HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2003-00019 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 2/24/2004 00030
1 -'JBEKE,'TIN H
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MAS(06 I L
2 1
Richard M. Sepler, Hearing Examiner
J
PE: Kim Anardi FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 Geoff and Wendy Hill OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5
6 Shoreline Substantial Development
SHR 2003-00019
7
8 INTRODUCTION
9 The applicant has requested a shoreline substantial development permit for the
10 construction of a joint-use 6 foot by 67 foot fixed pier, 4 foot by 40 foot ramp, one 6
foot by 8 foot float and two 6 foot by 23 foot floats forming a"T"shape. Total length
1 1 is to be 115 feet. The Examiner approves the requested permit subject to conditions
recommended by staff.
12
13 ORAL TESTIMONY:
14 Staff Testimony: Rick Mraz entered the staff report and accompanying exhibits. Mr.
Mraz stated that the proposal was a joint-use application and noted that Piers and
15 Docks Policy 2 ("Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored, especially in tidal
waters.") would be applicable.
16
Public Testimony: Bill Mathews, Marine Surveys & Assessments, representative of
17 the applicant, stated that he was available to answer questions on the project. In
18 response to a question from the Hearing Examiner regarding the applicant's
concurrence with conditions as proposed by staff, Mr. Mathews stated that the
19 applicant did not have any concerns regarding the proposed conditions.
20
EXHIBITS:
21
Exhibit 1: Staff Report dated January 29, 2004.
22
Exhibit 2: Notice of Shoreline Management Permit Application dated
23 December 11, 2003.
24 Exhibit 3: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance dated December 18,
25 2003.
Exhibit 4: Biological Evaluation dated October 29, 2003.
Anardi and Hill P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Exhibit 5: JARPA Application dated September 9, 2003.
1
Exhibit 6: Letter from Washington Department of Ecology re: Environmental
Review dated December 31, 2003.
4 FINDINGS OF FACT
5 Procedural:
6 1. Applicant. The applicants are Kim Anardi and Geoff and Wendy Hill.
7 Agent and representative is Amy Leitman, Marine Surveys and Assessments
8 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
application on February 10, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the Mason County Board of
9 Commissioners Meeting Chambers.
10
Substantive:
11
3. Proposal Description. The proposed project is to construct a joint-use 6
12 foot by 67 foot fixed pier, 4 foot by 40 foot ramp, one 6 foot by 8 foot float and two 6
13 foot by 23 foot floats forming a"T" shape. Total length would be 115 feet.
14 4• Site Description. The subject site is located at 12403 North Shore Road,
Belfair, Washington. The site and adjacent property, which comprise the joint-use
15 application, contain single-family residences.
16 5. Characteristics of the Area. Several other single-family residences exist
17 east and west of the proposed pier location. In the area located approximately 1,400
feet west of the site, approximately 68% of the shoreline is armored with concrete
18 bulkheads. Houses are common between North Shore Road and the armored shoreline
and many of these extend out into the intertidal area. One pier, ramp and float
19 structure and four marine railways are located within the area immediately westerly
of the subject property. In the area located approximately 1,650 feet northeast of the
20 site, approximately 64% of the shoreline consists of natural beach with trees and
21 shrubs growing between North Shore Road and the beach. Eight homes are located
along the remaining 36% of armored shoreline. Three pier, ramp and float structures
22 and two single moorage floats were found along this portion of the shoreline. Hood
Canal is critical habitat for two salmon species listed as threatened under the
23 Endangered Species act and an important habitat area for herring spawning. It
contains populations of commercially viable bivalve shellfish and is utilized by
24 crustaceans, fish, wading birds and marine mammals.
25 6. SEPA Compliance and Public Comment. A Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued in December 18, 2003 for the proposal. Conditions of the
Anardi and Hill p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance are attached (See Exhibit 3). The SEPA
1 comment period ended December 25, 2003. The Notice of Shoreline Substantial
2 Development Permit was issued on December 11, 2003. The comment period ended
January 10, 2004. A single comment letter (see Exhibit 6) was received from the
3 Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) and is attached. The letter referenced
wood treatments and sediment discharge.No other public comment was received.
