Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2005-00001 Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 7/26/2006 P60N coat 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 1854 July 26, 2006 Notice of Decision Case: VAR2005-00001 Applicant: Dallas Blair Notice is hereby given that Dallas Blair, who is the applicant for the above- referenced variance, has been granted the variance. The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a garage in a Type IV stream buffer. The proposal was exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (i). This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Tammi Clark, Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x295. CASE INDEX Dallas Blair VAR2005-00001 Index # Date Description 1 February Exhibit 1: Staff Report 2 January 18, 2005 Exhibit 2: Resource Ordinance Variance Permit Application 3 January 18, 2005 Attachment A: of Variance Permit Application: Site Plan 4 January 18, 2005 Attachment B: of Variance Permit Application: List of adjacent property owners 5 January 12, 2005 Attachment C: Variance from Standards Information 6 January 27, 2005 Exhibit 3: Notice of Application and Public Hearin 7 December 9, 2004 Exhibit 4: Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 8 January 19, 2005 Exhibit 5: HMP Letter to Skokomish Tribe 9 January 19, 2005 Exhibit 6: HUT Letter to WA Dept. Fish &Wildlife 10 February 8, 2005 Exhibit 7: Request for More Information from PlanningStaff 11 February 13, 2005 Exhibit 8: Response to request for more information 12 March 8, 2005 Exhibit 9: Letter of Support from Benjamin Pennington, Town & Country Post Frame Building 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner 3 RE: Dallas Blair FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS 4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION. 5 MCC 17.01.150(E) Resource Ordinance Variance 6 Reapplication VAR2005- 7 00001 8 INTRODUCTION 9 The applicant has applied for a variance from a 100-foot Resource Ordinance buffer 10 in order to construct a 288 square foot garage. The Examiner approves the reapplication, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 11 12 ORAL TESTIMONY 13 Tammi Clark, senior staff, introduced the staff report and exhibits. Emmett Dobey, Mason County Community Development Director, testified on some new 14 information,not presented in the initial application submitted in 2005. 15 16 EXHIBITS 17 See "CASE INDEX; Dallas Blair; VAR 2005-00001", attached to June 26, 2006 staff report. 18 FINDINGS OF FACT 19 20 Procedural: 21 1. Application. This is a reapplication of an identical variance request denied by the Examiner in March, 2005. Staff have asked the Examiner to consider a 22 reapplication because the applicant failed to provide significant evidence in his first 23 application that could have changed the outcome of the Examiner's decision. 24 2. Hearin. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application on July 11, 2006 in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room. 25 Substantive: Dallas Blair Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0596136.DOC;2/13009.900000/} I 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a second 288 1 square foot garage in a cleared area in a lot that is 65' wide and 1,005 long. Hood 2 Canal borders the north of the property. Approximately 2/3 of the southern portion of the property contains a forested canyon with an unnamed Type IV stream flowing 3 through the canyon bottom from north to south. The northern 1/3 of the property consists of a single-family residence with a footprint of 1,088 square feet, a small 4 well house, an on-site sewage system and a cleared parking area (the location of the proposed garage). Within the northern 1/3 the stream is tightlined under the paved 5 driveway before flowing under the highway and into Hood Canal. The entire lot 6 except for a portion of the existing home and the septic system drain field is within the buffer to the Type IV stream. Attachment A to the staff report is a site plan of the 7 lot. The home was constructed about 2 1/2 years ago, apparently shortly prior to the adoption of the 100' buffer by Mason County. The applicant is requesting a second 8 garage because the current garage is 16' from a large tree. The applicant states that the tree blocks the turning radius necessary for access to the garage for his 18' long 9 truck. 10 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is west of Union along 11 Highway 106. Steep slopes characterize the area along the northern portion of Highway 106. Several single-family residences occupy the area. The current garage 12 is only used for storage. If the additional garage is exclusively used for the storage of vehicles, it will be compatible with the size of other garages in the area, as depicted 13 below: 14 a. 8080 E. SR 106: 480 square foot garage 15 b. 8100 E SR 106: 500 square foot garage C. 8040 E SR 106: 360 square foot garage 16 17 5. Adverse Impacts. Impacts are nominal. The garage is proposed to be constructed in an already cleared area and the subject stream is tight lined just a few 18 feet south of the proposed project. No native vegetation removal or habitat disturbance is necessary for the project. Subject to the conditions recommended in 19 the habitat management plan (Exhibit 3) and the staff report (exhibit 1), the project creates no significant adverse environmental impacts. 20 21 6. Topographic Limitations. The location of the currently existing garage was created by the topographic features of the property. A garage could not be 22 constructed on the rear of the property because it would be subject to extreme flooding events from the Type IV stream. The currently existing garage was placed 23 on the side of the home to avoid the flooding potential. A tree, bisected by one of the side property lines, only stands 16 feet from the garage. This does not provide 24 enough turning radius for an 18 foot truck. 25 Dallas Blair Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PAO5%136.DOC;2J13009.%0000/} CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2 Procedural: 3 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner/Authority to Rule on Reapplication Issue. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Examiner with the authority to review and act upon 4 variance applications. However, nothing within MCC 15.03.050(1) expressly 5 provides the Examiner with the authority to rule on whether a permit applicant can reapply for a denied development project. Administrative agencies, including hearing 6 examiners, are creatures of the legislature without inherent or common-law powers and may exercise only those powers conferred either expressly or by necessary 7 implication. Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (1984). In Chaussee, the court specifically ruled that a hearing examiner did not have the 8 authority to apply the common law doctrine of equitable estoppel because the 9 examiner had neither the express or necessarily implied authority to exercise that judicial doctrine. 10 The issue of whether an applicant can reapply for a denied permit application is also 11 covered by a judicial doctrine,the doctrine of res judicata. Res Judicata refers to the various ways in which a judgment in one action will have a binding effect in another. 12 Hilltop v. Island County, 126 Wn.2d 22, 34 (1995). For quasi-judicial land use 13 decisions, reapplication may only be considered if there is a substantial change in circumstances or a material change in the application or in conditions relevant to the 14 application. Id. at p. 35. 15 Since the courts only allow administrative agencies to consider a reapplication under the limited circumstances identified above, by necessary implication some decision 16 maker in the permitting process must be responsible for deciding whether the criteria 17 for a reapplication have been met. Mason County's regulation don't specify who is responsible for determining whether a reapplication is appropriate. However, County 18 staff are responsible for determining whether an application is complete for purposes of proceeding with permit review. See MCC 15.05.040(A). The determination 19 whether an reapplication meets the criteria for a second review is consistent with this gateway function. Further, forcing this issue at early permit review (when staff 20 initially receives the application) furthers the policies of res judicata, which are to 21 prevent "the corrosive disrespect that would follow if the same matter were twice litigated to inconsistent results" and "preserving courts [or admin agencies] against 22 the burdens of repetitious litigation". Hilltop, 126 Wn.2d at 34. If the Hearing Examiner were the first to have to rule on whether an applicant can reapply, permit 23 consolidation requirements would force the examiner to consider both the merits of 24 the entire project as well as the merits of the issue on validity of reapplication. This would necessitate an entirely new recommendation from staff (potentially 25 inconsistent with the first staff recommendation) and public testimony on the entire project,again. Dallas Blair Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0596136.DOC;2/13009.900000/} Il For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner leaves the issue of whether an I applicant may reapply to the staff,to be made when staff receive an application. Staff 2 did not appear to be aware of the Hilltop decision when they decided to allow the applicant to reapply in this case. Staff should probably consult with the prosecuting 3 attorney to ensure that reapplication decisions are consistent with the standards set by Hilltop- 4 5 Substantive: 6 2. Zoning DesigLiation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 5. 7 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from a 8 100 foot setback from an adjoining Type IV stream. This buffer is imposed through 9 MMC 17.01.110, Table III. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Those 10 review standards are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law. A detailed legal analysis of how to apply the variance code criteria is included in the Examiner's 11 "RJB Telecommunications" decision, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 12 13 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bully; dimensional or performance 14 standards precludes or significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 15 4. As noted in the Robert D. Noyse Examiner decision, a garage is a 16 reasonable use for a single family home. In this case the applicant already has a garage, but as discussed in the Findings of Fact, the garage cannot be accessed by 17 automobiles due to the interference of a maple vine tree that is partially located on 18 adjoining property. Due to these limitations, the garage has more the characteristics of an unfinished basement used for storage than a garage. Given that automobile 19 storage is one of the primary justifications for finding a garage a reasonable use (see Noyse decision),the applicant is deprived of reasonable use without a garage that can 20 function to store automobiles. 21 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the 22 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the 23 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or 24 the applicant's own action. 25 5. The hardship in this case, the lack of sufficient turning radiance, is caused by the design of the home. However, as noted by Mr. Dobey, the design of the home was dictated by the flood potential of the lot. As further indicated in Mr. Dobey's Dallas Blair Variance p. 4 Findings,Conclusions and Decision {PA0596136.DOC;2/13009.900000/} staff report,the maple tree and stream buffers do not leave any other feasible location I for a functioning garage. For these reasons, the hardship is caused by the physical 2 constraints of the property and is not a self-imposed hardship. The new information provided by Mr. Dobey, i.e. the flood potential, is the reason for reversal of the 3 Examiners former conclusion on the self-hardship issue. 4 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent 5 properties or the environment. 6 6. As noted in the Findings of Fact, the proposed garage is compatible with 7 the sizes of other garages in the area. The Examiner does not consider the existing garage as additional garage space, since it does not serve the primary function of a 8 garage (automobile storage). Since this limitation on function is not self-imposed, due to the flood potential, it is appropriate to take this into consideration when 9 comparing the applicant's garage use to those of surrounding properties. As noted in 10 the first decision on this application, the proposed garage also does not create any adverse effects to adjacent properties and as noted in the Habitat Management Plan, 11 would not create any adverse environmental impacts. Overall, the project is consistent with the criteria above. 