HomeMy WebLinkAboutFence Hearing 2006-00017 Decision - BLD Letters / Memos - 3/10/2007 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF
MASON COUNTY
DECISION
FILE NUMBER: HEX2006-00017
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 31906-51-00017
ADDRESS: 924 W.Delight Park Rd. Shelton, Washington,Mason County
PROPERTY OWNER: Scott and Marjorie Woodward
REVIEW AUTHORITY: Mason County
TYPE OF CASE: Notice of Civil Violation
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Violations Dismissed as to Counts 1 through 4
Violations Affirmed as to Counts 5 through 9
INTRODUCTION
Property owners Scott and Marjorie Woodward were sent a notice of a Notice of Civil Violation on
June 9, 2006 alleging the following:
COUNT (1) On or about April 17, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former Planning Department staff Rick
Mraz on April 17, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case
HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that
case.
1
COUNT (2) On or about April 17, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development
(9) was observed by former Planning Department staff Rick Mraz on April 17, 2001. This
violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the
fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (3) On or about November 8, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used., controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former Planning Department staff
Kristin French on November 8, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner
under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as
ordered in that case.
COUNT (4) On or about November 8, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development
(9) was observed by former Planning Department staff Kristin French on November 8, 2001.
This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the
fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
2
COUNT (5) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie
Pawlawski on March 22, 2006. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case
HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that
case.
COUNT (6) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development
(9) was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006. This
violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the
fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (7) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance,
Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas , Section G.1.c.2. The
nonpermitted fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by
Scott and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section
15.13.020,to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. Section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 states that appurtenant structures not
needing building permits, associated with residential development and located within the
FWHCA or buffer may be permitted. No permits have been submitted to date. This violation of
section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on
March 22, 2006.
3
COUNT (8) On or about March 22, 2006, a large quantity of non-native vegetation planted in
the buffer and altering the character of the natural shoreline was observed on parcel 31906-51-
00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Section G.Lb. The nonpermitted vegetation is located
on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie Woodward,
in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,to wit:
The vegetation within the shoreline buffer on the subject property primarily contains yard grass,
palm-like trees, and pampas grass, with several fir and cedar trees along the property lines. The
character of the buffer had been significantly altered from its original state, as can be seen in the
attached pictures 1 and 2 (Attachment 1). Section 17.01.110.G.Lb states that the planting of
vegetation that would alter the character of the FWHCA or buffer, unless part of a project which
has been permitted pursuant to this section, is a permit-required activity. There have been no
permits submitted to date. This violation of section 17.01.110.G.1.b was observed by Planning
Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22,2006.
COUNT (9) On or about March 22, 2006, a concrete pad with the approximate dimensions of
10'x12' was observed approximately 15' from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Isabella on
parcel 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Chapter
17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Section G.La. The nonpermitted
concrete pad is located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott
and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,
to wit:
A concrete pad with the approximate dimensions of 10'xl2' is located on the subject property
approximately 15' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The concrete pad is seen in the attached
pictures 2 and 3 (Attachment 1). Section 17.01.110.G.1.a of the Mason County Resource
Ordinance explains that dumping,discharging, or filling of any material in the FWHCA or buffer
is a permit-required activity. There have not been permits submitted for this activity. This
violation of section 17.01.110.G:1.a was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie
Pawlawski on March 22, 2006.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Mason County Code 15.03.005 provides Title 15,which establishes the hearing examiner,
applies to Mason County solid waste regulations. Mason County Code 15.13.050(B)provides
that a violator may be fined $1,000 for each violation and 15.13.045 $2000.00 for each repeat
violation. Each day of violation may be considered a separate violation.
Kristen Olbrechts, Mason County Hearing Examiner, held a hearing on June 26, 2006. Mason
County sent notice certified and regular mail notice of the hearing to property owners.
Property owner Scott Woodward appeared for the hearing. Environmental Health Specialist
Stephanie Pawlawski and Scott Woodward presented testimony under oath.
4
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Description
1 Staff Report
Attachments
Tax information
B Map
C Notice of Civil Violation June 9, 2006
D 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area
E Photographs
F Hearing Examiner's decision From January 16, 2002 hearing
G Stipulation and order for continuance for Superior Court appeal
H Notice of Mason County Code Violation May 5, 2002
I Photograph
Exhibit
2 Notice of Mason County Code Violation May 5, 2002
3 Letter supplied by Mr. Woodward
4 Findings, Conclusions and Order of the Shorelines Hearing Board
ISSUES
Are the property owners in violation as outlined above?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property (hereinafter the"subject property") is tax parcel number 31906-51-00017
The subject property is located at 924 W. Delight Park Road Shelton, Washington, Mason
County. Scott and Marjorie Woodward are the owners of the property. The property fronts on
Lake Isabella.
2. On April 17, 2001, a site investigation of the subject property was conducted by Mason
County Shoreline Planner, Rick Mraz. During Mr. Mraz's site visit, he observed two chain link
fences that were in a location forward of the common line setback and forward of the Ordinary
High Water Mark. Mr. Mraz mailed a certified letter to Mr. Woodward informing him that the
chain link fences on his property were in a location forward of the common line setback and
Ordinary High Water Mark in violation of MMC 7.16.080. The letter listed options for
compliance. After receiving no response from the first letter, Mr. Mraz mailed a second certified
5
letter to Mr. Woodward again informing him of the violations and options for compliance. Mr.
Woodward did not accept either certified letter.
3. Mr. Mraz followed his two letters with a phone message to Mr. Woodward. The phone
message reiterated the information contained in the letters.
4. In response to Mr. Mraz's phone message, Mr. Woodward left a voice message for Mr. Mraz.
In his message, Mr. Woodward identifies himself. Mr. Woodward stated that he was not going
to play phone tag with Mr. Mraz that he was leaving a message and that was it. Mr. Woodward
stated that there are several other fences similar to his and he was not going to worry about his.
Mr. Woodward ends the phone call by stating, "That's all I'm going to be doing".
5. On November 8, 2001 Mason County Code Enforcement Officer Kristen French conducted a
"drive-by site inspection" of the subject property and confirmed the fences were still in a
location forward of the common line and forward of the Ordinary High Water Mark .
6.A Notice of Violation, dated, December 20,2001,was mailed to Mr. Woodward on December
24,2001. The Notice of Violation notified Mr. Woodward of a hearing to be held in front of the
Mason County Hearing Examiner regarding the chain link fences on Mr. Woodward's property.
7. A hearing was held on January 16, 2002 under case number HEX 2002-00004 in front of the
Mason County Hearing Examiner. Mason County presented evidence that on April 17, 2001 and
November 8, 2001, Mr. Woodward's property contains two, six-foot high chain link fences
located along the western and eastern property lines. Mason County presented evidence that
these chain link fences extended beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM)and into Lake
Isabella. Additionally,that both fences were forward of the common line setback.
8. During the January 16, 2002 hearing, Staff determined that the common line setback, as
measured by drawing an imaginary line between the rooflines of adjoining residences, is 129 feet
for the western property line. Staff found that the fence along the western property line extended
beyond this setback. Staff did not measure the setback line for the eastern property line, but also
found that at least a portion of the fence along this line was also not in compliance. The findings
of staff were uncontested and treated as verities.
9. The Mason County Hearing Examiner issued a decision regarding the Woodward property on
February 12, 2002 which affirmed the allegations by Mason County finding that the subject
chain link fences on the Woodward's property violated the enlarged setbacks required for the
western and eastern property lines. Further, that the chain link fences extended beyond the
Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) and into Lake Isabella.
10. On March 8, 2002, Scott Woodward's attorney, Argal Oberquell, filed an appeal of the
Hearing Examiner's Decision in Superior Court.
11. On April 25, 2002, Argal Oberquell and former Mason County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Darren Nienaber entered into a Stipulation and Order for Continuance staying the Superior Court
case pending resolution of the Woodward's after the fact application for shoreline variance and
conditional use permits for the fences.
6
12. On April 30, 2002, Scott Woodward submitted the after-the-fact shoreline permit
applications to try to keep those portions of the fence that were found to be in violation of the
Mason County Code in the Hearing Examiner Decision.
13. On February 7, 2003, the shoreline permits that Scott Woodward had submitted were denied
by Mason County. The Woodward's appealed the County's denial to the Shoreline Hearings
Board.
14. On September 25, 2003,the Shoreline Hearings Board(SHB)held a hearing on the appeal of
the County's decision to deny Scott Woodward's shoreline permits for the fences.
15. On October 21, 2003, the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) issued a decision to uphold the
County's denial of the Woodward's'application for a conditional use permit and variance.