4
7. Other Permits and/or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason
5 County Building Permit, Hydraulic Project Approval from Washington Department
6 of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality
Protection Concurrence, and US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)NWP approval.
7
8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
9 Procedural:
10
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J)provides the Examiner
11 with the authority to review and issue a final decision upon Shoreline Substantial
12
Development Permits.
1; Substantive:
14 2. Shoreline Designations. The shoreline designation of the site is Urban per
the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. This area is considered a Shoreline of
15 Statewide Significance; therefore Chapter 7.24.010 has application.
16
3. Permit Review Criteria: MCC 15.09.055(A) requires a substantial
17 development permit for any substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
MCC 15.09.055(F) requires that permit for substantial development permits be
18 subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(F)(2)(c) provides that
19 the Examiner shall base a decision on a substantial development permit application on
the Shoreline Master Program for Mason County and the policies and procedures of
20 Chapter 90.58 RCW,the Shoreline Management Act. MCC 7.08 defines a substantial
development as any development of which total cost for market value exceeds $5,000
21 or any development which material interferes with any normal public use of the water
or shorelines of the state. The staff report implies that the project is worth over
22 $5,000. Given that there is no evidence to the contrary, the Examiner finds that
23 indeed the project is worth over$5,000 and,therefore, requires a shoreline substantial
development permit. The Mason County Shoreline Master Program is codified as
24 Title 7 to the Mason County Code. The applicable shoreline policies are quoted and
addressed below.
25
Anardi and Hill p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 1): Piers and docks should be designed and located to
1 minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
4. The policy quoted above requires a minimization of view obstruction, not
3 the elimination thereof. The policy is not written in such a way as to prohibit anything
that would impact views, only to mitigate the impacts upon those views. The project
4 proposed is similar to other pier, ramp and float structures in the immediate area. A
Notice of Shoreline Management Permit application was sent to all property owners
5 within 300 feet of the project site. No public comments were received in response to
6 the notice. No substantive view obstructions will be created by this proposal. The
terminal float will be at 0.0 feet at Mean Lower Low Water and, as such, would be
7 well landward from any regular boat traffic. Therefore,the requirements of this policy
have been satisfied.
8
MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 2): Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored,
9 especially in tidal waters.
10
5. The proposed project is a joint-use application. Therefore, the
11 requirements of this policy are satisfied.
12 MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 3): The type, design and location of docks and piers
should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. Consideration
13 should be given to shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, adjacent land
14 and water uses, water quality and the habitat offish and wildlife.
15 6. The proposed project is similar to other pier, ramp and float structures that
exist on similar surrounding properties. Design parameters are incorporated into the
16 proposed project in order to lessen the negative impacts of shading. Float grounding
17 impacts will be avoided through the incorporation of float stops. Compatibility can be
assured thorough the incorporation of proposed conditions as recommended by
18 County staff,thereby meeting the intent of this policy.
19 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks and piers,
as well as the subsequent use, shall minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife
20 and water quality.
21 7. The Biological Evaluation, Exhibit 4, provides the most compelling and
22 thoroughly documented research and evidence on the environmental impacts,
including fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality. As concluded in the report, the
23 impacts are minimal, especially when conservation measures as recommended in the
Biological Evaluation and mitigation and conditions recommended by staff are
24 adopted. The proposal complies with the above-quoted use regulation.
25 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 2): Docks and piers shall be located, designed
and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of
Anardi and Hill p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
adjacent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be located at a
1 minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities
2 may be located on the property line.
3 8. The most significant impact of the proposal on adjoining uses is aesthetic,
and this is within the parameters authorized by applicable policies and use
4 regulations. Per this use regulation, community or joint-use facilities may be located
on the property line. Therefore, the project does not necessarily interfere with the
5 rights of adjacent property owners and this regulation is satisfied.