12 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special 13 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum 14 necessary to afford relief. 15 7. The applicant simply wishes to have the ability to store his pick up truck a right presumably enjoyed by the other property owners in his vicinity. Authorizing 16 the proposed garage would not constitute a special privilege. 17 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 18 8. As mitigated by the Habitat Management Plan and staff report, the 19 proposed garage would not have any significant impact upon the protected critical area (the Type IV stream). Given that there are no other adverse impacts on the 20 construction of the garage, the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental 21 effect. 22 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County 23 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mirror loss in value only 24 shall notjustify a variance. 25 9. The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect environmentally sensitive areas from adverse impacts created by development. The Resource Dallas Blair Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision (PA0596136.DOC;2/13009.900000/) l Ordinance specifically provides for a variance and reasonable use waiver process so 1 that the goals of environmental protection do not place undue hardship upon property owners, at least to the extent that their constitutional rights may be violated. The ` granting of the variance in this particular case, excluding cumulative impacts, would 3 not have any significant adverse environmental impacts and will at the same time provide for a reasonable use of property, thus satisfying the purpose of the Resource 4 Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provide for residential development in the subject area. The lot, which is a little over an acre in size, is too 5 small for residential development in a rural area to be consistent with the policies of 6 the Growth Management Act as they pertain to discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the efficient use of public infrastructure. However, the Growth 7 Management Act also encourages the protection of private property rights. Authorizing the construction of a garage on a grandfathered lot in the circumstances 8 of this application does promote the private property rights of the applicant. For these reasons, the granting of this variance would also be considered consistent with the 9 intent of the Growth Management Act. 10 DECISION 11 The Hearing Examiner approves the variance, subject to the conditions recommended 12 by staff. denies the requested variance due to the fact that the lack of turning radius is 13 a self-created hardship. 14 Dated this 2-day of July, 2006. 15 16 P IOlbrechts 17 Mason County Hearing Examiner 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dallas Blair Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision (PA0596136.DOC;2/13009.900000/) Mason County Department of Planning Building I * 411 N. 51h Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670 February 24, 2005 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff—Tammi Clark RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance(VAR2005-00001) STAFF REPORT I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a 288 square foot garage approximately 40 feet from a Type 4 stream. The proposed project is described in detail in the attached Habitat Management Plan(Exhibit 3). Staff recommends denial of proposed project. II. Applicant. Dallas Blair. M. Property Location. Site address and Project Location: 8050 E State Route 106, Union. Parcel#32234-34-00060. TR 6 OF G.L 3 &T.L. &W 10'TR 5 &T.L. 8050 E STATE RT 106 UNION. IV. Date of complete application: January 18, 2005. V. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the site. The parcel is rectangle in shape extending approximately 65 feet from east to west and 1,005 feet from north to south. Hood Canal borders the northern property line.Approximately 2/3 of the southern portion of the property contains a forested canyon with an unnamed type 4 stream flowing through the canyon bottom from north to south. The northern 1/3 of the property consists of a single-family residence with a footprint of 1,088 square feet, a small well house, and on-sight sewage system, and a cleared parking area(site of proposed garage). Within this 1/3 of the property the stream is tight lined(no longer regulated)under the paved driveway before flowing under the highway and into Hood Canal. Site plan included as Attachment A. B. Characteristics of the area. The general area is west of Union along Highway 106. Hood Canal borders the northern portion of the parcel. Steep slopes characterize the area along the northern portion of Highway 106. The subject parcel is located in Rural Residential 5 zoning. Several single-family residences occupy the area. C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5)per the Mason County Development Areas Map. VI. SEPA Compliance,public and agency comment. This activity is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (iii). Public notice of the application and hearing date was posted onsite on January 20,2005 and notice was made in the Shelton-Mason Journal on January 27, 2005 (Exhibit 4). The proposal required review and comment of a Habitat Management Plan by the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Notification was sent on January 19, 2005 (Exhibits 5 &6). A 28-day comment period followed. John Diehl and Constance Ibsen called on January 31,2005 requesting a copy of the Habitat Management Plan and raised concerns regarding the fact that Mr. Blair already had a garage. Jim Crim called and indicated that he had no opposition to the project. Proposed mitigation is to place native plantings in a currently graveled area of 300 square feet located upslope of the proposed building area that is near the day lighted portion of the stream. Location of restoration is identified in the HMP on page 8 (Exhibit 3). VII. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit for the construction of the garage and a geological assessment prior to building permit approval. VIII. Analysis: (All references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.) The required buffer for a Type 4 stream is 100 feet plus a 15-foot building setback for a total distance of 115 feet from the stream. Stream typing is per Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing criteria(Attachment Q. The proposal is the construction of a 288 square foot garage approximately 40 feet from the Type 4 stream. This proposal requires a variance per the requirements associated with Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,which details stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards,which establishes variance procedures and criteria. The proposed structure is located outside of the saltwater and wetland buffers. The location of the proposed garage within the buffer effectively reduces that buffer. Section 1.7.01.110.G.c. states that"new residential construction ...is not permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use exception may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted. Section 17.01.120.Q. states that "except when application from this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Section 17.01.150. Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan(HMP)be prepared in association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through habitat mitigation. Section 17.01.150(E),Review Standards for a variance states that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following circumstances exist: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size,or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; 6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive plan, Development Regulations,Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. Staff discussion: 1. The purposes of the Mason County Resource Ordinance are detailed in Section 17.01.020. The regulated portion of the stream that runs from the southern portion of the parcel to the northern portion encumbers approximately 3/ of the parcel. Approximately Y4 of the northern portion of the parcel is outside the regulated stream buffer, but contains the single-family residence, driveway, and the sewage system and reserve drainfield. State Route 106 and Hood Canal shoreline also border the very northern portion of the parcel. This leaves no other place outside of the stream buffer to construct the proposed garage. The current proposal is 40 feet from the day lighted portion of the stream. The proposal for a 288-sq.ft. garage is an allowable use in Rural Residential 5 zoning, and is therefore consistent with surrounding land uses. No native vegetation removal will be necessary, as the construction will occur in an area currently maintained as a graveled parking. This provides for minimal amount of critical area disturbance and thus is consistent with purposes #2& #3 of Section 17.01.110.A. of the Resource Ordinance. A garage is considered as reasonable use and appurtenance to protect automobiles and the safety of the homeowners as noted in the Noyes Examiner decision. According to the Mason County Assessor's Office, this lot currently has a 576 square foot attached garage. Based on the Noyes Examiner decision, the current garage could be considered as reasonable use. Addition of another garage would give total garage square footage of approximately 864 square feet, a much larger footprint than other garages in the area. Other examples include: a) 8080 E State Route 106: 480 square foot garage b) 8100 E State Route 106: 500 square foot garage c) 8040 E State Route 106: 360 square foot garage 2. The hardship of placing another structure on site is a direct result of the size and location of the parcel. The parcel is encumbered by a Type 4 stream that places approximately 213 of the parcel within the stream buffer. The portion of the parcel outside of the stream buffer currently contains a single-family residence and the septic system. Highway 106 bisects the parcel to the north and Hood Canal is located on the north side of the highway. Placement of a structure on this portion of the parcel would not meet setbacks from existing structures and septic. 3. The construction of a garage is consistent with surrounding land uses and a permitted use in Rural Residential 5 zoning. Factors considered in the placement of the structure include the presence of Hood Canal shoreline and a Type 4 stream. The current building location was chosen because the area has previously been cleared and is being maintained as graveled parking. This provides for minimal amount of critical area disturbance. Restoration would include planting native vegetation in a 300 square foot area that has been previously graveled and maintained as parking space. 4. Variances are contemplated and procedures are established by the provisions of Chapter 17.01.110(D)(2). The intended use is compatible and in keeping with the surrounding land use. However, staff has not been able to identify other parcels that have 2 garages. This could be construed as granting special privileges not granted to other properties in the area. Staff does not feel that 2 garages is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The structure will be built to current Mason County codes. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the placement of any structure on this lot due to the required buffer/setbacks from streams and shorelines and the existing structures on site. The subject lot currently contains a 576 square foot attached garage. Staff requested a detailed description (Exhibit 7)as to why the applicant needs two garages. In correspondence from the applicant(Exhibit 8), he states that, given the location of the garage and driveway, the turn radius will not allow him to turn his truck into the garage. Since the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that each of the variance criteria is met(Title 15 Mason County Code 15.09.057 Variance Criteria), staff feels that the responses from the applicant do not provide sufficient proof that each of the variance criteria are met, specifically number 1, 4 and 6. IX. Conclusions. Based upon the above discussion the proposal is not consistent with all the variance criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150. Staff recommends denial of the proposal. X. Choices of Action. 1. Approval of the Variance request. 2. Denial of the Variance request. 3. Conditional approval of the Variance request. 4. Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification I I I 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 March 29, 2005 Notice of Decision Case: VAR2005-00001 Applicant: Dallas Blair Notice is hereby given that Dallas Blair, who is the applicant for the above- referenced variance, has been denied the variance. The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a garage in a Type IV stream buffer. The proposal was exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (i). This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Tammi Clark, Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x295. CASE INDEX Dallas Blair VAR2005-00001 Index# Date Description 1 June 26, 2006 Exhibit 1: Staff Re ort by Emmett Dobe 2 January 18, 2005 Exhibit 2: Resource Ordinance Variance Permit Application 3 January 18, 2005 Attachment A: of Variance Permit Application: Site Plan 4 January 18, 2005 Attachment B: of Variance Permit Application: List of adjacent property owners 5 January 12,2005 Attachment C: Variance from Standards Information 6 December 9, 2004 Exhibit 3: Habitat Management Plan HUT 7 January 27, 2005 Exhibit 4: Notice of Application and Public Hearin 8 January 19,2005 Exhibit 5: HMP Letter to Skokomish Tribe 9 January 19,2005 Exhibit 6: HMP Letter to WA Dept. Fish&Wildlife 10 February 8, 2005 Exhibit 7: Request for More Information from Planning Staff 11 February 13, 2005 Exhibit 8: Response to request for more information 12 March 8,2005 Exhibit 9: Letter of Support from Benjamin Pennington, Town&Country Post Frame Building 13 June 12, 2006 Exhibit 10: 25 Notice of Application and Public Hearin 14 March 28, 2005 Exhibit 11: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision 15 February 24, 2005 Exhibit 12: Staff Report by Tammi Clark 16 June 26, 2006 Exhibit 13: Photo submitted by applicant f Mason County Department of Community Development Building I * 411 N. 5th Street P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff— Emmett Dobey RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (VAR2005- 00001) STAFF REPORT Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a 288 square foot garage approximately 40 feet from a Type 4 stream. The proposed project is described in detail in the attached Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 3). Staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Applicant. Dallas Blair. Property Location. Site address and Project Location: 8050 E State Route 106, Union. Parcel #32234-34-00060. TR 6 OF G.L 3 & T.L. & W 10' TR 5 & T.L. 8050 E STATE RT 106 UNION. Date of complete application: January 18, 2005. Second application January 2, 2006. 1. Supplemental Background: In March, 2005 the Hearing Examiner denied the applicant a land use variance based on finding that the requested variance was due to the fact that the lack of a turning radius to serve his proposed garage construction was a self-created hardship. In mid-March I was hired as the new Community Development Director for Mason County. In early April 2005 1 met with the applicant to try and understand the rational for the denial of his variance and his failure to file an appeal of the decision. He indicated he felt the application process was extremely complex and as a result he did not understand the need to supply the necessary information to support his variance request during the initial hearing and was unsure to how to argue an appeal. He felt the process should not be so complicated that a person needs an attorney to represent himself or herself in a land use hearing. BLAIR VAR2005-00001 1 of 8 After several delays during the spring and summer of 2005 due to the demands, of my new position with the County to meet growth management deadlines, I was able to visit the applicant's property. During that visit I observed the following: • The natural flow of water from extreme flood events is directed from the hillside and creek in the rear of the property towards Mr. Blair's structure. • Mr. Blair' home was designed so that the garage area was on the side of the structure not the rear to allow potential flood waters to flow around the house and down the drive way. • The garage area was place in that configuration to better assure that a 100- year storm event would not flood the house. • Placing a garage opening to the rear could allow over flows from the creek in flood events to reach the interior of the house through the rear-facing opening. • The variance would allow Mr. Blair the ability to use the storage area in the house for his household goods and the second facility for the storage of his automobile and truck. • Mr. Blair's home does in-deed have a garage but the space is almost filled to capacity with household materials and memorabilia Mr. Blair has accumulated over his long career in education in the Seattle area. Included in the garage is an antique wooden race boat, which occupies a considerable amount of the space. • If potential flooding was not an issue, Mr. Blair's garage could have been redesigned to accommodate vehicles. However, this would have created the need for a major redesign of the whole structure. • A side garage approach creates maneuvering difficulties for vehicles. To overcome those difficulties and allow access to the side garage Mr. Blair will need to remove a very large vine maple tree, which sits adjacent to the d riveway. • The proposed garage is situated so that direct access is provide from the existing driveway so little disruption of the landscaped yard will occur • The location of a county drainage pipe across the property, required shoreline setback, the large maple tree, and excessive slope to the rear of the property associated with the need to retain vegetative cover on that slope makes the property difficult to develop. After the field visit and a cautious review of the Mason County Development Regulations I believe that Mr. Blair should have a second opportunity to present his case to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Blair did miss his appeal deadline but I can find no probation in the development codes that prevent a second application, especially if information that was not available at the first hearing can now be present. II. Evaluations. BLAIR VAR2005-00001 2 of 8 M A. Characteristics of the site. The parcel is rectangle in shape extending approximately 65 feet from east to west and 1,005 feet from north to south. Hood Canal borders the northern property line. Approximately 2/3 of the southern portion of the property contains a forested canyon with an unnamed type 4 stream flowing through the canyon bottom from north to south. The northern 1/3 of the property consists of a single-family residence with a footprint of 1,088 square feet, a small well house, and on-sight sewage system, and a cleared parking area (site of proposed garage). Within this 1/3 of the property the stream is tight lined (no longer regulated) under the paved driveway before flowing under the highway and into Hood Canal. Site plan included as Attachment A. Characteristics of the area. The general area is west of Union along Highway 106. Hood Canal borders the northern portion of the parcel. Steep slopes characterize the area along the northern portion of Highway 106. The subject parcel is located in Rural Residential 5 zoning. Several single-family residences occupy the area. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) per the Mason County Development Areas Map. III. SEPA Compliance, public and agency comment. During the initial hearing this activity was SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (iii). Public notice of the application and hearing date was posted onsite on January 20, 2005 and notice was made in the Shelton-Mason Journal on January 27, 2005 (Exhibit 4). The proposal required review and comment of a Habitat Management Plan by the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Notification was sent on January 19, 2005 (Exhibits 5 & 6). A 28-day comment period followed. John Diehl and Constance Ibsen called on January 31, 2005 requesting a copy of the Habitat Management Plan and raised concerns regarding the fact that Mr. Blair already had a garage. Jim Crim called and indicated that he had no opposition to the project. Proposed mitigation is to place native plantings in a currently graveled area of 300 square feet located upslope of the proposed building area that is near the day lighted portion of the stream. Location of restoration is identified in the HMP on page 8 (Exhibit 3). For this second hearing the activity is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1) (iii). Public notice of the application and hearing date was posted onsite on June 12, 2006 and notice was made in the Shelton-Mason Journal on June 15, 2006 (Exhibit 10). Proposed mitigation is to place native plantings as detailed in the Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 3). Mr. Jim Crim called on June 26, 2006 asking about the placement of the proposed garage. BLAIR VAR2005-00001 3 of 8 IV. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit for the construction of the garage and an approved geological assessment prior to building permit approval. V. Analysis: (A/1 references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.) The required buffer for a Type 4 stream is 100 feet plus a 15-foot building setback for a total distance of 115 feet from the stream. Stream typing is per Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing criteria (Attachment C). The proposal is the construction of a 288 square foot garage approximately 40 feet from the Type 4 stream. This proposal requires a variance per the requirements associated with Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes variance procedures and criteria. The proposed structure is located outside of the saltwater and wetland buffers. The location of the proposed garage within the buffer effectively reduces that buffer. Section 17.01.110.G.c. states that "new residential construction ...is not permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use exception may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted. Section 17.01.120.Q. states that "except when application from this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Section 17.01.150. Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) be prepared in association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through habitat mitigation. Section 17.01.150 (E), Review Standards for a variance states that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following circumstances exist: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the BLAIR VAR2005-00001 4 of 8 application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; 6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. VI. Staff discussion: 1. The purposes of the Mason County Resource Ordinance are detailed in Section 17.01.020. The regulated portion of the stream that runs from the southern portion of the parcel to the northern portion encumbers approximately % of the parcel. Approximately '4 of the northern portion of the parcel is outside the regulated stream buffer, but contains the single-family residence, driveway, and the sewage system and reserve drainfield. State Route 106 and Hood Canal shoreline also border the very northern portion of the parcel. This leaves no other place outside of the stream buffer to construct the proposed garage. The current proposal is 40 feet from the day lighted portion of the stream. The proposal for a 288-sq. ft. garage is an allowable use in Rural Residential 5 zoning, and is therefore consistent with surrounding land uses. No native vegetation removal will be necessary, as the construction will occur in an area currently maintained as a graveled parking. This provides for minimal amount of critical area disturbance and thus is consistent with purposes #2 & #3 of Section 17.01.110.A. of the Resource Ordinance. 2. A garage is considered as reasonable use and appurtenance to protect automobiles and the safety of the homeowners as noted in the Noyes Examiner decision. According to the Mason County Assessor's Office, this lot currently has a 576 square foot attached garage. Based on the Noyes Examiner decision, the current garage could be considered as reasonable use. Addition of another garage would give total garage square footage of approximately 864 square feet, a much larger footprint than other garages in the area. Other examples include: BLAIR VAR2005-00001 5 of 8 8080 E State Route 106: 480 square foot garage 8100 E State Route 106: 500 square foot garage 8040 E State Route 106: 360 square foot garage 3. The hardship of placing another structure on site is a direct result of the size and location of the parcel. The parcel is encumbered by a Type 4 stream that places approximately 2/3 of the parcel within the stream buffer. The portion of the parcel outside of the stream buffer currently contains a single-family residence and the septic system. Highway 106 bisects the parcel to the north and Hood Canal is located on the north side of the highway. Placement of a structure on this portion of the parcel would not meet setbacks from existing structures and septic. 