16. On December 9, 2004, a lien was filed in the amount of$2,000 on the Woodward property
by Mason County for unpaid fines as issued by the Hearing Examiner.
17. On May 11, 2005, Mason County Title Company submitted payment in full of the lien with
interest. The lien was subsequently released by Mason County on October 21,2005.
18. On March 22, 2006 Mason Count Planner, Code Enforcement Officer Stephanie Pawlawski
inspected the subject property. Ms. Pawlawski confirmed the presence of the two chain link
fences on the subject property in a location forward of the common line setback that extended
beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Isabella. Ms. Pawlawski documented that the
two fences remained in the same location and construction as they had when documented in case
number HEX 2002-00004.
19. During the March 22, 2006 site inspection, Ms. Pawlawski observed a concrete pad that had
been poured approximately 15 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) and measured
approximately 10'xl5'. Ms. Pawlawski noted that a majority of the vegetation that has been
planted in the buffer is non-native and has significantly changed the natural shoreline
characteristics.
20. A Notice of Code Violation was mailed via first class and certified mail to Scott and Marjorie
Woodward on May 5, 2006. A compliance deadline to remove the fences as previously ordered
by the Hearing Examiner and permit or remove the vegetation and concrete pad was set for May
25, 2006. The certified mail was refused, but the first class mail was not returned to Mason
County.
21. On June 9, 2006, a Notice of Civil Violation and Notice of Hearing was sent via first class
and certified mail to Scott and Marjorie Woodward. Scott Woodward appeared at the June 26,
2006 hearing.
22. The property owners have not complied with the previous Hearing Examiner decision and
order
7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Mason County brings this action as a civil regulatory order authorized by MCC 15.13.030. The
Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to issue a decision on civil regulatory orders
as provided in MCC 15.13.045.
COUNT 1 On or about April 17, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former Planning Department staff Rick
Mraz on April 17, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case
HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that
case.
Mason County Code 15.13.020
(a)Nonconforming structures and other non-conforming land modifications shall be
a continuing violation.Every day of violation shall be a separate violation. It shall be
a violation to own, use,control, maintain, or possess a portion of any premises which
has been constructed, equipped,maintained,controlled, or used in violation of any of
the applicable provisions,MCC Section 15.03.005,in this title. Structures or activities
which were made or conducted without a permit,when a permit was required at the
time of first action, do not vest and require current permits. Any person, firm, or
corporation who violates or who solicits, aids,or attempts a violation are accountable
under this chapter and are subject to the penalty provision as well as the hearing
examiner process.
This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former
Planning Department staff Rick Mraz on April how OOr the fences have not been This violation was lbrought into
by the
Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004,
compliance as ordered in that case.
8
Although the fences have not been brought into compliance, Mason County needs to specify the
date that they are alleging that Mr. Woodward was not incompliance in their charging document.
Mr. Woodward has already been charged and found in violation of this April 17, 2001 violation.
If the County wishes to violate Mr. Woodward for not correcting the violations and to hold him
accountable for a separate action for each day the violation persists, then the County must charge
Mr. Woodward accordingly and specify each date they are alleging he failed to come into
compliance.
This is not the charging language before the Hearing Examiner and therefore this violation is
dismissed.
COUNT (2) On or about April 17, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development
(9) was observed by former Planning Department staff Rick Mraz on April 17, 2001. This
violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner orderede n that HEX2002-00004, however the
fences have not been brought into compliance
Mason County Code 15.13.020
(a)Nonconforming structures and other non-conforming land modifications shall be
a continuing violation. Every day of violation shall be a separate violation.It shall be
a violation to own,use, control, maintain, or possess a portion of any premises which
has been constructed, equipped, maintained, controlled, or used in violation of any of
the applicable provisions,MCC Section 15.03.005, in this title. Structures or activities
which were made or conducted without a permit,when a permit was required at the
time of first action, do not vest and require current permits. Any person, firm,or
corporation who violates or who solicits, aids, or attempts a violation are accountable
under this chapter and are subject to the penalty provision as well as the hearing
examiner process.
This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former
Planning Department staff Rick Mraz on April 17, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the
Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into
compliance as ordered in that case.
9
Although the fences have not been brought into compliance, Mason County needs to specify the
date that they are alleging that Mr. Woodward was not incompliance in their charging document.
Mr. Woodward has already been charged and found in violation of this April 17, 2001 violation.
If the County wishes to violate Mr. Woodward for not correcting the violations and to hold him
accountable for a separate action for each day the violation persists, then the County must charge
Mr. Woodward accordingly and specify each date they are alleging he failed to come into
compliance.
This is not the charging language before the Hearing Examiner and therefore this violation is
dismissed.
COUNT (3) On or about November 8, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former Planning Department staff
Kristin French on November 8, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner
under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as
ordered in that case.
Mason County Code 15.13.020
(a)Nonconforming structures and other non-conforming land modifications shall be
a continuing violation. Every day of violation shall be a separate violation. It shall be
a violation to own,use,control, maintain,or possess a portion of any premises which
has been constructed, equipped, maintained, controlled, or used in violation of any of
the applicable provisions,MCC Section 15.03.005, in this title. Structures or activities
which were made or conducted without a permit,when a permit was required at the
time of first action,do not vest and require current permits. Any person,firm,or
corporation who violates or who solicits, aids, or attempts a violation are accountable
under this chapter and are subject to the penalty provision as well as the hearing
examiner process.
This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former
Planning Department staff Kristin French on November 8, 2001. This violation was affirmed by
the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought
into compliance as ordered in that case.
10
Although the fences have not been brought into compliance, Mason County needs to specify the
date that they are alleging that Mr. Woodward was not incompliance in their charging document.
Mr. Woodward has already been charged and found in violation of this November 8, 2001
violation. .
If the County wishes to violate Mr. Woodward for not correcting the violations and to hold him
accountable for a separate action for each day the violation persists, then the County must charge
Mr. Woodward accordingly and specify each date they are alleging he failed to come into
compliance.
This is not the charging language before the Hearing Examiner and therefore this violation is
dismissed.
COUNT (4) On or about November 8, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development
(9) was observed by former Planning Department staff Kristin French on November 8, 2001.
This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the
fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
Mason County Code 15.13.020
(a)Nonconforming structures and other non-conforming land modifications shall be
a continuing violation. Every day of violation shall be a separate violation. It shall be
a violation to own, use, control, maintain, or possess a portion of any premises which
has been constructed, equipped,maintained, controlled,or used in violation of any of
the applicable provisions,MCC Section 15.03.005, in this title. Structures or activities
which were made or conducted without a permit,when a permit was required at the
time of first action, do not vest and require current permits. Any person, firm,or
corporation who violates or who solicits, aids, or attempts a violation are accountable
under this chapter and are subject to the penalty provision as well as the hearing
examiner process.
This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former
Planning Department staff Kristin French on November 8, 2001. This violation was affirmed by
11
the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought
into compliance as ordered in that case.
Although the fences have not been brought into compliance, Mason County needs to specify the
date that they are alleging that Mr. Woodward was not incompliance in their charging document.
Mr. Woodward has already been charged and found in violation of this November 8, 2001
violation. .
If the County wishes to violate Mr. Woodward for not correcting the violations and to hold him
accountable for a separate action for each day the violation persists, then the County must charge
Mr. Woodward accordingly and specify each date they are alleging he failed to come into
compliance.
This is not the charging language before the Hearing Examiner and therefore this violation is
dismissed.
COUNT (5) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of
section 17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by Planning Department staff
Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner
under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as
ordered in that case.
Mason Count Code 17.50.60 Residential Development(1)
The development of land or construction or placement of dwelling units for the
purpose of residential occupancy. This section shall apply to all single family and
multi-family dwellings, and any other accessory structure, including decks, garages
and fences.
Although a Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction on
wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser or a singly family residence for
his own use or the use of his family, such construction and all normal appurtenant
structures must otherwise conform to the Master Program. Construction greater
than 35 feet high requires a Substantial Development Permit.
(1) Residential development over the water is prohibited.
Mason County Code 17.50.60 provides that "residential development over the water is
prohibited." Staff accurately determined that any residential construction over the OHWM is
12
"over the water" and hence in violation of MCC 17.50.60. Staff also found as uncontested fact
that the subject fences extended beyond the OHWM into Lake Isabella. Consequently, Mr.
Woodward has violated MCC 17.50.60
The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Woodward is in violation as to Count 6.
COUNT (6) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost
eaves of the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential
Development (9) was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22,
2006. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004,
however the fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
Mason County Code 17.50.60 Residential Development (9)
The development of land or construction or placement of dwelling units for the
purpose of residential occupancy. This section shall apply to all single family and
multi-family dwellings,and any other accessory structure, including decks, garages
and fences.
