HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2013-00015 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 2/28/2014 Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
February 28, 2014
Notice of Decision
Case: SHR2013-00015
Applicant: Troy and Judith Woodard
Notice is hereby given that Troy and Judith Woodard, who are the applicants
for the above-referenced Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development /
Variance Permit, has been granted that Shoreline Permit and Variance. The
request was reviewed on February 11, 2014 by the Mason County Hearing
Examiner and approved pursuant to the Mason County Title 17.50 Shoreline
Master Program Use Regulations, specifically for Residential Development and
for Variance to standards. The proposal was exempt from SEPA review.
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available.
Appeal of this decision may be made to the State Shorelines Hearing Board as
regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal
requirements of any appeal process.
Time Limit for Action. Per the Mason County Code Title 15 - Development Code - No
permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If
actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not
begun within two nears after the approval, the Hearing Examiner shall review the
permit and upon a showing of good cause, may extend the initial two year period by
permit for one year. Otherwise, the permit terminates; PROVIDED that no permit
shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension
before the Hearing Examiner PRIOR to the expiration date. Work on approved project
must begin by March 2015. This permit expires February 28, 2018.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues,please contact Allan Borden,Senior
Planner with Mason County Dept. of Community Development at 360-427-9670 x365.
I
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
4 RE: Troy and Judith Woodard
5 Shoreline Variance FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
6 SHR2013-00015
7 INTRODUCTION
8 The application is for a variance from a fifteen foot shoreline setback in the Mason
9 County Shoreline Master Plan in order to build a second floor addition to an existing
nonconforming home. The applicant proposes that the second floor addition
10 encroach into the entire area of the setback up to the ordinary high water mark. The
setback variance is approved.
11
Nothing in this decision shall be construed as authorizing the applicant's proposed
12 overwater construction of the proposed second floor roof overhang. This roof
13 overhand is proposed to extend two feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
The shoreline master program prohibits all residential overwater construction. The
14 variance for this decision was advertised and evaluated as a setback variance only,
with no mention of a variance to the overwater prohibition. Staff may determine
15 administratively that roof overhangs are not subject to the overwater prohibition. If
16 that is the case, the applicant can add the overhang to the proposal approved by this
decision. Otherwise, the applicant will have to either remove the roof overhang (if
17 consistent with applicable building standards) or set the home further back from the
ordinary high water mark so the roof overhang does not extend beyond it.
18
ORAL TESTIMONY
19
20 Allan Borden stated that the proposal is a remodel of a small cabin and would result
in the same footprint area as the existing structure. The applicant plans to add a
21 second story to the structure. The addition will be 782sgft and will include 2 small
bedrooms and one bathroom. The structure will remain upland of and within 15ft of
22 the concrete bulkhead. The overhang from the addition will be the same as or less
than the existing overhang. Page three of the staff report, third to last line, should
23 read "second" addition rather than"send." Staff concluded that the request meets the
24 variance criteria. The cabin can be as tall as 30ft, according to Mason County Code.
The applicant is unable to build over the water and sewer lines because of an existing
25 easement. In regard to expansion to the southeast,this area would not allow a tenable
layout of the home and would limit extra space. In regard to the northern side, there
is only 3ft between the home and the setback. Any expansion outside of the footprint
would require a resource variance.
Shoreline Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I Applicant Testimony
2 Aaron Nester, representing applicant, testified that the expansion remaining within
the footprint results in the least amount of encroachment.
4 Troy Woodward, applicant, added that the neighbors on both sides are in favor of the
expansion. The addition will not block any existing views.
J
6 EXHIBITS
7
Exhibits 1-12 identified in the staff report were admitted at hearing.
8
FINDINGS OF FACT
9
10 Procedural:
I I I. Applicant. The applicants are Troy and Judith Woodard.
12 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application on February 11, 2014, at
I
1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners chambers.
14 Substantive:
15 3. Site/Proposal Description. The application is for a variance from a fifteen
16 foot shoreline setback in the Mason County Shoreline Master Plan in order to build a
second floor addition to an existing nonconforming home. The applicant proposes
17 that the second floor addition encroach into the entire area of the setback up to the
ordinary high water mark.
18
Specifically, the setback at issue is a 15 foot setback from the shoreline for
19 development within the urban shoreline designation, as regulated in the residential
20 development matrix under MCC 17.50.060. The site is currently developed with a
single story home that extends waterward over a concrete bulkhead along with a deck.
,1 The applicant proposes a second story addition to the existing home with its shoreline
facing wall located at the same location as the bulkhead. Ex. 8 and 9 contain a site
22 plan and elevations for the proposed addition. The first floor will also be remodeled,
but construction will be within the existing footprint. The first floor will be 936
23 square feet in area and the second floor addition will be 782 square feet in area.
24 The subject property dimensions are a depth of 52 ft. on west
25 and 46 ft. on east by 102 ft. wide and encompasses 0.115 acre in size (Exhibit 9). A
retaining wall is in the southwest portion of lot and a
four-vehicle parking area is located along the southeast near SR 106, which adjoins
the property to the east. Community water and sewer utility lines cross the property
Shoreline Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
between the cabin and
1 the retaining walls (Exhibit 10). The concrete bulkhead extends along the western
2 Hood Canal shoreline for most of the lot's width.
3 4. Characteristics of the Area. The proposed development is along the south
shore of Hood Canal in an area characterized by single-family development.