4. The construction of a garage is consistent with surrounding land uses and a permitted use in Rural Residential 5 zoning. Factors considered in the placement of the structure include the presence of Hood Canal shoreline and a Type 4 stream. The current building location was chosen because the area has previously been cleared and is being maintained as graveled parking. This provides for minimal amount of critical area disturbance. Restoration would include planting native vegetation in a 300 square foot area that has been previously graveled and maintained as parking space. 5. Variances are contemplated and procedures are established by the provisions of Chapter 17.01.110 (D)(2). The intended use is compatible and in keeping with the surrounding land use. However, staff has not been able to identify other parcels that have 2 garages. 6. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The structure will be built to current Mason County codes. VII. Conclusions. In the previous decision of the hearings examiner on the Blair variance, the sole basis for denying the request was the finding that the hardship was self-imposed, rather than due to the shape and other circumstances associated with the lot. After review of the record and the site and discussions with the applicant, I have come to a different conclusion. My conclusion is that the current structure with attached garage area was required by the site conditions of the property, rather than conditions created by the applicant. The site is long, narrow lot almost completely restricted by the fish and wildlife buffers of the shoreline and the creek. The newly built house was placed in the footprint of the old house without the need for a variance. The site for the drain field is by the road and kept the driveway from being moved from its old location. An entrance for an attached garage could not be placed in BLAIR VAR2005-00001 6 of 8 the front (road side) of the building because of the septic drain field. It could not be placed at the back of the house because of flooding issues from the creek. The side opposite of the driveway is also not usable. The tree that constrains turning into the garage is partly the neighbor's property. The applicant had the house built with a garage so that he could store large items such as his antique wooden boat. As noted, he did this without a variance. Now he seeks to have a usable and detached garage for his truck/vehicle. The detached garage does not have the flooding issues that the attached garage would have had. It would be located in an already impacted area, and a habitat plan has been prepared for mitigation. Because the applicant knowingly buys a property with restrictions on it, that does not mean that he is foreclosed from being granted a variance. If that were so, then no variances would be granted except to the owner of land prior to the adoption of the relevant regulations. The applicant recognized the restrictions on the property in rebuilding the house in the old foot print and provided the house with storage with a large entry. He now seeks the use of a garage. Because of the forgoing, the finding that this was a self-imposed hardship should be revised. The finding should be made that configuration for the attached garage was imposed by the site conditions. The remainder of the analysis and findings of the previous decision should be kept and the variance therefore issued. Based upon the above discussion I believe the proposal is consistent with all the variance criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150 and recommend approval of the proposal, subject to the conditions listed below. 1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation shall be avoided and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. 2. The existing natural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed by any construction and/or development activities on the parcel. 3. The provisions and recommendations of the Habitat Management Plan shall be enacted. 4. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing or straw matting). 5. A detailed planting plan, with species composition, number, and distribution shall be provided to and approved by Planning staff prior to final approval of the building permit. - 6. A monitoring plan shall be enacted whereby a qualified biologist shall submit a report detailing the condition of the restoration area. This report shall be due on the anniversary date of the issuance of the building permit and shall be submitted annually for three years. BLAIR VAR2005-00001 7 of 8 7. A survival rate of 90% of plantings is required each year during the three-year monitoring period. If survival falls below 90%, the applicant shall replant to restore the required survival percentage and shall extend the monitoring report the necessary period to address the replantings. 8. A restoration bond shall be established with Mason County in the amount necessary to perform the restoration. 9. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project. IX. Documents Attached. January 2005 Staff Report submitted by Tammi Clark (Exhibit 1), March 2005 Hearing Examiners decision submitted by Phil Olbrects (Exhibit 11). X. Choices of Action. • Approval of the Variance request. • Denial of the Variance request. • Conditional approval of the Variance request. • Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification The granting of the variance is necessary for the placement of any structure on this lot due to the required buffer/setbacks from streams and shorelines and the existing structures on site. The subject lot currently contains a 576 square foot attached garage. BLAIR VAR2005-00001 8 of 8 0o00 I PERMIT NO.. DATE RECEIVED: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE ORDINANCE (Chapter 17.01 MCC) 411 N. 5TH Street/P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE ❑ VARIANCE The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32, 36.70A, 39.34, 58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW. PLEASE PRINT 1. Owner: �)A L.1-4-S , 2 Owner Mailing Address: 514►�� Site Address: City: State: Zip: City: ()1U L Q- State L4 ZiA)M2-Lien/Title Holder rti '0 Phone: Daytime( � 8 4 — /`6 O Address: Fire District#• City: State: Zip: t Signature: ]L 4 2• Parcel Number: 3 2Z '3 Legal description: // p Parcel Size: 3. Directions to site: k. aPO 6 (Av/a ed State what sections require a permit: In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 ❑ 4' Long-Term Commercial Forest, Chapter 17.10.060 0 Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands, Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Areas, Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas, Chapter 17.01.100 ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 0 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter 17.01.110 5 Identify current use of prop with existing improvements: YL�Q `� t l t v t� P o1r 4 c o 6. Identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,constructio methods,principle dimensions and other pertinent information(Attach additional sheets if needed): Y 7. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area? Yes ❑ No ©� 8. Any water on or adjacent to property: Saltwater Lake ❑ River ❑ Pond ❑ Wetland ❑ Seasonal Runoff ❑ Other 9. If septic is located on project site,include records. Connect to septic? O�Community Septic? ❑ Public Water Supply? ❑ Well? ❑ 10. � Type of Job: New Q- Add ❑ Alt ❑ Repair ❑ Demolition ❑ Other This permit is granted pursuant to the Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01 MCC) and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Resource Ordinance. The permit may be rescinded pursuant to the event the permittee fails to comply with the conditions of this ordinance. MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT: $510.00/$305.00(with another permit) MASON CONDITIONAL USE ENVIR.PERMIT: $1,225.00 MASON RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE: $1,225,00 HEARINGS EXAMINER: $350.00 Show the followinq on the site plan Lot Dimensions Flood Zones Existing Structures Fences Water Lines Driveways Drainage Plans Shorelines Septic System Topography Indicate Directional by(N,S,E,W,etc.) Proposed Improvements Easements In relation to plot plan Name if Flanking Street APPLICANT TO DRAW SITE PLAN BELOW: APPLICANT TO DRAW TOPOGRAPHY BELOW: DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW FOR OFFICE USE ONLY COMMENTS Planning: Environmental Health: Building Plan Review: Occupancy Group: Fire Marshal: Other: Conditions: FEES Total fees: Accepted by: Date: r MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE July 2003 Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I /WE understand that I /WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. DA E t)E l� R APPLIC SjI Plan ,,...�� Suite B•16521 Highway 99•Lynnwood,WA 98037.3161 P ase Check After Doing Site Plan: Septic and drainfield ,u,/Lot size Draw North Arrow in Circle awn un"7- Everett:(425)258-4171 Puyallup:(253)840-9552 Property dimensions Sewer lines L I Elevation of property ® - POST FRAME BUILDINGS Administrative Headquarters: (425)743-1555 xisting buildings Setbacks of proposed&existing buildings ❑Bodies of water FAX: (425)742.4378 Toll Free: 1.800-824-9552 Contractors Lic.B:TOWNCPF099LT Proposed building Main road with name ❑ loorplan V � OF ❑Easements Access to proposed building L✓J Slopes&Contours(V increments) Quality:Our Future Dependr On It." Job Name: 7?nLLAS FRLA 1 R_ Job Site Address: t 1, t Legal Description: �- Tax Account#: 3X-23`1 M o O D G U t+ It3�---1 p.b SS ;6 0,0 p ----'_ _ -4-5'0 14, ** S ..T, i oqq O 77 R�sl�laclr f�10 i 1 ;i ) i f e r wti G� 1 ,nn V' r U d m �+ q10 DO NOT SIGN INCOMPLETE St PLANI Customer has verified and appr ved the locationN� Illng,orientation of the building to the North,and verifies that all White-Customer Copy White-Office Copy Yellow-Accounting utilities are shown on this draw' g i the orrect CUSTOMER SIGNATURE LEAD# —1S7Q 01995 Perma-Bill Industries FR-34 08/03 MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE July 2003 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. ea qI $'5q2- be,,- kt GU l l(i ar%,,- $vw kA m 33313 G Logvt n cP P.�-K, IV to 09 C\ 6,e- View 9 ,vd&-c& Ne )FfL9 'k-�P` bps rvo ho Sw— o Box 3o fs2 Se-4 r& 1v?4 do e h P 0 �o a'` - , d6 33 4"w-- C tA S'S5-`f F---s 9 S zso a h 33 & S Yv,,, w,4 0 4300010 71 4300020 CL g 8/168 (/) w � N o 0 � v o 00 A \ � o a N 0 0 O A W O $ C •4300 060 w y 4300290 300070 w o 0 A O o 0 413 60/0 0 W 430010,� 4300101 430701 IC 04 7.W =� 4300280 _ e� i0»27' ii 1236.21 O Ct 3300010 o 00 3400240 Y Ct 3400220 3400200 a Ot 3400190 3400180 - - - - P 3400170 0 0 3400150 ' 0 3400140 3400130 ---- � $ 3400 120 V r � 3400110 Z r c 3400111 °' W 0 T2lQ C O v_ GI � S 3400071 J T25 7-1'9 > O' 3400060 C ---- _ 3400040 J' Ip� ` 1 N 3400031 --- - N T -84 y 3400030 T R 3 O O! 3400020 T2Z P 3400010 s /7//d-l-;, T2 1 0 m o_ T O 1 Mason County Department of Community Development Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01) 411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 Variance from Standards Information: * Mason County may consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards of the Resource Ordinance where strict application of said standards would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special exception to the rule. The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific variance criteria eria listed below. Please state how the variance request satisfies all of the fo llow'mg criteria. 1. Describe the specific modifi a P � c hon from the terms of the Chapter required. ,1 4 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. b� 0 c Variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria are met: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; /J.G /, 4 i \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DocumentsTorms and Templates\Mason Countymep variance.doc AffUhma+ C 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief, 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; e \\CLUSTERI_HOME SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DOCUments\Forms and Templates\Mason Countymep variance.doc r ' 6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. f Signature Date \\CLUSTERI_HOME m _SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DocumentsTors and Templates\Mason Countymep variance.doc RECEIVED Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services DEC 092 PO Box 2854 •Belfair, WA 98528 . 360-620-0618 • leeboadan,hctc.com 426 W. CEDAR S"h Blair Garage Construction Project Habitat Manamement Plan Parcel3223 00060 Prepared for: Dallas Blair 8050 Highway 106 Union,WA Prepared by: Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services PO Box 2854 Belfair, WA 98528 360-620-0618 leeboad@hctc.com Table of Contents Blair Garage Construction Project Habitat Management Plan 1.0 Introduction... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ......... ... ...... ... ....2 2.0 Project Description... ......... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... .....2 3.0 Property Description... ... ...... ... ......... ...... ... ... ... ......... ...... .......3 4.0 Applicable Setbacks... ... ...... ........................ ............... ... ... ....3 5.0 Species Information............... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ......... ......... ... ....4 6.0 Potential Development Impacts..................... ...... ............ ... ......6 7.0 Mitigation Measures... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ............ ... ...... ......7 7.1 Seasonal Consideration of Construction Activities............ .....7 7.2 Recommended Best Management Practices............ ...... ... ...7 7.3 Critical Area Enhancement.................. ... ...... ..................8 8.0 Monitoring... ... ... ... .............................. ... ... ........................10 9.0 Conclusion...... ... ... ... ......... ............... ......... ... ............. ... .....10 Recommended Citation: Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services. December 2004. Blair Garage Construction Project, Habitat Management Plan. Belfair, WA Prepared for Dallas Blair. 1 1.0 Introduction At the Request of Dallas Blair,Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services has been hired to prepare a Habitat Management Plan for the improvements of 8050 Highway 106 located in Union, Mason County Washington. This parcel is mapped in Section 34 of Township 22 North, Range 3 West. The property is recorded by the Mason County Tax Assessor's Office as Tax Parcel 32234-34-00060. All observations in this report relate to this parcel unless otherwise stated. 2.0 Project Description This report addresses the construction of a garage with a footprint of 288 square feet to be located within the regulated buffer of a type 4 stream. Project mitigation includes enhancement of the stream buffer within the ownership. 3.0 Prooerty Description Bordered to the south by Hood Canal,the parcel spans approximately 65 feet from east to west, and 1,005 feet from north to south. The southern 2/3 of the ownership consists of a forested canyon with an unnamed type 4 stream flowing through the canyon bottom. The northern third of the property includes a paved driveway, a single-family residence capturing a footprint of 1,088 square feet, a small well house, an on-sight sewage system, and a cleared parking area(location of proposed building). Within this portion of the property the stream is tight lined under the paved driveway before passing under highway 106 and entering Hood Canal. 2 r A 3s Figure 1.Building location relative to jurisdictional stream location rs Figure 2.Looking south at proposed building location relative to jurisdictional stream location. 3 r ► a� .l t s V y' i t. .q.1 ► 1 C• t 11 '� T' Figure 3.Stream enters culvert and becomes non-regulated downstream 4.0 Applicable Setbacks This site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish J tY II and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.070 identifies protected wetland areas adopted by Mason County. The applicable setbacks encompassing the property include the following: Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback Type 4 Stream(upstream of culvert) 100 feet 115-feet Type 1 Saltwater 100 feet 100-feet 5.0 Species Information Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytsha)-Threatened Listed as threatened since March 24,1999 adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. In the vicinity of the proposed project are a, summer/fall Chinook are documented in the Union, Tahuy a, and Skokomish Rivers. The habitat type existing near the property is most significant to the juvenile life stage of l� � J g Chinook salmon as it represents a nearshore migration and feeding corridor. No 4 construction is proposed within the shoreline buffer encompassing the property. No adverse impacts to Chinook will occur Designated Critical Habitat For Puget Sound Chinook Critical habitat includes all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Critical habitat is present near the project area. No adverse impact to designated critical habitat is expected to occur. Hood Canal Summer Chum(Oncorhynchus keta)-Threatened Listed as threatened Hood Canal Summer Chum spawn in several small streams throughout Hood Canal. The summer chum ESU includes Hood Canal and the eastern Strait of Juan De Fuca. In the vicinity of the proposed project area, summer chum are documented in the Union and Tahuya systems. The marine nearshore habitat existing on the property is most important to juvenile summer chum, which are in nearshore environments from mid-February to early April. No construction is proposed within the shoreline buffer encompassing the property. Neither summer chum nor their habitats will be affected by the proposed project. Bull Trout(Salvelinus malma)-Threatened Resident forms of Bull Trout live in headwater streams while migratory forms will live in streams for several years then migrate downstream into a large river or lake. Known Bull Trout habitat exists in the upper Skokomish River watershed. The proposed project is not expected to have adverse impacts on Bull Trout spawning or foraging populations. Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)-Threatened Habitat Areas associated with Bald Eagle include marine shorelines such as Hood Canal. Breeding territories typically include uneven ages coniferous stands with some old- growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken tops providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Breeding occurs throughout January and February in Western Washington while egg laying occurs throughout March S and early April. Hatching occurs from mid April to early May. In areas where waterways do not freeze eagles may live year round. Migrating eagles generally return to wintering grounds in late October. Snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs, or dead tops are used as perches and defense stations. Stands of second growth, deciduous, and deciduous/coniferous mix forests surround Hood Canal and are located within the southern portion of the ownership. Bald eagles have been observed in the vicinity of the project area. No nests or roosts were observed near the project area on the day of the field investigation. Wintering bald eagles could be present between October 31 S'and March 31". Foraging and nesting habitat will not be negatively impacted by the proposed project. No tree removal is necessary. The restoration program associated with the project will likely have a net benefit. Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)-Threatened Marbled Murrulets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth forests. Murrulets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest, however the average distance is roughly 5-miles from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrulets require tall mossy trees in coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest 20-40 meters above the forest floor. The area surrounding Hood Canal is predominately second growth coniferous forest. This project will not impact any Marbled Murrelet population or habitat. Pileated Woodpecker(D!3 ocopus pileatus) The pileated woodpecker is listed as a State Candidate species in the state of Washington and a Species of Importance in Mason County. Pileated woodpeckers inhabit old-growth forests, as well as second-growth forests with large snags and fallen trees. Large snags and large decaying live trees in older forests are used by pileated woodpeckers for nesting and roosting throughout their range. In Mason County and other areas throughout Western Washington,younger forests such as the 6 Ferns- 3' on center These densities have been selected to provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the restoration area. Native plant species that should be used within the restoration zone include: Trees: western red cedar(Thuja phcata) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Shrubs salmonberry(rubus spectabilis) nootka rose(Rosa nutkana) salal (Gaultheria shallon) evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) Ferns: sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Groundcover: kinnikinnik(Arcostaphylus uva-ursi) Coastal strawberry(Fragaria chiloensis) Planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is during February and March. 9 3 Figure 4.Recommended restoration zone 8.0 Monitoring Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following project completion and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) condition of reintroduced plant species; 2)the use of the site by wildlife species; 3)any disturbance caused by the construction and its effect on protected zones and/or associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence of exotic species within the restoration zones; 5)any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of Community Development. 9.0 Conclusion This project involves construction of a 288 square-foot garage. Project mitigation includes restoration of a 350 square-foot zone located in an area of high habitat priority. No native vegetation removal or habitat disturbance is necessary for this project. Preservation Measures and Best Management Practices have been identified while restoration measures have been recommended to mitigate for the proposed construction. 10 I trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing me as our environmental n ultant. If ou have an questions feel free to call. consultant.YY Y Lee Boad Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services PO Box 2854 Belfair, WA 98528 360-620-0618 leeboada,hctc.com 11 nallas 131air Nod Card Parcel #522-54-34-00060 Kq 106 I cc 130ad Hab&-k Management Planninq and ,}� 65,02' Wetland 5mice5 necember, 2004 scale; 1"-60'-0" Proposed Nou 12x24 / 300 ft \ C?r L-stm,lum Zwe 1 I Cart PmkI5 I � I 1,005 twc IV*ew � 10013"ffer� I I 115' �,rld do � � I � � ` I � � I I � i MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Notice of Application for Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Dallas Blair, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77- 93 is for the construction of a 288 square foot garage within a Type IV stream buffer. Property location is 8050 Highway 106, Union, Mason County, Washington. Parcel No. 32234-34-00060 Date of complete application: January 18, 2005. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. Please contact Tammi Clark of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any questions or comments on this development and variance. . �} HA�Public Heanng Notices�RESOURCE ORDINANCE�BLAIR.doc.ram MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg. 1411 N.5th P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 January 19, 2005 Skokomish Indian Tribal Center ATTN: Marty Ereth N 80 Tribal Center Road Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2005-00001, to construct a 288 square foot garage approximately 40 feet from a Type 4 stream. Dear Marty: The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Dallas Blair, who is applying for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the RO requires that a variance be 288-sq. ft. garage within a Type 4 stream buffer. Mason County's Resource Ordinance requires a 115' total setback (100' buffer + 15' building setback) from the Type 4 stream. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe. Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, question, or concerns about this plan. I can adopt your comments as conditions into any approval that the County may grant. I have included my e-mail address if you find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a 28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is February 15, 2005. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Tammi Clark, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development tammic@co.mason.wa.us Enclosures: Habitat Management Plan MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg.1411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 January 19, 2005 WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife ATTN: Gloria Rogers 48 Devonshire Road Montesano, WA 98563 RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2005-00001, to construct a 288 square foot garage approximately 40 feet from a Type 4 stream. Dear Gloria: The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Dallas Blair, who is applying for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the RO requires that a variance be 288-sq. ft. garage within a Type 4 stream buffer. Mason County's Resource Ordinance requires a 115' total setback (100' buffer + 15' building setback) from the Type 4 stream. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe. Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, question, or concerns about this plan. I can adopt your comments as conditions into any approval that the County may grant. I have included my e-mail address if you find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a 28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is February 15, 2005. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, i Tammi Clark, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development tammic@co.mason.wa.us Enclosures: Habitat Management Plan pN-STATF MASON COUNTY BPS c �� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ° S N Planning Division o Y 0 P O Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION February 08, 2005 DALLAS BLAIR 7650 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION 98592 Parcel No.: 322343400060 Project Description: FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE TO BUILD A GARAGE WITHIN BUFFER. Dear Applicant: You have submitted a permit application (case no. VAR2005-00001) for proposed construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I require additional information to complete the permit review process. Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County within 180 days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on the proposed development shall take place. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295 if you have questions. Sincer ly, r i� Tammi Clark Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 2/8/2005 1 of 2 VAR2005-00001 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION 2/8/2005 Case No.: VAR2005-00001 Comments: After a review of the materials received for your variance request, it appears that in 2001 you did a replacement of your existing structure, which included a garage. Staff needs more information as to whether this attached garage is still existing as a garage. If so, staff needs a detailed description as to why you are requesting another garage. Mason County may consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards of the Resource Ordinance where strict application of said standards would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. The applicant must show how the variance request satisfies all of the criteria in the Variance from Standards Information sheet filled out by the applicant. Criteria #4 states "That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief." Please describe how a second garage would be the minimum necessary to afford relief. Criteria #6 states "No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land." Please provide more information as to why you feel that the addition of a second garage is necessary and why, if not approved, would it deprive you of reasonable use of the land. You indicated on your building permit application that the garage structure is to be used for storage. Please clarify what will be stored in the garage. 2/8/2005 2 of 2 VAR2005-00001 REG�� WW, Til- CFEIO:: MCC N-,-k �Wsp, . C)N C_4I4 S T„�- N , �, �- w- �, �cs ��,< < I No I to� � CIA S)Vk:-� �1 1 r v U.5 1 we e«Lc, C Town and Country Post Frame Buildings • 16521 Hwy 99 Suita C Lynnwood,WA 98037 1,WI To: Tanuny Clack Fax: 360-427-8425 From: Town And Country Post Frame Date, 3/8/2005 Re: Dallas Blair Building Permit Pages: 2 CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑Please Reply ❑ Please Recyclo iji Fd TLI• J r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Town and Country Post Frame Buildings 16521 Hwy 99 Suite C Lynnwood, WA 98037 March 8, 2005 Mason County 426 W. Cedar Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Tammy Clark, I'm writing this letter on behalf of Dallas Blair. Mr. Blair has recently decided to add a second garage to his property. During the planning some concerns arose about the environmental impacts of this building. We instructed Mr. Blair that a mitigation plan would need to be done to guarantee that the stream would be preserved in it's natural state. A geological assessment was also provided due to a steep slope located on the property. He obtained all of these and turned them into the county for review and approval. At that time there arose a question as to Mr. Blair's need for a second garage. Mr. Blair has reached a point where his current garage provides insufficient storage for his needs. He and his wife would like to be able to park their vehicles in their garage but are unable to because of safety concerns. The new proposed garage would allow him a dry area close to his house to park his family's vehicles in. Mr. Blair has been very cooperative with us and has gone out of his way to get all of the necessary items for the approval of this structure. He has done everything that was asked of him and it is our feeling that this should be taken into consideration for the approval of his building permit. If you have any questions please feel free to call at(425) 743-1555. Thank you for your time, Benjamin Pennington Permit Department MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Notice of Application for Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Dallas Blair, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77- 93 is for the construction of a 288 square foot garage within a Type IV stream buffer. Property location is 8050 Highway 106, Union, Mason County, Washington. Parcel No. 32234-34-00060 Date of complete application: January 18, 2005. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01 .150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday, July 11th at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. Please contact Tammi Clark of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any questions or comments on this development and variance. \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\TAMMIC\Public Hearing Notices\RESOURCE ORDINANCE\BLAIR-2nd Hearing.doc.ram MASON COUNTY f 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 Notice of Application for Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Dallas Blair, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77- 93 is for the construction of a 288 square foot garage within a Type IV stream buffer. Property location is 8050 Highway 106, Union, Mason County, Washington. Parcel No. 32234-34-00060 Date of complete application: January 18, 2005. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01 .110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. Please contact Tammi Clark of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any questions or comments on this development and variance. H:\Public Hearing Notices\RESOURCE ORDWANCETLAIR.doc.ram 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 Notice of Application for Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Dallas Blair, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77- 93 is for the construction of a 288 square foot garage within a Type IV stream buffer. Property location is 8050 Highway 106, Union, Mason County, Washington. Parcel No. 32234-34-00060 Date of complete application: January 18, 2005. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the P P p Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday, July 11th at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA. Please contact Tammi Clark of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any questions or comments on this development and variance. \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\TAMMIC\Public Hearing Notices\RESOURCE ORDINANCE\BLAIR-2nd Hearing.doc.ram Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON, I SS. Notice of Application for Variance from COUNTY OF MASON the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Dallas Blair, Julie G. Orme ,being first duly sworn who is the applicant for the following propo- sal,has filed an application for a Variance. on oath de d s that she is the clerk The request for a variance from the Ma- sonsays County Resource Ordinance No. 7793 of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news- is for the construction of a 288 square foot paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the garage within a Type IV stream buffer. Prop- date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu- erty location is 8050 Highway 106, Union, ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now Mason County, Washington. Parcel No. and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of 32234-34-00060 publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL Date of complete application: January was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court 18,2005. of said Mason County. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Re- source Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice Of Appl. For Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Variance and Notice of Public Hearin Conservation Areas, which details shoreline g buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establish- Dallas Blair es Variance procedures and criteria. The as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. newspaper once each week for a period of one A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the consecutive weeks,commencing on the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commis 2 7 th day of January 20 05 ,and ending on the sioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street,Shelton,WA. 2 7 th day of January ,20 0 5 both dates inclusive, Please contact Tammi Clark of the Ma- and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said son County Department of Community De- period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the velopment at(360)427-9670, ext..295, with any questions or comments on this develop- foregoing publication is the sum of$ 35. 63 ment and variance. 1/271t • Subscribed and sworn to before me this U 2 7 th day of January ,20 05 .�`��OpNN 00'S�S�''�. :'gS10N f,�'a° e� Zip-'; Not Public in and for the State of Washingtptt 110TAP- ' Residing at Shelton,Washington My commission expires MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mason County Bullding.1 411 N. 5th St. P.O. Box 578 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-8425 LAND,USE PLANNING SHORELINES CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL FROM: MASON /COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE: Please publish the attached r I ' On the following day(s) Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning Department to pick up from your office and send I copies to the following: AA L, 'Li 1 4 (-A, C� III ov) Lc).� (Cs 5�� Please send a bill for publication costs to: Thank you, Mason County Planning Staff dN COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE July 2003 /Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I /WE understand that I /WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY/ OUR responsibility. I /WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. DATE W," -- R ;WPLICAYff 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 3 RE: DALLAS BLAIR No. VAR2005-00001 4 5 DECLARATION OF MAILING MCC 17.01 .150(E) RESOURCE 6 ORDINANCE VARIANCE 7 8 9 10 I, TAMMI CLARK, declare and state as follows: 11 On JULY 27, 2006, 1 deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage properly prepaid, the 12 documents related to the above cited Hearing Examiner Decision and to which this 13 declaration is attached to: [LIST ALL PARTIES OF INTEREST] 14 iz&-, DALLAS BLAIR 15 �o9D 7650 idIGHWAY 106 UNION, WA 98592 16 JIM CRIM 17 527 HEMLOCK WAY EDMONDS, WA 98020 18 JOHN DIEHL 19 678 PORTAGE RD 20 SHELTON, WA 98584 21 CONSTANCE IBSEN 6500 E. STATE ROUTE 106 22 UNION, WA 98592 23 24 1 declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington the foregoing 25 information is true and correct. DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T" AVE. P.O. BOX 279 SHELTON, WA 360-427-9670 TEL. 360-427-8425 FAX 1 Dated this 27T" DAY of JULY, 2006 at Shel on, Washington. 