Although a Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction on
wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser or a singly family residence for
his own use or the use of his family, such construction and all normal appurtenant
structures must otherwise conform to the Master Program. Construction greater
than 35 feet high requires a Substantial Development Permit.
(9)Each shoreline environment has a setback requirement for structures
from the ordinary high water mark. (See chart at end of this section.)
Uncovered porches, decks or steps may project into the required setback
area, provided such structures are no higher than 30 inches above average
grade excluding railings required for reasons of public safety. The setback in
each environment may be increased or decreased by the Administrator in the
following ways:
a) Increased Setback Requirements. The setbacks may be increased if the
building area or setback area has a slope greater than 40 percent,severe
instability, or the average setback of the two adjacent residences is greater
than the setback requirement for that environment. In such cases,the
setback shall be determined by drawing an imaginary line between the roof
lines of adjacent residences; PROVIDED the minimum distance required by
13
reason of slope or instability shall be required. If there is no residence on an
adjacent lot, the next lot with a residence will be considered, up to 150 feet
away. If there is no adjacent residence within 150 feet, the minimum default
setback shall be assumed on that side of the proposed residence. In the
Urban Environment, a residence setback over 120 feet from the line of
ordinary high water will not be considered in determining the setback and
the default setback will be used at 15 feet.
In cases of a pronounced curved shoreline or point,the setback shall be
established by determining proportionate setback distances from the OHWM
of adjacent residences.
Setback for any structure greater than 30 inches above average grade shall
be behind this common line(see figure).
b. Decreased Setback Requirements. The setback may be relaxed
PROVIDED that at least one existing residence adjacent(within 50 feet) to
the proposed structure infringes on the setback. In such cases,the setback
shall be determined in the same manner described under "Increased Setback
Requirement" where applicable. This shall not be construed to allow
residential development over water or to allow a reduction of the default
setback in cases of pronounced cove or indented shoreline. Setback
relaxation is subject to approval by the Shoreline Administrator(see
illustration).
Further deviation from setback requirements shall require a Variance.
Mason County Code 17.50.60(9) establishes shoreline setback requirements for all shoreline
environments as specified in chart to MMC 17.50.60(9). The chart includes building setbacks.
MMC 17.50.60(8) provides that fences thirty inches or higher shall follow building setback
lines. The Hearing Examiner finds that the "building setback lines" referenced in MMC
17.50.60(8) are the setbacks in the MMC 17.50.60(9) chart that apply to single and multi-family
structures.
MMC 17.50.60(9) allows for the enlargement of shoreline setbacks when the average setback of
two adjacent residences is greater than the setback requirement for the applicable shoreline
environment. Staff does not identify which shoreline environment applies to Mr. Woodward's
property, so it is not immediately apparent if the average setbacks of adjoining residences
exceeds the average for the shoreline environment, or even whether this was the reason for
providing for an enlarged setback. However staff did find justification for an enlarged setback as
authorized by MMC 17.50.60(9) and that this setback was determined to be 129 feet for the
western property line and an unspecified distance for the eastern property line. Due to the fact
that these staff findings are uncontested the Hearing Examiner will find that circumstances do
justify an enlarged setback and that this setback is 129 feet for the western property line. The
Hearing Examiner further finds that subject fences violate the enlarged setbacks required for the
western and eastern property lines.
The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Woodward is in violation as to Count 6.
14
COUNT (7) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance,
Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas , Section G.I.c.2. The
nonpermitted fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by
Scott and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section
15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. Section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 states that appurtenant structures not
needing building permits, associated with residential development and located within the
FWHCA or buffer may be permitted. No permits have been submitted to date. This violation of
section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on
March 22, 2006.
MCC 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
OR THEIR BUFFERS
(G)A Mason Environmental Permit shall be obtained from the County,using
the administrative review process in this Chapter, before undertaking the
following activities in FWHCAs or their buffers. When a major new
development is proposed within 1/4 mile of a listed species point location (den
or nest site), as identified through the WDFW PHS data base,tribal and
other local fish and wildlife databases or knowledge, a preliminary review by
a qualified fish and wildlife professional shall be provided to the county
which shall determine if a FWHCA or its buffer is within the area of the
development.
1. A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be prepared for these activities:
a. The removal, excavation, grading, dumping,discharging or filling of any
material unless part of a project which has been permitted pursuant to this
section or for which no permit is required.
b. The destruction or alteration of FWHCA's or their buffers through
clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning,vegetation removal
(terrestrial,freshwater,or marine), or planting of vegetation that would alter
the character of the FWHCA or buffer,unless part of a project which has
been permitted pursuant to this section or for which no permit is required.
c. New Construction and Major New Development:
1. New residential construction and major new development is not permitted
within FWHCA or its buffer, except for the activities listed in this
subsection G, or as approved through a variance or reasonable use
exception as provided in subsection K.
2. Appurtenant structures not needing building permits, associated with
residential development and located in the FWHCA or buffer may be
permitted. A proposal shall meet the additional review standards of the
Mason County Shoreline Master Program, Resource Ordinance, and
15
other development ordinances.
The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Woodward is in violation of this section as he did not
obtain the required permit under MCC 17.01.110.G.1.c.2
The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Woodward is in violation as to Count 7.
COUNT (8) On or about March 22, 2006, a large quantity of non-native vegetation planted in
the buffer and altering the character of the natural shoreline was observed on parcel 31906-51-
00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Section G.I.b. The nonpermitted vegetation is located
on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie Woodward,
in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,to wit:
The vegetation within the shoreline buffer on the subject property primarily contains yard grass,
palm-like trees, and pampas grass, with several fir and cedar trees along the property lines. The
character of the buffer had been significantly altered from its original state, as can be seen in the
attached pictures 1 and 2 (Attachment 1). Section 17.01.110.G.1.b states that the planting of
vegetation that would alter the character of the FWHCA or buffer, unless part of a project
which has been permitted pursuant to this section, is a permit-required activity. There have been
no permits submitted to date. This violation of section 17.01.110.G.1.b was observed by
Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006.
MCC 17.01.110.G.1.b FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS OR THEIR BUFFERS
(G)A Mason Environmental Permit shall be obtained from the County,using
the administrative review process in this Chapter, before undertaking the
following activities in FWHCAs or their buffers. When a major new
development is proposed within 1/4 mile of a listed species point location (den
or nest site), as identified through the WDFW PHS data base,tribal and
other local fish and wildlife databases or knowledge, a preliminary review by
a qualified fish and wildlife professional shall be provided to the county
which shall determine if a FWHCA or its buffer is within the area of the
development.
1. A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be prepared for these activities:
b. The destruction or alteration of FWHCA's or their buffers through
clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning,vegetation removal
(terrestrial, freshwater, or marine), or planting of vegetation that would alter
the character of the FWHCA or buffer, unless part of a project which has
been permitted pursuant to this section or for which no permit is required.
The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Woodward is in violation of this section as a large quantity
of non-native vegetation was planted in the buffer of his property and altered the character of the
natural shoreline.
16
The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Woodward is in violation as to Count 8.
COUNT (9) On or about March 22, 2006, a concrete pad with the approximate dimensions of
10'x 12' was observed approximately 15' from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Isabella on
parcel 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Chapter
17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Section GA.a. The nonpermitted
concrete pad is located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott
and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,
to wit:
A concrete pad with the approximate dimensions of 10'xl2' is located on the subject property
approximately 15' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The concrete pad is seen in the attached
pictures 2 and 3 (Attachment 1). Section 17.01.110.G.1.a of the Mason County Resource
Ordinance explains that dumping, discharging, or filling of any material in the FWHCA or buffer
is a permit-required activity. There have not been permits submitted for this activity. This
violation of section 17.01.110.G.1.a was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie
Pawlawski on March 22, 2006.
MCC 17.01.110.G.1.a FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS OR THEIR BUFFERS
(G)A Mason Environmental Permit shall be obtained from the County,using
the administrative review process in this Chapter, before undertaking the
following activities in FWHCAs or their buffers. When a major new
development is proposed within 1/4 mile of a listed species point location (den
or nest site), as identified through the WDFW PHS data base,tribal and
other local fish and wildlife databases or knowledge, a preliminary review by
a qualified fish and wildlife professional shall be provided to the county
which shall determine if a FWHCA or its buffer is within the area of the
development.
1. A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be prepared for these activities:
a. The removal,excavation, grading,dumping,discharging or filling of any
material unless part of a project which has been permitted pursuant to this
section or for which no permit is required.
