HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2002-00015 TPN322344490011 - VAR Inspections - 1/13/2003 January 13, 2003
Jerry Vermillion
10237 Kiwa Dr SE
Olympia, WA 98513
RE: Issues relating to Variance No: VAR2002-00015 and public comments alleging activities on
property which either did not undergo County review and/or do not meet County regulations.
Dear Mr. Vermillion:
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and your representative Ken Martig, on January 9,
2003 to discuss issues related to the above project. Mason County Building Department
representative Jenny Nickerson also attended to discuss some building code compliance related
issues with you. This letter focuses on some planning issues. Ms. Nickerson will be contacting you
separately regarding building code compliance questions.
The attached list(provided to you at the meeting) addresses some issues raised thus far during the
public process, and some planning department questions which have arisen regarding your variance.
NOTE: as clarified in our meeting, any activities on your land-regardless of which parcel they are
on-need to meet the applicable provisions of county regulations and obtain necessary permit
review, including those activities on your property across the street. As clarified in an earlier letter,
the County cannot halt our required actions relative to investigating a violation of regulations
simply because the property owner or their representative has requested it. As an example the fence
and storage unit on the portion of your residential parcel landward of Highway 106, appear to be in
the stream buffer and have not undergone county review.
Based on our meeting we understand your representative will be submitting additional materials to
the planning department this week. We look forward to receiving them. In the meantime if you
have any questions whatsoever,please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (360)427-9670
ext. 295.
Sincerely,
Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner
MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Cc: Kristin French, Enforcement Planner
Jenny Nickerson, Building Department
Ken Martig, P.E.
Attachment: List from meeting January 9, 2003
��' X� • PERMIT NO.: l
t \
DATE RECEIVED:
MASON COUNTY mC•P �j�--
�
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Q3T0 �TERIM RESOURCE ORDINANCE (Chapter 17.01 MCC)
Q P�� G�G�� 411 N.STH Street/P.O.Box 578,Shelton,Wa 98584
�S\S�P� ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION
�� I MASON ENVIRONMENTAL
IR�ME�NoTAL PERMIT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE ❑ VARIANCE
Q EE57o.c� r�E_ �pp,00
The purpose of the Interim Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and
is under the authority of Chapters 36.3;, 36.70A,39.34, 58.17,76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW.
PLEASE PRINT FEE:$110.00
1. Owner: -TkA Rif V E;0pi J- I" Owner Mailing Address: ! b z s k i w A p p-
a ,
Site Address: S 271 S Q 10 A City:_ OL4 State:�J�_Zip: 9rr r' I�?
City:_ U 1y r r)0y State:_ W A. Zip: Lien/Title H Ider: DQ IV Al A .� �1 I_1,74+1 i t ;O.,+
Phone:( 1 Fire District# Address:
SIGNATURE: city:- State: Zip:
2. Parcel Number: 3 Z 3 _L--y q_.600 o Legal description: PA--� ol_ tOu. L461 1
Parcel Size:; c,v rf 3 -7 1�, «, l v (o - u.n d.1 - kc4 L
3. Directions to Site:
0 0 r 6 2b, o r��kR - — st -o
2 Lp k' I"yas10 In&) u rJ
4. State what sections required a permit:
Long-Term Commercial Forest, Chapter 17.10.060; Inholding Lands, Chapter 17.01.062;
Mineral Resource Lands, Chapter 17.01.066; Wetlands, 17.01.070; Critical Aquifer Recharge,
Chapter 17.01.080; Aquatic Management Areas, Chapter 17.01.110; Frequently Flooded Areas,
Chapter 17.01.090; Landslide Hazard Areas, 17.01.100; Seismic Hazard Areas, Chapter 17.01.102;
Erosion Hazard Areas, 17.01.104.
