Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutObtaining Multi- Permits - BLD Letters / Memos - 4/19/2006 8371 E. Highway 106 Union, WA 98592 April 17, 2006 RECEIVED Marty Ereth Habitat Biologist APR 19 2006 N.533 Tribal Center Rd. Skokomish Nation, WA 98584 MCCD - PLANNING Mr. Ereth: The following comments are in response to your letter dated April 6,2006 to Michael MacSems of Mason County. There are three aspects I will address. 1. It is my understanding the county issues permits on a case by case basis. Any one permit does not justify or deny another. 2. I have been told by experts that if you had 5 different HMP submitted for a single job,there would be variances and in some cases considerable differences between them. With this in mind it is reasonable to assume your assessment of Mr. Boad's work is much opinion and judgment. Mr. Boad is viewed as extremely knowledgeable in his field and has great respect and support in this community 3. The HMP of three years ago regarding our cabin remodel was modified through two public hearings,the attorneys and a hearing officer's directives. There were changes and the county has long since signed off on all issues. I am a retired educator,citizen and private property owner. I am vitally concerned how the professionals and government officials handle our interest. If you have any further comment on the issues as I see them, I will be more than happy to discuss them with you. My phone number is 360-791-3360. Sincerely, V . Jerry ermillion cc: Michael MacSems Senator/Commissioner Tim Sheldon Keith Dublanica- Skokomish Director of Natural Resources Gloria Rogers—WDFW Area Biologist Jeff Davis—WDFW PHS/GMA Biologist Jeff Heinis—Skokomish Habitat Biologist Jenny Nickerson Storage building permit.doc Page 1 3Qg,3 000OU( 8371 E.Hwy 106 Union,WA 98592 March 24,2006 James E.Hungerford,Attorney PO Box 1191 Shelton,WA 98592 Dear Jim, This letter is an attempt to give you informational substance regarding our approach to obtaining a storage building permit. As we go through the process,I'm sure there will be more,but this is a start. The storage building is basically to store our three boats,summer outdoor furniture, recreational equipment,our 4 x 4 quad,the tractor loader,our pickup and accumulated family tools,keepsakes and land maintenance equipment. Our equipment and this building are so very necessary to maintain our acreage and our way of life. The only oyster business use is perhaps storing our oyster delivery truck,however it is questionable how much storage time would be taken by this truck. The purpose of the building is for security and longevity of our accumulated personal belongings. The property has had two earlier out-of-date habitat management plans. If a variance from the creek is necessary perhaps a shirt-tail addendum to Lee Boad's present HMP for the FP application can be used to work out any required mitigation. We have checked in the past as to a different location and it was found to distant or steep for a practical building. I think that will hold up now also. I think you have copies of the professional work already done on the property. This is about as far as I can go now,but will provide whatever I have or what is necessary for you and the county to go forward with the process. Thank you, Jerry Vermillion cc: Jenny Nickerson,Kell McAboy I y, MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair(360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 March 18, 2003 Jerry Vermillion 8371 State Highway 106 Union, WA 98592 RE: 32234-44-00000 and adjacent parcels under your ownership. Dear Mr. Vermillion: Mason County Planning Department is contacting you regarding your property, and outstanding planning issues on the site. This letter provides information on how to move forward from this point to resolve some of the outstanding issues on the site and get the variance application revised so that you can move forward through the process as smoothly as possible. At our meeting on January 9, 2003 we provided you with a list of questions raised in your variance public process to date, and planning related issues based on our further site review. At that time we understood from your engineer that a response would be forthcoming in approximately one week. We have now received a report from your engineer(February 27, 2003) addressing some specific issues on site and requesting a revision to your variance application. The list below includes outstanding planning issues for your action: Addition to west of existing cabin—would be allowed subject to building permit review, if current variance application is approved—otherwise must be removed. A small addition (appears approximately 5x18 as scaled from the site plan) has been added to the west of the existing cabin. It is within the footprint of the area proposed for expansion under your pending building permit for the area currently under variance review. (BLD2002-01000 and VAR2002-00015). Existing rock bulkhead - needs an application for building permit etc. as stated below: An approximately 40ft long rock bulkhead has been added to your existing concrete bulkhead, without undergoing permit review. Although we understand you were allowed to backfill a small washed out portion of your concrete bulkhead after the 1998-1999 storms, the additional rock bulkhead was un-permitted. Based information provided by Enforcement Planner Kristin French, the following applies: "Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit: • Building permit for