The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Woodward is in violation of this section as a concrete pad
was placed upon his property without Mr. Woodward first obtaining a proper permit
The Hearing Examiner finds that Mr. Woodward is in violation as to Count 9.
17
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,the Hearing Examiner
affirms violations Counts 5 through 9 in the Notice of Civil Violation dated June 9,2006 on tax
parcel numbers 31906-51-00017, case number HEX2006-00017. Counts 1 through 4 are
dismissed.
The hearing examiner orders Scott Woodward to correct and abate all the violations affirmed in
the Notice of Violation of this action said Notice dated June 9, 2006. These corrections include,
but are not limited to:
Achieve compliance with the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Shoreline Master
Program, and Mason County Development Code by completing the requirements that
follow:
• Remove those portions of the fence that are waterward of the common line as
specified in the Mason County Resource Ordinance section 17.01.110.D.2.a.I and
those portions of the fence that are past the OHWM.
• Remove the non-native vegetation or submit an after-the-fact Mason
Environmental Permit application and Habitat Management Plan
• Remove the concrete pad or submit an after-the-fact Mason Environmental Permit
application and Habitat Management Plan
• These permits are subject to triple-fee requirements as detailed in Mason County
Fee Ordinance Section 1.10.030,After-The-Fact Permits.
All corrections and abatements shall be completed by April 30, 2007
The hearing examiner imposes a $2000.00 fine on Counts 5 and a $2000.00 fine on Count 6,
double the fine as authorized under MCC 15.13.045 as these are repeat violations. A fine of
$1000.00 will be imposed Count 7, $1000.00 on Count 8 and $1000.00 on Count 9. A total of
$7000.00 in fines is imposed. $2000.00 of the fine will be due with in thirty days with the rest
suspended If Mr. Woodward does not complete compliance by April 30, 2007; the suspended
$5000.00 portion of the fine shall be imposed.
Mr. Woodward shall reimburse Mason County within thirty days for costs incurred by the
County in pursuing this matter. The County provided the following itemized account of the
expenses incurred as required by section 15.13.055:
Notice of Civil Violation/Staff Report
6 hours
$52.30/hr $313.80
Consultation with attorney TJ Martin
%2 hour
$75.00/hr $ 37.50
Hearing Examiner Expense
$ 400.00
TOTAL: $751.30
18
1
The hearing examiner retains jurisdiction over this matter to clarify and/or modify the terms of
these correction requirements until the violations are corrected or the County seeks a separate
enforcement action to enforce the terms of this decision.
Decision issued on the�"day of n'l , 2007.
NL4,�
Kris(en lbrechts,Hearing Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT OF RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with
Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act,
Chapter 36.70C RCW.
19
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT gelfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360) 482-5269
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
�st
March 12,2007
Scott and Marjorie Woodward
924 W. Delight Park Rd
Shelton,WA 98584
RE: Hearing Examiner Decision and Order; Billing for Mason County Hearing Examiner
Fines and Costs
Enclosed,you will find a copy of the Hearing Examiner Decision and Order regarding case
number HEX2006-00017. The fines imposed in association with HEX2006-00017 (parcel
number 3 1 906-5 1-000 1 7)total $7,751.30. Of that amount, $5,000 is suspended on the condition
that you achieve compliance with the Order by April 30, 2007. This means that by April 30,
2007,you must comply with the Decision and Order of the Hearing Examiner as bulleted on
Page 18 (copy enclosed). Proof of compliance shall be provided to Mason County(PO Box 279,
ATTN: Code Enforcement, Shelton,WA 98584), and shall be received by April 30,2007. If
proof of compliance is not received by April 30,2007,the total fine amount of$7,751.30 shall
become immediately due and payable.
If compliance is achieved by April 30, 2007,you are only responsible for the following: $751.30
costs imposed and$2,000 fine imposed($2,751.30 total). This payment must be received by
Mason County by April 30, 2007. The remaining$5,000 in fines is immediately due and payable
if compliance is not achieved by April 30,2007. This billing is based on the Order of the
Hearing Examiner for Mason County,which affirms Counts 5-9 in the Notice of Civil Violation
issued against tax parcel number 3 1 906-5 1-000 1 7.
Please return the second page of this document with your payment. Your canceled check will be
your receipt. Thank you in advance for your timely response to this billing. Unpaid fines will
be assessed and attached to your property as liens. If you have any questions,please contact
Stephanie Pawlawski at(360)427-9670 ext. 602.
Fine: $7,000.00 (reduced to $2,000.00 if compliance is achieved by 4/30/07)
Costs: $ 751.30
Total: $2,751.30 if compliance is achieved by 4/30/07
$7,751.30 if compliance is not achieved by 4/30/07
Community Development: Planning Code Enforcement
Make payment payable to "Mason County Treasurer", mail to:
Mason County Planning Department
Attn: Code Enforcement
PO Box 279
Shelton,WA 98584
Owner: Woodward Fine amount: $2,751.30 if compliance achieved by 4/30/07
$7,751.30 if compliance is not achieved by 4/30/07
Tax Parcel Number: 31906-51-00017 Payment line item information:
Case Number: HEX2006-00017 $2,000 OR$7,000 Planning Fine
$400.00 Hearing Examiner
$351.30 County Costs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 DECLARATION OF SERVICE
10
11 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
12
13 In the matter of enforcement case ENF2006-00014 and HEX2006-00017 _
14 Case of Scott and Marjorie Woodward
15
16 I, Stephanie Pawlawski,under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington,
17 declare as follows:
18 1 am an employee of the Mason County Department of Community Development. I am
19 over the age of 18 years old and am competent to be a witness.
20 On the date indicated below and manner indicated herein, the Decision of the Hearing
21 Examiner regarding the above captioned case was sent to the following:
22
23 Scott and Marjorie Woodward
24 924 W. Delight Park Rd
25 Shelton, WA 98584
26 ff
27 [X] By United States Mail t i►�� Gl � Cev QtX
28 [ ] By Personal Delivery
29 [ ] By Facsimile
30
31
32 Signed this; of , 2007, at Shelton, Washington,
33
34 4� ,
35 Ste anie Pawlawski
36
1 1
Monday,July 03,2006
At the Hearing on Monday June 26, 2006,Ms. Olbrechts requested to see in 7 days proof
of the Woodwards Grandfather fence put on their property.
These Declarations are for Ms. Olbrechts to read.
Scott Woodward
Jun Z9 06 1l:3fa 5tanivay Law Umce 3bU46ZbZUU p,3
1
2
4
5
IN TBE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
6 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON
7
g Petitioner, NO.
9 V.
DECLARATION OF
10 LAUREN BARRETT
11 Respondent.
12 Lauren Barrett declares as follows:
13 I live at 900 E.Ballantree Drive,Shelton,Washington.My father Don Norton purchased the
property next to the Woodward's grandfather fence in April of 1979,and moved to the property in May
14 1979.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the
15 foregoing is true and correct.
16
17 Signed at Shelton, WA,on this day of June,2006.
18 AUREN BARRETT
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECLARATION OF JOHN S.STANISLAY
LAti REN BARRETT ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O.Box 1621
Shahon,Washington 99594
(360)426-6699
Fax(360)462-6200
Jun Zy ub i i:o is stanisoy LaW vmce
1
2
3
4
5 IN Ti1E SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASBINGTON
6 IN AND FOR THE COUA'TY OF MASON
7
8 Petitioner, NO.
9 V. DECLARATION OF
10 DON NORTON
11 Respondent.
12 Don Norton declares as follows_
13 1 purchased the property in Delight Park in April of 1979.The Woodward grandfather fence was
present when I purchased the properly. My daughter Lauren Barrett moved across the road from my
14 property and helped oversee the property in May of 1979.
15 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the
16 foregoing is true and correct.
17 Signed at Shelton, WA,on this),,4. 'day of June,2006.
18 AP'x V
19 DON NORTON
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECLARATION OF JOHN S.STANISLAY
DON NORTON ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O.Sox 1621
Shelton,Washington 99594
(360)426-6699
Fax(360)462-6200
Jun 29 06 11,3/a Starnsmy Law umce JVV`FVLVGVV r•�
1 - ,
2
3
4
5 1N THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASIHNGTON
6 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON
7
,8 Petitioner; NO.
DECLARATION OF
10 GUY BARRETT
11 Respondent.
12 Guy Barrett declares as follows:
13 I live at 900 E.Ballautree Drive, Shelton,Washington.My father in Law Don Norton purchased
the property next to the Woodward's grandfather fence in April of 1979,anov to the property in
14 May 1979.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the
15 foregoing is true and correct.