4
5. Adverse Impacts. There should be no adverse impacts as a result of this
5 proposal. Since the addition will be within the existing footprint and not involve any
6 new clearing or excavation, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
Further, there are no homes in the vicinity that would have any view impaired as a
7 result of the second story addition.
8 6. Necessity of Variance. There is no other area at the subject site
reasonably available to accommodate an expansion to the home. As shown in the site
9 plan, Ex. 8, the home is too close to property lines, the shoreline or retaining walls to
10 allow for any expansion to the north, west or east. The space to the south is traversed
with a community water and sewer line easement that prohibits any construction of
11 structures. Further, any expansion into this southern area would necessitate a
Resource Ordinance variance because the lot is within the Resource Ordinance buffer
12 to Hood Canal. Since the proposed variance would not involve any new clearing or
impervious surface, it is preferable to breaking new ground into the Resource
13 Ordinance buffer.
14
15 7. Overwater Construction. The side elevation to the proposal,Ex. 9, reveals
that the applicant is proposing a roof overhand that extends two feet beyond the
16 bulkhead (which is understood to be at the ordinary high water mark). The public
hearing advertisement for the subject variance request (Ex. 11) and the staff report
17 itself do not identify any request for a variance to the Shoreline Master Program
18 prohibition of overwater residential development. Consequently, the variance
application is not considered to include a request to a variance request to this
19 prohibition.
20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
21
22 Procedural:
23 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9)provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
24
25 Substantive:
Shoreline Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Mason County
1 Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Union Rural Activity Center. The
2 parcel is zoned Rural Residential 2.5 (RR-2.5).
3 3. Overwater Construction. This decision should not be construed as
authorizing a variance to the SMP's ban on residential overwater construction.
4
MCC 17.50.060, Residential Use Regulation No. 1, provides that "[r/esidential
5 development over water is prohibited'. The examiner has previously approved a
6 variance for second story residential construction over water in a variance application
submitted by Jay Leonard and Karen Leonard Platt, SHR 2010-00003. The
7 Department of Ecology overturned that variance at least in part because the variance
included overwater construction and the applicants only requested a variance to the
8 15 foot setback. Although the overwater construction in this case is far more nominal
than that in the Leonard application, there is no express exception in the prohibition
9 on overwater development for nominal construction. As determined in Finding of
10 Fact No. 7, this variance request has not been advertised or presented as including a
request to vary from the overwater prohibition. For this reason, this decision should
11 not be construed as authorizing any variance to that prohibition. Staff is free to
authorize the overhang if it determines the overhang is not subject to the overwater
12 prohibition, but no such determination is made in this decision.
13 4. Review Criteria and Application. The Residential Development section
14 MMC 17.50.060 requires that urban shoreline development meet a setback of 15 feet.
This proposal is situated at the 0-foot setback from the bulkhead and within the
15 existing cabin footprint. Accordingly, a shoreline variance is necessary. The
shoreline variance criteria are established by MCC 17.50.090. The criteria, in
16 addition to miscellaneous criteria for all Hearing Examiner decisions, are quoted in
italics and addressed below.
17
18
Generally Applicable Review Standards:
19
MCC 15.09.050(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
20 proposed development according to the following criteria:
21 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
22 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
23 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
24
25 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Shoreline Variance p.4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
5. The proposed development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
1 and meets all the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, with the
exception of the Shoreline Master Program MMC 17.50.060 Residential
Development setbacks'. The proposal will not adversely impact the public health,
safety and welfare and is in the public interest because it will not create any
significant adverse impacts as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and it will also
4 allow for the reasonable use of residentially zoned property. The proposal does not
lower the Level of Service of transportation or the neighborhood park facilities below
5 the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan, as it is an
6 addition to an already existing residence.
7 Variance Criteria:
8 MCC 17.50.090(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
9 not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program.
10 6. The strict application of the fifteen-foot shoreline setback required by
11 MMC 17.50.060 significantly interferes with a reasonable use of this property
because it would preclude a minor addition to a home that is less than 1,000 square
12 feet in area. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, there is no other place on the
property to construct the addition because of site constraints and a utility easement.
1' The County's Resource Ordinance provides that the minimum residential footprint for
14 the reasonable use of land is 2,550 square feet. See MCC 17.01.150(E). There is no
similar provision for shoreline variances, but in the absence of any other guidance on
15 what constitutes minimum reasonable use, MCC 17.01.150(E) provides compelling
legislative intent on what is considered reasonable residential use. Given that the
16 applicants propose an addition that falls well below what the Mason County
Commissioners consider to be minimum reasonable use for a single-family home, it
1 must be concluded that strict application of the 15 foot setback would deprive the
18 applicants of a reasonable use of their property.
19
MCC 17.50.090(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
20 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
1 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the
application of the Master Program, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
22 the applicant's own action.
23
As previously noted, the proposed two foot overhang beyond the bulkhead may also
24 not be consistent with shoreline regulations. Since this was an issue that was not
addressed during the hearing, this decision leaves that issue for administrative
25 determination. This decision should be construed as authorizing residential
construction up to the bulkhead. If staff determines that the proposed overhang is not
subject to the overwater prohibition, the overhang could be added to the project as a
minor modification that does not trigger further variance review.