5. Identify current use of property with existing improvements: t3
d 0 v S're 12 S�►r c( F b> Svc ,
r � i ;Dial. 'w t u=�,���I'��1 c ( ��c«k«�' 1,>• <��
6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction methods,
principal dimensions,and other pertinent information (Attach additional sheets If needed):
NTU I"A M INIXG R L'f -I 8 At h R o om n r\) 0 h�t . 1 L('
hD01 NC ! lu,i 2 Gr we, cr r <I C F Q-( E x-X ,T I N Cx 1 r7rn 4r
W00b F2Ar,F- VLRT fon F D y M 5"1kR P.C, b 9,)IM
7. Any water on or adjacent to property:Saltwater X _Lake River Pond Wetland
Seasonal Runoff Other
8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/W vretland vegetatior rArao yes No_a(_
9. If septic is located on project site, include records.
Connect to septic? Xss Community Septic? No Public Water Supply?
�Jo Well?_X
Al—_ N/ C I rA. '(' T�.�r �.,r.�. ,r: P r� /. l� • ) I—�' v v,e In 1 r,r i I �j��
10. Type of Job: New VAdd_.Z__AIt Repair Demolition Other
This permit is granted pursuant to the Interim 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 th;s project, but not inconsistent with the Interim Resource Ordinance. The permit maybe rescinded Pursuant to the
event the permittee fails to comply with the conditions of this ordinance.
Show the following on the site��a
Lot Dimensions Flood Zones
Existing Structures Fences N
Stucture Setbacks Driveways -
Water Lines Shorelines
Drainage Plans Topography
Septic System Wells Indicate Directional by (N,S,E,W,etc.)
Proposed Improvements Easements in relation to plot plan
Name of Flanking Street
APPLICANT TO DRAW PLAN BELOW
/YEN
Ex!5ri,jq rd tic aVris 13 v ,.k HG 04
T�`�� eta
f i nod° oQsc
EXI Sri.43
_`
0
t,4
APPLICANT TO DRAW TOPOGRAPH BELOW:
i
i
1
I
i
� II
t,� vr,,a
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
COMMENTS <i
.... .. ... . . ,.:
Planning:
Environmental Health:
Building Plan Review:
Occupancy Group:
Fire Marshal:
Other:
•
Accepted
nv:Y Y;.:.
, f
4-1 K.) F'ts•.ce E.L F..naoC, FaMnc iS O.S'C--.,sue •�' Wa34. Ps--op-e- LFh.qL
•r )' 'wow t"�:Vi-�i�•v}v,`�::- ,�J LL 1
/-Z-'�c / Pla. i .,
Yv Gap
L ��
yC 4
4� 9
r �
i rF{Jq• ��� / �i y83 i S� /
Ott J`
/ sy C
cl
Hori•h
D.
r "t
� Y STr•^'` }� � ��� '�wlo,�aL MqN x�iw.a...4 �IwN. ��'lMP) fTt T`^� s"r—
o �.vvv. � ���•'�'VlJ/dE � Eti. �Ndcd{•vr '. $.fie)
�/^ �� C � Uer►.,�Illa.�. QtSl�ay.ce (4ddxtoL. 5k44 Pla►,
3 Z23 4-44-0 0 0 0 0
suu: n_ .rrRovEoe.: - DRAW.
� - 10
n?2 4 / OAF IS EPA\.kh' DATE.ATu Zoo?
Yn
o.� RFws�pa 2002
SS/OMAL E Q f 1 .
f�$oM\�daV� L�v.n �'' S eF b..ck.. UaviAH�CS olw.eNS1Or�
t_.. A sv,,...e o--s MA ,
y K elm MaL \ DR�vn K •UMlER
� �,Sr, �E, (360)7S4-fit C-1
tu-
qsc
In
c 7
a• �t r i
'�•�,��,,ra� � w ..�,!" "tick ;.
` *��e�•Se ems. ,� ¢, f,��Z.""�'1�r�;�.�������
!!• C 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
August 25, 2003
Jerry Vermillion
8371 S.R. 106
Union WA 98592
RE: VAR2002-00015, and meeting on 8/20/03
Dear, Mr. Vermillion,
We met on August 20, 2003 to discuss several items related to your recent variance
request and Hearings Examiner decision. This decision denied the requested expansion
of the single family home and limited its conversion to a single family residence within
the building footprint plus a 10% expansion as permitted outright by MCC
17.01.110(F)(1), in addition to any other outright expansion allowed by the Resource
Ordinance. The request for an attached two-car garage was approved per the recent
Noyes Variance decision and also limited to the proposed locations for the garage and/or
house expansion proposed in your variance request. The two ten by twenty-foot storage
sheds and cedar fence were also approved as proposed in the variance request.