16
17 Signed at Shelton,WA,on this,'#day of June,2006.
18 abyB TT
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECLARa►MN OF JOHN S.STANISLAY
GUY BARRETT ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O.Box 1621
Shelton,Washington 99584
(360)426-6699
Fax(360)462-6200
Jun Zy Ub U3,*ip 5tarnslay Law Office MU46162UU p.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
o IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON
8
9
to Petitioner, NO.
11 v DECLARATION OF
12 SUE NELSON
13 Respondents.
14 SUE NELSON declares as follows:
15 1 reside at 830 W. Delight Park Rd.Shelton Washington_ My Aunt owns property on the east
side of the grandfather fence. In 1957 I started coming to the little red cabin on Isabella Lake_ In Spring
16 1989 I was given full use of the little red cabin at Isabella Lake. My dog who passed away July 12,2006,
had a scar on his nose from Scott and Margie Woodward's barbed wire fence,which happened when he
17 was a puppy. The dog was 12 when he died and he received the scar when he was in his firstyear.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that
18 the foregoing is true and correct
19
Signed at Shelton,NVA,on this` y of June, 2006
20 : 2
21 SUE NELSON
22
23
24
25
DECLARATION OF JOHN S.STANISLAY
SUE NELSON ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O_Box 1621
Shelton,Washington 98584
(360)426-6699
Fax(360)462-6200
UOr"l LOUD 1a:01 44UDOOO r U0114a MUDDD l,lJl\J I FXUU 11U19 r"Uv- CJ44 Uc
1997 UBC CHAPTER 1,SECTION 106.2 ANO ESTABLISHED BY MASON COUNTY AMENDMENTS AND POLICY '
Exempt Not F,xempt Exempt Not Esompt' Exempt Not Exempt
t One story detached accessory bulidlrigs used an tool and storage sheds. XXXXX
play-houses,areenhauses end similar uses,provided the projected floor area XXXXX XXXXX
does not exceed 120 square feel with a maximum 24'overhang
sFences not over sic(el fast hlgh. XXXXX
XXXXX XXXXX
3 Oil derricks.
XXXXX XXXXX �! _XXXXX"
4 Movable eases,counter and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches high. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
5 Change of Use XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX "
0 Water tanks supported directly upon grade if the capacity does not exceed XXXXX
5000 gallons and fhe ratio of-height-to dfemeter or width does not exceed 2 ' XXXXX to 1. XXXXX
7 Wallis,driveways,and platforms as defined in U8G•Section 405.not more
-than 30 inches above grade and not over aq"V-8aeament or story below. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
8 Painting,papering and similar finish wd`ik,
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
9 Temporary motion picture,television and theater stage sets and scenery. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
TO Window awnings supported by an exterior wall of Group H.Division 3,and
Group U occupancies when projecting not more than 54 Inches. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
11 Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R,Division 3 occupancy
In which the pool walls are entirety above the adjacent grade and If the XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
capacity dose not exceed 5000 gallons.
12 Interior remodeling without change of use. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
13 Inetalladan of cabinets. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
14 Siding replacement. XXXXX XXXXX; XXXXX
15 Repelr and maintenance when supporting or atructwatmembers arc not XXXXXX affected where there Is no expanpion•or change in foot print. XXXXX XXXXX
16 Inategation of doors,finish work,carpet,Roor rover, XXXXX XXxXx)( XXXXX17 1190aeement of plumbing fb*Avs,i.e.,alnks,toilets,faucets Inot including
water heaterel. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
is Installation of gutters and downspouts. XXXXX XXXXX Xxxxx
19 Landscaping and related rockery for landscaping,lees then four(4)feet_
when there is no surcharge and the pror(mity to structures does not create a XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
hazard.
0 itriveway-z4,y!V-g'eldewnn5s installed to grade. C)c 3pC XXXXX XXXXX
Window replacement
a: Repair_ Replacing glass in an sidsting frame,not removing the frame. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Replacement of glazing and frame or eniarging site requires
compliance with the State Energy Code and a permit.
22 Roof patching,non structural repairs only. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
23 Agricultural sheds used for feeding,shelter and storage of feed,less than XXXXXX
064 square feet with a wall height not to cxwed ten 1101 feat and setback XXXXX XXXXX
25'from all other struc"and property Ones.
24 Propane Tanks and Heat Pumps XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
25 Re-Roofing xx)gXx XXXXX
XXXXXX-
26 Floats-120 square feet or less(Detached and chain anchored only) XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
27 Residential decks less than 120 sit h and less than 30'in height above grade XXXxxx XXXXX XXXXX
Za Docks XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
29. Bulkheads,boat Offs,hydraulic boat tiffs.marine railways XXXXX XX%XXX XXXXX
;ril 27. 199a
2
q
�� rn
s
zY
EL
1 inch equals 46 feet
W E
1 inch equals 0.01 miles
R3 + '
t �
i
e iy
y 1
k t Q
N
1 inch equals 89 feet
W E
1 inch equals 0.02 miles
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Kristen Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
From:
Stephanie Pawlawski
Planner, Code Enforcement
Date: June 14,2006
File: Scott and Marjorie Woodward
31906-51-00017
HEX2006-00017
Hearing
Information: June 26,2006 at 11:00am
Mason County Building One
Commissioners' Chambers
411 N. 5' Street
Shelton,WA 98584
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Defendant Information
1. Defendant: Scott and Marjorie Woodward (Attachment A)
2. Site Location: Tax Parcel Number 31906-51-00017 in Mason County,
Washington. (Attachment B)
2. Violations (as detailed in NOTICE OF CIVIL VIOLATION (Attachment C)):
Highlighted text references the applicable law. Citations are to text "as adopted,"with
copies of the applicable text attached following this Staff Report (Attachment D).
Mason County alleges as follows:
COUNT (1) On or about April 17, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located
on parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program, Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted
fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott
and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section
15.13.020, to wit:
Page 1 of 7
J
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of
the fence that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend
over the water. The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella.
This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former
Planning Department staff Rick Mraz on April 17, 2001. This violation was affirmed by
the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been
brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (2) On or about April 17, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located
on parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program, Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted
fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott
and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section
15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of
the fence that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend
over the water. The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between
the watermost eaves of the two neighboring residences. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (9) was observed by former Planning Department
staff Rick Mraz on April 17, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner
under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance
as ordered in that case.
COUNT (3) On or about November 8, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were
located on parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline
Master Program, Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The
nonpermitted fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or
possessed by Scott and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County
Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of
the fence that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend
over the water. The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella.
This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former
Planning Department staff Kristin French on November 8, 2001. This violation was
affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have
not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (4) On or about November 8, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were
located on parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline
Master Program, Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The
nonpermitted fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or
Page 2 of 7
possessed by Scott and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County
Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of
the fence that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend
over the water. The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between
the watermost eaves of the two neighboring residences. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (9) was observed by former Planning Department
staff Kristin French on November 8, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing
Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into
compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (5) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located
on parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program,Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted
fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott
and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section
15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of
the fence that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend
over the water. The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella.
This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by
Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006. This violation was
affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have
not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (6) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located
on parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program, Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development(9). The nonpermitted
fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott
and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section
15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of
the fence that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend
over the water. The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between
the watermost eaves of the two neighboring residences. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (9) was observed by Planning Department staff
Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing
Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into
compliance as ordered in that case.
Page 3 of 7
COUNT (7) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were
located on parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource
Ordinance, Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ,
Section G.1.c.2. The nonpermitted fences are located on a parcel owned, used,
controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of
Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of
the fence that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend
over the water. The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between
the watermost eaves of the two neighboring residences. Section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 states
that appurtenant structures not needing building permits, associated with residential
development and located within the FWHCA or buffer may be permitted. No permits
have been submitted to date. This violation of section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 was observed by
Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006.
COUNT (8) On or about March 22, 2006, a large quantity of non-native vegetation
planted in the buffer and altering the character of the natural shoreline was observed on
parcel 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance,
Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Section G.l.b.
The nonpermitted vegetation is located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained,
or possessed by Scott and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County
Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The vegetation within the shoreline buffer on the subject property primarily contains yard
grass, palm-like trees, and pampas grass, with several fir and cedar trees along the
property lines. The character of the buffer had been significantly altered from its original
state, as can be seen in the attached pictures 1 and 2 (Attachment 1). Section
17.01.110.G.1.b states that the planting of vegetation that would alter the character of the
FWHCA or buffer, unless part of a project which has been permitted pursuant to this
section, is a permit-required activity. There have been no permits submitted to date. This
violation of section 17.01.110.G.1.b was observed by Planning Department staff
Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006.
