Management by James DeShazo.
13 Exhibit 8: 9/20/04 Geotechnical Report prepared by AML Geotechnical
Services..
14 Exhibit 9: Legal Notice of Application,Affidavit of Posting of Notice.
15 Exhibit 10: Habitat Management Plan Notice, Comments from Public Works
and Environmental Health.
16 Exhibit 11: Written letter from Bruce Collins.
Exhibit 12: March 8,2005 letter from John Diehl.
17 Exhibit 13: None received.
18 Exhibit 14, July 9,2004 letter to Richard Scott from A.J. Bredberg.
Exhibit 15: Three color photos of building site.
19 Exhibit 16: Site plan prepared by John Diehl.
Exhibit 17: Assessor records submitted by Constance Ibsen.
20 Exhibit 18: Collins Geotech Report dated August 2,2003.
Exhibit 19: March 17,2005 letter from A.J. Bredberg
21 Exhibit 20: April 1,2005 letter from John Diehl
22
23 FINDINGS OF FACT
24 Procedural:
25
1. Applicant. The applicants is Richard Scott.
Scott Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA05 95661.DOC;1/13009.090000/90000 1
Mason o. Land Records
comment and rebuttal on the submission of Exhibit 18 by Bruce Collins. The order
I provided that a response to Mr. Bredberg's comments could be submitted by 5:00 pm
2 on April 1, 2004. John Diehl faxed comments after 5:00 pm on April 1, 2004.
Normally, Mr. Diehl's comments would be stricken as untimely. However, since
3 leniency was granted to Mr. Bredberg to provide written comments after the close of
the verbal testimony portion of the hearing, Mr. Diehl's written comments are
4 admitted as well. Pursuant to the direction of the parties to the hearing, and hearing
no objections, the Examiner also visited the site on March 22, 2005. The Examiner
5 viewed the proposed building site from the adjoining public road.
6
Substantive:
7
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant has proposed a two-story
8 residence with an attached garage to be placed on a lot for which a bulkhead and
9 septic drain field have already been constructed. The residence is proposed to be two
stories at approximately 4,500 square feet in size. The residence and garage will be
10 located 20' from the top of the bulkhead and the landward side of the residence would
be approximately 25' from the toe of an adjoining bluff. The top of the bulkhead and
11 the building site is about 10' above sea level. The subject lot is on the shoreline of
Case Inlet. It is served by a community driveway and also has a pan handle that
12 attaches to Orchard Road. The subject lot is small, roughly 100' wide parallel to the
13 shoreline by 57' deep on the south end to 87' deep on the north end. There is a level
area planted with lawn that accommodates a recreational vehicle and septic tanks.
14
4. Characteristics of the Area. The building site is surrounded by lots that
15 are either vacant or house single family homes. The staff have determined that the
average size of adjoining homes are approximately 1,498 square feet, averaging the
16 sizes of the homes that are located in the Island Shores development (the subdivision
17 of the subject lot)as follows:
18 Lot 21: new two-story residence under construction,total area of
2,315 square feet
19 Lot 23: single family home of 3,027 square feet
Lot 19: single family home of 1,456 square feet and attached
20 garage of 528 square feet
21 Lot 1: vacation cabin of 192 square feet
Lot 2: 800 square foot vacation cabin
22 Lot 3: 1,200 square foot vacation cabin
23 5. Adverse Impacts. The lot has already been improved with a septic system
24 and a bulkhead. The area designated for construction has already been cleared. As
concluded by both staff and in the Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 7), construction
25 of the home, as mitigated by the recommended staff conditions, should have no
significant adverse impacts upon the affected shoreline. The most heavily contested
impact of the hearing was the view impact upon adjoining Lot 27. With a maximum
Scott Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0595661.DOC;1/13009.090000/900001
Mason Co. Land Records
height of 30' allowed in rural residential shoreline environment, the proposed home
I would rise to a maximum of 40' above sea level. If Mr. Collins builds his home at
2 what appears to be the lowest grade possible on his lot, approximately 27' above sea
level (17' above the grade of Mr. Scott's home, as indicated in Exhibit 20 -- the most
3 recent and highest estimate of Mr. Collins), approximately 13' of his view to the
north would be blocked by the Scott home. This is all contingent upon Mr. Collins
4 choosing to excavate his property to a depth of 13' below the minimum elevation of
his lot (as depicted in Figure 2 of the Collins geotechnical report). Under these
5 circumstances, approximately 13' of the maximum 30' in height that Mr. Collins
6 could have for his home would be blocked by the Scott home. This would probably
still leave him with views from the second story of his home. The record contains no
7 indication that Mr. Scott would be unable to build his house upwards from the 30'
minimum elevation of his home as opposed to downwards. If Mr. Collins could set
8 his foundation at the 30' elevation, his home could reach a maximum height of 60'
above sea level, 20' higher than that of Mr. Scott. In short, it appears that
9 construction of the Scott home to a maximum of 30' could block 13' of a portion of
10 Mr. Collins' view to the north if Mr. Collins chooses to build excavate 13' below the
grade of his property. There is no evidence in the record to show if it would be
11 feasible for Mr. Collins to build at a higher elevation.