existing rock bulkhead • SEPA checklist for bulkhead • Revision of Habitat Management Plan to address the bulkhead (because it is within the stream and wetland buffer). Failure to submit within the required timeline will result in assessment of triple permit fees per ordinance." Shoreline lot-wetland fill and road through wetland—revise pending Mason Environmental Permit/Variance(narrative &plans) to include whichever of the two options below that you select: Fill has been placed in the wetland immediately adjacent to the stream. Your engineer has explained that a pathway through the wetland was widened and filled to allow access to the beach with a motorized four-wheel vehicle. ATEC's mitigation plan is just for your proposed expansion of your residence. The enlarged and filled area of the pathway through the wetland and immediately adjacent to the stream has not been covered in the Habitat Management Plan. Wetland Chapter 17.01.070 provides that filling in a regulated wetland requires mitigation. Retention of the widened and filled area: requires that your Habitat Management Plan (and MEP application) also be updated to add mitigation for the wetland fill in accordance with the wetland chapter. Due to the tight site you.may have difficulty meeting this provision. Because this is also immediately next to the stream, it must also be reviewed in the context of your variance application. Removal of the widened and filled area: Your other choice is to remove the filled area and restore the wetland, under the guidance of your biologist. In that case your Habitat Management Plan and MEP application needs to be updated to address the fill removal and restoration of the area, for minimum impact to the resource. Removal of metal storage container located on your parcel south of 106 - based on your phone call to us on March 18, 2003 we understand you are removing the unpermitted metal storage container on the afternoon of March 19, 2003. Request to add storage tent and fence (both on south side of 106) to variance application—this would be allowed subject to variance approval and subject to any building permit approval. Please provide a revised site plan and revised narrative for your Mason Environmental Permit/Variance,which includes the location and scale of the structures. You also need to have your Habitat Management Plan revised to address the structures, and provide mitigation accordingly. Per the agreement with Mason County Building Department, please turn in the applicable building permit application(s) as required by the agreed upon deadlines. Please note that even a temporary structure in the stream buffer would require review under your variance application. Your engineer indicates part of the fence is greater than 6ft in height, which would mean a building i permit is required. Your proposed storage structure would need to meet a minimum setback of 25ft from the Highway 106 right-of-way. Please have your biologist revise the Habitat Management Plan to include: • The existing rock bulkhead. • Wetland fill and path expansion mitigation(see choices of how to address this, above). • Inclusion of the fence and storage structure on the south side of Highway 106. • A revised mitigation plan including planting area site plan (i.e. prepared by the biologist) which addresses these issues. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (360) 427-9670 ext. 295. Sincerely, A". Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner Cc: Kristin French, Enforcement Planner Jenny Nickerson, Building Inspector/Plans Examiner Agua Tierra Ken Martig, P.E. 8371 Hwy 106 Union, WA 98592 March 6, 2003 Larry Waters, Dept. of Community Development Mason County Bldg. III PO Box 186 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Larry: Perhaps you have already sent an assessment of your visit Monday. I would like to suggest any change I need to make be rolled into and/or added to my present application for an addition that is presently in your office. This would then be under a contractor who would bring everything I didn't know about to standards. Thank you. Sincerely, Jerry Vermillion 0 Z 8371 E. Hwy 106 Union, WA 98592 February 24, 2003 � ((� � U IYjJenny Nickerson DL/ T M Dept. of Community Development FEB 2 6 2003 Mason County Bldg. III 426 W. Cedar PO Box 186 HEALTH L� Shelton, WA 98584 �IC/'i SERVICES Dear Jenny: Thank you for your help in the past few weeks. I want to reaffirm my willingness to cooperate and carry out expectations the County leadership exerts. However, with all due respect, I would like to express as I did in our meeting, an explanation of No. 4 and 6 in your letter of February 19tn The shorline planner I was working with from 1998 to the summer of '01 told me the porch could be enclosed under the raised roof and repair permit of 1/06/99. Later when questioned by a neighbor's attorney, said a separate permit (ATF) was now needed. It was then submitted with a foundation and enclosure plan. On 4/06/01 the foundation permit was issued. The enclosure plan, because it was an ATF request and under the original roof raise and repair permit, would not receive the orange onsite tag. At that time, in my mind, the issue was resolved. As you know the county file shows somewhat differently than my belief and records. Presently I am still puzzled regarding this issue, but in agreement to solve the question as presented. The laundry/storage enclosure was placed on the deck, next to the house, when the setback from salt water was 15 feet, and the creek