COUNT (9) On or about March 22, 2006, a concrete pad with the approximate
dimensions of 10'xl2' was observed approximately 15' from the Ordinary High Water
Mark of Lake Isabella on parcel 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County
Resource Ordinance, Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas, Section G.l.a. The nonpermitted concrete pad is located on a parcel owned, used,
controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of
Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
A concrete pad with the approximate dimensions of 10'x12' is located on the subject
property approximately 15' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The concrete pad is
seen in the attached pictures 2 and 3 (Attachment 1). Section 17.01.110.G.1.a of the
Mason County Resource Ordinance explains that dumping, discharging, or filling of any
Page 4 of 7
material in the FWHCA or buffer is a permit-required activity. There have not been
permits submitted for this activity. This violation of section 17.01.110.G.1.a was
observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006.
The continued presence of the fences and the location of the concrete pad are evidenced
in photographs taken during the site inspection on March 22, 2006 (Attachment E).
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Case Chronology
1. On January 16, 2002, the Mason County Hearing Examiner, Kristen
Olbrechts, held a hearing for case number HEX2002-00004. This case was
involving Scott and Marjorie Woodward and the property that they own at 924
W. Delight Park Rd in Shelton WA, tax parcel number 31906-51-00017.
2. The Hearing Examiner issued a Decision on this matter on February 12, 2002,
which affirmed the violations alleged by Mason County. This Decision of the
Examiner is included as Attachment F.
3. On March 8, 2002, Scott Woodward's attorney, Argal Oberquell, filed an
appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision in Superior Court.
4. On April 25, 2002, Argal Oberquell and former Mason County Deputy
Prosecuting Attorney Darren Nienaber entered into a Stipulation and Order for
Continuance staying the Superior Court case pending resolution of the
Woodward's after the fact application for shoreline variance and conditional
use permits for the fences. This is included as Attachment G.
5. On April 30, 2002, Scott Woodward submitted the after-the-fact shoreline
permit applications to try to keep those portions of the fence that were found
to be in violation of the Mason County Code in the Hearing Examiner
Decision.
6. On February 7, 2003, the shoreline permits that Scott Woodward had
submitted were denied by Mason County. The Woodwards appealed the
County's denial to the Shoreline Hearings Board.
7. On September 25, 2003, the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) held a hearing
on the appeal of the County's decision to deny Scott Woodward's shoreline
permits for the fences.
8. On October 21, 2003, the SHB issued a decision to uphold the County's denial
of the Woodwards' application for a conditional use permit and variance.
9. On December 9, 2004, a lien was filed in the amount of $2,000 on the
Woodward property by Mason County for unpaid fines as issued by the
Hearing Examiner.
10. On May 11, 2005, Mason County Title Company submitted payment in full of
the lien with interest. The lien was subsequently released by Mason County
on October 21,2005.
11. A Notice of Code Violation was mailed via first class and certified mail to
Scott and Marjorie Woodward on May 5, 2006. A compliance deadline to
remove the fences as ordered by the Hearing Examiner and permit or remove
Page 5 of 7
the vegetation and concrete pad was set for May 25, 2006. The certified mail
was refused, but the first class mail was not returned to Mason County.
12. On June 9, 2006, a Notice of Civil Violation and Notice of Hearing was sent
via first class and certified mail to Scott and Marjorie Woodward.
B. Statement of Facts
• The subject property is located at 924 W. Delight Park Road in Mason County,
WA
• The property owners are Scott and Marjorie Woodward
• The property fronts on Lake Isabella
• The property owners have not complied with the previous Hearing Examiner
decision and order
C. Compliance Requirements
Based on the Statements of Fact and Attachments in this report, the County
recommends that Scott and Marjorie Woodward, owners of tax parcel number 31906-
51-00017, achieve compliance with the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Shoreline
Master Program, and Mason County Development Code by completing the
requirements that follow.
• Remove those portions of the fence that are waterward of the common line as
specified in the Mason County Resource Ordinance section 17.01.110.D.2.a.I and
those portions of the fence that are past the OHWM.
• Remove the non-native vegetation or submit an after-the-fact Mason
Environmental Permit application and Habitat Management Plan
• Remove the concrete pad or submit an after-the-fact Mason Environmental Permit
application and Habitat Management Plan
• These permits are subject to triple-fee requirements as detailed in Mason County
Fee Ordinance Section 1.10.030, After-The-Fact Permits.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The County requests that in addition to the Compliance Requirements as listed above, a
fine amount of$71,000 be imposed. This amount was assessed by calculating a $1,000
fine per month since the decision of the Shoreline Hearings Board in October 2003 for
Counts 1-2. This is 32 months at $1,000 per month, $32,000 x 2 Counts is $64,000. The
additional $7,000 is for Counts 3-9 at $1,000 per Count.
Count 1: 32 months outstanding @ $1,000/month: $32,000
Count 2: 32 months outstanding @ $1,000/month: $32,000
Count 3-9: $1,000 per Count as provided in 15.13.050: $7,000
Total Fine Amount Requested: $71,000
The County recommends that $5,000 of this amount become fully due and payable if the
required compliance measures are taken within (20) days of the decision of the Hearing
Page 6 of 7
• k
Examiner, with the remaining $66,000 suspended. If compliance measures are completed
within (30) days of the Hearing Examiner's decision, $10,000 shall become fully due and
payable, with the remaining $61,000 suspended. If compliance measures are completed
within (40) days of the Hearing Examiner's decision, $20,000 shall become fully due and
payable, with the remaining $51,000 suspended. If compliance measures are completed
any time after (40) days past the issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision, Mason
County recommends that the entire $71,000 fine be imposed.
The County additionally recommends that the defendant be found responsible for costs
incurred by the County in pursuing this matter and for the cost of the Hearing Examiner's
involvement in this matter. The County recommends that the costs itemized below
become fully due and payable within thirty (30) days of service of the Hearing
Examiner's Final Decision and Order. The County is providing the following itemized
account of the expenses incurred as required by section 15.13.055:
1. Notice of Civil Violation/Staff Report
6 hours
$52.30/hr $313.80
2. Consultation with attorney TJ Martin
'/z hour
$75.00/hr $ 37.50
3. Hearing Examiner Expense
$ 400.00 $400.00
TOTAL: $751.30
Signed Dated
Title/Authority
Page 7 of 7
I G.L. / rr. 5
DD h
8 DD
aD m 319061200000 o Tr 6
319062100000 O
T� Tr. 7
Tr.
P �
99� 2100010 Or D� �
II�8a� 3190 h
� _ a Tr. .
DEL 1 GHT - / ` �t Tr.l
PARK 7 9T `��`. / ea
COURT \ 01
9 14
1 g 10/52 Tr.
319062400000 h 1o/53
rn Q. Tr.
II
1I 0
1 ^ 0 Tr.
i rr.YP Tr PO TilB
rr24 rr17
`1 m Tr.23 rr 21 Tr./9 Tr.
1 1 p p O rr.
I I •p y o n
1 w O AO —
I 1 air °qg rr.l
rr.iS7 r
IIn 2400010
O A O 1) ^
M aj -
3 1 ----------Ir----1
o Q
0 A a T590o51 I 75000060 11 1 4200010
00 ;lm Mo r I I I 1 Tr. /
0 0-L � 7590052
0 a 1
�O 1h i 1� 1
n ~n N M O 11 I
1•1 ` 1 I Ta800T11
h 7590053 1 I I S.P 7 1
1 .1—
~ sP 2328 11
0 1
o n)o a0 '�OO v C 0 0 7590054 I
AI 7580OT2 739094*
hn 10 0 -L -L N
N T590030
319063100000
S-9/100 319084C
T500040 7s9oo31 T500020 T500010
Tr. 37
319065100037
/ �BLA A 00-49
Tr.
3100010
3400010 438006o a3a0000 S-51117
15 S-9/85 00002 31906
Tr. /
00003 33 Tr. 4 - so'EAS
P-6 Tr. 6 - --- - `51 �y 1 AF 3E
TR 1 / 4500040 1 ;
1
TR 2 1
1 I
2 PCL 3 9 9/BS SP SSI 1
I 1
g 10/123
1 1
4390030
4300020 4300010 1
4 00-62 I 3400000 Tr. 3 rr. 3 rr. P Tr./
3300010 1
1 RIMROCK RANCH RD.
300oq -1 4300050 s-1114
f'CL I rr. /
;-25/51
I NOAO
I iNED80N
3FOR REFERENCE
C4
RE/ISED 7-5-91 USE ONLY
4-12-95
3-9-90
1-12-02 RHH
i
AUG - 1 2003
o —
D� Tr. 5
D y
x 319061200000 Tr. 6
AtL m 319062100000 O
k
�f
m k Tr. 7
P ,\ Tr. 1
2100010 O
3Iy0623_7�76 _ e ! or* oaTt
�9DEL I GHT '
a / Tr 1
PARK 1 QO
v� COURT
9 b ~ Q�
1 v
S 10/52 L Tr
319062400000 10/53ZZ Q�
1
� o T r.