6 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 4): No pier, dock, or float or similar device
7 shall have a residential structure constructed upon it.
8 9. No residential structure is proposed to be located upon the proposed pier,
9 raft and float facility.
10 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 7): Maximum overall length of a recreational
pier dock facility including floats shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three
11 feet of water as measured at mean low lower low water on a saltwater or a depth of
five feet as measured from ordinary low water on lakes. The length of any pier or
12 dock facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from
13 ordinary high water mark on saltwater and 50 feet on freshwater shore lines.
14 10. As indicated in the staff report, the pier, ramp and float are proposed at a
total length of 115 feet, which is the maximum allowed length for a joint use pier.
15 The terminus of the pier(a float) is at 0.0 feet of mean lower low water
16 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 8): Only one dock is allowed per lot.
17 11. Only one dock will exist on the subject property post-construction.
18
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 9): The width of recreational piers and docks
19 shall not exceed eight feet.
20 12. The proposed width of the facility will be 6 feet.
21 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 10): At the end of a dock or pier, afloat may be
22 attached. These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a "T" or
"L. " In tidal water, the float shall not exceed 600 gross square feet with the boat
23 slip.
24 13. Per the project proposal a 6 foot by 46 foot float is proposed at the end of
25 the dock, with four float pilings and 3 stub pilings. The float surface area is 324
square feet.
Anardi and Hill p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no higher
I than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least
2 an eight foot span between pilings.
3 14. Per the drawings and the project description provided, the spacing
between pilings exceeds an eight foot span. The recreational pier proposed will be 3
4 feet above the Mean Higher High Water mark.
5 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 14 : The surface o oatin structures shall g ) f f� g be
6 a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water.
7 15. Float stops and the stub piling will be installed to suspend the float at least
twelve inches above the seabed during low tides.
8
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 15): All floating structures shall include
9 intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide.
10
16. As discussed at Conclusion of Law 15, float stops and other associated
11 anchoring systems will be designed and deployed so that the seabed is not damaged.
12 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.
13 17. The applicant has conducted a thorough and compelling scientific
14 evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposal and these have been fully and
adequately mitigated. Given that the proposal as conditioned is compatible with
15 surrounding uses at both an aesthetic level as well as environmental level, the state-
16 wide interest as required above has been adequately protected.
17 RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
18 18. As indicated previously, the Biological Evaluation and staff conditions of
approval preserve the natural character of the shoreline,'including habitat and species
19 such as the protection of macroalgae and other benethic organisms.
20 RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
21 19. In placing conditions that protect habitat and wildlife from harm, the
22 proposal as conditioned satisfies the long-term protection goals of the Shoreline
Management Act in addition to providing the immediate benefit to the property owner
23 of pier use.
24
25
Anardi and Hill p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
2 20. As previously discussed, the natural features and ecology of the shoreline
are adequately protected through the mitigation measures recommended by staff and
3 in the Biological Evaluation.
4 RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the
shorelines.
5
6 21. The proposed dock has no relation to public access. It is a privately
owned shoreline area.
7
RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public and the
8 shoreline.
9 21. Mason County cannot constitutionally condition the proposed project on
10 increasing recreational opportunities for the public. The project will not decrease
recreational opportunities for the public.
11
12 DECISION
13 The Examiner approves the requested shoreline substantial development, as depicted
14 in the Exhibit No. 4. The permit is conditioned as recommended by staff at Page 4
and 5 of the staff report and also the conservation measures recommended in the
15 Biological Evaluation to the extent consistent with staff-recommended conditions as
well as conditions placed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and
16 other review authorities regarding permits for the proposal.
17 Dated this day of February, 2004.
18
19
20 cha M. Sepler,'AICJP
Mason County Hearing Examiner
21
22
23
24
25
Anardi and Hill p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
L