Shoreline Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the variance is needed due to the
2 site constraints of the property. The easement is distinguishable from the "deed
restrictions" identified in the criterion above because the utility easement is a
3 community-wide utility feature that is as much beyond the applicants' control as the
placement of a public road. Further, even if the easement could not serve as
4 justification for the variance, it is at least equally important that the only area that the
home could be expanded into at ground level is within the Resource Ordinance buffer
5 to Hood Canal. From an environmental standpoint it is clearly preferable to build
6 upward in an existing building footprint as opposed to expanding construction into an
environmentally sensitive buffer area.
7
MCC 17.50.090(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
8 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
9 properties or the shoreline environment.
10 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 there are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposal, including impacts to adjoining properties.
11 Further, as shown in the photographs of Ex. 7 the home adjoining to the south is
already a two stories in height. The addition of a second story within the 15 foot
12 setback should have very nominal aesthetic impacts and is compatible with the
residential character of the area.
13
14 MCC 17.50.090(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
15 necessary to afford relief.
16 9. The requested variance is well below the 2,550 square foot print
17 considered to be reasonable use under MCC 17.01.150(E). This standard will provide
compelling guidance on minimum size requirements for both Resource Ordinance
18 and Shoreline Master Program requests. Anyone else seeking to expand their homes
will be able to rely upon this standard in acquiring variance and other permit
19 approvals. Consequently, approval in this case will not constitute a grant of special
privilege.
20
21 MCC 17.50.090(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
22 10. The public interest will suffer no substantial detriment or effect since it
will not create any significant adverse impacts as determined in Finding of Fact No.
23 5.
24 MCC 17.50.090(6): The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not
25 be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.
Shoreline Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
11. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be
1 adversely affected by granting the variance because the variance authorizes no
overwater construction.
DECISION
4 The requested variance to the 15 foot shoreline setback for the proposed second story
residential addition depicted in Ex. 8 and 9 is approved, PROVIDED, nothing in this
5 decision shall be construed as authorizing any overwater construction in
6 contravention of Residential Development Use Regulation No. 1 of MCC 17.50.060,
including the proposed two foot roof overhang that extends waterward of the ordinary
7 high water mark. As detailed in Footnote No. 1 to this decision, staff may
administratively authorize the overhang if it determines that the overhang is not
8 subject to the overwater restriction.
9 Dated this 26th day of February, 2014.
10
12 P A_01brechts
13 Mason County Hearing Examiner
14
15 Subsequent Review and Valuation Notices
16
17 This land use decision is final and subject to approval of the Washington State
Department of Ecology as governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW.
18
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
19 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Shoreline Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
CASE INDEX
Troy and Judith Woodard
Shoreline Variance Request
SHR2013-00015
Exhibit# Date Description
1 February 11, 2014 Staff Report
2 December 19, 2013 Shoreline Application &Variance Responses
3 December 30, 2013 Area Map .
4 October 2013 Vicinity Aerial Photo
5 March 2013 Vicinity Goo le Earth image
` 6 November 2013 Site Photos East and North
7 November 2013 Site Photos West and South
8 December 19, 2013 Site Plan of Property
9 December 19, 2013 East and North views of cabin proposal
10 December 19, 2013 Map of sewer &water utilities Madrona Beach
11 January 2, 2014 Notice of Application
12 January 29, 2014 Affidavit of Posting
Woodard SHR 2013-00015 case index
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584
TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM: Mason County Department of Community Development
STAFF: Allan Borden-Planner; 360.427.9670 x 365, ahb@co.mason.wa.us
RE: Troy and Judith Woodard Shoreline Variance(SHR2013-00015)
STAFF REPORT for February 11,2014 HEARING DATE
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a variance request for the remodel of the existing
first floor area and addition of a second floor bedroom and bath area to an existing non-
conforming cabin along State Route 106 using Mason County Code(MCC) Chapter
17.50 Shoreline Master Program and Chapter 15.09.57 Development Code standards.
Staff is recommending approval of this proposal, as it meets the variance criteria.
II. Applicant. Troy and Judith Woodard.
III. Date of Complete Application. December 19, 2013.
IV. Site address and Project Location. 6041 E State Route 106, Union, WA. Parcel No.
32232-54-00004. Township 22 N, Range 3 W, Section 32,northeast quarter.
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the area. The area(Exhibits 4& 5) is the location of single-family
residential development along the south shore of Hood Canal in northeast Mason
County. The area to develop on area parcels is limited by distances between the state
highway and the adjacent shoreline bulkhead and the property improvements.
B. Characteristics of the site. The subject property dimensions are depth of 52 ft. on west
and 46 ft. on east by 102 ft. wide and encompasses 0.115 acre in size(Exhibit 9). The
subject property has an existing retaining wall in the southwest portion of lot and the
four-vehicle parking area along the southeast near the state highway(Exhibit 7A).
The community water and sewer utility lines cross the property between the cabin and
the retaining walls(Exhibit 10). The shoreline has a concrete retaining bulkhead for
most of the width. The cabin and the 9 to 10 ft. deck are partly over the beach
supported by concrete piling and upland footings. (Exhibits 6A, 6B, 6C).
C. Comprehensive Plan Desi ng ation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Union Rural Activity Center.
Woodard SHR201340015 variance staff report - 1 -
D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 2.5 (RR-2.5).
VI. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements.