2 3 4 [Tammi Clark] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T" AVE. P.O. BOX 279 SHELTON, WA 360-427-9670 TEL. 360-427-8425 FAX q 00 o RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE CHECKLIST Application received and logged: ` I �; - Notice sent to WDFW/Tribe / - 1 rl - L' Notice of app. & hearing delivered to SMJ: _ l�-y 5 fo Y�u� I/ 7/o S� Notice of app. & hearing posted and mailed: Photos? SEPA?: Circulated on: Report to HEX by: HEX hearing date: e - g -p�— Decision: Notice of Final Decision sent on: TO BE KEPT IN THE Notes & Comments: PARCEL FILE &il s of ,fit tord — f 3110s @ Sm Cam Stra Sfz�f �e�►-� � c�uslQ►� 59--7 N tm I ocK fdiw ds cj0R W a-0 ovu� @) Ns a -Ibsen ti wsw copj jo IVA ,��tM - w Porbit Qd SkL,-kvl wA q&SN I:\PLANNING\Checklists&templates\RO VARIANCE CHECKLIST.doc.ram 9alill 3 TO BE KEPT IN THE PARCEL FILE Notice of Application for Varian%;c from Affidavit of Publication the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Dallas Blair, STATE OF WASHINGTON I SS. who is the applicant for the following propos- COUNTY OF MASON al,has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Ma- Julie G.Orme being first duly sworn son County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for the construction of a 288 square foot garage within a Type IV stream buffer.Prop on oath deposes and says y that she is the clerk erty location is 8050 Highway 106, Union, of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That Mason County, Washington, Parcel No. said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six 32234-34-00060 months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in Date of complete application:January 18, the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason 2005. County, Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an The proposed development is reviewed office maintained at the aforesaid lace of publication of said newspaper. That as a Variance under the Mason County Re- the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of source Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically ; Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said Conservation Areas, which details shoreline Mason County. buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards,which establishes That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Aaal.For Variance Variance procedures and criteria. The pro- posal requires a Habitat Management Plan And Notice of Public Hearin¢—Dallas Blair and Hearing Examiner approval. — A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the J Mason County Hearing Examiner on the 1 proposed project on Tuesday, July 11th as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, She'- newspaper once each week for a period of one ton,WA. consecutive weeks,commencing on the Please contact Tammi Clark of the Mason County Department of Community Develop ment at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any 15th day of June 20 06 and ending on the questions or comments on this development and variance. 15th day of June 20 06 both dates inclusive, 6/15 1 t and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of$ 35.63 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of _June ,2006 st• F9�'�. Notary Public in and or the State of Wash' to ' �'�'•ti '� Residing at Shelton,Washington NOTARY 0— My commission expires Q ,21 P `"G p MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mason County Bullding.1 411 N. 5th St. P.O. Box 578 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-8425 LAND USE PLANNING SHORELINES CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF DATE: _ �� O Please publish the attached �I I On the following day(s) JCtnttccr 7 Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning Department to pick up from your office and send i copies to the following: I Im &C"' �v 5-0 U n 10a Please send a bill for publication costs to: co Thank you, Mason County Planning Staff PASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE July 2003 Publication cost is the responsibility of the _p y e applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until g advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I /WE understand that I /WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY/ OUR responsibility. I /WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. DATE i R APPLICA �� J In the previous decision of the hearings beams-on the Blair variance,the sole basis for denying the request was the finding that the hardship was self-imposed,rather than due to the shape and other circumstances associated with the lot. After review of the record and the site and discussions with the applicant,I have come to a different conclusion.My conclusion is that the current structure with attached garage area was required by the site conditions of the property,rather than conditions created by the applicant. The site is long,narrow lot almost completely restricted by the fish and wildlife buffers of the shoreline and the creek.The newly build house was placed in the footprint of the old house without the need for a variance. The site for the drain field is by the road and kept the driveway from being moved from its old location.An entrance for an attached garage could not be place in the front(road side)of the building because of the septic drain field.It could not be place at the back of the house because of flooding issues from the creek. The side opposite of the driveway is also not usable.The tree that constrains turning into the garage is partly the neighbor's property.The applicant had the house build with a garage so that he could store large items such as his antique wooden boat. As noted,he did this without a variance.Now he seeks to have a usable and detached garage for his truck/vehicle.The detached garage does not have the flooding issues that the attached garage would have had. It would be located in an already impacted area,and a habitat plan has been prepared for mitigation. Because the applicant knowingly buys a property with restrictions on it,that does not mean that he is foreclosed from being granted a variance.If that were so,then no variances would be granted except to the owner of land prior to the adoption of the relevant regulations.The applicant recognized the restrictions on the property in rebuilding the house in the old foot print and provided the house with storage with a large entry.He now seeks the use of a garage. Because of the forgoing,the finding that this was a self-imposed hardship should be revised.The finding should be made that configuration for the attached garage was imposed by the site conditions.The remainder of the analysis and findings of the previous decision should be kept and the variance therefore issued. RE C MAR 2:3 2005 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON CO TVCCD - PANNING 2 Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner 3 RE: Dallas Blair FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION. 5 MCC 17.01.150(E) Resource Ordinance Variance 6 INTRODUCTION 7 The applicant has applied for a variance from a 100-foot Resource Ordinance buffer 8 in order to construct a 288 square foot garage. Since the requested variance is a self- 9 imposed hardship, a design defect in the home, the variance is denied. 10 ORAL TESTIMONY 11 Tammi Clark, senior staff, introduced the staff report and exhibits. 12 Dallas Blair, applicant, explained whey the variance is necessary. He testified that a 13 tree,jointly owned by his neighbor and himself, stands 16' from his house. The tree does not provide enough space for a turning radiance for his 18' truck. Mr. Blair 14 stated that his home faces north, thereby never gaining any sun in the winter. This creates a substantial accumulation of moss and he needs to park his truck in a garage 15 in order to protect the vehicle from the moss. 16 John Diehl testified in opposition to the project. He stated that by itself the 17 environmental impacts of the proposed garage may be not significant, but he is concerned about the precedent this would set for the expansion of non-conforming 18 uses and cumulative impacts that would result if other non-conforming uses were allowed to expand under similar circumstances. 19 20 EXHIBITS 21 See"CASE INDEX;Dallas Blair; VAR 2005-0000111 . 22 Exhibit 9: March 8, 2005, letter from Benjamin Pennington. Exhibit 11: 1lx 17 photograph of the existing garage site. 23 Exhibit 10: Bullet points from Blair presentation. 24 Exhibit 12: Bullet points from Blair presentation. Exhibit b t 13: Photo of Blair residence across from SR106. 25 Exhibit 14: Photo of Blair residence across from SR106. Dallas Blair Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 PA0596136.DOC;1/13009.900000/) FINDINGS OF FACT t Procedural: 3 1. Applicant. The applicant is Dallas Blair. 4 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 5 on March 8, 2005 in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room. 6 Substantive: 7 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a second garage in a cleared area in a lot that is 65' wide and 1,005 long. The entire lot except 8 for a portion of the existing home and the septic system drain field is within the buffer 9 to a Type IV stream. The home was constructed about 2 1/2 years ago, apparently shortly prior to the adoption of the 100' buffer by Mason County. The applicant is 10 requesting a second garage because the current garage is 16' from a large tree. The applicant states that the tree blocks the turning radius necessary for access to the 11 garage for his 18' long truck. 12 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is west of Union along 1 Highway 106. Steep slopes characterize the area along the northern portion of Highway 106. Several single-family residences occupy the area. Addition of another t4 garage as requested by the applicant would give the applicant total garage square footage of approximately 864 square feet, which according to staff is much more than 15 other garages in the area. Other examples of garage size include: 16 a. 8080 E. SR 106: 480 square foot garage 17 b. 8100 E SR 106: 500 square foot garage C. 8040 E SR 106: 360 square foot garage 18 5. Adverse Impacts. Impacts are nominal on their own. The garage is 19 proposed to be constructed in an already cleared area and the subject stream is tight 20 lined just a few feet south of the proposed project. As noted by John Diehl during public testimony, the primary adverse impact of concern is cumulative. If non- 2 1 conforming homes under similar circumstances are allowed to expand within a critical area buffer, there would be numerous other home owners who make similar 22 requests given the relatively recent enactment of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. 23 24 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 25 Procedural: Dallas Blair Variance p. 2 Findings,Conclusions and Decision (PA0596136.DOC;1/13009.900000/) 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Examiner 1 with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. Substantive: 3 2. Zoning Designation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 5. 4 5 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from a 100 foot setback from an adjoining Type IV stream. This buffer is imposed through 6 MMC 17.01.110, Table III. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Those 7 review standards are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law. S MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance 9 standards precludes or significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 10 4. Case law on reasonable use, at least in the constitutional context, generally 11 provides for at least one single family home per parcel that conforms with the minimum lot size requirements. Factors relevant to a reasonable use analysis include 12 investment backed expectations, historical uses, surrounding uses and parcel size. 13 See Buechel v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994), for a good description of the factors used in a "reasonable use analysis", as the term is used in 14 Mason County's Shoreline Master Program variance criteria. 15 In this particular case, the applicant cannot use his currently existing garage to protect a standard size pickup truck from the elements. Given the rural character of the area, 16 a garage that can accommodate pickup trucks should be considered a necessary 17 reasonable use of property. Given that the resource ordinance variance precludes the placement of an additional garage anywhere on the lot, the resource ordinance IS variance does significantly interfere with the Blair's reasonable use of their property. 19 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of 20 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the 21 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or the applicant's own action. 22 5. The hardship in this case, the lack of sufficient turning radiance, is caused 23 by the design of the home. The home is only 2 1/2 years old so it must be concluded 24 that the tree which blocks the turning radius was there when the home was designed and built. For these reasons, the applicant's hardship is created by his own actions, 25 not because of the resource ordinance. Dallas Blair Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0596136.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 It is unclear from the record whether the applicant was involved in the design of the 1 home. However, this factor is not determinative in this case because the applicant purchased the home with notice of the turning radius limitations, i.e., the proximity of the tree to the garage was readily evidenced at the time that the applicant purchased 3 the home. 4 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent 5 properties or the environment. 6 6. As noted in the Findings above, the proposed garage would create more s ace than is found on other properties in the vicinity. However, the proposed 7 garage P P P Y D P P garage would not, in and of itself, create any adverse effects to adjacent properties 8 and as noted in the Habitat Management Plan, would not create any adverse environmental impacts, unless cumulative impacts are considered. Overall, the project is consistent with the criteria above. 