0
1 <¢ o Tr.
2 4 Tr 22 Tr.l 9
Tr.2 0 _
a N Tr. 17 ------------
N I e cD Tr
o 23 Tr. 2/ Ti/9
Tr.
m
40
o Tr.
p _—
A
' ca q c Tr. /
M ?y0. not Tr.
O h ,� ~0 2400010
i o M a)
O Q � Q M I 1 I - ------1 ----1
I
0 o rn 0 10 7590051 1 75000060 i 14200010
m 1
oo Ina) p m I I I � Tr. l
t� ,n h1 ~ 7 m 7590052 I 1 ( 1
I I
O� 1 1 T5900TI I
I 7590053 I 1 I S.P 746
B — ► k 1
_ m M Sp 2326 I I
N � co
p N �M M O I I
I
o r7 O O M O O 7590054 1 i 76900T2 7400.9"-
M hri O ~ O O 1 -L
109DI I _ I
N 7590030
319063100000
.� 9/100 319064C
7500040 7590031 T500020 T500010
Tr. 37
319065100037
.r BLA 00-49
J lvv�•�
---- — 3400010 4390060 4300000 S-51//7
�pp5 S-9/85 00002 31906
T r. /
00003 33
Av0?.-6 00001 Tr. 4 60' EA!
l-
Tr. 6 / - AF 36
TR I 4300040
TR 2
it
PCL 2 PCL 3 S 9/85 SP 851
I �
S 10/123 I I
I i
4390030
430002o aa000lo �
1 3400000
Tr. 3 T r. 5 Tr. ?
Tr. /
BL4 00-62 I
3300010 I
RIMROCK RANCH RD.
33 0000ij , 4300050
s-?7/74
i CL I Tr / 1
1
S-25/51 1
I
I � FREDfON 4 ROAD
3 FOR REFERENCE
REVISED 7-5-91 USE ONLY
1-28-94
,4-12-95
3-9-90
9-12-02 RHH
I
AUG - i 2003
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9 ,.0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 t e' I s OASIS
'f Ce✓f, S1� /6�
May 5, 2006
Scott and Marjorie Woodward
924 W. Delight Park Rd.
Shelton, WA 98584
NOTICE OF MASON COUNTY CODE VIOLATION
ENFORCEMENT CASE FILE NUMBER:ENF2006-00014
PARCELNUMBER: 31906-51-00017
SITE ADDRESS: 924 W.Delight Park Rd.,Shelton
TAXPAYER INFORMATION: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
Attn:Bill Holding
1 Home Campus
Des Moines,IA 50328-0001
Dear Mr. And Mrs. Woodward,
On March 22, 2006, I inspected the property located at 924 W. Delight Park Rd in Shelton, WA.
The inspection was to confirm the continued presence of two chain-link fences on your property
that extend beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Isabella. These fences were found to
be in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program under order of the Mason County
Hearing Examiner (HEX2002-00004)and Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB No.
03-007).
During my inspection, I documented that the two fences remained in the same location and
construction as they had when documented in case ENF2001-00128. I also observed a concrete
pad that had been poured approximately 15 feet from the OHWM and measured approximately
10'x15'. A majority of the vegetation that has been planted in the buffer is non-native and has
significantly changed the natural shoreline characteristics.
As documented in case ENF2001-00128, HEX2002-00004, and SHB No. 03-007, the violations
of the Shoreline Master Program were under sections 7.16.080 Use Regulation 1 and 7.16.080
Use Regulation 9. These violations have not been corrected, and are held as a separate action for
each day that the violation persists (Mason County Code Title 15, section 15.13.020.A).
In addition to the previously affirmed violations of the Shoreline Master Program, the Mason
County Resource Ordinance lists several permit-required activities that are applicable to the
Woodward site. This includes section 17.01.110.G.Lb which states that a Mason Environmental
Permit and Habitat Management Plan are required for "the destruction or alteration of Fish and
1
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas or their buffers through ..... planting of vegetation that
would alter the character of the FWHCA or buffer, unless part of a project which has been
permitted pursuant to this section.....". This would be applicable to the large quantities of non-
native vegetation that has been planted in the shoreline buffer, altering the character of the natural
shoreline. Section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 of the Resource Ordinance goes on to state that a Mason
Environmental Permit and Habitat Management Plan are required for"Appurtenant structures not
needing building permits, associated with residential development and located in the FWHCA or
buffer may be permitted. A proposal shall meet the additional review standards of the Mason
County Shoreline Master Program, Resource Ordinance, and other development ordinances."
This section would be applicable to the chain-link fences that are in the buffer and waterward of
OHWM which have already been shown to not meet the review standards of the Shoreline Master
Program. Pouring a concrete pad within the shoreline buffer is also an activity that requires a
Mason Environmental Permit and Habitat Management Plan under section 17.01.110.G.1.a
which explains that the dumping, discharging, or filling of any material in the FWHCA or buffer
is a permit-required activity.
Pursuant to the specifications of the Mason County Code Title 15 section 15.13.035, you will
have 20 days from the date of the postmark to respond to the County by removing said
structures/vegetation or applying for the appropriate permits. After the 20-day compliance
period, a hearing will be scheduled and fines may be imposed for those violations that have not
been corrected as specified in past hearing examiner decisions. You may also receive penalty
fines for those additional violations of the Mason County Resource Ordinance.
This letter will be postmarked May 5, 2006. You will have until May 25, 2006 to respond to the
County. You may contact me via e-mail at: stephap(i�co.mason.wa.us, by phone at (360) 427-9670
ext. 602, or by mail at: Mason County Planning, Attn: Code Enforcement, PO Box 279, Shelton,
WA 98584.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
c
Stephanie Pawlawski
Planner, Code Enforcement
°a °p MASON COUNTY
Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 'S f C(Q S S
on
IeA
cam+
NOTICE OF HEARING
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT JUNE 26, 2006 AT 11:00 AM
MASON COUNTY BUILDING ONE, COMMISSIONERS' CHAMBERS
411 N. 5TH SHELTON,WA 98584
June 9, 2006
Scott and Marjorie Woodward
924 W. Delight Park Rd.
Shelton, WA 98584
NOTICE OF CIVIL VIOLATION
Tax Parcel Number 31906-51-00017
Mr. and Mrs. Woodward,
This letter serves as a Notice of Civil Violation in accordance with section 15.13.035 of the
Mason County Development Code. Mason County may recommend a fine of up to one thousand
dollars ($1000.00)per violation based upon the violations listed below.
You are in violation of Mason County Code, Title 7 Shoreline Management
You are in violation of Mason County Code, Title 8 Environmental Policy
You are in violation of Mason County Code, Title 15 Development Code
You are in violation of Mason County Code, Title 17 Development Code
Copies of the referenced regulations are enclosed in this mailing,and additional copies are available from the Mason
County Planning Department. Citations are to text"as adopted."
Mason County alleges that the following activities took place in Mason County, as follows:
COUNT (1) On or about April 17, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former Planning Department staff Rick
Mraz on April 17, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case
HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that
case.
COUNT (2) On or about April 17, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development
(9) was observed by former Planning Department staff Rick Mraz on April 17, 2001. This
violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the
fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (3) On or about November 8, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by former Planning Department staff
Kristin French on November 8, 2001. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner
under case HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as
ordered in that case.
COUNT (4) On or about November 8, 2001, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development
(9) was observed by former Planning Department staff Kristin French on November 8, 2001.
This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the
fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (5) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (1). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend approximately 8-10' over the water of Lake Isabella. This violation of section
17.50.060 Residential Development (1) was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie
Pawlawski on March 22, 2006. This violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case
HEX2002-00004, however the fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that
case.
COUNT (6) On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
Title 17, Chapter 17.50.060 Residential Development (9). The nonpermitted fences are
located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie
Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. This violation of section 17.50.060 Residential Development
(9) was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006. This
violation was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner under case HEX2002-00004, however the
fences have not been brought into compliance as ordered in that case.