The proposal is exempt of SEPA review exempt from environmental review, under WAC
197-11-800(l)(c). Notice of Public Hearing for the Application for a Variance (Exhibit
11)was published in the Mason County Journal on January 2 and 9, 2014 and posted at
two public places on January 24, 2014. In addition,the Notice of Public Hearing was
mailed to all property owners within 300 ft. of the proposal on January 10, 2014. The
Affidavit of Posting Notice is enclosed as Exhibit 12.
VII. Other Permits.
If this request is approved, Mason County will need to issue a building permit when the
project is proposed and subject to standard conditions of approval. No work within the
saltwater involving WA Fish and Wildlife or Skokomish Tribe approval is proposed.
VIII. Analysis.
Development in the vicinity is regulated by the Mason County Shoreline Master Program
Urban Shoreline Designation and the Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas standards. This proposal is the remodel of a small cabin(936 sq. ft.
area), keeping the same footprint area, and adding living area and two bedrooms and bath
as the second floor area addition of the residence. The proposal will use the remodel and
addition-within-footprint provision of the Mason County Resource Ordinance Sec.
17.01.110.F.1.a. There will not bean expansion of footprint towards the road right-of-
way or towards the beach. The proposed first floor remodel is a 936 sq. ft. area for living,
kitchen, dining, master bedroom and bath; and the second floor addition is 782 sq. ft. for
two small bedrooms and one bath located in the existing footprint(Exhibit 8). The
proposed addition will be located upland of and within 15 feet of the concrete bulkhead; a
2-ft. roof overhang on the second floor addition will be the same as the existing overhang
along the bulkhead. The proposal requires the need for the Shoreline Variance review
(Exhibit 2). No Development Regulations Variance request is needed as the addition is
within the existing building footprint and no closer to the state highway.
A. Comprehensive Plan Review
Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate
the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted plans and
regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the
following review criteria:
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code(MCC), especially Title 6, 8
and 16.
This staff report served to review the variance from the MCC Shoreline Master
Program Chapter. The development being reviewed does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan (a residential land use on a Rural Residential 2.5 zoned
property in the Union Rural Activity Center) and meets all the requirements and
intent of the MCC, with the exception of the Shoreline Master Program Chapter
Woodard SHR2013-00015 variance staff report -2-
17.50.060 Residential Development standards. This code section states that the
minimum setbackfor structures along Urban Shoreline Environment be located at
least fifteen feet from the shoreline Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) or
bulkhead. The proposed cabin remodel meets standards and a portion of the
second floor addition are at or less than this setback This proposed renovation
of the cabin will need the Shoreline Variance review.
2. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in
the public interest.
The development proposal will not impact the public health, safety or welfare
because it is compatible with surrounding residences (the replacement and
addition are within the residence footprint) and does not adversely affect the
natural environment or the public's use of the beach (no expansion over the
beach and the cabin is served by the existing Madrona community sewer system
on the west side of the property). The request seeks relief of the standards in
siting the remodeled and send floor addition area of the non-conforming
residence within 15 feet of the OHWM or bulkhead along Hood Canal, but not
expanding the footprint area of the existing cabin residence.
3. The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal to remodel and addition to an existing small residence does not
lower the Level of Service for transportation or neighborhood park facilities in
this vicinity of the Rural Area, as it is a reasonable enlargement of an existing
single-family cabin within a Rural Residential 2.5 zone area, served by a
community sewer system.
B. Mason County Code, Title 17.50 Zoning—Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations
The Residential Development Section of Title 17.50 requires that urban shoreline
development meet a shore setback of 15 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark.
The proposal to remodel and add a second story to this existing non-conforming
cabin is situated at the 0-foot setback from the bulkhead and within the existing cabin
footprint. The proposal will require the applicant to apply for a Shoreline Variance
(Exhibit 2).
This same section requires that urban shoreline lots not have more than 60%
impervious surface area. Estimated impervious surface area of the residence,parking
area, and elevator is 1,844 sq.ft., closer to 36 percent of the 5,000 sq.ft. lot size.
Non-Conforming Development is a use or structure lawfully constructed prior to the
date of Shoreline Master Program standards adoption, but not conforming to those
standards. The standards,noted in Title 15.09.055.B, allow for normal maintenance
and repair of such developments to restore a development that has deteriorated,to a
state comparable to original condition.
Woodard SUR2013-00015 variance staff report -3 -
The request is to remodel the existing cabin in its footprint and add needed living area
as a second story(Exhibit 9). Such second floor addition actions make the review of
a variance to proper setback standards still necessary. The request to provide a
second floor area for bedrooms and bathrooms within the existing first floor footprint
and upland of the bulkhead foundation of the structure also requires variance review
as a request that is reasonable but not meeting the Shoreline Master Program
standards.
C. Variance Criteria
Both the Mason County Development Regulations and the Mason County Shoreline
Chapter of the MCC refer to MCC Section 15.09.057 for the findings required for
approval of a variance. The County must document with written findings compliance
or noncompliance with the following variance criteria:
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;
APPLICANTS. The reason for requesting additional square footage as a second
floor will keep the new development within the existing footprint and lessen the
potential impacts to neighbors and to Hood Canal. The proposed cabin will be
on the original footprint with the second story addition completely behind the
seawall. By moving the 2 small bedrooms out of the kitchen/living room area, the
first floor area uses will basically stay as they are now, but will be enlarged as
more normal width rooms in the main living area and the master bedroom. The
second story addition will be completely behind the seawall, and the location of
two smaller bedrooms and one bathroom. The addition only adds 782 sq ft of
living space to the 936 sq ft cabin, making the total square footage 1718.