was an unclassified spring containing our water system with no impact on our site and building activity. I guess the hot water tank, washer and dryer can set in the rain if worst comes to worst. Perhaps it would be legal to put an awning over them. Permits 1,2,and 3, as you know, have been reactivated. Today I am making application for permit 4 , the porch enclosure. Early on I did not call for a final for these four permits. I did not anticipate the variance process to take more than a year and a half as it presently has. I anticipated finalizing everything as we completed the building plan on this site. I am writing Planner Cumming and Kenneth Martig today to try for a meeting ASAP, as suggested in your letter. Again, thank you for your help and positive attitude in keeping this project moving. Sincerely, / t rryy V�million cc: Planner Cumming, Kenneth Martig, Larry Waters UI MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N. 5th P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 January 13, 2003 Jerry Vermillion 10237 Kiwa Dr SE Olympia, WA 98513 RE: 32234-44-00000 and adjacent parcels under your ownership. 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. Mrs.Nickerson will be contacting you separately via mail regarding building code compliance issues. 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. As clarified i^.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 we stated in an earlier letter, the County cannot halt the investigation of a violation simply at the request of a property owner. We have to pursue such issues accordingly. 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. Sincerel , Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Cc: Kristin French, Enforcement Planner Jenny Nickerson, Building Inspector/Plans Examiner Ken Martig,P.E. Attachment: List from meeting January 9, 2003 S y r THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS —Page 5 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES M FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE Addresses may be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Building 1, Second Floor. Parcel # Legal Owners Mailing Address Parcel Address MARIAN ELBERSON&MARTHA 322334400000 �PHILL 5829 145TH PL SE BELLEVUE WA 980064334 7631 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION CARROUGHER,JOHN G& 3516 24TH AVE CT NW GIG HARBOR WA 322334400010 GRETCHEN 983357933 7611 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION 322334400020 N S&BERYL M KLOZE 4717 225TH AVE SE ISSAQUAH WA 980296813 7627 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION 7556 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION WA 322334400030 JEAN J MOORE 985929781 7556 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION 322334400040 JOHN NILS NORDSTROM 1617 6TH AVE SEATTLE WA 981011742 7362 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION 1551 TENTH AVENUE EAST PO BOX 12126 322334460000 DIOCESE OF OLYMPIA, INC SEATTLE WA 981020126 7550 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION 322335000002 GARY A&PAMELA F HANSON P O BOX 576 UNION WA 985920576 6843 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION Data extracted From http://www.co.mason.wa.us/assessor/tblparcel_search_resuIts.asp?pageNumber=67 3 4-q - oo© 10237 Kiwa Dr. SE Olympia, WA 98513 May 3, 2002 Bob Fink Mason County Planning Dept. 411 N. 5" Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Bob: Thank you for your help and the progress direction you gave in the meeting last week. The answer to question of approach "options" regarding development are inter-related and as we discussed, need clarification. If you will do that, I will submit a stable plan. 1. Is it legal to include the cabin and lot in the short plat? It has a different tax number and is in different ownership. 2. Because it is different ownership, does the contiguous property ownership regulation apply? 3. Can either of these questions be handled by variance or administrative directive? 4. Can two different tax parcels have only one septic system if the system meets codes and requirements of health department? The first option for division is on enclosure #1 — do a boundary line adjustment east over creek, create a 2 acre individual parcel on west side, place mobile on 2 acre lot, place storage buildings on cabin lot. Second approach is being presented now as a shoreline variance for cabin remodel including possibly ancillary mobile placement, storage shop or just parking south of Hwy 106 is presented on enclosure #2. We are moving ahead with the geotech report on the 34 acres. Of course this will dictate where the final lines are drawn for division. Sincerely, iCNl2 Jerry Vermillion cc: Michael MacSems Pam Benet-Cummings Enclosures 10237 Kiwa Dr. Se Olympia, WA 98513 August 3, 2001 Mr. Richard Hoss Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, Attorneys at Law 236 W. Birch Street Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Mr. Hoss: In the past few days we have done a few things that may please Ms. O'Neill. We have cleared all the remaining construction materials, old tables, etc. next to the tent and orderly arranged all our fishing and boating gear. The tent is legal, and it must stay for now. As to being an eye sore, that's an opinion of the beholder. We have a real security problem. Although the tent is not the best answer, it is a great help as it contains thousands of dollars worth of tools and recreation equipment. As you probably know there is only a 30 