10 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special 11 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. 12 7. As noted previously, the applicants are requesting more garage space than 1 other properties in the vicinity have for their properties. However, it is assumed that 14 those garages on other properties in the vicinity are accessible to vehicles the size of pickup trucks. The applicant is simply requesting the ability to house his pickup 15 truck in an enclosed garage as well. Granting the applicant right would not constitute a special privilege. 16 17 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 18 8. As mitigated by the Habitat Management Plan,the proposed garage would not have any significant impact upon the protected critical area (the Type IV stream), 19 at least to the extent that cumulative impacts are not considered. Given that there are no other adverse impacts on the construction of the garage, the public interest will 20 suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 21 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a 22 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other 23 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mirror loss in value only shall not justify a variance. 24 2 5 9. The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect environmentally sensitive areas from adverse impacts created by development. The Resource Ordinance specifically provides for a variance and reasonable use waiver process so Dallas Blair Variance p. 4 Findings,Conclusions and Decision {PA0596136.DOC;1/13009.900000/} that the goals of environmental protection do not place undue hardship upon property 1 owners, at least to the extent that their constitutional rights may be violated. The granting of the variance in this particular case, excluding cumulative impacts, would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts and will at the same time provide for a reasonable use of property, thus satisfying the purpose of the Resource Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provide for residential 4 development in the subject area. The lot, which is a little over an acre in size, is too small for residential development in a rural area to be consistent with the policies of 5 the Growth Management Act as they pertain to discouraging urban sprawl and 6 encouraging the efficient use of public infrastructure. However, the Growth Management Act also encourages the protection of private property rights. 7 Authorizing the construction of a garage on a grandfathered lot in the circumstances of this application does promote the private property rights of the applicant. For these 8 reasons, the granting of this variance would also be considered consistent with the 9 intent of the Growth Management Act. 10 DECISION 11 The Hearing Examiner denies the requested variance due to the fact that the lack of turning radius is a self-created hardship. 12 ti- 13 Dated this 2 ay of March, 2005. 14 15 Phil Olbrechts Mason County Hearing Examiner 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 ?4 2.5 Dallas Blair Variance p. 5 Findings,Conclusions and Decision (PA0596136.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Mason County Department of Planning Building I * 411 N. 51h Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670 February 24, 2005 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff—Tammi Clark RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (VAR2005-00001) STAFF REPORT I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a 288 square foot garage approximately 40 feet from a Type 4 stream. The proposed project is described in detail in the attached Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 3). Staff recommends denial of proposed project. II. Applicant. Dallas Blair. III. Property Location. Site address and Project Location: 8050 E State Route 106, Union. Parcel #32234-34-00060. TR 6 OF G.L 3 &T.L. &W 10'TR 5 &T.L. 8050 E STATE RT 106 UNION. IV. Date of complete application: January 18, 2005. V. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the site. The parcel is rectangle in shape extending approximately 65 feet from east to west and 1,005 feet from north to south. Hood Canal borders the northern property line. Approximately 2/3 of the southern portion of the property contains a forested canyon with an unnamed type 4 stream flowing through the canyon bottom from north to south. The northern 1/3 of the property consists of a single-family residence with a footprint of 1,088 square feet, a small well house, and on-sight sewage system, and a cleared parking area(site of proposed garage). Within this 1/3 of the property the stream is tight lined (no longer regulated) under the paved driveway before flowing under the highway and into Hood Canal. Site plan included as Attachment A. B. Characteristics of the area. The general area is west of Union along Highway 106. Hood Canal borders the northern portion of the parcel. Steep slopes characterize the area along the northern portion of Highway 106. The subject parcel is located in Rural Residential 5 zoning. Several single-family residences occupy the area. C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5)per the Mason County Development Areas Map. VI. SEPA Compliance, public and agency comment. This activity is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (iii). Public notice of the application and hearing date was posted onsite on January 20, 2005 and notice was made in the Shelton-Mason Journal on January 27, 2005 (Exhibit 4). The proposal required review and comment of a Habitat Management Plan by the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Notification was sent on January 19, 2005 (Exhibits 5 & 6). A 28-day comment period followed. John Diehl and Constance Ibsen called on January 31, 2005 requesting a copy of the Habitat Management Plan and raised concerns regarding the fact that Mr. Blair already had a garage. Jim Crim called and indicated that he had no opposition to the project. Proposed mitigation is to place native plantings in a currently graveled area of 300 square feet located upslope of the proposed building area that is near the day lighted portion of the stream. Location of restoration is identified in the HMP on page 8 (Exhibit 3). VII. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit for the construction of the garage and a geological assessment prior to building permit approval. V111. Analysis: (All references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.) The required buffer for a Type 4 stream is 100 feet plus a 15-foot building setback for a total distance of 115 feet from the stream. Stream typing is per Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing criteria(Attachment Q. The proposal is the construction of a 288 square foot garage approximately 40 feet from the Type 4 stream. This proposal requires a variance per the requirements associated with Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,which details stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes variance procedures and criteria. The proposed structure is located outside of the saltwater and wetland buffers. The location of the proposed garage within the buffer effectively reduces that buffer. Section 1.7.01.110.G.c. states that"new residential construction ...is not permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use exception may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted. Section 17.01.120.Q. states that "except when application from this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Section 17.01.150. Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan(HMP)be prepared in association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through habitat mitigation. Section 17.01.150 (E), Review Standards for a variance states that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following circumstances exist: 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief, 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; 6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. Staff discussion: 1. The purposes of the Mason County Resource Ordinance are detailed in Section 17.01.020. The regulated portion of the stream that runs from the southern portion of the parcel to the northern portion encumbers approximately Y4 of the parcel. Approximately %of the northern portion of the parcel is outside the regulated stream buffer, but contains the single-family residence, driveway, and the sewage system and reserve drainfield. State Route 106 and Hood Canal shoreline also border the very northern portion of the parcel. This leaves no other place outside of the stream buffer to construct the proposed garage. The current proposal is 40 feet from the day lighted portion of the stream. The proposal for a 288-sq.ft. garage is an allowable use in Rural Residential 5 zoning, and is therefore consistent with surrounding land uses. No native vegetation removal will be necessary, as the construction will occur in an area currently maintained as a graveled parking. This provides for minimal amount of critical area disturbance and thus is consistent with purposes #2 & #3 of Section 17.01.11O.A. of the Resource Ordinance. A garage is considered as reasonable use and appurtenance to protect automobiles and the safety of the homeowners as noted in the Noyes Examiner decision. According to the Mason County Assessor's Office, this lot currently has a 576 square foot attached garage. Based on the Noyes Examiner decision, the current garage could be considered as reasonable use. Addition of another garage would give total garage square footage of approximately 864 square feet, a much larger footprint than other garages in the area. Other examples include: a) 8080 E State Route 106: 480 square foot garage b) 8100 E State Route 106: 500 square foot garage c) 8040 E State Route 106: 360 square foot garage 2. The hardship of placing another structure on site is a direct result of the size and location of the parcel. The parcel is encumbered by a Type 4 stream that places approximately 213 of the parcel within the stream buffer. The portion of the parcel outside of the stream buffer currently contains a single-family residence and the septic system. Highway 106 bisects the parcel to the north and Hood Canal is located on the north side of the highway. Placement of a structure on this portion of the parcel would not meet setbacks from existing structures and septic. 3. The construction of a garage is consistent with surrounding land uses and a permitted use in Rural Residential 5 zoning. Factors considered in the placement of the structure include the presence of Hood Canal shoreline and a Type 4 stream. The current building location was chosen because the area has previously been cleared and is being maintained as graveled parking. This provides for minimal amount of critical area disturbance. Restoration would include planting native vegetation in a 300 square foot area that has been previously graveled and maintained as parking space. 4. Variances are contemplated and procedures are established by the provisions of Chapter 17.01.110(D)(2). The intended use is compatible and in keeping with the surrounding land use. However, staff has not been able to identify other parcels that have 2 garages. This could be construed as granting special privileges not granted to other properties in the area. Staff does not feel that 2 garages is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The structure will be built to current Mason County codes. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the placement of any structure on this lot due to the required buffer/setbacks from streams and shorelines and the existing structures on site. The subject lot currently contains a 576 square foot attached garage. Staff requested a detailed description (Exhibit 7) as to why the applicant needs two garages. In correspondence from the applicant (Exhibit 8), he states that, given the location of the garage and driveway, the turn radius will not allow him to turn his truck into the garage. Since the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that each of the variance criteria is met(Title 15 Mason County Code 15.09.057 Variance Criteria), staff feels that the responses from the applicant do not provide sufficient proof that each of the variance criteria are met, specifically number 1, 4 and 6. IX. Conclusions. Based upon the above discussion the proposal is not consistent with all the variance criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150. Staff recommends denial of the proposal. X. Choices of Action. 1. Approval of the Variance request. 2. Denial of the Variance request. 3. Conditional approval of the Variance request. 4. Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification re r ; 9 j A J I Z1, z , t i 5 t w � s ....... ���a i r r�k. y S 2L Af t _ -s s �rx r ' as • _ _ � a � ata - ti a.d g�{ t t fd. W �' -er i,. �e ♦ M. � Wit° ,, �.:, ? Ott Y I �. !�( " �( • r ,l A i t c i w H