12
13 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
14 procedural:
15 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Examiner
16 with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
17 Substantive:
18 2. Zoning Designation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 5.
The shoreline environment is Rural Residential. This environment has a 30' height
19 restriction.
20 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from a
21 100 foot setback from an adjoining Type I saltwater shoreline. This buffer is imposed
through MMC 17.01.110, Table 3. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the general
22 variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances.
Those review standards are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law.
23
24 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards precludes or significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property
25 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
Scott Variance p. 5 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
(PA0595661.DOC;1/13009.090000/90000)
Mason Co. Land Records
4. Case law and reasonable use, at least in the constitutional context,
I generally provides for at least one single family home per parcel that conforms with
2 the minimum lot size requirements. Reasonable use may also be limited to
recreational use, if factors such as investment backed expectations, historical uses,
3 surrounding uses and parcel size are consistent with a recreational use limitation. See
Buechel v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994), for a good
4 description of the factors used in a"reasonable use analysis", as the terms used in the
5 Mason County Shoreline Variance criteria.
6 Mr. Diehl and Ms. Ibsen presents some very compelling evidence that the lot should
indeed be limited to recreational use. The lot is relatively small and the assessed
7 value, in conjunction with county assessor records, indicate that its value may be
significantly affected by existing development restrictions. Mr. Scott does appear to
8 be paying a premium price for the property at $170,000, but this is subject to the
contingency that he is allowed to place a single family home on the property. Given
9 that both Mr. Collins (albeit for 3 lots) and Mr. Scott are paying$170,000 - $180,000
10 for the privilege of building a single family home on the Case Inlet waterfront, it does
appear that this price range is the current fair market value for waterfront lots that can
11 be developed with single family homes. However, price and size of the property is
only one factor to consider. In fact, the size of the lot is amenable to a modest sized
12 home. More importantly, the historical use of the property suggests that the lot has
been subdivided with the intent to provide for a permanent single family home. Well
13 before the County's Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted, the lot was improved with
14 a bulkhead and a septic system. Given these factors and the fact that the lot is located
in a subdivision which is characterized by single family homes, it is fW*,r to conclude
15 that in prohibiting the development of a single family home on L- 271`the resource
ordinance does significantly interfere with the reasonable use of the)w>6erty.
16
17 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
18 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
19 the applicant's own action.
20 5. The need for the variance is created by the natural features on the property
21 and their corresponding development buffers.
22 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
23 properties or the environment.
24 6. The proposed home is larger than any other home in the vicinity and will
25 block the northern view of the adjoining Collins property. These factors may or may
not suffice to justify restrictions on the height and size of the home pursuant to MCC
15.09.057(3). This issue does not need to be reached, however, because as shall be
Scott Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I PA0595661.DOC:1/13009.090000/900001
Mason Co. Land Records
discussed under MCC 15.0909.057(4), and the home will in fact be restricted in size
1 and height so that is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not
2 have any significant impacts on adjoining views.
3 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
4 necessary to afford relief.
5 7. As discussed in the analysis of MCC 15.09.057(1), lot size is a factor in
6 determining whether a single family home is a necessary reasonable use of a piece of
property. While the applicant's lot is arguably large enough to justify a single family
7 home, it by no means is large enough to justify the home proposed by the applicants.
The applicants can't even fit their proposed home onto their lot without acquiring a
8 variance from the 25' shoreline setback imposed by the County's Shoreline Master
Plan. The home is also bigger,by a large margin, than any other home in the vicinity.