in. fence separating the properties which any one can step over from the O'Neill side. There are different rental groups of people there throughout the summer. We have absolutely no security in respect to these strangers. We have had two crab pots, various rope coils, three chairs and a new Polaris quad stolen in the past few months valued in the neighborhood of $8000. O'Neill's rental people can wander on our property and beach at will. They run their boats over the clam nets and if there is not at least three feet of water, the prop wash damages or destroys the clam starts. Recently, as per your suggestion, I placed a "no trespass" sign which may help some when we're not there. Perhaps you and Ms. O'Neill can be thinking of some security measures I can take that will protect us from these strangers. Yes, we will cooperate with demands that are realistic, considerate and do not encumber our property or rights. We have other upgrade and improvement plans that supersede any garage. I will keep you appraised of our construction plans when they firm up. Thank you for the candid letter. Hopefully the foregoing information will do for now. Sincerely, Jerry Vermillion MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 June 12, 2001 Richard T. Hoss Hoss and Hoss-Wilson 236 W. Birch Street Shelton WA. 98584 RE: Letter of April 25, 2001 - Montana Reach, Inc. 8371 E State Route 106, Union Dear Mr. Hoss: I have examined your April 25, 2001 letter and the concerns that you and your client have in regard to residential development on the property at 8371 E State Route 106, -Union. Much of the letter is putting into words your understanding of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program Chapter 17.16.080 standards on residential development. You end your letter by inquiring if there are additional policies by this Department that aid in the application of these standards. Please note that the Use Regulation No. 9 that is referred in your letter discusses that setbacks for proposed development are determined by rooflines of existing residences (per sentence 2 in subsection 9a). This is the most often used standard in evaluating proposed development within the shoreline management area. There is a March 1992 policy that the Planning Department/Department of Community Development does use in conjunction with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program that pertains to additions and/or expansions of existing residential structures (it is enclosed). This policy also uses rooflines in the determination of common lines in the shoreline management area. A drawing to illustrate the explanation is included with the policy. Using this policy as clarification, a proposal like that presented by the Montana Reach / Jerry Vermillion, to enclose an existing porch without changing the roof area, would be allowed. Mr. Vermillion did replace the old roof of this cabin in early 1999 following the storm-caused damage to the cabin sustained in 1997 or 1998 by a tree falling across the middle of the cabin. When repaired, the roof was not expanded toward the water, but was elevated at the center area, as it now can be observed. The recent permit of enclosing the porch did not expand or alter the roof area close to the water, and it did not cause more visual obstruction than the roof of the structure already caused. The proposal complies with the March 1992 policy as the development (enclosing the porch) remains under the existing roofline. The Montana Reach shoreline property is an uncommonly proportioned and configured lot, but the property is not receiving special evaluation. New additions to or reconfigurations of the existing cabin or newly proposed structures on this property must meet all of the standards of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and other development regulations. Any proposal along the saltwater must be evaluated with those development standards in effect, in order to maintain the shoreline values of Hood Canal and Puget Sound. If you have additional questions, you may contact me in the Department of Community Development at 427-9670 ext. 365. Sincerely, Allan Borden Long Range Planner enclosure 10237 Kiwa Dr. SE Olympia, WA 98513 Dec. 14, 2000 Hoss and Wilson-Ross Richard T. Hoss, Attorney 236 West Birch Street Shelton, Washington 98584 Dear Mr. Hoss: Thank you for the candid and considerate letter. At this point I am not fully in agreement with your suggestions. I will try to explain why, and keeping with the spirit of your offer, a solution that might work for both parties. First, Ms. O'Neill is not the only one in this dispute. Some members of Pebble Cove consult with and advise her, in particular, Mr. Valley and Mrs. Andersen. On the other hand, many members of Pebble Cove Association do not agree with her point of view or Mrs. Andersen, who is the only permanent residence in Pebble Cove. Because of past history and Pebble Cove's very nature it would be impossible to be effective in any agreement without including the whole association or at least an official representative. Secondly, the type of arrangement you suggest is an infringement on our basic rights of privacy, security and ownership. We will not sign any encumbering written agreement. Again in keeping with the spirit of your proposal and because of the other members who would be involved, I submit that an association official or two representing Pebble Cove and yourself along with myself or a representative be a group for problems. She or they could submit in writing to you for validation and I would work with you or their reps to solve the problem. There may be other scenarios that would be acceptable to both. Lastly I'm going to answer the concerns that Ms. O'Neill bought up in your letter: 1) the fence is being built legally and with quality. It will look as good on either side. It is for safety, security and privacy. 