STAFF: The proposal for the remodel of an existing 60 year old structure is
within the existing residence footprint and does not create additional over-water
development. The strict application of the dimensional standards of a 15 foot
shoreline setback significantly interferes with a reasonable use of this property;
even the renovation of the structure is entirely within that shoreline setback. The
additional second floor area is within the existing footprint as allowed by
Resource Ordinance Sec. 17.01.110.F.1.a. The proposal meets the setback from
the county road. As shown in Exhibit 2 application materials, the dimensions of
the cabin footprint(about 36 ft. by 26 ft.), as described by the applicants, will not
accommodate the living room and kitchen areas of a modest size and two small
bedroom and bath areas on a one story level. This limit necessitated proposing the
reasonable—sized(782 sq.ft.; roughly 36 ft. by 22 ft.) second floor bedroom/bath
area within the same height of the existing cabin and still behind the line of the
bulkhead. The request is similar to many of the cabins along Hood Canal, and the
request of 936 sq.ft on one floor or 1718 sq.ft. on two floors is less than two-
thirds of the 2550 sq.ft.footprint limit allowed under the Resource Ordinance
variance standards (Title 17.01.150.E Variance Review Standards).
Woodard SHR2013-00015 variance staff report -4-
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;
STAFF. The size of the property, the limited area of 35 feet depth for development
between the bulkhead and the walls near the county road is a restriction of the
property dimensions, and the present location of the cabin residence, all serve as
the bases for granting of the variance (Exhibit 8). The cabin was built 60 years
ago with no standards of setbacks from the water or the county road, which are
regulations that are now part of the review process. There are features of the
property that do not enable construction elsewhere: retaining walls, steps and
elevator; and the existing water and sewer utility easement (Exhibit 7A, 7B). To
develop in another spot on the property that is still in the shoreline area would
need additional permits and special studies as part of the Resource Ordinance
critical areas setback review.
The proposed second floor addition is on the upland side of the bulkhead and is
a smaller area within the cabin footprint. The same constraints noted above
apply to the request for the additional area for bedrooms and baths shifted to
the second floor.
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;
APPLICANTS: The proposal will be on the existing footprint and on the existing
piers, with no new development over the water. The proposal is a remodel of the
cabin and added second floor area within the existing footprint; the proposal will
not obstruct neighboring views.
STAFF.- The design of the residence is compatible with the other permitted
residences adjacent to Hood Canal and does not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the environment. The proposal to remodel the older cabin and add
the second floor bedroom and bath areas will cause a minor change to the
roofline along the shoreline area but will not obstruct neighboring views along
the shoreline.
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;
APPLICANTS: The proposed second floor addition is in line with the concrete
bulkhead below the existing residence (Exhibit 6C), and the new roofline on the
shore side does not extend past the existing roofline. The neighbor to the south
extends 8 feet forward of the bulkhead(Exhibit 7A, 7B). Our proposed cabin
with the addition will still be smaller than most of other residences built along the
Hood Canal. We would like to have a more functional home, as our neighbors
Woodard SHR2013-00015 variance staff report -5 -
already have. Remodel and addition within the footprint is the most minimal
solution that we can propose for our situation.
STAFF: A Variance must be approved to allow for a modest-sized bedroom and
bath areas to be added within the shoreline setback minimum distance of 15 feet
from the OHWM. As this proposal is part of the remodel of an older cabin, this
request is the minimum necessary to afford relief so that the applicants can
provide this second floor bedrooms, bathrooms and stairs area, consistent with
existing residences in the area.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
APPLICANTS: Because the proposed cabin is on the same footprint as the
existing cabin and will not increase impervious surfaces, there won't be any
impact on the public. Parking and usage will remain the same.
STAFF: The public interest will not suffer any detrimental effect. It is in the
public interest to allow the new second floor area addition above the remodeled
first floor area of the cabin and without affecting shoreline views. This proposal
will not affect the public's use of the Hood Canal beach and tideland area.
6. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely
affected by the granting of the variance.
STAFF.- The remodel of the cabin and the second floor area addition within the
footprint of the cabin residence is a reasonable use request. The applicants find
that the existing structure size will not accommodate their family needs. Without
the variance, the applicants will be unable to continue their intended residential
use of the structure; the property is confined in the narrow area from the road to
the concrete bulkhead, the retaining walls near the state highway, and the utility
easements near those walls. The existing residence and the shore side deck
extend into the shoreline and no further extension is proposed. The public use of
the shoreline area and the natural values of the saltwater critical area of the
Hood Canal area will not be adversely affected.
IX. Conclusion.
Based upon the Variance criteria set forth and evaluated above, staff finds the proposal
meets the variance criteria and does not adversely affect the area values within the
shoreline management area.