9 Given these factors, and the debatable view impacts to the Collins property, it is clear
10 that the size of the home proposed by the applicant is by no means the minimum
necessary to achieve reasonable use of the property. Limiting the home to one story
11 will provide the applicants with a home that is consistent in size to the homes in the
area (even with denial of the shoreline variance) and the lot size and will also
12 minimize view impacts not only on the Collins property but also the adjoining
13 community beach.
14 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
15 8. The building site is on an already cleared area with no discernible adverse
impacts, especially as mitigated as recommended by staff and Habitat Management
16 Plan. The size of the project has been mitigated to, in part, minimize view impacts.
17 Consequently, the public interests will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
18 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
19 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Minor loss in value only
20 shall not justify a variance.
21 9. The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect environmentally
22 sensitive areas from adverse impacts created by development. The Resource
Ordinance specifically provides for a variance and reasonable use waiver process so
23 that the goals of environmental protection do not place undue hardship upon property
owners, at least to the extent that their constitutional rights may be violated. The
24 granting of the variance in this particular case will not have any significant adverse
25 environmental impacts and will at the same time provide for a reasonable use of
property, thus satisfying the purpose of the Resource Ordinance. The Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code provide for residential development in the subject area. The
Scott Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0595661.DOC;1/13009.090000/90000
Mason Co. Land Records
lot, which appears to be less than an acre in size, is too small for residential
1 development in a rural area to be consistent with the policies of the Growth
2 Management Act as they pertain to discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the
efficient use of public infrastructure. However, the Growth Management Act also
3 encourages the protection of private property rights. The Growth Management Act
also encourages, in general, the efficient use of infrastructure. The lot in question is
4 already served by septic and a bulkhead. Construction of the home does not appear to
require the extension of any more urban services, with the possible exception of water
5 (there is no evidence in the record to indicate whether it is already served by water).
6 For these reasons, the granting of this variance would also be considered consistent
with the intent of the Growth Management Act.
7
8 SHORELINE VARIANCE:
9 The bulk and dimensional standards for residential development set out at Page 35 of
10 the Mason County Shoreline Master Program provides for a 25' shoreline setback in
the rural environment. The applicants need a shoreline variance because they are
11 requesting to build within 20' of the shoreline. Shoreline variances are governed by
MCC 7.28.020 as follows:
12
MCC 7.28.020(1): That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or
13 performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly
14 interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the
Master Program;
15
10. As indicated in the analysis of the request for Resource Ordinance
16 variance, reasonable use of the property does necessarily include a single family
home. The question for the shoreline variance is not whether the preclusion of a
17 home denies reasonable use of the property, but rather whether requiring the home to
18 be 5' less in width than proposed by the applicants denies the applicants a reasonable
use. As indicated in the site plan and vicinity map (Exhibit 2), the applicants are
19 proposing a home that 45' in width. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the
applicants would be denied a reasonable use by having a home that is 40' in width
20 instead.
21 MCC 7.28.020(2): That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of a
22 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
23 application of the Master Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or
the applicant's own actions;
24
25 11. The applicant has shown no discernible hardship by having a home that is
40' wide instead of 45'. Beyond this, the need for the variance is created by the fact
that the lot is not wide enough to accommodate a 45' home.
Scott Variance p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0595661.DOC.1/13009.090000/90000)
Mason Co. Land Records
1 MCC 7.28.020(3): That the design of the project will be compatible with other
2 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the shoreline environment;
3
12. There is no evidence in the record discussing the width of homes in the
4 area. A one story home that is 45' in width may well be consistent with the
dimensions of homes in the vicinity. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the
5 extra 5' in width requested by the applicants would cause adverse effects to adjacent
6 properties or the shoreline environment.
7 MCC 7.28.030(4): That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of
special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the
8 minimum necessary to afford relief,•
9 13. There is no evidence in the record concerning the width of homes in the
10 vicinity. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if granting the width variance to
the applicants would constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by the properties in the
11 area.
12 MCC 7.28.050(5): That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
13 effect.
14 14. As identified previously, there are no discernible adverse impacts created
by allowing a width of 45' instead of 40'. The encroachment of 5' into the 25'
15 shoreline also has no discernible adverse impacts, as discussed at least indirectly in
the Habitat Management Plan.