2) the crab pots will be set and covered against the base of the fence totally out of sight of the occupants of O'Neill house. 3) color and the location of the storage tent is legal (behind the eaves line). It is engineered, manufactured and sold throughout this region. It is extremely beneficial to us. At your request we removed the other tent that only had a roof and was very helpful to keep our material dry this time of year. It was only intended to be temporary as is the one next to our house. 4) The general information regarding plans, and scheduling of the property upgrade is unknown, because we don't know ourselves. Whatever we do, we have every intention to abide by all county regulations. I hope I have adequately answered the concerns. Hopefully addressing all of these immediate concerns will ease Ms. O'Neill's feelings. In retrospect perhaps I should have opened Ms. O'Neill's letter when I received it, however at this stage I think an intermediary is a good idea. Another solution may be simply be a letter of concern to you and a Pebble Cove officer. I will do my best to do an immediate and acceptable response as I have done with this letter. I am hoping this will satisfy the present situation. At this time I do not believe hiring my own attorney is necessary because it's possible the situation could change greatly in complexity regarding compliance issues. I am hopeful we can solve these present problems in a reasonable manner. Sincerely, Jerry Vermillion cc: John Ehrhart John Herzog Les Kremer 10237 Kiwa Dr. SE Olympia, WA 98513 November 25, 2000 Mr. Rick Hoss Hoss& Wilson Hoss 236 W. Birch St. Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Rick: It was nice to get to know you in our fortuitous meeting Tuesday. Enclosed is correspondence concerning Ms. O'Neill and Pebble Cove. From this material and the pack you were carrying, I hope you can get a clear sense of why we have been not only reluctant, but apprehensive to communicate with her. Her response to my attempt to be neighborly to Pebble Cove in the letter of May 12, 1999, by accusing me of being an inconsiderate thief was totally inaccurate. There was no personal intent or involvement in these accusations. They can be explained and negated. I would not be defensive to her then, nor to any of her new accusations, because we have certainly tried to be exceptionally careful within the law and our rights. We strongly want to plan, develop and live hassle free and privately outside the Pebble Cove co-op. Pebble Cove officials have never responded to my early attempts to communicate. We assume Ms. O'Neill has been their messenger, however we do know some members of the group are upset by her harassing behavior. On the other hand, some are as exaggerated as Ms. O'Neill. I have receive three letters from Ms. O'Neill, June 22, 1999 and July 27, 2000 and October 9, 2000. 1 had not opened any, hoping to avoid her confrontational and intrusive style. I just don't trust her. Because of her renewed pressure, I opened the October 9, 2000 letter, and was totally surprised by her new cooperative approach. It is now more understandable after meeting with you, why she reverted to her old attack method. However at any given time, we just don't know what wall she is coming off! Ms. O'Neill has stated at various times we don't have any permits. We have twelve permits and it has been a painful year and a half getting them, it will probably will go as high as sixteen before we fully establish the shellfish, and residential retirement home. Your outstanding work as Mark's attorney has been much appreciated. Mark is an important part of this family corporation. He is heading up the shellfish development and will be building a home here as soon as possible. I plan to remove the tent this weekend and cut off the one post as requested by Allan Borden. If there is anything else, let me know. We always have and will continue to be forthcoming with those we trust. Sincerely, Zerry Ve illion Presiden , Montana Reach, Inc cc: Allan Borden, County Planner 10237 Kiwa Dr. SE 01 mpia, WA 98513 June 5. 2000 Mason County Commissioners Mason County 11 N. 51h St. Building 1 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Commissioner Bolender: This letter does not deal directly with our dock application. I have not had the opportunity to meet any of you before the meeting of May 23rd. I don't know if I will have a chance to define myself further, and I do not want others to Yefine me. My wife and I are retired teachers. We have thirteen grandchildren. ;We are honest, hard-working family people. We have been a part of the Mason County community since 1958. From the beginning we have known the property in question is a °higl�h profile" property because of its location and values. I believe it is possible in the future, it will be noticed again at your level for one thing or another. Pebble Cove Association and some local residents have been using this property for three generations. Although there is only one permanent resident and the rest live scattered throughout the Northwest, we have tried to be as considerate as possible. At this point, our