X. Choices of Action.
1. Approve the Variance.
2. Approve the Variance with condition.
3. Deny the Variance (reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
Woodard SHR2013-00015 variance staff report -6-
Cy,h,1b(f-z_
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building III—426 west Cedar Street
P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
(360)427-9670—Ext.352
1 SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION
PERMIT NO. STT 2a13'Q0b15 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SHORELINE VARIANCE* x
DATE RECEIVED !a 9-20�� SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE* EA
SHORELINE EXEMPTION
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within
designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the
Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program.The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the
state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total
cost or fair market value exceeds $5,718.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals, polices, and performance standards established in the Master
Program.
Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed
development. Incomplete applications will be returned.
Shoreline Variances and Conditional uses have additional pages that shall be attached to this application.
APPLICANT: Troy and Judith Woodard
ADDRESS: P.O. 324
(street)
Union WA 98592
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: 360-898-0148
(home) (business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Aaron Nester
ADDRESS: 871 E. Beach Dr.
(street)
UNION WA 98592
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: 360.271.6423
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the
shoreline):
6041E St Route 106 Union WA 98592 bordering the Hood Canal on the NE side of the property.
range to the nearest uarter, quarter section or latitude and
Legal description (include section, township, andq
longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude
location)—include all parcel numbers:
PARCEL#32232-54-00004, Madrona INC TR 3&4&T.L. 116
shoreline 2011 app
OWNERSHIP: Contract
Applicant X Owner Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other
Owner:
(street)
(city) (state) (zip)
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON
Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction
methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information):
782 sq. ft. 2nd story addition to existing 936 sq. ft. single story home. Proposed addition to be built within
the existing footprint of the structure. The second story addition will start 4'4" in from northern most point
of existing single story structure. The second story will be inline with the existing bulkhead underneath
the existing single story home. Second story addition to be constructed using conventional site-built
framing techniques. engineered i joist floor system with engineered roof trusses and dimensional 2x6 ext.
wall studs, Fiber cement siding, and composition roofing. Overall dimensions of proposed addition are
21'8"x 36'. Proposed addition will not create additional impervious surface.
Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements:
Property is currently used as a sfr. There is an existing bulkhead on the East side (canal side) of the
property. Contained on the West side of the property is an elevator and retaining wall, and underground
water and septic utilities that service the Madrona development.
Reason for requesting development:
The size of the subject parcel is such that it limits the development of the property. Existing retaining
walls, bulk heads and utilities hamper the ability to expand the footprint of the existing structure. To
maximize the use of the property and minimize the impact to the environment the best solution is to add
a second story to the existing structure within the existing building footprint and inline with the existing
bulkhead.. The proposed square footage of the structure is well within the parameters for reasonable
use (2,550 sf). Also, the size of the existing residence is inadequate for our needs. We plan on retiring
in this home and we need more square footage to accommodate our needs.
ACKO W LEDGEMENT
I hereby declare,to the best of my knowledge and belief,the forgoing information and all attached information is
true and correct.
(appl;it
or aff5orized representative) (date)
2�b
shoreline 2011 app
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building III, 426 W. Cedar St.
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE VARIANCE
The purpose of a Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk,
dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program, where there are
extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation
of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the
policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
Variance Permits for development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM), except those areas designated as wetlands,may be authorized provided the applicant
can demonstrate all of the following:
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the
property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program;
a. The Standards set forth in the Master Program do interfere with the
reasonable use of the property. Standard set back is I5'from the
OHWM which would eliminate a second story option.
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 Master Program,
and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
a. The hardship is specific to the property in question. The size of the
lot restricts any significant development beyond the existing overall
footprint of the structure. The existing retaining walls South and
Southwest of the structure limit the expansion of the structure. The
water and sewer lines that service both the home and the Madrona
Beach community start at the South end of the property and head
North and behind the existing structure. The lines continue
Northward through adjacent properties servicing the entire
community. The location of the utilities limits the outward
expansion of the structure. The 1 S'setback also limits an 3
Shoreline Variance Questions Page 1 of 2
development on the south side of the property. Lot features are
noted on the attached blueprints and supporting photos.
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 shoreline
environment;
a. There will be no impact to the shoreline environment as the
structure will be contained within the existing building footprint
The proposed structure will not extend beyond the building footprint
on the water side so there will not be an impact to the existing line of
site between the adjacent properties.
b. Furthermore the proposed residence will not increase any
impervious area. This allows for the continued proper management
of storm runoff and will contribute to any shoreline erosion issues.
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,
a. The 2 story residence on the property adjacent to the south side of
the property line is built over the water by approximately 8 .
b. The exterior wall of the second story of the proposed structure will
not extend past the bulkhead line on the water side. The overhang
of the second story will not extend past the existing overhang of the
existing single story home.
c. The second story addition will add 782 sf to the existing 936 sf home
for a total of 1718 sf, which is well within the parameters of 2,550 sf
for what is considered reasonable square footage.
d. We plan on retiring at the residence and the size of the existing
structure is simply not large to accommodate all of our needs.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
a. The interest of the public will not suffer any detrimental effect. The �l6
proposed development is the least impactful way to improve the
property. The second story will be built within the confines of the-
Shoreline Variance Questions Page 2 of 2
existing first story structure so that no more land on the shoreline is
covered by structures with impervious surfaces.