COUNT (D On or about March 22, 2006, two six-foot tall chain link fences were located on
parcel number 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance,
Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas , Section G.1.c.2. The
nonpermitted fences are located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed
by Scott and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section
15.13.020, to wit:
f '
The two fences as described above are located one on the eastern and one on the western
property line. There are blue privacy slats in the entire fence, except for the sections of the fence
that are 5' from Ordinary High Water and those portions of the fence the extend over the water.
The fences extend waterward of the common line that is drawn between the watermost eaves of
the two neighboring residences. Section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 states that appurtenant structures not
needing building permits, associated with residential development and located within the
FWHCA or buffer may be permitted. No permits have been submitted to date. This violation of
section 17.01.110.G.1.c.2 was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on
March 22, 2006.
COUNT (8) On or about March 22, 2006, a large quantity of non-native vegetation planted in
the buffer and altering the character of the natural shoreline was observed on parcel 31906-51-
00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Chapter 17.01.110 Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, Section G.Lb. The nonpermitted vegetation is located
on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott and Marjorie Woodward,
in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020, to wit:
The vegetation within the shoreline buffer on the subject property primarily contains yard grass,
palm-like trees, and pampas grass,with several fir and cedar trees along the property lines. The
character of the buffer had been significantly altered from its original state, as can be seen in the
attached pictures 1 and 2 (Attachment 1). Section 17.01.110.G.1.b states that the planting of
vegetation that would alter the character of the FWHCA or buffer, unless part of a project which
has been permitted pursuant to this section, is a permit-required activity. There have been no
permits submitted to date. This violation of section 17.01.110.G.1.b was observed by Planning
Department staff Stephanie Pawlawski on March 22, 2006.
COUNT (9) On or about March 22, 2006, a concrete pad with the approximate dimensions of
10'x12' was observed approximately 15' from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Isabella on
parcel 31906-51-00017 in violation of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Chapter
17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife.Habitat Conservation Areas, Section GA.a. The nonpermitted
concrete pad is located on a parcel owned, used, controlled, maintained, or possessed by Scott
and Marjorie Woodward, in violation of Mason County Development Code section 15.13.020,
to wit:
A concrete pad with the approximate dimensions of 10'xl2' is located on the subject property
approximately 15' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The concrete pad is seen in the attached
pictures 2 and 3 (Attachment 1). Section 17.01.110.G.1.a of the Mason County Resource
Ordinance explains that dumping,discharging, or filling of any material in the FWHCA or buffer
is a permit-required activity. There have not been permits submitted for this activity. This
violation of section 17.01.110.G.1.a was observed by Planning Department staff Stephanie
Pawlawski on March 22, 2006.
(1) This Notice is directed to Scott and Marjorie Woodward at the mailing address noted above.
(2) The violations are located on tax parcel number 31906-51-00017 in Mason County,
Washington. The violations of County regulations cited as COUNTS 1 through 9 above are
the result of the location of the two chain-link fences in the FWHCA and buffer, the
alteration of the character of the shoreline buffer through vegetation planting, and the
placement of a concrete pad in the shoreline buffer, as detailed in the COUNTS.
(3) This Notice is effective immediately upon posting at the site and/or receipt by the person(s)
to whom it is directed.
(4) Any non-compliance with Mason County Code Title 7, Mason County Code Title 8, Mason
County Code Title 15, Mason County Code Title 17, and any other applicable regulations
must immediately cease.
(5) This Notice shall serve as a "Stop Work" Order until the violation is corrected and/or
remediated as specified under number(6).
(6) You must immediately comply with the requirements outlined in the letter dated May 5, 2006
(copy attached as Attachment 2).
(7) Failure to comply with the requirements listed above may result in further enforcement
actions, including civil fines and criminal penalties. The County is authorized to recommend
a $1,000 fine for each violation. Each separate day, event, action or occurrence shall
constitute a separate violation. In this case, the County will recommend a $71,000 fine
with compliance conditions if this matter proceeds to a hearing. In addition, you may
be found responsible for costs incurred by the County if this matter proceeds to a
hearing. This fine was assessed by calculating a $1,000 fine per month since the
decision of the Shoreline Hearings Board in October 2003. Counts 1-2 have been
outstanding since October 2003; 32 months at $1,000 per month is $32,000 x 2 Counts is
$64,000. The additional $7,000 is for Counts 3-9 at$1,000 per Count.
(8) HEARING DATE: Per section 15.13.045 of the Mason County Development Code, you are
scheduled to appear before the Hearing Examiner as noted below. The hearing will be
canceled if the applicable Review Authority determines that the required corrective
action has been completed or is on schedule for completion as set by the Review
Authority. Required corrective action is detailed in number six, above.
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT JUNE 26, 2006 AT 11:00 AM
MASON COUNTY BUILDING ONE, COMMISSIONERS' CHAMBERS
411 N. 5TH SHELTON,WA 98584
9
Signed Dated —C
Title/Authority
�% \
�
5,22,U U Pgc)-T C �
Lc
T
s
r
�- MASON COUNTY
Shelton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 �+ 1 S fi das s
ce�� _ S f�5!6 ID
May 5,2006
Scott and Marjorie Woodward
.924 W. Delight Park Rd.
Shelton, WA 98584
NOTICE OF MASON COUNTY CODE VIOLATION
ENFORCEMENT CASE FILE NUMBER:ENF2006-00014
PARCELNUMBER: 31906-51-00017
SITE ADDRESS:924 W.Delight Park Rd.,Shelton
TAXPAYER INFORMATION: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
Attn:Bill Holding
1 Home Campus
Des Moines,1A 50328-0001
Dear Mr. And Mrs. Woodward,
On March 22, 2006, I inspected the property located at 924 W. Delight Park Rd in Shelton, WA.
The inspection was to confirm the continued presence of two chain-link fences on your property
that extend beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Isabella. These fences were found to
be in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program under order of the Mason County
Hearing Examiner(HEX2002-00004)and Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB No.
03-007).
During my inspection, I documented- that the two fences remained in the same location and
construction as they had when documented in case ENF2001-00128. I also observed a concrete
pad that had been poured approximately 15 feet from the OHWM and measured approximately
10'x1.5'. A majority of the vegetation that has been planted in the buffer is non-native and has
significantly changed the natural shoreline characteristics.
As documented in case ENF2001-00128, HEX2002-00004, and SHB No. 03-007, the violations
of the Shoreline Master Program were under sections 7.16.080 Use Regulation 1 and 7.16.080
Use Regulation 9. These violations have not been corrected, and are held as a separate action for
each day that the violation persists (Mason County Code Title 15, section 15.13.020.A).
In addition to the previously affirmed violations of the Shoreline Master Program, the Mason
County Resource Ordinance lists several permit-required activities that are applicable to the
Woodward site. This includes section 17.01.110.G.Lb-which states that a Mason Environmental
Permit and Habitat Management Plan are required for "the destruction or alteration of Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas or their buffers through ..... planting of vegetation that
would alter the character of the FWHCA or buffer, unless part of a project which has been
permitted pursuant to this section.....". This would be applicable to the large quantities of non-
native vegetation that has been planted in the shoreline buffer, altering the character of the natural
shoreline. Section 17.01.110.6.1.c.2 of the Resource Ordinance goes on to state that a Mason
Environmental Permit and Habitat Management Plan are required for"Appurtenant structures not
needing building permits, associated with residential development and located in the FWHCA or
buffer may be permitted. A proposal shall,meet the additional review standards of the Mason
County Shoreline Master Program, Resource Ordinance, and other development ordinances."
This section would be applicable to the chain-link fences,that are in the buffer and waterward of
OHWM which have already been shown to not meet the review standards of the Shoreline Master
Program. Pouring a concrete pad within the'shoreline buffer is also an activity that requires a
Mason Environmental Permit and Habitat Management Plan under section 17.01.110.G.1.a
which explains that the dumping, discharging, or filling of any material in the FWHCA or buffer
is a permit-required.activity.
Pursuant to the specifications of the Mason County Code Title 15 section 15.13.035; you will
have 20 days from the date of the postmark, to respond to the County by removing said
structures/vegetation or applying for the appropriate permits. After the 20-day compliance
period, a hearing will be scheduled and fines may be imposed for those violations that.have not
been corrected as.specified in past hearing examiner decisions. You may also receive penalty
fines for those additional violations of the Mason County Resource Ordinance.
This letter will be postmarked May 5, 2006: You will have until May 25, 2006 to respond to the
County. You may contact me via e-mail at: stephapQco.mason.wa.us by phone at (360) 427-9670
ext. 602, or by mail at:Mason County Planning,,Attn: Code Enforcement, PO Box 279, Shelton,
WA 98584. F
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
4?O
Stephanie Pawlawski
Planner, Code Enforcement