effort has not been effective. Enclosed is my correspondence with Pebble Cove. I did not enclosed the response letters from Mrs. O'Neill because her accusations are speculative, false, and inaccurate and it would be too embarrassing to clarify point by point.Il After reading the enclosed material hopefully you will better understand who we are and our situation. Sincerely, Jerry Vermillion cc: Commissioner Cady Commissioner Olsen JAN 10 2000 10237 Kiwa Dr. SE ,viNSON Co.PLANNING DEPT Olympia, WA 98513 December 23, 1999 Lori Morris Project Manager Department of the Army Seattle District, Corps of Engineers PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Dear Ms. Morris This letter acknowledges receipt on December 61h your letter of preliminary review. The requirements requested can be met. Because of the lag time from original submittals to all the compliance agencies (begun in April 1999), we now are altering our permit request to a permanent dock status. Originally we thought we could get a float dock for last season and then upgrade to a permanent dock later when having more time. The information you need will be forth coming. Hopefully this letter will meet the 30 day response request. Thank you and Merry Christmas. Sincerely yours, /Jerry#ermillion cc and enclosure: Doris Small, Dept of Fish and Wildlife Mark Mauren, Shoreline Dist. Mgr. Allan Borden, Mason Co. Bldg. & Planning Dept. 10237 Kiwa Dr. SE Olympia, WA 98513 June 16, 1999 PFCF1VFr J U N 21 1999 MASON 00.PLANNING DEPT Mr. Allan Borden Community Development Building and Planning Dept. PO Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Allan: Enclosed is a letter I wrote some time ago to the Pebble Cove Association members. This is a recreational association that own approximately twelve hom es and rental units next door and across the road from my property. Many of them do not live in Mason County. Before I purchased the property, they had unrestricted use of all of it. Naturally, they have diverse opinions. Three of the buoys have been moved. Some members, however, severely criticized and rejected my letter. It has put me in a precarious situation. I think you should know fully my approach has been friendly regarding the neighbors and this property. Sincerely, Jerry V million 10;37 Kiwa Dr. SE Olympia, WA 98513 May 28, 1999 John Davenport President of Pebble Cove, Inc. 3635 North Ashworth Seattle, WA 98103 i Dear Mr. Davenport: I am writing to you personally to reaffirm the letter from my attorney is since`1e and genuine. I question Mrs. O'Neill's motives for such a scathing reply to my letter. This gverreaction is full of innuendo, half truths and opinion. It seems to have all started over someone giving her erroneous information regarding electrical use. 1 deduct at this point in time that her frustrations come from her inability to s II the rental units and the bankruptcy situation. It would not seem that buoy placement and howl use my property would encourage such a spiteful letter, particularly the letter to Mason Count which is an overt attempt to stop the permit for placement of our swim float . It's possible this letter will have implications for everyone on this beach area of Hood Canal, i.e., endangered species, etc. I am hoping for a response from Pebble Cove principals that would be cooperotive and workable for all of us. All we are trying to do is put a dinghy dock and buoys for our ovYn boats in front of our house. Though we do not know many Pebble Cove members, Mr. Anderson has been courteous and understanding, and Dr. Ehrhart has been a good communicator from early on regarding other relations. There are definite laws and regulations regarding private and state property and I'm sure they will prevail for the best of everyone. I believe Mrs. O'Neill's approach will only hiinder and cause adverse feelings and implications for everyone to an otherwise workable transition and relationship. Sincerely, Jerry Vermillion cc: John Ehrhart Derek Valley Steve Anderson John Herzog i SON_STgTFO �P C �y o s u° �= DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ Z 0T 2 7 y � Nyo Planning - Landfill - Utilities 1864 POLICY March 10, 1992 To: Planning Department Staff From: Erik Fairchild, Planning Director Re: Policy regarding additions and/or expansion of existing residential structures. It is the policy of this department to interpret the common line as being drawn from the furthest waterward projection of the roof lines of legally established and constructed adjacent primary residential structures, to the roof line of the existing residence in question. (As per diagram) . This policy reflects a clarification of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, Residential Chapter 7. 16 . 