16
17 MCC 7.28.020(6): The public rights of navigation and use of this shoreline will not
be adversely affected by the granting of a variance.
18
15. The project will have no impacts on the rights of navigation or public use
19 of the shoreline.
20 16. Cumulative Impacts. Given that the lot is already cleared and that the 5'
21 encroachment into the shoreline buffer is relatively minor, there are no discernible
cumulative impacts by the requested variance. However, in order to acquire approval
22 of the variance, the applicants must demonstrate compliance with all shoreline
variance criteria. The applicants have not provided any evidence as to why a 45'
23 home, as opposed to a 40' home, is necessary for reasonable use of the property.
24
25 DECISION
Scott Variance P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0595661.DOC;1/13009.090000/90000
Mason Co. Land Records
The Hearing Examiner approves the requested resource variance subject to the
1 conditions recommended by staff in the staff report subject to the replacement of
2 conditions 1 and 2 with the following:
3 (1) Height of residence to be limited to one story, a maximum of 18'
to the top roofline.
4 (2) The residence shall meet all applicable zoning and shoreline
setbacks and regulations, including the Shoreline Master Plan setback of 25' (and
5 excepting, of course, the Resource Ordinance setback) as well as restrictions
6 regarding impermeable surfaces.
7 Dated this 26th day of April, 2005.
8
9 Phil Olbrechts
10 Mason County Hearing Examiner
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Scott Variance P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I PA0595661.DOC;1/13009.090000/900001
APPLICANT TO DRAW SITE PLAN BELOW:
N .O
s qc v.1S,v Z�}fi1vQ n
N ►0�R.(tQA z_ 8 K FA o O
J;
2o'se-tg B n� ces r
0 bIZIJz-
wA
APPLICANT TO DRAW TOPOGRAPHY BELOW:
MoUll
t. ,P .�:. _-•�`v 'k Ni _�4 Y@
�: ►i�r ,:��r�y�t+�. � ;GeYY�Gr'; � i '1 o't fir' r
:'�•�". ::� � fr_y a ^r 4,�_J'1 �F�'tt�`��i� f: � •a�'�ii ;h
�. ... ...., w .n k ,;.:f ♦ k�i�!�d9i,'4'►•.4�>�dit�j\1 '7RM�{M�'�IR�Y'�'��IA� '�t�'�.�` ,, .
.. a f, ..�f•f J .'. •�fit',.a�'-�+
HuS� 1S �o WD
n
I� �00+it►w.�"
�¢c A -o WA
fl�ptioAcl+s �u� -AOL�iy-�
All
i
f
zs �5 NOrl��i%,v
h,.
IF
r
�Pyo" co MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ADDRESSING DIVISION
PO BOX 186 SHELTON WA 98584
- - " 360-427-9670 EXT 291
xs •
TO:
Name: PAM
Date: 06 /17/2008
Company: SHELCOM
Pages w/cover: 3
Phone Number: - -
Fax Number: 360 -426 - 9771
MESSAGE:
Here is a copy of the road file.
Mason Co. Land Records
��N•STAr MASON COUNTY
c 4 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
M
o s"o '= Planning Division
y o z P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
�0 T �o~ (360)427-9670
1864
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
January 25, 2005
RICHARD SCOTT
P O BOX 1324
BELFAIR WA 98528
Parcel No.: 120185200025
Project Description: Construction of single family residence within Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area buffer.
Dear Applicant:
You have submitted a permit application (case no. VAR2004-00033) for proposed
construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I require
additional information to complete the permit review process.
Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information
is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information
is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your
application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County
within 180 days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on
the proposed development shall take place.
Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 360 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
4a� .
Grace Miller
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
1125/2005 1 of 2 VAR2004-00033
Mason Co. Land Records
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1/25/2005 Case No.: VAR2004-00033
Comments: The Geotechnical Report that you submitted was forwarded to Allan
Tahja of the Mason County Public Works Department as part of the
review of your Variance Permit. Please see the enclosed comment
letter which the Planning Department has received regarding the
geotechnical report. Please send additional information requested to
my attention and I will forward to Mr. Tahja in the Public Works
Department for further review. Thank you.
CC: Traci Michel
1125/2005 2 of 2 VAR2004-00033