Variance Permits for development that will be located either water ward of the ordinary high
water mark, or within wetlands,may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate, in
addition to Items 1-5 above,that:
6. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by
the granting of the variance.
a. The vertical line of the overhang to be constructed on the second
story addition does not extend beyond the existing footprint of the
structure. There is also an existing deck that extends approximately
12'3"beyond the vertical plane of the proposed second story
addition overhang. The proposed development will not impact
shoreline access of the public rights of navigation
In the granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to.the cumulative impact of
additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other
developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances should also
remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce substantial
adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
Requests for varying the use to which a shoreline area is to be put are not requests for variances,
s/6
Shoreline Variance Questions Page 3 of 2
WENDY BURNS FRANK CREALOCK
P.O. BOX 3566 364 WHITEHORSE TRAIL
BELLEVUE WA 98009 PALM DESERT CA 92211
STEVE LEVETTE MARY STODDEN
P.O. BOX 427 212 SE STROUD RD.
UNION WA 98592 SHELTON WA 98584
LINDA HIGUCHI DICK & DAWN TURNBULL
2009 SHERWOOD LN. P.O. BOX 67
SHELTON WA 98584 UNION WA 98592
JAMES TIBBETTS NORMAN H & MARY LYNN SWICK
6100 E STATE ROUTE 106 2822 W VIEWMONT WAY W
UNION WA 98592 SEATTLE WA 98199-2431
KATHERINE ALISON KING TROY & JUDITH WOODARD
4820 37TH AVE NE P.O. BOX 324
SEATTLE WA 98105-3017 UNION WA 98592
AARON NESTOR DAVID MACKEY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
871 E BEACH DR. 449 E POINTES DR. EAST
UNION WA 98592 SHELTON WA 98584
b�
E MADRONA gEACfit
ti
'-7
STATE ROUTE
L L E R AVE
w
__�JTIHE SPRAGUE AVE- CL —T29PHIMAI
-W
M
o
z
w i
w E MASON AVE------
—0
Lu
F_
7_1
E 6AC6YRD
T21 N
N qfff,�13 -000ts T(o- q+U.4(IfA
w E 1 inch = 400 feet rrewWzc, AdJvH &'A
1 inch = 0 miles 41 k f e I
S bf
.} i5
�o
s,K ; 2NR3Vy\
, yrr3^,r v�
i nA
v
_ Source' E-sri, DigitadGlobe,GeoE�ye. i-cubed :S
Ge4 apping�. erogrid, IGN, IG'P, swi5stopo, the r Community,
N �f
ZOl ° ��� v"kda d USG47096e
W E 1 inch = 50 feet I�IG�n(4-q Aeai
4
1 inch = 0 miles
S
I
/' ` `.•,,�„���c,. � + � � is �;�, t ��_ t��3.' ''e
Go ,)Sle earth
feet 0
meters 0
• rt •�
y
7b.
\eA'j hcow\ 1�
av 1K �v 1 L00\c k WA
koMC Cum{- kCVW.
IVAN
t
1
r �
e >.
r
i
' * �e
�_� �. l
,\ �
11�` /
� /
•� - � _ ire
��, 1
v
I
���.
� ���.
� _ '0Wo �
I � �<
/ '
1,j ��' / '
i, �
�;' ,, .
{
�._ �� �: -
�� � ��
� �l �`;I
,�.� �i
r
=_
, .
,;
. . n
�r�y'"-" :.t Yt�--r..h�, ram•_ =- _. �- - _+�'� ._.
+�T �=5 ..tip'' � � .. � F ..
__�'ial��+r.-.' r _ �` � „_ • - .�. ,_ _ ';ice
!�
r
• • • MAR+.
°fir#-� `•:K,n���t 1c Jrr �.' �'.',Q -_
r'
i ,
any L`Z .
A'
I
ll�
v1
O
M:
Jw
I >r
# ! \ -40
? '•
t �R ail•v ` ..L
Rim
y .� 1. �,•�° - �.
b. �1 t a ai n ` �-r. •i
1
102'-4+-'
EDGE OF 24'
ROOF ON EXISTING DECK ON CONCRETE PIERS — NO CHANGE
uPFROMLENEW 1b EXISTINGcoNORETE HOOD CANAL TIDE LANDS
EXISTING HOUSE ROOF OVERHANG BULKHEAD BELOW HOUSE
EXISTING HOUSE OVERHANG EXISTING
CONCRETE
BULKHEAD
■COL OF PNPO D 7ME 90.FL
gyap Ley�MIAIC� EXISRNG WOOD EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS 5'-0'
STEPS TO DECK
TO BEACFI
EXISTING ONE LEVEL s FT.SETBACK
IX60NG W000 EXISTING LEVEL
STEPS TO ENTRY GRASAREAS PROPERTY
-Tp BE REMOVED EXISTING COMMUNITY LNE
WATER AND SEWER LINES
OPERTY
`,lP LINE 9_6.
EMSTING
/ ELEVATOR
I EXISTING 12'+- STRUCTURE
/ CONCRETE RETAINING 52 SO.FT.