080, Use Regulation number 9 . This interpretation has been derived from information obtained from the Mason County Shoreline Advisory Board in a meeting held on February 26, 1992 and has been reviewed by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney. The Advisory Board concluded that this policy reflects their original intent in establishing setback requirements for additions and/or expansion of existing residential structures . Additionally, the Board of County Commissioners has reviewed and approved this policy. Erik Fairchild, Director of Planning Department (�,""tjj -�u Concurrence with policy: Gary Yando, Director of Depa m n of Community Development A`p` roved by Board: March 10, 1992 Commr. Laura Po er Co 'r. Willi unter I 1��� Commr. Michael D. Gibson Gary Yando,Director of Community Development • Erik Fairchild,Planning Director Mason County Bldg. III • 426 W. Cedar • P. O. Box 578 * Shelton, WA 98584 0 (206) 427-9670 i Exist-in; Fb se i Proposed addition and/or expcnsion Exisririg Hwse roof line — — — —- — — I i \ i S�orel i ne O.H.W.M.) �= � 1 • • • � � �asrWr , !I 1 /�//�//�► }��'��/QC//// l / ///��1 /A\ � , {BBB(/I/n ,A Ov 11-i i cis O"'T - �� ?'ice � � �r�� �,��M �� '�V4'0 "�► .Yir`� l:r' a ,_����/���� ✓J ��� // �� � ��F��- /,9�1 �� � P CODE ENFORCEMENT FIELD SHEET PLANNING DEPARTMENT TAX PARCEL NUMBER: OWNER: ycl)� VIOLATION (Description and citation to applicable ordinance): STATUS: VALID INVALID PRIORITY: HIGH STANDARD LOW DATE: le�0 q INSPECTOR: r- SITE EVALUATION NOTES/SKETCH OF SITE: ��. CONTACT WITH OWNER/OCCUPANT: YES NO CONTACT PHONE/ADDRESS: PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN: YES NO STOP WORK ORDER POSTED: YES NO **If Stop Work Order is posted, please retain photograph of posting and copy of Stop Work Order for file records** 8371 E. Hwy 106 Union, WA 98592 March 11,2004 Kristen French Mason County Planning Dept. Courthouse Bldg. #1 411 No. 5" PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Kristen: Enclosed is a letter I wrote Mr. Martig on February 16t'. We had talked previously and he indicated he wanted to start the geo-tech report; however he hasn't answered my letter or a recent phone message. If I don't hear from him soon I will take another direction to address the county's concern for the 34 acres. I hope this information answers the question about Martig and the acreage. The other question of construction progress should be answered by the Building Dept. If you have any further questions,please contact me via email. vermill_,hctc.com Sincerely, 41eTVrmillion 8371 E.Hwy 106 Union, WA 98592 February 16, 2004 Martig Engineering PO Box 11850 Olympia,WA 98508 Dear Ken: It is important to me that some of my concerns should be listed for you. With my expectations in mind, it may help tailor your work more effectively for everyone. My first request in that you contact the county and find out exactly what they want. I want to look over any completed report before it is submitted. I would like to have the report ready by April 0. Can you live with this date? I don't want to meet with you and county people unless you or they think it necessary. Just do what you have to do. Is it possible to design in an ATV trail to the top of the west line? There is only about 100 yds to connect the old trails. I can show you this connecting area. It's the only way I can fully reach the upper area for maintenance. Please do not reference where any other new roads or new property division lines might go. I think you should include distinct markings of the setback from shoreline and perhaps mark or indicate the creek location or any other critical areas according to present regulations. Keep me informed of your progress. If you want to discuss any of these issues or add to it,please give me a call/meet. For sure I want to hear if you can make that timeline. Sincerely, Jerry Vermillion W�� 8371 E. Hwy 106 Union, WA 09592 April 6, 2004 Kristen French RECEIVED Mason County Dept. of Community Development 426 W. Cedar APR 0 7 2004 PO Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 MCCD - PLANNING Dear Kristen: Enclosed please find Martig Engineering's latest material. I hope it fulfills the county's concerns. I would like to get this issue behind me as soon as possible. I'm not sure of the process,however if you need anything more from me,my email address is vermilla,hctc.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. S' rely, Je ` ion I Enclosures cc: Michael MacSems JAMES E. HUNGERFORD ATTORNEY RECEIVED P.O. BOX 1191 SHELTON,WA 98584 MAY 3 0 2003 Phone: 360/427-5097 FAX: 360/426-5995 MCCD - PLgNNING May 15, 2003 Bob Fink Mason County Department of Community Development P. O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: VAR 2002-00015 Jerry and Donna Vermillion Dear Mr. Fink: Jerry and Donna Vermillion have asked me to represent them in further proceedings under the above referenced variance application. I therefore request that you provide me with copies of all correspondence and other communications received by the Department of Community Development in opposition to their application. Copies of correspondence and other communications should include, but not be limited to, copies of all letters, e- mails, memorandums, and all information you have in your files on telephone calls received, including the identity of the callers and substance of the telephone calls. Also, the enclosed case activity listing for Case #ENF 2002-00326 refers to a complaint received on December 12, 2002, and several a-mails received as of January 13, 2003, and I would like copies of those, as well as any other complaints or oppositions received regarding my clients in reference to the real estate that is the subject of the variance application. It is necessary for me to have such copies in order to properly respond to all criticisms and allegations contained in the communications opposing the application. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation with this request. Sincerely, / `Jim Hungerford cc: Jerry and Donna Vermillion MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 March 18, 2003 Jerry Vermillion 8371 State Highway 106 Union, WA 98592 RE: 32234-44-00000 and adjacent parcels under your ownership. Dear Mr. Vermillion: Mason County Planning Department is contacting you regarding your property, and outstanding planning issues on the site. This letter provides information on how to move forward from this point to resolve some of the outstanding issues on the site and get the variance application revised so that you can move forward through the process as smoothly as possible. At our meeting on January 9, 2003 we provided you with a list of questions raised in your variance public process to date, and planning related issues based on our further site review. At that time we understood from your engineer that a response would be forthcoming in approximately one week. We have now received a report from your engineer(February 27, 2003) addressing some specific issues on site and requesting a revision to your variance application. The list below includes outstanding planning issues for your action: Addition to west of existing cabin —would be allowed subject to building permit review, if current variance application is approved—otherwise must be removed. A small addition (appears approximately 5x 18 as scaled from the site plan) has been added to the west of the existing cabin. It is within the footprint of the area proposed for expansion under your pending building permit for the area currently under variance review. (BLD2002-01000 and VAR2002-00015). Existing rock bulkhead - needs an application for building permit etc. as stated below: An approximately 40ft long rock bulkhead has been added to your existing concrete bulkhead, without undergoing permit review. Although we understand you were allowed to backfill a small washed out portion of your concrete bulkhead after the 1998-1999 storms, the additional rock bulkhead was un-permitted. Based information provided by Enforcement Planner Kristin French, the following applies: "Within 30 days of the date of this letter,please submit: • Building permit for existing rock bulkhead • SEPA checklist for bulkhead • Revision of Habitat Management Plan to address the bulkhead (because it is within the stream and wetland buffer). Failure to submit within the required timeline will result in assessment of triple permit fees per ordinance." Shoreline lot-wetland fill and road through wetland—revise pending Mason Environmental Permit/Variance (narrative &plans) to include whichever of the two options below that you select: Fill has been placed in the wetland immediately adjacent to the stream. Your engineer has explained that a pathway through the wetland was widened and filled to allow access to the beach with a motorized four-wheel vehicle. ATEC's mitigation plan is just for your proposed expansion of your residence. The enlarged and filled area of the pathway through the wetland and immediately adjacent to the stream has not been covered in the Habitat Management Plan. Wetland Chapter 17.01.070 provides that filling in a regulated wetland requires mitigation. Retention of the widened and filled area: requires that your Habitat Management Plan(and MEP application) also be updated to add mitigation for the wetland fill in accordance with the wetland chapter. Due to the tight site you may have difficulty meeting this provision. Because this is also immediately next to the stream, it must also be reviewed in the context of your variance application. Removal of the widened and filled area: Your other choice is to remove the filled area and restore the wetland, under the guidance of your biologist. In that case your Habitat Management Plan and MEP application needs to be updated to address the fill removal and restoration of the area, for minimum impact to the resource. Removal of metal storage container located on your parcel south of 106 - based on your phone call to us on March 18, 2003 we understand you are removing the unpermitted metal storage container on the afternoon of March 19, 2003. Request to add storage tent and fence (both on south side of 106) to variance application—this would be allowed subject to variance approval and subject to any building permit approval. Please provide a revised site plan and revised narrative for your Mason Environmental Permit/Variance, which includes the location and scale of the structures. You also need to have your Habitat Management Plan revised to address the structures, and provide mitigation accordingly. Per the agreement with Mason County Building Department, please turn in the applicable building permit application(s) as required by the agreed upon deadlines. Please note that even a temporary structure in the stream buffer would require review under your variance application. Your engineer indicates part of the fence is greater than 6ft in height, which would mean a building permit is required. Your proposed storage structure would need to meet a minimum setback of 25ft from the Highway 106 right-of-way. Please have your biologist revise the Habitat Management Plan to include: • The existing rock bulkhead. • Wetland fill and path expansion mitigation(see choices of how to address this, above). • Inclusion of the fence and storage structure on the south side of Highway 106. • A revised mitigation plan including planting area site plan (i.e. prepared by the biologist)which addresses these issues. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (360)427-9670 ext. 295. Sincerely, L \ Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner Cc: Kristin French, Enforcement Planner Jenny Nickerson, Building Inspector/Plans Examiner Agua Tierra Ken Martig, P.E. \ 22 F - --- s i 1 r jyw 4 pv7ww ob) - nozolq r — = -he9av-S��yV