At the above mentioned meeting you proposed the following:
1)Raising the roof of the existing cabin on the rear(landward side). This was not part of
the variance proposal. At this time staff does not find this proposal inconsistent with the
Hearings Examiner's decision for this case,or County Resource Ordinance and Shoreline
Master Program requirements. The major limitations to this proposal would be that
vertical expansion would be limited to the portion of the cabin landward of the minimum
15-foot shoreline setback, and the height limit would be 35-feet above grade.
2)Adding an 8-foot by 12-foot(96 square foot) entryway between the existing cabin and
proposed garage. Although the entryway was not referenced in the Hearings Examiner
decision, the County would be able to approve a 10% expansion of the pre-existing cabin
footprint in this area in order to connect the new garage and existing cabin. The size of
the entryway would be limited to 10% of the pre-existing cabin footprint,which would be
smaller than the proposed 96 square foot entryway. An increase of more than 10%would
require a new variance application process. The new entryway would have to meet the
minimum SMP 15-foot shoreline setback and MCRO minimum 20-foot buffer. The
height of the structure should be limited to what is necessary to construct an entryway
and to meet standard UBC requirements for this type of residential use. Approval of this
part of the project would be contingent on removing any unpermitted expansion of the
pre-existing cabin footprint, ie. the laundry area on the west side of the cabin.
all
3)By applying the specific dimensions from the Noyse decision your allowable garage
would have a footprint of 594 square feet(22-feet wide by 27-feet deep). The garage
proposed on your site plan yesterday had a total footprint of 572 square feet and
dimensions of 26-feet wide by 20 to 24-feet deep. The total square footage is within what
was permitted and within the footprint of the application and would be allowable.
4) Including a loft above the garage. This is not referenced in the variance application or
in the Hearings Examiner decision and would not be allowed without going through a
new variance process.
5) Replacing the approved two 10-foot by 20-foot portable storage sheds with a larger,
permanent structure within a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area(buffer and
building setback). This would also require review through a new variance process.
I hope that this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Scott ng ecker, Senior Planner
Mason my DCD
CC: Dennis Reynolds,Attorney
Bob Fink, Planning Manager
Darren Nienaber, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
1& 360 426 3709 JOHN E. DIEHL POI
November 18, 2002 �FC
No` 40
� ���
Mason County
Department of Community Development
Attn: Pam Bennet-Cumming
Senior Planner
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington
Ms. Bennett-Cumming and Advisory Commission members,
Re: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Variance Request by Jerry Vermillion
I have several specific concerns regarding the proposed Variance No. VAR2002-00015 by Jerre
Vermillion, Those concerns are: destruction of pre-existing wetlands immediately adjacent to
dwelling, construction of rock bulkhead and driveway onto the beach area, redirecting existing
stream and construction of a dirt pad over wetlands across Highway 106. Further degradation of
the site by expansion of the building is contrary to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area
principles.
Additionally, 1 continue to be concerned, and concur with others, that the septic system for the
existing dwelling has insufficient capacity for the existing use and expanding the house would
further damage the environment and that the upland system has not been cornpleted and hooked
up.
Let me expand on each of the issues outlined above.
The property was purchased and permits granted to reconstruct a dwelling on the existing
footprint. Fill dirt was added to the east of the dwelling, destroying approximately 5,000 square
feet of wetlands and stream course immediately adjacent to the shoreline. Rock bulkhead
material was added to the east of an existing bulkhead and a driveway, allowing vehicles to drive
on the beach, has irreparably harmed habitat in that area. Other studies list the species that once
frequented the beach area,
The stream that emanates from a spring on the hillside south of Highway 106, provides domestic
water supply to the property, once flowed downhill into a wetland on land immediately to the
south of the house, across the road_ I don't know the per gallon flow of that stream_ Expansion of
the house site will reduce the natural flow of the stream.