• 36'-0' WALL
FOR PARKING
COSTING 3'
NCRETE WALL 335 FT SETBACK BULKHEAD
- - - - f _ ___c_-_- - ___� -
ExImNG 125 GAL - -
/ PROPANE TANK — — — EXISTING PARKING
/ — — — — — — — AT ROAD LEVEL
5 FT. _ EXImNG WOOD FOR 4 VEHICLES`
SETaACK L / .I.NG SL PPED BANK WITH o STEPS PROPERTYESTA&S J)
'EXISTING OVERHEADS LINE
POWER LINE TO HOUSE
/ SITE PLAN IS EASED
/ T02'-B+' ON INFORMATION
/ ADDRESS NvA�IAaLVERIFYAS
E 6401 SR 106
HIGHWAY SR 106 UNION, WA 98592
SECOND LEVEL PARCEL #32232-54-00004
ADDITION AREA
SITE PLAN FOR E 6041 SR 106, UNION,WA
' I I
UNR I
i i I I IIl
f
(D��S�ELEVATION
-------- -- PROPOSED SECOND
LEVEL ROOF PEAK
0
------ -- -- EXISTING ROOF PEAK
I II
1
I I
I I
I I
I 1
PROPOSED SECOND
----
---------- -
I LEVEL ADDRION
I I I
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
DOSRNG DECK
�TO REMAIN UN I ---
UNCHANGED I I � � EXISTING FLOOR LEVEL
I I TO RFMNN UNCHANGED
I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I
L-EXISTING FAST EDGE OF I i I L DWNG LOAD-BEARING CONCRETE BULKHEAD AND EAST WALL OF PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL
DECK OVER SHORELINE I I PROPOSED 2 FT.SECOND-LEVEL ROOF OVERHANG
1
I EXISTING EAST WALL OF FIRST LEVEL
I EXISTING 2 FT.FIRST-LEVEL ROOF OVERHANG
NORTH ELEVATION
P
o 0
O
w w
m
w
M Y
to 7o h�0
o-
4
a•
•
Ond.s
i
v
d
Zn
• �•�,� �.�M�,,,,,� apt s�����.� n
Y
` "v J►a�as -y° dVIA
a
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
SHR2013-00015 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT.
Notice is hereby given that Troy and Judith Woodard who are the owner of the described
property below,has filed an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and
Variance for the development of-
Second-story addition to existing cabin (782 sq. ft. second floor over existing 936
sq. ft. first floor) built to face of existing bulkhead; existing deck and concrete
support columns will be maintained. Due to site limitations,variance is
requested to evaluate the proposed addition in regard to shoreline setbacks.
Parcel Number: 32232-54-00004.
Site Address: 6041 E State Route 106,Union WA.
Location of Project: Along Hood Canal in Union, 0.50 mi.west of Alderbrook; within the
northeast '/4of Section 32, Township 22 N., Range 3 W.in Mason County Washington.
Said proposed development is subject to shoreline management permit review(M.C.C. 17.50) and
associated Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person desiring to express their
view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON,WA 98584
The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-
14-020. The final date of publication,posting or mailing of notice is January 9, 2014.
The proposal is exempt from environmental review, under WAC 197-11-800(1)(c).
MASON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
ON TUES. February 11, 2014 at 1:00 PM in MASON CO. BLDG. 1. [411 No. 50' St., Shelton]
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing. Contact
this office at(360)427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
STATE OF.WASHINGTON )
ss. ��� '�c.s✓ � 1 ` ��v t� .
COUNTY OF MASON )
I,. �(yY do hereby certify that I posted copies of
the attached
on _day of 20 I4 in public places.as follows:
r�trl
one at _
one at
one at
In witne s whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of pasting Notice this._?
da
of 20
Address: ( � W4
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn to me this day of �� 1,20
=DEBBERA
c
gton
ER Nota Public for the State of Washington
PIRES ding at �� �Commission spires
WENDY BURNS FRANK CREALOCK
P.O. BOX 3566 364 WHITEHORSE TRAIL
BELLEVUE WA 98009 PALM DESERT CA 92211
STEVE LEVETTE MARY STODDEN
P.O. BOX 427 212 SE STROUD RD.
UNION WA 98592 SHELTON WA 98584
LINDA HIGUCHI DICK & DAWN TURNBULL
2009 SHERWOOD LN. P.O. BOX 67
SHELTON WA 98584 UNION WA 98592
JAMES TIBBETTS NORMAN H & MARY LYNN SWICK
6100 E STATE ROUTE 106 2822 W VIEWMONT WAY W
UNION WA 98592 SEATTLE WA 98199-2431
KATHERINE ALISON KING TROY & JUDITH WOODARD
4820 37TH AVE NE P.O. BOX 324
SEATTLE WA 98105-3017 UNION WA 98592
AARON NESTOR DAVID MACKEY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
871 E BEACH DR. 449 E POINTES DR. EAST
UNION WA 98592 SHELTON WA 98584
From: Allan Borden
To: Aaron Nester; David Mackey; Troy Woodard
CC: Allan Borden
Date: 3/3/2014 11:34 AM
Subject: Decision on Shoreline Variance Request
Attachments: Woodard SHR2013-00015 decision doc.pdf
Troy / Judith, Aaron, and David:
I have attached the Hearing Examiner decision on the Shoreline Variance submitted. He
has approved the request with a provision to have the Dept. of Community Development
issue an administrative review of the second floor roof overhang. That review can take
place as the WA Dept. of Ecology carries out its review period for 30 days (within Ecology
and by the public). Also it appears that you have not submitted any additional information
regarding the construction of the new and remodeled residence; you should check with the
Building Dept. to see how to proceed with the issued permit BLD2013-00611 approved in
Aug. 2013. Once Ecology makes its review determination, review of the building permit
with current information would proceed.
Allan Borden
Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365