1& 360 426 3709 JOHN E. DIEHL POI
Page 2
A fill dirt pad was put on that wetland, rerouting the stream. The fill dirt pad is approximately
8,000 square feet, Construction of that pad damaged the natural flow of water and destroyed the
wetlands in that area. There have been no known buffer enhancement plantings done by the
property owner on this property.
My concern with the variance application is that doubling the size of the house will further
damage the pre-existing site, and that the proposed buffer enhancement with native plantings is
insufficient to restore damaged and altered natural environment.
There is no place or logical reason for an additional garage footprint on the existing site without
further damaging the already damaged existing wetlands and shoreline area. In etTcx;t this
proposal triples the footprint of the original site and damages the site further.
To conclude, my concerns are that the proposed variance will further degrade the already
damaged and destroyed natural environment adjacent to the existing house and on the property
across Highway 106,
My recommendation to the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission is that a very close
look be given this proposed variance before action is taken and recommendations are forwarded
to the Mason County Commissioners.
Sincerely
Derek Valley
8331 Highway 106
Union, Washington
q13 - Y3,ff
1
$ 360 426 3709 JOHN E. DIEHL PO1
Xj&
,�.h -f-1
JIVE
f� NOV 18 20Q2
PLANNIN,
Vorr
�"' 4hiA i�dMf
MASON COUNTY STAT
A,U ;� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
S N =_ Planning Division
r 2
O
s� N Y Y P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
aJ �� (360)427-9670
1864
NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
May 29, 2002
dNVWP► A WA
Parcel No : 322344400000
Proiect Description Proposed addition of master bedroom and bathroom on west
side of existing cabin, and proposed addition of living room and
garage on east side of the existing cabin. Proposal is within
the buffer of Type IV stream.
Dear Applicant:
You have submitted a permit application (case no. VAR2002-00015) for proposed
construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I have
determined that the contents of the application are incomplete or do not provide enough
detail for review.
Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information is
provided (see the comment section of this letterfor details.) Once the information is
submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your application
accordingly.
Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 295 if you have questions.
SinT
ly,
Pannett-Cumming
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
�x vows
5/29/2002 1 of 3 VAR2002-00015
NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
5/29/2002 Case No.: VAR2002-00015
Comments: This letter addresses questions regarding your variance
application VAR2002-00015. Thank you for submitting additional
material to us.
As of this date the application is still incomplete. Without a
specific proposal (you have provided several different
possibilities), we are unable to be as precise as we would like
about what is needed to complete the application, however the
information below is based on our understanding to date. We
hope this helps as you refine your ideas.
(PLEASE NOTE you have submitted a Mason Environmental
Permit (MEP) for grading activities done on your property, the
application also mentions stream relocation. A letter regarding
that MEP application is being sent to you separately.)
It appears from the several different site plans you have
submitted, that you are currently still in the process of deciding
what form your proposed variance application will take.
Apparently you are considering.-
EITHER locating a manufactured home and storage building on
the landward side of Highway 106, with long narrow storage
structures on the waterward side of Highway 106 and no change
to the cabin footprint,
OR expanding the footprint of the existing cabin substantially to
include a new master bedroom, new living room, new garage, and
a storage building landward of Highway 106,
OR various different variations on these concepts.
Since the variance process reviews a specific project, It appears
you are still in the decision making phase about which project you
propose. Following discussions with Michael Mac Sems we
understand you are still determining how to subdivide your land,
and that some of the decisions you make in that regard may
influence which proposal you bring forward for this varaince
application. Until that time your review will be on hold pending
your submission of a firm specific site plan/proposal. The site
plan will need to show structure setbacks from property lines,
roads, streams, shoreline. Please also see other items
necessary for review below.
If development activities are proposed within 300 feet of steep
slopes, a project specific geotechnical report will be required.
Geotechnical reports are generally submitted during building
permit review, but since we understand that you are currently
5/29/2002 2 of 3 VAR2002-00015
NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
5/29/2002 Case No.: VAR2002-00015
working with a geotechnical engineer on your other proposal
(existing roads within a landslide hazard area, etc), this may be a
good time to have your engineer address the proposed
development, rather than having them write two separate reports.
Please submit a Habitat Management Plan which addresses your
specific project (once you have made a determination as to which
proposal to pursue).
5/29/2002 3 of 3 VAR2002-00015